    [Senate Hearing 113-660]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-660

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                Commerce, Justice, Science,

                                                       and Related Agencies

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2015

                                             113th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                          H.R. 4660/S. 2437

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-660

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 4660/S. 2437

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
     JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2015, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                             Department of Commerce
                             Department of Justice
                        Federal Bureau of Investigation
                 National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    87-212 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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, Vice
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                         Chairman
    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
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JON TESTER, Montana                  DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    MARK BEGICH, Alaska                  MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

                       Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
                 William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

                   BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama,
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Ranking
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MARK KIRK, Illinois
                                         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

                               Professional Staff

                                 Jeremy Weirich
                                 Jennifer Eskra
                                 Molly O'Rourke
                      Shannon Hutcherson Hines (Minority)
                            Allen Cutler (Minority)
                            Kolo Rathburn (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                                   Dan Broder
                          Hayley Alexander (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    HEARINGS
                            Thursday, March 27, 2014

                                                                       Page

    Federal Bureau of Investigation..................................     1

                            Thursday, April 3, 2014

    Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General............    35

                            Thursday, April 10, 2014

    Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary..................   137

                             Thursday, May 1, 2014

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................   225

                                  ----------

                                  BACK MATTER

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   421

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   267

    Subject Index....................................................
        Department of Commerce--Office of the Secretary..............   425
        Department of Justice--Office of the Attorney General........   428
        Federal Bureau of Investigation..............................   430
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration................   431

    COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Murkowski, Kirk, and
    Boozman.

                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES B. COMEY, JR., DIRECTOR

                opening statement of senator barbara a. mikulski

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, Science will come to order. This is our
    first hearing on the fiscal year 2015 budget. We are starting
    with the esteemed and much valued Federal Bureau of
    Investigation. We will have a two-part hearing. This will be an
    open session, with all Senators free to participate and ask
    their questions. When this concludes, we will adjourn for a
    classified hearing on the Bureau's needs, particularly in the
    global war against terrorism and cyber security and some of
    those that are more sensitive in terms of the need for global
    protection and global cooperation.
        We want to welcome Director Comey here for his very
    important appearance and we look forward to hearing his
    testimony in terms of the needs of the FBI. Last year we
    concluded I think with a vote on January 20 in which we were
    able to pass an omnibus bill for fiscal year 2014. Thanks to
    the work, bipartisan and bicameral, Senator Murray and
    Congressman Ryan were able to give us a budget and a top line
    cancelling the sequester, which had a draconian impact on both
    the function of core agencies like the FBI and on the morale.
        We look forward this year to moving ahead in an expeditious
    way to move this so that we could avoid that kind of crisis in
    budgeting that has been characteristic of the Congress for more
    now than 5 years.
        To get our work done, we will again listen to Director
    Comey on budget and priorities. It is his first time as the
    Director, but not our first meeting. We appreciate his
    competence, his candor and his long history of service.
        In welcoming you, Mr. Director, we want to thank the entire
    FBI for the way that they protect America. Whether it is
    fighting crime in organized crime, whether it's dealing with
    terrorists or predators, the FBI is on the job 24-7, 365 days a
    year, and we want them to know that they're appreciated, and we
    would like to show our appreciation to make sure they have the
    right resources and the right tools so that they can do the job
    that they were signed up to do. We believe that they are the
    unsung heroes.
        This hearing will focus on the FBI's vital work. As chair,
    I've reviewed the FBI's budget, which comes in at $8.4 billion.
    In fiscal year 2014 we had an increase of $762 million above
    the sequester request. So it was $762 million, and it sounds
    like it was a big bump-up, but it was a bump-up to keep us
    running in place.
        I'd like you to describe then about your need to retain
    talent, to recruit talent, and to train and educate the
    legendary training that goes on at Quantico. I understand that
    the 2015 request would keep the FBI moving while making sure
    our taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
        Now, we know that the sequester caused the FBI to cancel
    training, to ration gas to 200 miles a week. We valued a much-
    read and circulated document called ``Voices From the Field.''
    This is where we heard from the FBI agents themselves. Not only
    did they fear furlough for their families, but they feared the
    impact on the mission. Then we heard they didn't have gas for
    their cars. What kind of--we can't do this. So we're going to
    make sure we're looking to you and listening to you to do this,
    so we'll be looking at the 21st century threats.
        We know that one of the major 21st century threats is in
    cyber space, whether it's the hackers, the cyber spies, or the
    cyber terrorists. We want to be clear in this hearing that
    cyber security is not the cyber surveillance that is the
    subject of much discussion at many levels in this Government
    and in others. We know that cyber security means protecting us
    from criminals out to steal credit card information, personal
    identities, companies' trade secrets, and even worse, whether
    it's to bring down the grid or bring down our financial
    services.
        We know the FBI's in the front line in this area, and that
    the request is $392 million for the Next Generation Cyber
    Initiative, $9 million less than 2014. So we want to know, what
    is it you want to do, either at this hearing or the classified
    one, and is this the resources to do it?
        One of the hallmarks of the FBI has really been working
    with local law enforcement. The joint task forces that have
    emerged receive kudos from around the Nation. Certainly in my
    own Baltimore metropolitan area, in the Washington metropolitan
    area, law enforcement speaks with such enthusiasm and such
    energy when they talk about these joint task forces, and that
    they can rely on the FBI, but keep law enforcement. We don't
    have a national police force in this country, but we have an
    American joint task force.
        So we want to know how in your budget, what this means to
    State and local. We've been concerned that these two face
    significant cuts.
        Finally, I'd like to mention the fact that you need a new
    headquarters. We know that the Hoover Building is dated and to
    the point of even being dysfunctional, that you're in 20 leased
    spaces. You know that two alpha delegations, Maryland and
    Virginia, are duking it out. We'll go through the competitive
    process, but my criteria, wearing my national hat, is that you
    need full consolidation. You don't need a micro-consolidation,
    because we want it to meet its functionality and security
    requirements for the next 50 years.
        So we look forward to listening to you and listening to the
    needs of really what is it to make sure how we have a robustly
    funded FBI, a 21st century FBI, for 21st century threats.
        I now turn to my vice chairman, who's been such an advocate
    in this area and has some key facilities in Alabama, Senator
    Shelby.

                     statement of senator richard c. shelby

        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Mr. Director, I want to welcome you to the committee. This
    is your first appearance before the subcommittee as FBI
    Director. I hope you will be coming to see us often.
        We had a good working relationship with your predecessor,
    Director Mueller, and we look forward to a similar relationship
    with you and the Bureau. The mission of the FBI is broad and
    multifaceted. Its responsibilities include, among other things,
    investigating terrorist attacks and cyber threats, targeting
    health care fraud, leading the Federal Government's efforts to
    analyze improvised explosive devices, routing out gang
    activity. The list goes on and on. You have a broad mandate.
        This broad mission requires the FBI to maintain focus on
    traditional criminal activities, while adapting to the new
    threats of this country. Terrorists and criminals are agile and
    sophisticated. The same is required of the Bureau. To remain
    effective, the Bureau must have the ability, I believe, to
    refocus and retool to address emerging threats. Without a plan
    to address such threats or a process for regularly reevaluating
    priorities, the FBI will find itself playing catch-up with the
    criminal elements it seeks to eliminate.
        The Bureau's 2015 budget, which is the subject of today's
    hearing, outlines the FBI's strategic priorities. According to
    the documents provided, these priorities have not substantially
    been redefined since 2011. This is particularly troubling given
    the growing cyber threat that the chairwoman mentioned that our
    Nation is facing.
        Recognizing the dynamic world in which we live and the
    tough fiscal climate that we face here, I want to be sure that
    the budget priorities of the Bureau truly reflect the threats
    that are facing this country. The ultimate goal of any
    prioritization effort should be an FBI that is efficient,
    effective, and, more importantly, nimble for the foreseeable
    future.
        I'm committed to working with you and the chair to ensure
    that we're targeting limited resources in a manner that
    safeguards taxpayer dollars while preserving public safety.
        Once again, we appreciate you taking this job as the head
    of the Bureau and we look forward to working with you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. I want to acknowledge that Senator Kirk
    is here. Senator, could you hold your statement until the
    Director finishes and we turn to questions, or do you need to
    leave?
        Senator Kirk. I will hold my statement.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        Director Comey.

                 summary statement of hon. james b. comey, jr.

        Mr. Comey. Madam Chairwoman, Senator Shelby, Senator Kirk,
    members of the subcommittee: it's an honor to be here
    representing the great people of the FBI. This is my first
    appearance in what is a 10-year term that I'm very, very
    excited about because of those people. I have spent my first 6
    months traveling around trying to meet my troops, and what I
    discovered is that the magic of the FBI is its talent. We don't
    have a lot of stuff; we have remarkable people.
        What I found when I first took this job was that they were
    people who were very stressed by the impact that sequester was
    having on them, which Senator Mikulski, you mentioned.
    Everywhere around the country I heard from my folks about the
    difficulties they were encountering with vacancies, limitations
    on gas, the abolition of training, and Quantico being a ghost
    town.
        Thanks to this committee and other members of the Senate
    and the House, that changed in late January when the budget was
    passed. I'm now in a position where I'm restarting Quantico.
    I'm also looking to hire a thousand people to start to fill the
    almost 2,500 vacancies that we have--hundreds of special agents
    and intelligence analysts, to restock that magic of the FBI
    that is our talent.
        So, thank you so much for that on behalf of the men and
    women of the FBI. And we need those people because, as Senator
    Shelby said, the plate of threats that we face is remarkable.
        I'll start with our top priority, Counterterrorism. The
    threat that I've encountered returning to Government after 8
    years away is one that remains incredibly serious, but has
    changed. It has metastasized in ways that are striking. The
    primary tumor along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan was
    dramatically reduced by the fight of our men and women in
    uniform and our Intelligence Community. But at the same time,
    that threat has metastasized into the lightly governed or
    ungoverned spaces in the world, especially in North Africa,
    around the Gulf, and around the Mediterranean. And also here at
    home with the growth of the people we call home-grown violent
    extremists. I don't like to call them ``lone wolves'' because
    that sounds dignified in a way that they don't deserve--folks
    who are able to access Al-Qaeda's hateful propaganda on the
    Internet and convince themselves, even without being directed,
    that they need to engage in some sort of jihad here at home and
    kill innocent Americans. So that metastasizing threat poses an
    enormous challenge to everybody in the Intelligence Community,
    but especially to the great people of the FBI.
        Counterintelligence remains a top priority of the Bureau
    because nation-states around the world still want to steal our
    secrets and they are finding new and sophisticated ways to do
    this, especially through cyber. So we remain on guard 24-7, as
    the chairwoman said, to protect that which is most important to
    our Nation.
        Cyber, as the chair said, touches everything I do. The
    reason is fairly easy to understand: we as Americans, as a
    Nation and as a people, have connected our entire lives to the
    Internet. It's where our children play, it's where our money
    is, it's where our health care is, it's where our
    infrastructure is, our secrets. So it's where those who would
    do us harm come at us--for our children, for our money, for our
    private information, for our Nation's secrets, and for our
    vital infrastructure. It touches everything the FBI is
    responsible for, so we are doing everything in our power to
    make sure we are deployed, equipped, and trained to address
    that threat.
        And of course, we're responsible for a host of criminal
    challenges, from public corruption to civil rights to white-
    collar crime, gangs, human trafficking, and protecting our
    children. And we're doing that in 56 field offices all around
    this country and in offices all around the world every day.
        As, Madam Chairwoman, you said, we also have a
    responsibility to use the taxpayers' money to train and to
    assist State and local law enforcement. We have world-class
    facilities and world-class technical capabilities and we work
    hard to make them available to our brothers and sisters in law
    enforcement.
        The last thing I'll say is my travels have convinced me
    that the FBI is international in ways that would have been
    difficult to see just 10 years ago. Nearly everything we do
    that matters has an international dimension to it. So I am
    extremely proud of our legal attaches deployed around the
    world, who build relationships and do service for not just the
    FBI, but all the American people.

                               prepared statement

        So we're doing a lot of things and we do it through the
    people. As I said, the magic is the talent. I thank you so much
    for supporting those folks and for giving me the resources to
    make sure we have enough of those great folks.
        My hope for 2015 is to be able to sustain the progress we
    have made since late January, restock the talent of the FBI,
    and march out to meet those many challenges. I look forward to
    working with you on that.
        Thank you so much.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. James B. Comey, Jr.
        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and members
    of the subcommittee. I look forward to discussing the FBI's fiscal year
    2015 budget request, as well as FBI programs and priorities for the
    coming year. On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, let me begin by
    thanking you for your ongoing support of the Bureau.
        Thanks to the support of this subcommittee, we now have a budget in
    place that that allows us to do more operationally, to hire and train
    new agents and intelligence analysts, and to backfill vacant positions
    in our field offices. We pledge to be the best possible stewards of the
    budget you have provided for us and to use it to maximum effect to
    carry out our mission.
        Today's FBI is a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization.
    Each employee of the FBI understands that to mitigate the key threats
    facing our Nation, we must constantly strive to be more efficient and
    more effective.
        Just as our adversaries continue to evolve, so, too, must the FBI.
    We live in a time of acute and persistent terrorist and criminal
    threats to our national security, our economy, and our communities.
    These diverse threats facing our Nation and our neighborhoods
    underscore the complexity and breadth of the FBI's mission.
        We remain focused on defending the United States against terrorism,
    foreign intelligence, and cyber threats; upholding and enforcing the
    criminal laws of the United States; protecting civil rights and civil
    liberties; and providing leadership and criminal justice services to
    Federal, State, municipal, and international agencies and partners. Our
    continued ability to carry out this demanding mission reflects the
    support and oversight provided by this committee.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2015 budget request totals $8.3 billion in
    direct budget authority, including 34,970 permanent positions (13,050
    Special Agents, 3,048 Intelligence Analysts, and 18,872 professional
    staff). This request includes two program enhancements: 14 positions
    and $3.2 million for Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty reform, and $15
    million for operations and maintenance for the Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) facility in Huntsville, Alabama.
        Let me summarize the FBI efforts that this funding supports.
                               national security
        The FBI is the lead domestic intelligence and law enforcement
    agency in the United States. Our complementary intelligence and law
    enforcement capabilities make up the key components of the Bureau's
    national security mission. They also illustrate the unique authorities
    and mission we have in the U.S. Intelligence Community. We collect
    intelligence to understand and identify the threats to the Nation. And
    when the time comes for action to prevent an attack, we disrupt threats
    using our law enforcement powers through our Joint Terrorism Task
    Forces (JTTFs).
        Much of the FBI's success can be credited to the longstanding
    relationships we enjoy with our intelligence, law enforcement, public,
    and private sector partners. With thousands of private and public
    business alliances and more than 4,100 JTTF members, including more
    than 1,500 interagency personnel from more than 600 Federal, State,
    territorial, and tribal partner agencies, the FBI's partnerships are
    essential to achieving our mission and ensuring a coordinated approach
    toward national security threats.
    Counterterrorism
        As the lead agency responsible for countering terrorist threats to
    the United States and its interests overseas, the FBI integrates
    intelligence and operations to detect and disrupt terrorists and their
    organizations.
        Counterterrorism remains our top priority. The Boston Marathon
    bombings in April 2013 remind us that the terrorist threat against the
    United States remains persistent. The threat from homegrown violent
    extremists is of particular concern. These individuals present unique
    challenges because they do not share a typical profile; their
    experiences and motives are often distinct and personal. They are also
    increasingly savvy and willing to act alone, which makes them more
    difficult to identify and to stop.
        In the past 2 years, homegrown extremists have attempted to
    detonate improvised explosive devices or bombs at such high profile
    targets as the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, commercial
    establishments in downtown Chicago, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol.
    Fortunately, these attempts and many others were thwarted. Yet the
    threat from such individuals remains.
        The foreign terrorist threat is similarly complex and ever
    changing. Overseas, we are seeing more groups and individuals engaged
    in terrorism, a wider array of terrorist targets, greater cooperation
    among terrorist groups, and continued evolution and adaptation in
    tactics and communication.
        Al-Qa'ida and its affiliates, especially al-Qa'ida in the Arabian
    Peninsula (AQAP), continue to represent a top terrorist threat to the
    Nation. These groups have attempted several attacks on the United
    States, including the failed Christmas Day airline bombing in 2009, and
    the attempted bombing of U.S.-bound cargo planes in October 2010.
        To better address this evolving threat, the FBI has established the
    Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Office. This office leverages FBI
    resources and works with Federal counterparts to empower our local
    partners to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from
    inspiring, radicalizing, financing, or recruiting individuals or groups
    in the United States to commit acts of violence. The CVE Office
    facilitates an understanding of the catalysts to violent extremism, as
    well as its behavioral components and radicalization factors, and
    identifies possible inhibitors to these phenomena. The FBI is leading
    efforts to conduct outreach and raise community awareness, while
    upholding civil rights and civil liberties.
    Counterintelligence
        We still confront traditional espionage--spies posing as diplomats
    or ordinary citizens. But espionage also has evolved. Spies today are
    often students, researchers, or businesspeople operating front
    companies. And they seek not only state secrets, but trade secrets,
    research and development, intellectual property, and insider
    information from the Federal Government, U.S. corporations, and
    American universities. Foreign intelligence services continue to grow
    more creative and more sophisticated in their methods to steal
    innovative technology, critical research and development data, and
    intellectual property, which erodes America's leading edge in business
    and poses a significant threat to national security.
        We remain focused on the growing scope of the insider threat--that
    is, when trusted employees and contractors use their legitimate access
    to information to steal secrets for the benefit of another company or
    country. This threat has been exacerbated in recent years as businesses
    have become more global and increasingly exposed to foreign
    intelligence organizations.
        To combat this threat, the FBI's Counterintelligence Division
    educates academic and business partners about how to protect themselves
    against economic espionage. We also work with the defense industry,
    academic institutions, and the general public to address the increased
    targeting of unclassified trade secrets across all American industries
    and sectors.
        Together with our intelligence and law enforcement partners, we
    must continue to protect our trade secrets and our state secrets, and
    prevent the loss of sensitive American technology.
    Weapons of Mass Destruction
        As weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats continue to evolve,
    the FBI uses its statutory authorities to lead all investigations
    concerning violations of WMD-related statutes, preparation, assessment,
    and responses to WMD threats and incidents within the United States.
    The FBI provides timely and relevant intelligence analyses of current
    and emerging WMD threats to inform decision makers, support
    investigations, and formulate effective countermeasures and tripwires
    to prevent attacks.
        To ensure an effective national approach to preventing and
    responding to WMD threats, the FBI created the Weapons of Mass
    Destruction Directorate integrating the necessary counterterrorism,
    intelligence, counterintelligence, and scientific and technological
    components into one organizational structure. Using this integrated
    approach, the Directorate leads WMD policy development, planning, and
    response to ensure its efforts result in a comprehensive response
    capability that fuses investigative and technical information with
    intelligence to effectively resolve WMD threats.
        To enable the prevention or disruption of WMD threats or attacks,
    FBI headquarters personnel, 56 field WMD coordinators, and two WMD
    assistant legal attaches oversee implementation of national and
    international initiatives and countermeasures. The FBI conducts
    outreach and liaison efforts with critical infrastructure partners, the
    private sector, academia, industry, and the scientific community to
    implement tripwires that prevent any actor--terrorist, criminal,
    insider threat, or lone offender--from successfully acquiring chemical,
    biological, radiological, or nuclear material or dissemination
    equipment. Through these efforts, the WMD Directorate supports the
    broader work of the U.S. Government as a leading partner and active
    contributor to policy decisions.
        The Counterproliferation Center (CPC) combines the operational
    activities of the Counterintelligence Division, the subject matter
    expertise of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate (WMDD), and
    the analytical capabilities of both components to identify and disrupt
    proliferation activities. Since its inception in July 2011, the CPC has
    overseen the arrest of approximately 65 individuals, including several
    considered by the U.S. Intelligence Community to be major
    proliferators. Along with these arrests, the CPC has increased its
    operational tempo to collect valuable intelligence on proliferation
    networks.
    Intelligence
        The FBI's efforts to advance its intelligence capabilities have
    focused on streamlining and optimizing the organization's intelligence
    components while simultaneously positioning the Bureau to carry out its
    responsibilities as the lead domestic intelligence agency.
        One way the FBI is enhancing our partnerships and our ability to
    address threats is through the Domestic Director of National
    Intelligence (DNI) Representative Program. Through this program, FBI
    senior-level field executives in 12 geographic locations are serving as
    DNI representatives throughout the United States. The Domestic DNI
    Representatives are working with Intelligence Community partners within
    their regions to understand the threat picture and develop a more
    coordinated and integrated Intelligence Community enterprise. A more
    unified and effective Intelligence Community will enhance the Nation's
    ability to share information with our law enforcement and private
    sector partners, and will prevent and minimize threats to our national
    security.
        In addition, we expanded the fusion cell model, which further
    integrates our intelligence and operational elements through teams of
    analysts embedded with agents in the operational divisions. These
    fusion cells examine the national and international picture and provide
    intelligence on current and emerging threats across programs, making
    connections that are not always visible at the field level. Providing
    standard criteria, these cells inform the Threat Review and
    Prioritization (TRP) process and develop National Threat Priorities for
    the field. The fusion cells assess the FBI's ability to collect
    intelligence to identify gaps, inform operational strategies, and
    mitigate threats to drive FBI operations. As a result, the fusion cells
    and TRP provide the field with clear guidance and a consistent process
    to identify priority threats, while ensuring FBI Headquarters has an
    effective way to manage and evaluate the most significant threats
    facing the country.
        This strategic, national-level perspective ensures the FBI is
    developing a complete picture of the threat environment and directing
    our resources at priority targets to stay ahead of our adversaries.
    This integration provides a cross-programmatic view of current threats
    and enables a nimble approach to identifying and addressing emerging
    threats.
    Cyber
        We face cyber threats from state-sponsored hackers, hackers for
    hire, organized cyber syndicates, and terrorists. They seek our state
    secrets, our trade secrets, our technology, and our ideas--things of
    incredible value to all of us. They may seek to strike our critical
    infrastructure and our economy. The threat is so dire that cyber
    security has topped the Director of National Intelligence list of
    global threats for the second consecutive year.
        Given the scope of the cyber threat, agencies across the Federal
    Government are making cyber security a top priority. Within the FBI, we
    are targeting high-level intrusions--the biggest and most dangerous
    botnets, state-sponsored hackers, and global cyber syndicates. We want
    to predict and prevent attacks, rather than reacting after the fact.
        FBI agents, analysts, and computer scientists are using technical
    capabilities and traditional investigative techniques--such as sources
    and wires, surveillance, and forensics--to fight cyber crime. We are
    working side-by-side with our Federal, State, and local partners on
    Cyber Task Forces in each of our 56 field offices and through the
    National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF). Through our 24-
    hour cyber command center, CyWatch, we combine the resources of the FBI
    and NCIJTF, allowing us to provide connectivity to Federal cyber
    centers, government agencies, FBI field offices and legal attaches, and
    the private sector in the event of a cyber intrusion.
        We also work with the private sector through partnerships such as
    the Domestic Security Alliance Council, InfraGard, and the National
    Cyber Forensics and Training Alliance. And we are training our State
    and local counterparts to triage local cyber matters, so that we can
    focus on national security issues.
        Our legal attache offices overseas work to coordinate cyber
    investigations and address jurisdictional hurdles and differences in
    the law from country to country. We are supporting partners at Interpol
    and The Hague as they work to establish international cyber crime
    centers. We continue to assess other locations to ensure that our cyber
    personnel are in the most appropriate locations across the globe.
        We know that to be successful in the fight against cyber crime, we
    must continue to recruit, develop, and retain a highly skilled
    workforce. To that end, we have developed a number of creative staffing
    programs and collaborative private industry partnerships to ensure that
    over the long term we remain focused on our most vital resource--our
    people.
                                    criminal
        We face many criminal threats, from complex white-collar fraud in
    the financial, healthcare, and housing sectors to transnational and
    regional organized criminal enterprises to violent crime and public
    corruption. Criminal organizations--domestic and international--and
    individual criminal activity represent a significant threat to our
    security and safety in communities across the Nation.
    Public Corruption
        Public corruption is the FBI's top criminal priority. The threat--
    which involves the corruption of local, State, and federally elected,
    appointed, or contracted officials--strikes at the heart of government,
    eroding public confidence and undermining the strength of our
    democracy. It impacts how well U.S. borders are secured and
    neighborhoods are protected, how verdicts are handed down in court, and
    how well public infrastructure such as schools and roads are built. The
    FBI is uniquely situated to address this threat, with our ability to
    conduct undercover operations, perform electronic surveillance, and run
    complex cases. However, partnerships are critical and we work closely
    with Federal, State and local authorities in pursuing these cases. One
    key focus is border corruption. The Federal Government protects 7,000
    miles of U.S. land border and 95,000 miles of shoreline. Every day,
    more than a million visitors enter the country through one of 327
    official ports of entry along the Mexican and Canadian borders, as well
    as through seaports and international airports. Any corruption at the
    border enables a wide range of illegal activities, potentially placing
    the entire Nation at risk by letting drugs, guns, money, and weapons of
    mass destruction slip into the country, along with criminals,
    terrorists, and spies. Another focus concerns election crime. Although
    individual States have primary responsibility for conducting fair and
    impartial elections, the FBI becomes involved when paramount Federal
    interests are affected or electoral abuse occurs.
    Financial Crimes
        We have witnessed an increase in financial fraud in recent years,
    including mortgage fraud, healthcare fraud, and securities fraud.
        The FBI and its partners continue to pinpoint the most egregious
    offenders of mortgage fraud. With the economy and housing market still
    recovering in many areas, we have seen an increase in schemes aimed
    both at distressed homeowners and at lenders. Our agents and analysts
    are using intelligence, surveillance, computer analysis, and undercover
    operations to identify emerging trends and to find the key players
    behind large-scale mortgage fraud. We also work closely with the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development, Postal Inspectors, the
    IRS, the FDIC, and the Secret Service, as well as with State and local
    law enforcement offices.
        Healthcare spending currently makes up about 18 percent of our
    Nation's total economy. These large sums present an attractive target
    for criminals--so much so that we lose tens of billions of dollars each
    year to healthcare fraud. Healthcare fraud is not a victimless crime.
    Every person who pays for healthcare benefits, every business that pays
    higher insurance costs to cover their employees, every taxpayer who
    funds Medicare, is a victim. Schemes can cause actual patient harm,
    including subjecting patients to unnecessary treatment, providing sub-
    standard services and supplies, and by passing potentially life-
    threatening diseases due to the lack of proper precautions. As
    healthcare spending continues to rise, the FBI will use every tool we
    have to ensure our healthcare dollars are used to care for the sick--
    not to line the pockets of criminals.
        Our investigations of corporate and securities fraud have also
    increased substantially in recent years. As financial crimes become
    more sophisticated, so must the FBI. The FBI continues to use
    techniques such as undercover operations and Title III intercepts to
    address these criminal threats. These techniques are widely known for
    their successful use against organized crime, and they remain a vital
    tool to gain concrete evidence against individuals conducting crimes of
    this nature on a national level.
        Finally, the FBI recognizes the need for increased cooperation with
    our regulatory counterparts. Currently, we have embedded agents and
    analysts at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity
    Futures Trading Commission, which allows the FBI to work hand-in-hand
    with U.S. regulators to mitigate the corporate and securities fraud
    threat. Furthermore, these relationships enable the FBI to identify
    fraud trends more quickly, and to work with our operational and
    intelligence counterparts in the field to begin criminal investigations
    when deemed appropriate.
    Gangs/Violent Crime
        Violent crimes and gang activities exact a high toll on individuals
    and communities. Today's gangs are sophisticated and well organized;
    many use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal
    money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun
    trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. Gangs do not
    limit their illegal activities to single jurisdictions or communities.
    The FBI is able to work across such lines, which is vital to the fight
    against violent crime in big cities and small towns across the Nation.
    Every day, FBI Special Agents work in partnership with State and local
    officers and deputies on joint task forces and individual
    investigations.
        FBI joint task forces--Violent Crime Safe Streets, Violent Gang
    Safe Streets, and Safe Trails Task Forces--focus on identifying and
    targeting major groups operating as criminal enterprises. Much of the
    Bureau's criminal intelligence is derived from our State, local, and
    tribal law enforcement partners, who know their communities inside and
    out. Joint task forces benefit from FBI surveillance assets and our
    sources track these gangs to identify emerging trends. Through these
    multi-subject and multi-jurisdictional investigations, the FBI
    concentrates its efforts on high-level groups engaged in patterns of
    racketeering. This investigative model enables us to target senior gang
    leadership and to develop enterprise-based prosecutions.
    Transnational Organized Crime
        More than a decade ago, the image of organized crime was of
    hierarchical organizations, or families, that exerted influence over
    criminal activities in neighborhoods, cities, or States. But organized
    crime has changed dramatically. Today, international criminal
    enterprises run multi-national, multi-billion-dollar schemes from start
    to finish. These criminal enterprises are flat, fluid networks with
    global reach. While still engaged in many of the ``traditional''
    organized crime activities of loan-sharking, extortion, and murder, new
    criminal enterprises are targeting stock market fraud and manipulation,
    cyber-facilitated bank fraud and embezzlement, identify theft,
    trafficking of women and children, and other illegal activities.
    Preventing and combating transnational organized crime demands a
    concentrated effort by the FBI and Federal, State, local, and
    international partners. The Bureau continues to share intelligence
    about criminal groups with our partners, and to combine resources and
    expertise to gain a full understanding of each group.
    Crimes Against Children
        The FBI remains vigilant in its efforts to eradicate predators from
    our communities and to keep our children safe. Ready response teams are
    stationed across the country to quickly respond to abductions.
    Investigators bring to this issue the full array of forensic tools such
    as DNA, trace evidence, impression evidence, and digital forensics.
    Through improved communications, law enforcement also has the ability
    to quickly share information with partners throughout the world, and
    our outreach programs play an integral role in prevention.
        The FBI also has several programs in place to educate both parents
    and children about the dangers posed by predators and to recover
    missing and endangered children should they be taken. Through our Child
    Abduction Rapid Deployment teams, Innocence Lost National Initiative,
    Innocent Images National Initiative, Office of Victim Assistance, and
    numerous community outreach programs, the FBI and its partners are
    working to keep our children safe from harm.
        The FBI established the Child Sex Tourism Initiative to employ
    proactive strategies to identify U.S. citizens who travel overseas to
    engage in illicit sexual conduct with children. These strategies also
    include a multi-disciplinary approach through partnerships with foreign
    law enforcement and non-governmental organizations to provide child
    victims with available support services. Similarly, the FBI's Innocence
    Lost National Initiative serves as the model for the partnership
    between Federal, State and local law enforcement in addressing child
    prostitution. Since its inception, more than 3,100 children have been
    located and recovered. The investigations and subsequent 1,450
    convictions have resulted in lengthy sentences, including twelve life
    terms.
    Indian Country
        The FBI continues to maintain primary Federal law enforcement
    authority to investigate felony crimes on more than 200 Indian
    reservations nationwide. More than 100 Special Agents from 20 different
    field offices investigate these cases. In addition, the FBI has 14 Safe
    Trails Task Forces that investigate violent crime, drug offenses, and
    gangs in Indian Country and we continue to address the emerging threat
    from fraud and other white-collar crimes committed against tribal
    gaming facilities.
        Sexual assault and child sexual assault are two of the FBI's
    investigative priorities in Indian Country. Statistics indicate that
    American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer violent crime at greater
    rates than other Americans. Approximately 75 percent of all FBI Indian
    Country investigations concern homicide, crimes against children, or
    felony assaults.
        The FBI continues to work with tribes through the Tribal Law and
    Order Act of 2010 to help tribal governments better address the unique
    public safety challenges and disproportionately high rates of violence
    and victimization in many tribal communities. The act encourages the
    hiring of additional law enforcement officers for Native American
    lands, enhances tribal authority to prosecute and punish criminals, and
    provides the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal police officers with
    greater access to law enforcement databases.
                              science & technology
    Laboratory Services
        The FBI Laboratory (``the Lab'') is one of the largest and most
    comprehensive forensic laboratories in the world. Operating out of a
    state-of-the-art facility in Quantico, Virginia, laboratory personnel
    travel the world on assignment, using science and technology to protect
    the Nation and support law enforcement, intelligence, military, and
    forensic science partners. The Lab's many services include providing
    expert testimony, mapping crime scenes and conducting forensic exams of
    physical and hazardous evidence. Lab personnel possess expertise in
    many areas of forensics supporting law enforcement and intelligence
    purposes, including explosives, trace evidence, documents, chemistry,
    cryptography, DNA, facial reconstruction, fingerprints, firearms, and
    WMD.
        One example of the Lab's key services and programs is the Combined
    DNA Index System (CODIS), which blends forensic science and computer
    technology into a highly effective tool for linking crimes. It enables
    Federal, State, and local forensic labs to exchange and compare DNA
    profiles electronically, thereby connecting violent crimes and known
    offenders. Using the National DNA Index System of CODIS, the National
    Missing Persons DNA Database helps identify missing and unidentified
    individuals.
        TEDAC is another example. TEDAC was formally established in 2004 to
    serve as the single interagency organization to receive, fully analyze,
    and exploit all priority terrorist Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).
    TEDAC coordinates the efforts of the entire government, including law
    enforcement, intelligence, and military entities, to gather and share
    intelligence about IEDs. These efforts help disarm and disrupt IEDs,
    link them to their makers, and prevent future attacks. Although
    originally focused on devices from Iraq and Afghanistan, TEDAC now
    receives and analyzes devices from all over the world.
        Additionally, FBI Evidence Response Teams (ERTs) are active in all
    56 field offices and include more than 1,200 members. The FBI supports
    and enables evidence collection capabilities of field ERTs and law
    enforcement partners by providing forensic training, resources, and
    expertise. The FBI also has forward-deployed evidence response
    capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks and criminal incidents
    involving hazardous materials (chemical, biological, nuclear, and
    radiological) in concert with local officials and FBI WMD experts.
    Operational Technology
        Terrorists and criminals are increasingly adept at exploiting
    cutting-edge technologies to carry out or to mask their crimes. To
    counter current and emerging threats, the FBI actively deploys a wide
    range of technology-based tools, capabilities, and training that enable
    and enhance intelligence, national security, and law enforcement
    operations. In addition to developing state-of-the-art tools and
    techniques, the FBI also focuses on recruiting and hiring individuals
    who possess specialized skills and experience. These dedicated
    employees serve as technically trained agents, engineers, computer
    scientists, digital forensic examiners, electronics technicians, and
    other specialists. Collectively, these specialists enable lawful
    electronic surveillance, provide secure communications, decipher
    encrypted messages, reverse engineer malware, forensically examine
    digital evidence such as images and audio recordings, and much more.
        By way of example, the National Domestic Communications Assistance
    Center (NDCAC) is designed to leverage and share the law enforcement
    community's collective technical knowledge, solutions, and resources to
    address the challenges posed by advancing communications services and
    technologies. The NDCAC also works on behalf of Federal, State, local,
    and tribal law enforcement agencies to strengthen law enforcement's
    relationships with the communications industry.
        The FBI has also established 16 Regional Computer Forensic
    Laboratories (RCFLs) across the Nation. RCFLs serve as one-stop, full-
    service forensics laboratories and training centers. All RCFL personnel
    in each of the 16 facilities across the country must earn FBI
    certification as digital forensics examiners and follow standardized
    evidence handling and operating procedures. RCFLs are staffed by
    Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel who examine digital
    evidence in support of all types of investigations--cases involving
    everything from child pornography and terrorism to violent crime and
    economic espionage.
    Criminal Justice Information Services
        The FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division,
    located in Clarksburg, West Virginia, provides Federal, State, and
    local enforcement and other authorized users with timely access to
    criminal justice information through a number of programs, including
    the National Crime Information Center, the Uniform Crime Reporting
    program, and the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System.
        In addition, CJIS manages the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
    Identification System (IAFIS), which provides timely and accurate
    identification services by identifying individuals through name, date-
    of-birth, fingerprint image comparisons, or other descriptors, and
    provides criminal history records on individuals for law enforcement
    and civil purposes. IAFIS is designed to process criminal fingerprint
    submissions in 2 hours or less and civil submissions in 24 hours or
    less. In fiscal year 2013, approximately 62.7 million fingerprint
    background checks were processed. The Next Generation Identification
    program advances the FBI's biometric identification and investigation
    services, providing new biometric functionality such as facial
    recognition, improved latent searches, and immediate responses related
    to the Repository for Individuals of Special Concern, a fingerprint
    index of wanted persons, sexual offender registry subjects, known or
    appropriately suspected terrorists, and other persons of special
    interest.
        CJIS also manages the Law Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-
    DEx), a criminal justice information sharing network that allows law
    enforcement agencies to share law enforcement records from more than
    4,500 agencies with nearly 140,000 criminal justice users. The N-DEx
    network contains more than 225 million searchable records (incident
    reports, arrest reports, booking data, etc.). It is projected that by
    the end of fiscal year 2014, N-DEx information sharing will be
    available to law enforcement agencies representing almost 60 percent of
    the U.S. population.
                        critical incident response group
        The Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG) is a ``one stop shop''
    for responding rapidly to crisis situations worldwide. Its
    professionals are on call around the clock, ready to support FBI
    operations and Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement
    partners in managing critical incidents and major investigations.
        The National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC)
    provides operational support to FBI agents and law enforcement
    personnel on complex and time-sensitive cases.
        The Behavioral Threat Assessment Center (BTAC) assesses the
    potential threat of violence posed by persons of concern and as
    reflected in threatening communications. Issues traditionally addressed
    by the BTAC include school and workplace attacks, threats against
    Members of Congress and public figures, and threatening communications.
        The Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (ViCAP) is the national
    repository for violent crime cases--specifically those involving
    homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons, and unidentified human
    remains--helping to draw links between seemingly unconnected crimes. In
    2008, the FBI launched the ViCAP Web National Crime Database, which is
    available to law enforcement agencies through the secure Law
    Enforcement Online (LEO) website. Investigators can search ViCAP Web
    for nationwide cases similar to theirs and communicate with other U.S.
    law enforcement agencies to coordinate investigations based on these
    linkages. More than 5,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement
    agencies have contributed to the 85,000-case ViCAP national violent
    crime database.
    Active Shooter Training
        In the aftermath of the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school,
    the President announced the Now Is the Time initiative focused on
    protecting children and communities by reducing gun violence. A
    critical component of this initiative focuses on schools, institutions
    of higher education, and houses of worship. The FBI was assigned to
    lead law enforcement training to ensure coordination among agencies. To
    that end, we have trained more than 9,600 senior State, local, tribal,
    and campus law enforcement executives at conferences hosted by FBI
    field offices, and trained more than 6,300 first responders through
    tabletop exercises designed around facts similar to recent school
    shootings. To date, the FBI has provided our Advanced Law Enforcement
    Rapid Response Training course, an active shooter training program, to
    more than 1,400 officers from 613 agencies.
    Tactical Operations & Crisis Response
        CIRG has a range of tactical resources and programs that support
    and provide oversight to the FBI and its partners. For example, each
    FBI field office has a SWAT team that is equipped with a wide array of
    specialized weaponry and is trained to engage in hazardous operations
    such as barricaded subjects, high-risk arrest/search warrants,
    patrolling through adverse terrain, and--in some field offices--
    maritime interdictions. These teams include crisis negotiators who
    routinely respond to prison sieges, hostage takings, and kidnappings
    nationwide and provide assistance to State and local police
    negotiators. CIRG also manages the FBI Hostage Rescue Team--the U.S.
    Government's non-military, full-time counterterrorist tactical team--
    which provides enhanced manpower, training, and resources to confront
    the most complex threats.
        The Hazardous Devices School at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville,
    Alabama, is the Nation's only facility for training and certifying
    public safety bomb technicians to render safe hazardous devices.
    Managed by the FBI, the school has trained more than 20,000 State and
    local first responders since it opened in 1971. A natural extension of
    this school can be found in the FBI's own 249 Special Agent bomb
    technicians, who provide training to local and State bomb squads and
    serve as the workforce for the FBI's explosives-related operations
    worldwide.
                               victim assistance
        Through the Office for Victim Assistance (OVA), the FBI ensures
    that victims of crimes investigated by the FBI are afforded the
    opportunity to receive the services and notifications required by
    Federal law and the Attorney General Guidelines on Victim and Witness
    Assistance. Among its many services, OVA provides on-scene help to
    crime victims, assesses and triages their needs, and helps victims
    identify and secure counseling, housing, medical attention, and legal
    and immigration assistance. When other resources are not available, OVA
    administers special Victims of Crime Act funds to meet victims'
    emergency needs, including reunification travel, crime scene cleanup,
    replacement clothing, and shipment of victims' remains.
        Special services are provided to child victims. The Child
    Pornography Victim Assistance Program coordinates support and
    notification services for child victims of pornography and their
    guardians. The Forensic Child Interviewing Program ensures that
    investigative interviews of child victims and witnesses of Federal
    crimes are tailored to the child's stage of development and minimize
    any additional trauma. Additionally, a detailed protocol was recently
    developed for providing support to families of abducted children and
    assisting with post-recovery reunification and follow-up services. OVA
    is partnering with the Criminal Investigative Division's Violent Crimes
    Against Children Section and other agencies and organizations to
    improve the response to and services for minor victims of sex
    trafficking.
        The Terrorism and Special Jurisdiction Program provides emergency
    assistance to injured victims and families of American victims killed
    in terrorist attacks and serves as a permanent point of contact for
    terrorism victims. Victim Assistance Rapid Deployment Teams provide
    immediate, on-scene assistance to victims of domestic terrorism and
    mass violence, often at the request of local law enforcement agencies.
    These highly trained and experienced teams have responded to numerous
    mass casualty crimes since 2006, most recently to tragedies at Sandy
    Hook Elementary School, the Washington Navy Yard, and at the Boston
    Marathon.
                             information technology
        The FBI's Information and Technology Branch (ITB) provides
    enterprise-wide IT products and services to more than 36,000 FBI
    employees, contractors, and task force members, including managing more
    than 114,000 workstations and 46 mission-critical systems.
        The target of the ITB's current modernization efforts is to create
    the future FBI Information Environment. Technology provides a distinct
    advantage, allowing FBI users access to their critical data when,
    where, and how they need it. The FBI Information Environment will
    support development of new mission and business functionality within a
    defined and controlled IT framework. These modernization efforts will
    move the FBI toward an agile, responsive, and efficient services-based
    operating model, emphasizing reuse of enterprise services both to
    increase cost savings and to enhance the reliability of IT
    infrastructure and applications.
                             international offices
        One of the fundamental challenges of the 21st Century is stopping
    overseas threats from compromising the security of the United States.
    For this reason, the FBI maintains more than 80 offices overseas that
    cover more than 200 countries and territories. Though our successes
    have been many, the increase in crimes with an overseas nexus shows we
    must do more.
        The FBI continues to look for opportunities to open offices
    worldwide in the Middle East, Africa, Eurasia, the Americas, and Asia
    to target emerging terrorist, cyber, and criminal threats. Staff have
    strong cross-programmatic skills and work side-by-side with sister
    agencies, host governments, and corporate partners to take on threats.
    By targeting terrorists and criminals on their home turf--before their
    plots take shape--the FBI can stop those who wish to harm the United
    States before they have the capability to do so.
                                    training
        In fiscal year 2014, the FBI plans to graduate approximately seven
    new groups of trainees by the end of the fiscal year--more than 300
    Special Agents. We also hope to fill six classes of new intelligence
    analysts.
        The National Academy provides law enforcement executives and
    investigators from State and local law enforcement agencies worldwide
    with advanced leadership training. The National Academy has continued
    to trained more executives, adding to its total of more than 47,000
    graduates to date.
        The FBI provides leadership, intelligence, and law enforcement
    assistance to its international training partners through a variety of
    programs designed to establish and strengthen cooperation and liaison
    between the FBI and its overseas counterparts. Courses offered include
    organized crime cases, anti-gang strategies, terrorist crime scene
    investigations, and street survival techniques. The FBI also
    administers the International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) in
    Budapest, Hungary, and supports other academies in Bangkok, Thailand;
    Gaborone, Botswana; and San Salvador, El Salvador; as well as the
    Regional Training Center in Lima, Peru. The curriculums of these
    academies are based on the FBI National Academy model. To date, more
    than 11,100 students have received ILEA training.
        Other key training programs include Leadership in Counterterrorism,
    which has trained more than 400 upper-level counterterrorism executives
    from State or national police agencies and chiefs or deputy chiefs of
    local agencies to date; the Domestic Security Executive Academy, which
    has trained more than 340 Federal executives and Fortune 1,000
    corporate security executives; the Law Enforcement Executive
    Development Seminar (LEEDS), a two-week program designed for chief
    executive officers of the Nation's mid-sized law enforcement agencies;
    and the National Executive Institute (NEI), a two-week executive
    training program that provides strategic leadership education and
    partnership opportunities for executives from the highest levels of the
    FBI and the largest U.S. and international law enforcement agencies.
                             leadership development
        We created the Leadership Development Program (LDP) to help prepare
    FBI employees to lead before taking formal leadership positions, by
    providing relevant tools, courses, and developmental experiences needed
    for success. These efforts are fostering a Bureau-wide cultural shift
    toward promoting long-term individual development to better operate in
    quickly developing transitions and crises.
        Since 2009, LDP has built a variety of integrated programs,
    including onboarding for both new employees and specific positions such
    as executives and senior managers, in-depth courses for both current
    and new supervisors and program managers, and a developmental program
    to prepare aspiring leaders before they are promoted. LDP's various
    programs were created by employees, for employees, and are designed to
    build upon one another over the course of an employee's career. They
    were originally benchmarked against successful models from our
    military, law enforcement, and intelligence partners, as well as
    private companies; as LDP has grown, other government agencies now
    reach out to benchmark against the FBI.
                                    offsets
        The FBI's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes an offset of
    $168 million to pay for increases in existing costs, including pay
    raises, Federal Employees Retirement System contributions, State
    Department charges, and General Services Administration (GSA) rent,
    among others. The offset will be achieved through a combination of
    program efficiencies and administrative savings. In addition, the
    fiscal year 2015 request includes a $12 million offset to the Secure
    Work Environment (SWE) program. In fiscal year 2015, the SWE program
    will continue to maintain existing facilities while providing an
    increase in capabilities at high priority locations.
                                   conclusion
        Responding to this complex and ever-changing threat environment is
    not new to the FBI. The resources this subcommittee provides each year
    are critical for the FBI's ability to address existing and emerging
    national security and criminal threats.
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, I would like to close by thanking you for this
    opportunity to discuss the FBI's priorities. Chairwoman Mikulski, we
    are grateful for the leadership that you and this subcommittee have
    provided to the FBI. We would not be in the position we are today
    without your support. Your investments in our workforce, our
    technology, and our infrastructure make a difference every day at FBI
    offices in the United States and around the world, and we thank you for
    that support.
        I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, that was very compelling testimony,
    Director. I think it was organized in the way our priorities
    are in terms of our national security threats, our criminal
    threats, support to our partners, particularly in our country,
    and those that are around the world.

                                     BUDGET

        But the FBI is, in terms of its $8 billion--and I think
    it's a bargain for what we get for $8 billion, when you think
    of the magnitude, of the number of agents, the analysts, the
    support staff, 60 places around the world, 56 field offices
    here.
        But your request really goes to people. It's not a big
    plane, it's not a big aircraft carrier. What we were able to do
    in fiscal year 2014 on a bipartisan basis I think allowed you
    to bring in 1,000 new critical positions; is that right?
        Mr. Comey. Yes, which I'm trying to fill by October 1.
        Senator Mikulski. Now, what in terms of--what is it that we
    need to help you keep that momentum going? The talent is not a
    spigot you can turn on. Unlike--and we're not knocking our
    friends in defense, but you know you can delay the purchase of
    an aircraft carrier, you can buy one less fighter plane, save a
    half a billion dollars. But here talent, both the trainers that
    you need, again at Quantico, and then the ability to recruit--
    people, they don't want to be in a spigot job; they want to be
    in a real job, you know, where the spigot's on.
        Tell us what we need to do in our line items to really
    sustain the momentum and provide the adequacy in particularly
    key areas?
        Mr. Comey. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. As you said, the
    FBI is people. I have no battleships, no satellites. I have
    great men and women. What I need is to be able to hire the
    people that I'm trying to hire by October 1st and then continue
    to hire, because we're down almost 2,500 positions. So I need
    to be able to hire the new folks next fiscal year and pay and
    support those that we bring on this year. So just to continue
    the progress is what I need.
        Senator Mikulski. The purpose of this hearing is not fiscal
    year 2016, but then the biggest threat to your momentum would
    be not a stringent budget in fiscal year 2016, but a sequester
    that just goes across the board; is that correct?
        Mr. Comey. Yes, that would be sort of back to the future
    for us. If that were to happen, we'd again be in the position
    where we'd be rationing gas and not filling vacancies, and we'd
    be back to what we experienced the last 2 years.

                        STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Now, let's go to State and local law
    enforcement in my time. These partnerships are key. We don't
    have a national police force. America doesn't want it. But we
    have an FBI that provides national resources and deals with
    Federal crime.
        You, meaning the Federal level, rely on local law
    enforcement to be eyes, ears, boots on the ground. It's the
    local police commissioner and the local police officer that
    often sees something and says something that makes a
    difference, whether it's fighting crime or dealing with the
    terrorist threat.
        I note a cut in the State and local law enforcement area.
    What do you anticipate in order, again, to sustain and maintain
    the relationships and the effort at the local level, like
    fighting gangs that I know Senator Kirk is so devoted to, a
    great concern of mine in the Baltimore area, the whole issue of
    child predators and the trafficking in children. So could you
    share with us then what you need in that area?
        Mr. Comey. Certainly, Senator. There's nothing we do--not
    nothing we do at all, but certainly nothing we do that matters,
    that we don't do in partnership with State and local law
    enforcement. The days of the lone fed are long gone. We work
    together to make sure we're gaining maximum leverage from each
    other, whether that's protecting kids, protecting
    neighborhoods, or protecting the Nation from terrorists.
        A bedrock of our counterterrorism response is our Joint
    Terrorism Task Forces. We have over 100. They are 50 percent
    State, local, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. So
    those partnerships are vital. Part of the glue that holds those
    partnerships together is our ability to offer training and
    technical assistance to our brothers and sisters at the State
    and local level. We had to shut all that down before the budget
    was passed at the end of January. So now we are again offering
    that training and assistance, and I'd like to be able to
    continue that.
        Senator Mikulski. There are other questions that I have,
    but I'm going to yield to Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to be
    brief, but I have a number of questions, Madam Chair.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Director Comey, you've acknowledged the growing cyber
    security threat that was mentioned by the chair, facing our
    Nation and the challenges that are inherent in facilitating
    private industry reporting of attacks. It's been told to us
    that private industry often believes that their reports fall on
    deaf ears because they receive no feedback or little feedback
    or follow-up information about the status of some of the
    reports. This perception could be a serious impediment to the
    kind of information-sharing that you envision. I think it's
    important.
        My question is what steps are you taking or will you take
    to foster relationships with private industry and in turn
    increase the number of private industry participants in the
    Bureau's reporting system, which I think is essential here? And
    would you also speak directly to the concerns regarding the
    industry reporting process and the fact that the information
    exchange is perceived as a one-way street? You know, it's got
    to be both because you have to rely on a lot of that.
        Mr. Comey. Thank you, Senator. Great question and a really
    important topic. One of the many great things about our amazing
    country is that our Internet is almost entirely in private
    hands. That's the way it should be. That's the engine of
    entrepreneurship and creativity in this country. One of the
    challenges that poses is that without the ability to share
    information effectively between the government and private
    enterprise, the law enforcers are left patrolling a street
    that, if you imagine, almost has 30-foot high solid walls on
    either side. I can declare that the street is safe, but I'm not
    really protecting the neighborhood because it's on the other
    side of the wall.
        We have to find a way to share information in both
    directions, consistent with protecting the great liberties that
    underlie this country. So we at the FBI, and the Federal
    Government as a whole, have to get better at sharing actionable
    information with the private sector; not just telling them
    there's a problem in your system, but telling them, here's what
    it is, here's what it means, here's what you can do about it.
    And they need to do the same. They have a lot of smart people
    in private industry. When they see something, they've got to be
    able to share it with us.
        So there are two things need to be done. We have to get
    better, and we're developing a whole host of ways to be more
    effective at our information-sharing. And we have to offer them
    clear rules of the road, so when they're looking to share
    information with us they understand how it will be used and how
    it might affect their shareholders, if it exposes them to
    lawsuits, and all the other things that come in this great
    country. So that bipartisan clarity needs to be offered.
        Senator Shelby. You're going to work on that, aren't you?
        Mr. Comey. We're working like crazy on that.
        Senator Shelby. That's good.

                            HAZARDOUS DEVICES SCHOOL

        The Hazardous Devices School. The FBI's Hazardous Devices
    School trains and certifies public safety bomb technicians. You
    know this well.
        Mr. Comey. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. In addition to providing basic training for
    bomb technicians, the Hazardous Devices School of the Bureau is
    also responsible for providing training in electronic
    countermeasures and advanced training in priority threat
    scenarios. State and local technicians are the first line of
    defense in responding to bomb threats, working with the Bureau.
    Ensuring that they're aware of the latest trends and are
    properly trained I think is very important and this school does
    a lot of this.
        Could you talk just for a few minutes about the training
    capacity of your Hazardous Devices School today, specifically
    the number of students that it can accommodate, the number of
    classes offered annually, and the need that exists in terms of
    recertifying, as we evolve, the bomb technicians? And is there
    an unmet training need in the community, and if so how can we
    address it, because we've got 300 million people and we do have
    some threats.
        Mr. Comey. Yes. Thank you, Senator. We have many.
        One of the hidden gems of this country is the Hazardous
    Devices School, where, as you said, Senator, we train all bomb
    techs in the United States. So it's an effort that's a joint
    Federal effort that includes the Department of Defense, which
    is a key partner in the Hazardous Devices School. So it is a
    vital basic building block for people who want to become
    special agent bomb techs or want to become bomb techs in police
    departments.
        What we need to do to make sure we're taking advantage of
    that gem is be able to offer advanced training certifications
    for people who have gone out and become bomb techs to come back
    to get refresher training and to get advanced training on the
    latest devices and threats. So we've done a good job at
    offering the basic training. What we need to find a way to do
    is to re-source that additional training and sophisticated
    refresher training for those bomb techs.
        Senator Shelby. You're going to have to get ahead of the
    terrorists in many ways, are you not?
        Mr. Comey. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. Because if you lag behind technically
    speaking, we're in a real threat area.
        Mr. Comey. Yes, sir. There are smart, evil people laying
    awake at night trying to find ways to defeat us and to find the
    next thing that we haven't caught up with. We need to be just
    as smart and just as wide awake.

                  TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER

        Senator Shelby. The Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
    Center, as we call it, TEDAC, is the single inter-agency
    organization to receive, fully analyze, and exploit all
    terrorist improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. Much of the
    TEDAC's work has come from Iraq and Afghanistan. But as U.S.
    forces withdraw from Afghanistan, TEDAC's focus will shift. I
    believe that the IED threat that we face at home or could face
    in the future makes the work of TEDAC probably more important
    than ever.
        What's the FBI's vision for a postwar TEDAC and will the
    skills and capabilities shift with the threat, and if so what
    will it look like? Because you've got to be nimble here.
    Although we've been fortunate and the Bureau's done a great job
    and other law enforcement people, we can't be so smug or secure
    to think that people can't build those improvised explosive
    devices here, because they can. What are your thoughts in this?
        Mr. Comey. That's exactly right, Senator. TEDAC is a
    lifesaver. It has saved lives in Afghanistan and in Iraq. It
    saves lives all around the world. And I agree with you
    completely, the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan will not
    signal a drawdown in terrorist efforts to kill us with these
    explosive devices. In fact, what's happened is a lot of the
    terrorists have learned techniques in the war zones that
    they're now looking to spread around the world. So we have to
    stay on top of our game there. We need to continue to make sure
    we're drawing on the military for their advice and guidance.
    But TEDAC will save lives for the indefinite future because the
    threat is indefinite.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chair, I have a couple of more
    questions that I'd like to submit for the record for the
    Director, because I know we have another closed hearing after
    this.
        Senator Mikulski. Without objection, so ordered.
        I want to turn now to Senator Boozman, but before I do I
    want to acknowledge that Senator Kirk was here. He has a
    longstanding interest and advocacy in this area.
        We're doing 60 hearings in 6 weeks to move our deadlines.
    So Senators are stretched. But we want to also acknowledge that
    if Senator Kirk has any questions we'll submit them to the
    record. We also know his longstanding interest in fighting
    gangs, as we noted, and I'm sure he'll have questions in this
    area.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
        Thanks for being here. We appreciate you and appreciate the
    great job that the FBI does and the dedication that's
    represented there.

                             AGRICULTURE ESPIONAGE

        Recently in Arkansas we had a situation where some people
    were arrested for espionage in the farm sector. I'd like for
    you to talk about that a little bit. I think there's a lot of
    surprise that we saw that in Arkansas, again in the farm
    sector. Something I think is really important, it's kind of
    like--I'm an optometrist by training, an eye doctor, and so
    it's much better to prevent things than it is to let them
    happen. Can you talk a little bit about some of the things that
    you are doing, some of the things you'd like to do that aren't
    getting done, to really make our companies, make us as a
    Congress, aware that these things are going on, how we can help
    you in that regard?

                                   ESPIONAGE

        Mr. Comey. Yes, thank you, Senator. There's no doubt that
    foreign nation-states, especially China, want to steal our
    ideas. The ideas of America are not just in Internet companies.
    They're often in the creative work that agriculture companies
    are doing to develop disease-resistant seeds or crops that will
    produce greater yields with less water, things that will help
    people.
        The source of that entrepreneurship and that energy are the
    great people here in the United States working in labs and
    working in companies. There are countries around the world
    that, rather than do that work, would like to steal it from us,
    which would sap that energy and that entrepreneurship and kill
    that spirit that's at the center of this country.
        So it's something we focus on constantly. It's the reason
    we have counterintelligence at the top of our list, because
    there are people in cases that we've brought who are looking to
    steal seed technology, every bit as much as people want to
    steal intellectual property on the Internet. So what we're
    doing is trying to make sure we're aggressive in those cases,
    so that when we catch folks doing that, they understand there's
    a cost to it. We're going to lock people up for that. It's not
    a freebie to take America's seed technology. And we're trying
    to put in place tripwires so that companies, whether it's
    agricultural companies or whether it's a software company,
    understand when they see something that doesn't seem right to
    them, they've got to call us, because bad people are looking to
    steal things that matter to you enormously.
        Those tripwires are very valuable and contributed in the
    case that you were referring to and other cases that we've
    brought that relate to agricultural theft.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        In a related area, cyber security, certainly you are doing
    a lot in that regard, I think hopefully in educating and again
    in getting after folks that are doing that. The private sector
    is doing a pretty good job of that, and the private sector has
    a tendency to perhaps be a little bit more innovative or move a
    little quicker with things. Can you talk about some of the
    public-private partnerships that you're pursuing in that
    regard, or are you pursuing public-private partnerships?
        Mr. Comey. Yes, we are, Senator, for the reasons you said.
    I spent the last 8 years working at two world-class companies
    in two different industries and there's no doubt that private
    industry is spending the money to get the talent on board to
    think in a good way about those challenges. So they've got a
    lot of brainpower.
        We have to be smart by connecting ourselves to that
    brainpower. I've got a lot of smart people. I don't have all
    the smart people in the world. A whole lot of them are in
    private enterprise. So as I said in response to Senator Shelby,
    we have to get better at connecting ourselves.
        Therefore a bunch of different ways in which we're trying
    to do that. We have an effort called Infraguard, where we're
    trying to join together in partnership all around the country
    with private industry. We have something called DSAC, the
    Domestic Security Alliance Council, to accomplish the same
    mission. But whatever it's name, we need to make sure we're
    connected to them.
        One of the obstacles is we live in a litigious society--I
    was the general counsel of two companies and I know as the
    general counsel you worry: if I cooperate with the government,
    is someone going to sue me, claim that I violated some
    obligation to protect information? It's one of the reasons I
    think it's so important that we, through legislation, offer
    those clear rules of the road to those general counsels so they
    can tell their tech geeks, you can go ahead and share this and
    here's what the rules are.

                             LEGAL ATTACHE OFFICES

        Senator Boozman. You mentioned in your testimony about
    opportunities to establish offices worldwide, in the Middle
    East, Africa. Can you talk about some of the barriers that
    you're running into in that regard or some of the obstacles
    perhaps that you face in trying to get that done?
        Mr. Comey. Well, in our Legal Attache program--we call them
    ``LEGATs''--we have 64, I think that is the number, around the
    world. I have visited now ten of them and discovered that they
    are, as I said, not just a representative of the FBI, but of
    the entire United States, a tremendous force multiplier for us.
        So the obstacle is I simply need to make sure that I
    identify more good people and have the resources to develop
    those offices at embassies around the world. So I'm going to be
    looking to do more of that early in my tenure. It's simply a
    question of identifying the talent and having the resources to
    do it.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator.
        The question of the international assistance I think is
    really something the committee needs to pay attention to. I
    believe there are 60 LEGAT offices around the world. Am I
    correct?
        Mr. Comey. I think the number is 64.
        Senator Mikulski. Some are micro, but some are robust in
    countries where we need to be robust or have been invited?
        Mr. Comey. Yes, that's exactly right.
        Senator Mikulski. And they're not secret. They're known. In
    other words, the private sector--first of all, the host country
    knows, etcetera.
        Mr. Comey. That's correct.
        Senator Mikulski. They're usually cooperating locally and
    working regionally; am I correct?
        Mr. Comey. That's correct, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. You want to add 14--the President's
    budget and I believe yours is 14 positions, for a modest $3.2
    million; is that correct?
        Mr. Comey. That's correct. That's what I meant by the
    resources to spread that great thing a little bit farther out.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. And it would mean a lot to some of
    these countries for us to have a presence?
        Mr. Comey. Oh, yes. I got a call this morning with a
    foreign counterpart who asked me about that. They find them
    incredibly valuable as a gateway that swings both ways. It gets
    our country information, but also helps them get assistance,
    especially training for their law enforcement.
        Senator Mikulski. And a presence, that the FBI is not the
    KGB.
        Mr. Comey. We are not.
        Senator Mikulski. That's what I hear a lot.
        Mr. Comey. Nice to show people that.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Good morning, Director. I appreciate your leadership here.
    A couple years ago when your predecessor, Director Mueller,
    appeared before our subcommittee--this was in 2012--Senator
    Hutchison, who served on the committee as well, she and I asked
    him about the possible FBI misconduct in the investigation and
    the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. I'm assuming or I'm
    hopeful that in preparation for today's hearing your staff
    might have told you that it was a whistleblower complaint of an
    FBI agent named Chad Joy that first brought the misconduct to
    light.

             EMPLOYER MISCONDUCT RELATING TO STEVENS INVESTIGATION

        I haven't heard anything about the FBI's probe into Agent
    Joy's allegations since 2012. So the question that I have for
    you this morning: The Director at that meeting told the
    committee that the FBI's investigation of employee misconduct
    is still pending relating to the Stevens investigation. That
    was 2 years ago. We're here in 2014. So the question is whether
    or not the FBI's investigation has been concluded and, if so,
    what was the outcome of that investigation, and if there has
    been any corrective action taken if you could inform me?

                         SENATOR STEVENS INVESTIGATION

        Mr. Comey. Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question and for
    the opportunity to update you. I did learn about this in the
    last week and get briefed in detail. The Office of Professional
    Responsibility, OPR, inside FBI did investigate in response and
    identified an agent who had engaged in improper conduct, and
    the agent was severely disciplined. The discipline has been
    imposed. On top of that, we pushed out refresher training to
    the entire workforce, especially about our discovery
    obligations and how we expect them to conduct themselves during
    those investigations.
        So both broad remedial work was done and individual
    discipline was imposed for the agent involved.
        Senator Murkowski. Was there a report that was prepared,
    and if so would you be able to provide the subcommittee with a
    copy of that?
        Mr. Comey. I don't know--I'm sure something was written up
    because we always have written support for discipline imposed.
    I'll check and get back to you on it.
        [The information follows:]
                      opr report on ted stevens case agent
        Sensitive employee personnel information is contained in Office of
    Professional Responsibility reports. As such, the FBI can provide a
    briefing on these documents in an appropriate setting.

        Senator Murkowski. I'd appreciate that.
        I had also asked about whether or not the agent who had
    brought this issue to the forefront, Agent Joy, had received
    any recognition from the FBI for really stepping up there.
    Director Mueller indicated at that time he didn't know whether
    or not there had been anything that had been done to recognize
    Agent Joy.
        In fact what happened was that Agent Joy left the Bureau.
    He believes that his career was undermined by the
    whistleblowing. Again, as you are looking to this issue, if you
    might look into this specific situation regarding Agent Joy and
    really whether or not the Bureau did right by him, because I
    think we all pay attention to what goes on with whistleblower
    situations, but if there is a perspective or a view within the
    agency that not only are whistleblowers not rewarded, but in
    fact there are consequences, negative consequences at the end,
    that's something that I think we need to certainly be aware of.
        Mr. Comey. Thank you for raising that. I don't know, but
    I'll find out.
        [The information follows:]
                            agent joy whistleblowing
        The FBI can provide a briefing on this sensitive personnel matter
    in an appropriate setting.

        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Comey. Because I share your belief that whistleblowers
    are essential to a healthy institution. And I have a practice
    now where I call individual agents and support people around
    the country to thank them, for not famous acts, but for good
    pieces of work. So I'm going to follow up and find out where
    this fellow is, because maybe it's worth a phone call from me.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.

                    HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

        One final question then for you, and this relates to human
    trafficking in our Native communities, not a subject that any
    of us want to talk about particularly, but I think that this is
    an area that is grossly underreported. Research that documents
    the extent of a problem is often done in the universities and
    think tanks. My alma mater out in Oregon, Willamette University
    Law School, released a report on the extent of human
    trafficking in Oregon. In Alaska, it's the Salvation Army that
    has made the note that Natives are one of the populations most
    vulnerable to human trafficking. Traffickers apparently will
    sell Alaska Native women and girls believing that their
    ethnicity is more appealing to buyers. It sickens you to even
    be discussing it.
        The FBI budget document speaks to the Bureau's role in
    human trafficking, but it doesn't specifically address the
    commitment of resources to human trafficking that involves
    Native women, American Indians or Alaska Native women. We all
    know that this problem is continuing to grow. So I'd ask what
    the Bureau is doing today to address the problem, what more you
    could be doing in these areas, and in terms of your statistical
    capabilities to what extent is the Bureau able to track to
    victimization of American Indians, Alaska Native women who are
    trafficked, and is there more that we can do to focus on this
    demographic?
        Mr. Comey. Thank you for the question. The answer is I
    don't know, but it's something that I need to get smarter
    about, because I learned a lot in the 6, 7 months I've been on
    the job about human trafficking and I've been shocked by it,
    just as you are, and about crime in Native American
    communities. But I have not thought well about this specific
    human trafficking issue in Native American communities, but I
    will.
        This question of research is also very interesting to me. I
    don't know whether we do a good enough job at the national
    level to think well about the problem. Chairman Wolf in the
    House has suggested that maybe we ought to add that capability
    to the National Gang Intelligence Center, so that we have
    people who wake up every morning thinking about it
    holistically, which is also something I'm going to look at.
        But I will get smarter and get back to you.
        [The information follows:]
                     human trafficking of native americans
        The FBI is actively engaged in efforts to identify and combat human
    trafficking involving tribal communities. The FBI has strengthened its
    work through ongoing collaboration with U.S. Attorney's Offices and
    other Federal, State, local, and tribal partners. Through these
    partnerships, the FBI provides training, conducts investigations, and
    supports trafficking victims in tribal areas, including, in South
    Dakota and the Bakken oil-producing region of North Dakota and Montana.
        In January 2014, the FBI Office for Victim Assistance collaborated
    with the FBI Civil Rights Unit and Violent Crimes Against Children
    Section, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services, to
    conduct Webinar trainings for FBI personnel to commemorate National
    Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. Training topics
    included: coordinating large scale operations that focus on domestic
    minor sex trafficking; human trafficking in Indian Country and the
    Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana; identifying resources and
    services available to adult and foreign minor victims of human
    trafficking; and, understanding and identifying labor trafficking.

        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. We have resources
    clearly in Alaska that have been looking very specific to the
    issues as it relates to Alaska Native women, and I know your
    folks on the ground up north are very capable in this area. But
    if we can have a broader understanding as to the issue in this
    country as it relates to our indigenous people, particularly
    our women and girls, I think it would be a very important
    focus.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. The vice chairman has an additional
    question. I just would like to amplify what Senator Murkowski
    has said. Both she and then Senator Cantwell, who chaired our
    Committee on Indian Affairs that's Pacific Northwest-focused,
    have spent a lot of time really on what is happening to Native
    Americans in this country and particularly the women and the
    children. They're not only a great resource to you, but a great
    way for you, to point you to these resources where a lot of
    work has been done, but not a lot of action has happened.
        Does that summarize it, Senator?
        Senator Murkowski. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. So look to us here and we can help you
    get smart about it, and then let's get a real action plan.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                    CHILD EXPLOITATION AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

        I want to follow up on this area, Mr. Director. I have
    visited Eastern Europe and the Ukraine and other areas where a
    lot of the human trafficking of young women that have been
    abused, to say the least, as you well know, into forced
    prostitution of different kinds, child pornography, everything,
    just small children. That is a big, big business, especially
    the child pornography. It's international in scope. It's
    obviously--it's hard to stamp out.
        But in America, a lot of Americans are buying movies of
    this. It's sickening. But on the Banking Committee I remember
    Senator Sarbanes--I was chairman on the committee and he was
    ranking, and then he was chairman and I was ranking. We worked
    together on this a lot, dealing with the payment system,
    because the key is the credit card system, how do you pay for
    it?
        The FBI and the Justice Department have been very good.
    It's very complex, very hard to discern everything. But it's
    one of the worst things that you could imagine, and you have.
    And if you have children or grandchildren or both, you think,
    my gosh. But the trafficking, the human trafficking of young
    women and young children and the exploitation of it is
    something that the Bureau has been very good and the Justice
    Department. But it's such a massive thing to get our hands
    around.
        Do you want to address that at all, and the FBI's interest
    here?
        Mr. Comey. It is a massive problem, as big as the Internet.
    The explosion of the Internet has brought with it an explosion
    in child exploitation and child pornography. It's an enormous
    machine that at the back end people are viewing child
    pornography, at the front end children are being fed into the
    engine. It's one of the reasons that it drives me a bit crazy
    when I hear people say: Oh, they were just looking at child
    pornography. Your just looking at child pornography, first of
    all, is sick in and of itself and raises serious concerns about
    whether you're abusing children in your own life.
        Senator Shelby. But it pays for it.
        Mr. Comey. Yes. But it's their desire to see fresh images
    that powers the engine at the front and leads to this voracious
    consumption of child pornography. So there's no such thing in
    my view as just looking at child pornography. It's a serious
    crime. It has to be taken seriously. It's something that, as
    Senator Mikulski knows--who is one of the great supporters of
    our ``Innocent Images'' program--it's something we are
    passionate about. We have to send a message both to those who
    would profit from the business, those who would view and become
    the consumers that drives this engine, and those who would
    touch the children and destroy them to produce those images. So
    we have to hit the whole train.
        Senator Shelby. Have you had real cooperation from, say,
    the people of the Ukraine and Russia and some of these other
    countries where a lot of this trafficking and filming and
    everything takes place?
        Mr. Comey. The answer is yes, because, despite what
    political differences we may have, all humans are revolted by
    the abuse of children, exploitation of children. So that's an
    area in which we can find common ground even with the folks in
    Russia.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. There are many more questions to be
    asked, but we're now going to move to our classified hearing.
    So this subcommittee will temporarily recess and reconvene in
    closed session at the secure facility in the Capitol Visitors
    Center, where we can consider those matters that require more
    classified conversation, particularly in the global war against
    terrorism, espionage, and these other vile, vile, and repugnant
    international crimes against children.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the agency for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                          shooting of ibragim todashev
        Question. What measures have you taken to ensure the American
    people that FBI shooting incidents, including the one in Florida last
    May, are investigated fairly and independently?
        Answer. In 1982, then Director William Webster approved the
    establishment of the Shooting Incident Review Group (SIRG) which is
    comprised of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) representatives to review and assess all
    shooting incidents involving FBI personnel. The SIRG provides the
    Director and FBI Headquarter Executive Management evaluative analyses,
    observations, and recommendations concerning operational, training, and
    other relevant issues, including the need for referral to the DOJ,
    Office of Inspector General (OIG), or the FBI's Internal Investigations
    Section for further administrative or disciplinary review, if deemed
    necessary. In 1995, the DOJ Office of Investigative Agency Policies
    adopted ``Resolution 13,'' which further formalized the process by
    which DOJ investigative agencies conduct post shooting incident
    reviews. Central to ``Resolution 13'' was the requirement that the
    intentional and unintentional discharge of a firearm by a DOJ employee
    be expeditiously reported, documented, investigated, and reviewed.
        In accordance with the establishment of the SIRG and ``Resolution
    13,'' the FBI utilizes a Shooting Incident Review Team (SIRT) to
    conduct an administrative inquiry of every Agent Involved Shooting
    (AIS) for the purpose of assessing and documenting the use of force
    incident, and to provide the DOJ Civil Rights Division sufficient
    information to make a prosecutorial determination. Each SIRT prepares a
    comprehensive report for the SIRG. Each SIRG meeting is attended by a
    representative of the DOJ OIG. The SIRG independently reviews FBI
    shooting incidents to determine whether the use of deadly force was
    reasonable, and in accord with the DOJ Deadly Force Policy and the law.
    The SIRT process is designed to inform affected field offices, and
    other FBI personnel, of findings or lessons learned from an
    operational, administrative, tactical, and training perspective.
        The FBI routinely conducts AIS reviews in coordination with State
    and local authorities. FBI SIRTs jointly conduct post-shooting
    interviews and coordinate reporting to ensure both State/local and DOJ
    prosecutorial offices have information necessary to make an independent
    prosecutorial decision. DOJ and State/local prosecutors have
    independent, concurrent jurisdiction regarding Federal and State
    charges and coordinate with each other as appropriate.
                                forensics reform
        Question. Would you agree that there must be national leadership in
    the area of forensic science, and that the Department of Justice,
    working with the FBI and other elements of the executive branch, can
    play a central role in the development of this important part of our
    criminal justice system?
        Answer. National leadership in the area of forensic science is of
    utmost importance. For over three quarters of a century, the Department
    of Justice and the FBI have served in such a leadership role, both
    nationally and internationally, for the forensic sciences.
        Question. Will you commit to working with me on the forensics
    reform bill that I introduced today?
        Answer. The FBI, in conjunction with other DOJ components takes the
    issue of improving forensics seriously and the Bureau would be glad to
    work with the Senator to provide feedback or technical assistance
    sought on legislation.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
                               white-collar crime
        Question. Could you please provide, in both real and proportional
    to the rest of the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) resources, what
    percentage of DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    resources have been dedicated to white-collar crime in general and
    mortgage fraud specifically over the past 20 years with a particular
    focus on times when high amounts of white-collar crime needed to be
    pursued, such as the economic fallout of the savings and loan crisis
    and the popping of the dot come bubble?
        Answer. As an intelligence-driven, law enforcement and national
    security organization, the FBI has responsibility to address a variety
    of threats to include Terrorism, Counterintelligence, Cyber and a
    multitude of Criminal threats to include Public Corruption, Civil
    Rights, Organized Crime, Complex Financial Crime, and Violent Crime.
    Each year, the FBI utilizes intelligence to determine the appropriate
    ranking of those threats. Within the priority area of Complex Financial
    Crime, the FBI addresses the threats of Securities and Commodities
    Fraud, Corporate Fraud and Mortgage Fraud, among others.
        Prior to the mortgage fraud crisis that emerged several years ago,
    the FBI did not track mortgage fraud separately, outside of its White-
    Collar Crime program, and thus cannot provide trends from the past 20
    years. The chart below provides data since 2008.

                                                                       WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Type                               2008          2009          2010          2011          2012          2013          2014
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Department of Justice

    Mortgage Fraud........................................  $ 69,546,000  $111,508,000  $151,984,000  $114,475,000  $141,308,000  $121,731,000  $129,338,000
    Other White-Collar Crime..............................   435,120,000   478,570,000   436,598,000   532,399,000   528,001,000   569,322,000   586,553,000
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................   504,666,000   590,078,000   588,582,000   646,874,000   669,309,000   691,053,000   715,891,000
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Mortgage Fraud........................................    32,203,000    66,763,000    94,287,000    70,131,000    69,048,000    53,564,000    59,497,000
    Other White-Collar Crime..............................    57,806,000    64,745,000    81,031,000   139,781,000   140,468,000   145,756,000   161,716,000
                                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...........................................    90,009,000   131,508,000   175,318,000   209,912,000   209,516,000   199,320,000   221,213,000
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide estimates in the differences in the
    resource costs required for the pursuit of individuals versus that of
    companies. Additionally, could you please provide estimates of
    resources required to prepare a case to be taken to court versus
    establishing non-prosecution and deferred prosecution agreements with
    companies?
        Answer. Investigations into complex financial crimes commonly
    require the FBI to consider both individual and entity level criminal
    culpability. The investigations into individuals and entities have
    significant overlap as the individuals interviewed, documents analyzed,
    and investigative methods typically serve the dual purpose of
    uncovering the underlying facts, which may support charging
    individuals, entities, or both. Therefore, the FBI is unable to
    quantify the differences in resources required for the pursuit of an
    individual versus an entity. When investigating individuals, due to
    certain fact patterns, it is often appropriate to incorporate an
    investigation into the entity as well. An entity can also serve as a
    cooperator in investigations and the ultimate resolution reached with
    an entity can be significantly influenced by its level of cooperation,
    among other factors.
        With regard to the differences in resources dedicated to
    investigations going to court versus those that end in non-prosecution
    agreements (NPAs) or deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), the FBI's
    investigative strategy is one that rests on the assumption that all
    criminal investigations will be taken to trial. Doing so ensures a
    comprehensive investigation has been conducted and that the FBI is
    positioned to withstand the scrutiny of a trial by jury, if necessary.
    Conducting an investigation in this manner enables the FBI to more
    persuasively articulate the nature of the offenses and the evidence of
    those offenses by the targeted individuals, thereby increasing the
    likelihood of individual pleas or corporate resolutions without the
    need for a trial. For that reason, there is no significant difference
    in the cost for the FBI to investigate cases that proceed to trial and
    cases resolved without a trial.
             criminal referrals from financial regulatory agencies
        Question. Please provide numbers for how many criminal referrals
    the FBI and DOJ has received from financial regulatory agencies year by
    year since 1990, broken down by referring agency. Has the number of
    criminal referrals from financial regulatory agencies changed over the
    past decade? Has there been a significant decline? If so, how does the
    FBI account for such a decline? What could the FBI do to train and
    encourage regulatory agencies to refer criminal activity for FBI
    investigation? Does the FBI have adequate resources to take on such
    activity?
        Answer. The FBI does receive referrals from Federal regulatory
    agencies, but the number of referrals is not tracked; therefore, the
    FBI cannot assess trends in referrals. The FBI does work closely with
    other law enforcement and regulatory agencies to address complex
    financial crime. Understanding the current threat picture is essential
    to appropriately address the complex financial crime threat. FBI
    headquarters is actively engaged with private sector and other
    governmental agencies to understand the nationwide complex financial
    crime threat. This collaboration enables the development of a holistic
    view of the threat and identification of nationwide and local trends.
        On a local level, the FBI is committed to working with local, State
    and Federal partners to investigate, prosecute, and collect and
    disseminate intelligence related to complex financial crimes. The FBI
    currently operates 21 Financial Crimes Task Forces throughout the
    United States. These task forces include at least 11 Federal agencies
    outside the Department, as well as partners within the Department, and
    over 30 local or State law enforcement and regulatory agencies. In
    total, the FBI is dedicating nearly 900 agents and more than $200
    million to combat corporate, mortgage, and securities fraud and other
    economic crimes.
        The FBI recognizes the importance and value in continuing to build
    and maintain strong working relationships with regulatory partners like
    the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity
    Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). As such, the FBI embedded
    Supervisory Special Agents and analysts within the SEC and CFTC to
    conduct real-time review of complaints and tips received by these
    agencies to determine if the information is relevant to an ongoing FBI
    investigation or should be referred for the opening of a new
    investigation. This greatly reduces the likelihood of relevant
    information slipping through the cracks. The placement of FBI personnel
    within these key regulatory agencies allows for earlier FBI involvement
    in parallel investigations and increases opportunities for the
    successful use of proactive and sophisticated techniques in complex
    investigations.
                     investigating multinational companies
        Question. The FBI is sometimes tasked with investigating very
    large, complex multinational companies, which could cost millions to
    investigate thoroughly. How does the FBI work with larger corporations
    in investigating criminal activity? How dependent is the FBI on
    information obtained through the internal investigations of companies?
    Does the FBI have adequate personnel to verify information provided by
    companies in their internal investigations? Could you please identify
    some examples of when the FBI has brought on experts from other
    agencies to assist in such investigations?
        Answer. It is true that the nature of financial crime is becoming
    more complex than ever before. The complexity is driven by the nature
    of the offenses, the use of technology and more frequently, the
    international scope of investigations. Companies may serve as
    witnesses, victims, or as the targets of investigations. Regardless of
    the role, if the company is not deemed to be inherently criminal in
    nature, e.g., an established corporation with legitimate business
    interests versus a corporation created for the sole purpose of
    operating a Ponzi scheme, the company can serve as a tremendous source
    of information and a resource that can be leveraged to develop a more
    efficient investigative strategy. For example, cooperating companies,
    through their internal investigations, can review documents, identify
    witnesses, and provide an initial analysis of data. Although these
    efforts on the part of the company can aid an investigation, it would
    be inaccurate to describe the relationship as one where the FBI is
    dependent on the company and its internal investigation. The FBI has
    alternative methods to relying on the company's cooperation. For
    example, the FBI can collect records via a search warrant (given
    appropriate authority). Voluntary production of records can be mutually
    beneficial to both the Government and the company, but it also
    introduces the risks of completeness and accuracy of the data produced.
    Given that the company is likely not impartial, the investigative
    strategy must address these added risks. These risks can be addressed
    through a number of investigative methods, including interviews,
    independent verification from an external source, detailed descriptions
    of the internal investigation process with company counsel, and/or
    conducting our own analysis of the records.
        FBI investigations into Complex Financial Crimes typically involve
    a number of FBI personnel, to include Special Agents, Forensic
    Accountants and Intelligence Analysts. The FBI also works closely with
    prosecuting offices and regulating agencies such as the Security
    Exchange Commision (SEC). The FBI regularly leverages experts and
    industry specialists from regulatory agencies conducting parallel
    investigations of Complex Financial Crimes. The use of these experts
    and industry specialists ranges from witness testimony during trial to
    serving as a resource during the investigation. For example, the FBI
    has utilized individuals from the Financial Industry Regulatory
    Authority-Criminal Prosecution Assistance Group (FINRA-CPAG) to analyze
    financial data, assess the risks associated with certain types of
    securities investments, review private placement agreements, and create
    summary data for trial. Economists and industry experts from the CFTC
    have identified, analyzed, and reported on brokerage records and
    provided technical assistance on investigations of commodity fraud.
    Industry specialists from the SEC have analyzed financial statements
    and served as Government witnesses during insider trading
    investigations. The FBI has also utilized the National Futures
    Association (NFA) for expert testimony on matters involving commodity
    fraud.
                              mortgage fraud cases
        Question. In fiscal year 2013, the number of suspicious activity
    reports (SARs) related to mortgage fraud dropped 25 percent to just
    over 69,000, but could you provide a breakdown of how many SARs were
    investigated, bundled into a larger investigation, or were found to
    have insufficient information for investigation? Is there a backlog of
    cases the FBI plans to pursue from this surge of SARs following the
    financial crisis?
        Answer. The FBI does not track, at the individual SAR level,
    whether SARs generate cases or are bundled into larger investigations.
    Each SAR filing does not equate to predication to initiate an
    investigation as an individual SAR may not provide enough information
    to open an investigation or multiple SARs may lead to one
    investigation. The FBI is unable to address every complaint of mortgage
    fraud, but attempts to work higher level cases which involve multiple
    victims, higher dollar losses or fraud activity, and/or target
    organized groups involved in the fraud. SARs are a valuable tool in
    identifying such networks but very often multiple SARs are associated
    with one group; therefore, these multiple SARs would be utilized to
    initiate one FBI investigation.
        The FBI does not track the quality or sufficiency of SAR data other
    than to assess whether they can be utilized for lead value and
    therefore incorporated into new or existing investigations. The FBI
    does not currently have a backlog of cases from SARs associated with
    the financial crisis.
                   follow-up on deferred and non-prosecution
        Question. How does the FBI conduct follow-up on non-prosecution and
    deferred prosecution agreements to ensure that companies are making the
    necessary reforms?
        Answer. As elements of some deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs)
    and non-prosecution agreements (NPAs), companies are required to engage
    in remediation or compliance reforms. In such agreements, the
    Department of Justice includes a mechanism to ensure that companies may
    be taking the required actions. Generally speaking, this mechanism
    takes one of two forms: an independent compliance monitor who reports
    to the Department on a regular basis, or Department oversight,
    supported by mandatory self-reporting by the company on its efforts.
        As an example of a corporate monitorship, in a December 9, 2013 DPA
    resolving Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)-related charges against
    Bilfinger SE (``Bilfinger''), Bilfinger agreed to retain a corporate
    monitor for not less than 18 months. The monitor's mandate under the
    DPA is to evaluate ``the effectiveness of the internal accounting
    controls, record-keeping, and financial reporting policies and
    procedures of the company as they relate to the company's current and
    ongoing compliance with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption
    laws[,]'' including an assessment of the executive board's and senior
    management's commitment to, and effective implementation of, the
    corporate compliance program imposed as part of the DPA. Furthermore,
    under the DPA, the monitor is required to consult regularly with, and
    disclose any violations of law to, the Department. If the monitor
    concludes that the company has not instituted effective reforms or has
    engaged in further misconduct, then the monitorship may be extended or
    other action taken. Otherwise, the monitorship ends at the conclusion
    of the 18 month period and, for the remaining 18 months of the DPA,
    Bilfinger is required to self-report to the Department in a manner
    consistent with that described below.
        As an example of oversight and self-reporting, in an April 9, 2014
    DPA resolving Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)-related charges
    against Hewlett-Packard Polska, SP. ZO.O. (``HP Poland''), HP Poland is
    required to report to the Department annually during the 3-year term of
    the DPA regarding its ``remediation and implementation of the enhanced
    compliance measures'' that it agreed to undertake as part of the DPA.
    The Department, in its sole discretion, determines whether the terms of
    the DPA have been met. Pursuant to a reporting schedule established in
    the DPA, HP Poland is required to ``submit to the Department a written
    report setting forth a complete description of its remediation efforts
    to date, its proposals reasonably designed to improve the company's
    internal controls, policies, and procedures for ensuring compliance
    with the FCPA and other applicable anti-corruption laws, and the
    proposed scope of the subsequent reviews[,]'' which shall ``further
    monitor and assess whether the company's policies and procedures are
    reasonably designed to detect and prevent violations of the FCPA and
    other anti-corruption laws.'' Moreover, the DPA provides that, ``should
    the company discover any evidence or allegations of possible corrupt
    payments, false books and records, or the failure to implement or
    circumvention of internal accounting controls, including the existence
    of internal or external investigations into such conduct, the company
    shall promptly report such evidence or allegations to the Department.''
        Department prosecutors review the monitor reports and corporate
    self-reports, meet with the monitor and/or corporate representatives as
    appropriate to follow up on issues identified in the reports, and
    initiate further investigation where warranted. Under the terms of DPAs
    and NPAs, if the Department determines that a company has not made the
    required reforms, or has engaged in further misconduct, the Department
    has a range of options it may pursue, including but not limited to
    extending the terms of the DPA or NPA or declaring the company in
    breach of the DPA or NPA and instituting criminal prosecution against
    the company.
                                   oig report
        Question. Has the FBI taken steps to raise the prioritization of
    mortgage and mortgage-related securities fraud within its various field
    offices?
        Answer. In its response to the OIG report, the Department noted
    that it has focused successfully on mortgage fraud violations. As the
    FBI data in the audit report itself reflects, the number of mortgage
    fraud convictions more than doubled from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal
    year 2010, i.e., from 555 to 1,087 convictions, and then increased
    further in fiscal year 2011 to 1,118 convictions. In addition, the
    Department concurred with all of the recommendations made by OIG
    including: ensure all agencies update online and other publicly
    available material related to the Distressed Homeowner Initiative;
    revisit results of Operation Stolen Dreams to determine if corrective
    action on publicly reported results is necessary; implement methodology
    for properly soliciting, collecting and reviewing information; revisit
    existing guidance on initiating mortgage fraud undercover operation;
    and develop a method to readily identify mortgage fraud criminal and
    civil enforcement efforts for reporting purposes.
        With respect to prioritization, in 2011, mortgage fraud was ranked
    as a priority area under the Criminal Investigative Division's Complex
    Financial Crime category. Not every type of fraud was ranked as a
    priority threat during this time period, which demonstrates that the
    FBI considered mortgage fraud to be among the most prominent financial
    crimes we faced at the time.
        We also recognize that the Inspector General contended that
    mortgage fraud was a low priority or not listed as a priority at
    various FBI Field Offices, including the Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami,
    and New York offices. We note, however, that during the period covered
    by the audit, all threats were prioritized at the headquarters level,
    and that FBI field offices did not re-rank threats within their own
    geographical areas. As noted above, mortgage fraud was ranked as a
    priority threat, and the various field offices would have utilized that
    prioritization instead of coming up with their own rankings. Beginning
    in 2013, however, FBI field offices were required to rank their own
    threats based on domain assessments, ongoing intelligence collection
    and ultimately, with approval from FBI Headquarters. We can report that
    Baltimore, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York all rank mortgage fraud as
    a priority threat.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                  cyber security efforts with private industry
        Question. Given the growing cyber security threat facing our Nation
    and the challenges inherent in facilitating private industry reporting
    of attacks what is the FBI doing to facilitate participation in the
    EGuardian program?
        Answer. Uniquely tailored for the particular challenges of cyber,
    the ``Guardian for Cyber'' application expedites the triage and
    deconfliction of leads submitted from multiple sources, which are then
    immediately assigned and assessed by the FBI and other government
    agency (OGA) partners. The system now includes secure, cyber-specific
    incident submission portals that consolidate critical information
    provided by both law enforcement (eGuardian) and trusted industry
    stakeholders (iGuardian). This response provides information regarding
    engaging the private industry with iGuardian.
        The FBI's trusted industry partners have access to iGuardian, a
    secure method to report cyber intrusions and submit malware for
    analysis and feedback through the InfraGard Network. InfraGard is a
    partnership among the FBI and the private sector, educational
    institutions, local, State, and Federal Government organizations that
    are dedicated to protecting our national critical infrastructure by
    sharing information regarding both cyber and physical threats and
    vulnerabilities. InfraGard has a current active membership base of
    approximately 25,000 members.
        At the request of FBI's private industry partners, the FBI has
    presented iGuardian overviews to critical infrastructure associations,
    alliance councils, and conferences. The interest to join the iGuardian
    portal has been significant. From concept to development, the FBI has
    been working with these partners through a collaborative process to
    build a system to fulfill their needs. Every step of the way we have
    sought and incorporated private industry input.
        The FBI is executing an iGuardian pilot program with five cleared
    facilities and is scheduled to be launched through an enhanced portal
    on FBI.gov. Once launched, the FBI will initiate the process for
    industry to apply for access through FBI.gov. Additionally, the FBI is
    in the process of enhancing the portal to be utilized to report
    multiple hazards, to include Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence,
    Criminal, and Cyber.
        Question. Is this system open to all industries for reporting of
    cyber attacks? If not, what industries are participating? Is there a
    schedule to assimilate all industries into the system?
        Answer. The system is accessible to all industries through the
    FBI's InfraGard network. The enhanced iGuardian portal, to be used by
    general industry, in addition to InfraGard members, has been launched.
    Five large, cleared facilities have provided their assistance to the
    FBI in enhancing this portal and piloting its initiation. This will
    significantly expand the Federal Government's increased awareness of
    vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure networks, to better
    understand cyber-related threat vectors, and to facilitate a
    coordinated overall cyber incident response by the U.S. Government. The
    FBI anticipates the Defense Security Service (DSS) will support the
    iGuardian portal as a threat submission tool that could be used by all
    cleared facilities. This will satisfy numerous existing requirements
    described in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual
    (NISPOM), section 941, among others.
        The FBI is working as quickly as possible to fill the need to
    assimilate all industry into the iGuardian system, but there is no
    timeline established.
        Question. Are there currently any requirements for industry to
    report cyber attacks? If so, what are those requirements?
        Answer. The FBI is not aware of any requirement for industry to
    report to the FBI.
        Question. Do you have any way of knowing the percentage of attacks
    on each entity or industry that are actually reported?
        Answer. Due to the lack of required reporting by industry, the
    total number of cyber attacks made against entities and industries is
    unknown. Therefore, the Cyber Division cannot estimate the percentage
    of cyber attacks that are not reported to the FBI. However, based on
    data collected thus far, currently there are more than 4,100 reported
    incidents in Guardian categorized by sector, e.g. commercial sector,
    information technology, cleared defense contractors, Internet service
    providers, public health, financial services, education, and
    communications.
                                 cyber security
        Question. Cyber security has topped the Director of National
    Intelligence's list of global threats for the second consecutive year.
    However, the FBI's mission prioritization does not seem to reflect the
    significance of the cyber threat we are facing. What's more, the budget
    request flat lines this growing threat. What reassurance can you give
    us that your mission prioritization is evolving with the threats our
    country is facing? Does this budget adequately resource the needs of
    the Bureau in key areas such as cyber security?
        Answer. Through the support of the Congress, the FBI received
    funding in fiscal year 2014 that ended the hiring freeze and allows FBI
    to start hiring again. The fiscal year 2014 hiring effort will include
    personnel who will be dedicated to cyber efforts. Additionally, the
    fiscal year 2014 appropriation included a program increase to support
    the Next Generation Cyber Initiative. These fiscal year 2014 resources
    are critical to enhancing the FBI's cyber capabilities in the face of
    the growing cyber threat. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget
    request includes funding to sustain the critical improvements and
    enhancements in cyber security provided in fiscal year 2014. Cyber
    Security remains an FBI priority in fiscal year 2015.
        The FBI's Cyber Division has developed and is implementing a new
    strategy, the Cyber Threat Team model, in which named threats are
    explicitly prioritized using an objective model, specialized teams of
    dedicated Field and HQ personnel are built for the highest priority
    threats, and detailed and explicit mitigation strategies are developed
    and implemented against these high priority threats.
                            hazardous devices school
        Question. Could you detail the training capacity of the Hazardous
    Devices School today? Specifically, the number of students that it can
    accommodate, the number of classes offered annually and the need that
    exists in terms of re-certifying bomb technicians?
        Answer. The current maximum throughput for the Hazardous Devices
    School (HDS) using the current curriculum is 1,214 students. HDS
    intends to operate at capacity in fiscal year 2015. In fiscal year
    2014, HDS is operating slightly below capacity due to cancellations in
    October 2013 during the lapse in appropriations, and will train 1,014
    bomb technician students in the following courses:
      --6 Bomb Technician Certification Courses (six weeks), instructing 24
            students per class--(maximum capacity: 8 classes);
      --28 Bomb Technician Recertification Courses (one week, required
            every 3 years for certified technicians), instructing 24 per
            class--(maximum capacity: 30 classes);
      --1 Bomb Squad Commanders class for 30 students;
      --6 Stabilization Level III classes, with 12 students per class;
      --4 Advanced Electronic classes, with 12 students per class--(maximum
            capacity: 6 classes); and
      --3 Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) classes, with 16 students per
            class--(maximum capacity: 8 classes).
        Regarding the need for FBI's training at HDS, the FBI has
    approximately 1,300 students on the waiting list for its certification
    and/or recertification classes.
        Question. Is there an unmet training need in the bomb tech
    community and if so, are there sufficient resources in the budget
    request to meet that need? If not, please detail the unmet need and
    what additional resources would be required to do so.
        Answer. The Stabilization and Electronic Countermeasure (ECM)
    courses require the use of temporary duty FBI Special Agent Bomb
    Technician instructors, because the full-time instructor cadre at HDS
    is stretched to capacity to keep up with the certification and
    recertification course schedule. Also, HDS can only offer two
    operational classes at any given time because the school's equipment,
    vehicles, storage, and training facilities are used to capacity. At
    this time, there is an eleven-month waiting period for bomb technicians
    to attend the recertification course, a twelve-month backlog for the
    certification course, and a 6 to 7-month waiting list for the Advanced
    Electronics and ECM courses.
        As the domestic Improvised Explosive Device (IED) environment
    evolves, the need for advanced instruction to address sophisticated
    explosive device designs and attack methods continue to grow. Based on
    intelligence gathered from around the globe and exploited by the
    Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), the FBI has
    developed several advanced courses for bomb technicians with a focus on
    standardized tactics, techniques, and render safe procedures (RSPs).
    These advanced courses focus on real, complex threats, such as vehicle-
    borne, water-borne, and radio-controlled IEDs, suicide bombers,
    homemade or improvised explosives, weapons of mass destruction, and
    scenarios that require bomb technicians to operate side-by-side with
    tactical teams. Advancing FBI instruction at HDS is crucial to
    effectively meet the needs of the U.S. bomb technician community by
    teaching standardized operating procedures for bomb squads to defeat
    these threats. Central certification and curriculum development will
    also reduce training costs to both public safety bomb squads and the
    Federal Government. The FBI continues to evaluate resource needs and
    will work to expand the delivery of this advanced training to public
    safety bomb technicians within available resource levels.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
                             online sex trafficking
        Question. Approximately how many FBI agents are designated to sex-
    trafficking investigations?
        Answer. The FBI has more than 400 agents designated to
    investigations involving the abduction or disappearance of children,
    online sexual exploitation of children and the commercial sexual
    exploitation of children, i.e. sex trafficking of children.
        Question. How much funding is allocated to these sex-trafficking
    investigations?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2014, the FBI will spend approximately $107
    million on cases involving the abduction or disappearance of children,
    online sexual exploitation of children and the commercial sexual
    exploitation of children, i.e. sex trafficking of children. This amount
    includes both personnel and non-personnel resources.
        Question. What Web sites has the FBI identified as the leading Web
    sites for Internet sex trafficking?
        Answer. The FBI has identified more than 100 Web sites that cater
    to escort and sexual services advertisements. Many of these Web sites
    may focus on particular cities and/or regions, while others advertise
    escort and sexual services nationwide. In addition to these Web sites,
    social networking Web sites and dating Web sites are also being
    utilized to facilitate the advertisement of prostitution. For an
    advertisement offering a commercial sexual service to constitute
    Federal criminal sex trafficking, the victim induced to commit such
    conduct must either be under the age of 18 or an adult subjected to
    force, fraud, and coercion. Since the FBI does not want to promote the
    Web sites, specific Web site information will not be provided.
        Question. What is the FBI's determination of the percentage of ads
    posted on Backpage.com adult-services section is for prostitutes? What
    about other Web sites?
        Answer. Federal investigative resources are focused on eradicating
    sex trafficking, which occurs when children engage in commercial sex
    acts and when adults are compelled to engage in commercial sex acts
    through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. In the course of
    investigating sex trafficking, the FBI does review advertisements on
    Web sites for adult services. Through the course of that review, the
    FBI has determined a significant number of the advertisements posted on
    the adult-services section of identified Web sites are specific to
    prostitution. In addition to advertisements, many of these sites also
    offer review boards wherein active members can review and rate
    ``prostitutes,'' discuss popular areas and venues for prostitution, and
    post intelligence of law enforcement activity and methodology. The
    volume of prostitution advertisements on social networking and dating
    Web sites is more difficult to quantify as the advertisements are
    embedded within user profiles and are not always accessible to law
    enforcement due to privacy measures implemented by the user. As for the
    advertisements posted on other Web sites specifically for escorts, the
    FBI has determined a significant number these advertisements are also
    specific to prostitution.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. The committee recesses and we'll
    reconvene in the Visitors Center.
        [Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., Thursday, March 27, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 3, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Landrieu, Shaheen,
    Merkley, Shelby, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, Kirk, and Boozman.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

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

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Chairwoman Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, and Science will come to order. And today,
    we will take testimony on the budget request from the
    Department of Justice.
        Today, we will be listening to the Attorney General, Eric
    Holder, testifying in behalf of the Justice Department, and,
    after that, we hope to hear from the Justice Department's
    Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, on important oversight
    issues. This is a subcommittee, not only of making sure we
    spend the right money in the right way, but also to make sure
    we have the wonderful advice of an Inspector General.
        We want to alert everyone, though, there could be the
    possibility of votes beginning at 11:30 a.m., so we're going to
    kind of move it.
        This hearing today is one of 60 hearings in 6 weeks, where
    we're doing very due diligence in taking a look at the request
    from these agencies and the President's budget.
        Today, we really take testimony from, I think, one of the
    most important agencies in the government constellation, the
    Department of Justice, who really has a very key job in making
    sure they keep America safe and--whether it's from Federal law
    enforcement, Federal prosecution, terrorism, but also the
    enforcement of other issues, the important enforcement of white
    collar crime, whether it's antitrust or mortgage fraud, to also
    civil rights and hate crimes. It is the Department of Justice;
    it is not the Department of Anti-Crime. And we're really proud
    of them.
        Mr. Attorney General, we want you to know we really salute
    the 112,000 employees who work for Justice--the 25,000 Federal
    agents, the roughly 18,000 prison guards and correctional
    staff, the 13,000 prosecutors and investigators, and those
    wonderful support staff, you know the GS-5, -7s, and -9s that
    really keep the government going. While you and I might get the
    headlines, they make sure that they keep it all going.
        We know we've had an amazing year. The marshals have
    arrested over 11,000 fugitive sex offenders; the FBI has
    dismantled 421 criminal enterprises; the DEA, 3400 drug-
    trafficking organizations out of business and charged; and the
    U.S. Attorneys with charging over 83,000 defendants in criminal
    court--all that while facing sequester and slam-down government
    shutdown.
        So, just imagine, now, what you can do with certainty in
    funding. Under the Murray-Ryan budget, we have canceled
    sequester for 2014 and for 2015. We have our top line. So, we
    now want to really take a look at what your requests are.
        And my goals for the hearing are three priorities:
    community security, in terms of State and local, of course
    national security; oversight and accountability, in terms of
    spending dollars wisely; and to uphold the rule of law, protect
    civil liberties and communities.
        There is a request in here for $2.2 billion for State and
    local government that puts cops on the beat, puts away child
    abusers, processes rape kits, all of those things at the local
    level, and we will be getting your views and insights about how
    those partnerships are working and what, through the funding
    process, we can actually strengthen them to get better results
    and better enforcement. We also want to know that that thin
    blue line in the local community that protects us, like our
    local police officers, have the equipment that they need.

                               BUREAU OF PRISONS

        We also want to take a look at the issues related to our
    prisons. We know that you are leading a review on appropriate
    sentencing and how we can reduce the prison population without
    increasing risk to our communities. And you've looked at
    everything from compassionate parole for those prisoners that
    are now in their 70s and 80s to other creative things. We'd
    like to hear about that, but we also want to talk about what it
    is that we need to fund our prisons, and we need to make sure
    that we keep our prison guards safe.
        We met with the family and other correction officers
    related to Eric Williams, who was one of our prison guards
    murdered in a Federal penitentiary in Pennsylvania. It was just
    wrenching to hear what they do. They have ideas that they need
    for training, what they need to carry in the prisons, how they
    have to keep themselves safe with increasing violent criminals
    and increasingly mentally ill prisoners. So, we'd like to hear
    your thoughts on that.

                            BOSTON MARATHON BOMBING

        About this time last year, we were all gripped with the
    Boston Marathon. It really showed us how important national
    security is, that national security isn't in the Crimea or in
    the Middle East or in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was in the
    streets at the Boston Marathon. We had Marylanders injured. One
    our really beloved preschool teachers lost her leg there,
    cheering her mother on. They're back in Boston, and she's back
    on her feet. But, we want to make sure that never happens
    again. And we'd like your views on what we can do, in terms of
    national security.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        The other threat is cyber security. Mr. Attorney General, I
    hope you could join with us in drawing the distinction between
    cyber security and surveillance. As you know, a lot of people
    are spooked because of the Snowden revelations. And they talk
    about 2/15. I will tell you, my constituents are spooked by
    cyber security. If you go into a Target, and you go into a
    Michael's, the famous crafts store--some even go into Nieman
    Marcus--but, most of all, most of America is in places like
    Target, and the cybersecurity breach has been phenomenal. The
    cybersecurity breach now at universities, my own University of
    Maryland, Hopkins, they, themselves, that are really prime-time
    schools, now are hacking, stealing identities, stealing
    everything. So, from stealing our trade secrets to the kind of
    thing that's going on, we need to know, what do we need to do
    and what are the resources in cyber security?
        Every day, we count on the Justice Department to fulfill
    its mission and to protect our lives and protect our way of
    life, and to protect our Constitution. We need to hear from you
    what is the right funding that we need to make sure we do
    justice to the Justice Department.
        I now turn to my Vice Chairman, Senator Shelby, a very
    strong advocate of--in national security and also in supporting
    our local law enforcement. And we're particularly appreciative
    of his efforts in behalf of women and children.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome to the committee, again, Attorney General Holder.
        Today, we will hear from Attorney General Holder about the
    Department of Justice's 2015 budget request. Michael Horowitz,
    the Department's Inspector General--as the Chairperson has
    already said, will testify about his work and the difficulties
    he has encountered in executing his oversight responsibility.
    Today, I welcome you both.

                            FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET

        The 2015 budget request for the Department of Justice
    totals $27.4 billion. I'm concerned that, while the
    Department's 2015 budget purports to recognize the multifaceted
    nature of the Department's work, it fails to truly prioritize
    anything but the administration's pet projects. Programs such
    as Smart on Crime, Now is the Time, and nearly 12 new grant
    programs, I believe take center stage. Meanwhile, law
    enforcement and national security priorities, the main mission,
    central mission, of the Department, I believe take a backseat.
    This approach is evident in the indiscriminate cuts required of
    nearly every component within the Department of Justice.
        The 2015 budget requires cuts totaling more than $500
    million. These cuts are characterized as miscellaneous program
    and administrative reductions, and will be identified once
    funds are appropriated. In short, it is the Department's own
    version, I believe, of an arbitrary sequester.
        Mr. Attorney General, Congress made a conscious decision to
    return to regular order, in part to put a stop, as you know, to
    indiscriminate cuts that your budget requires. A budget
    proposal that uses smoke and mirrors does not provide a stable
    foundation to safeguard national security, reduce violent
    crime, prosecute criminals, or support our State and local
    partners. It calls into question the Department's commitment to
    these requirements.
        I do not support the approach this budget has taken, and I
    look forward to working with you, Madam Chair, to ensure that
    Department of Justice is appropriately funded to carry out its
    central, its important, missions.

                               INSPECTOR GENERAL

        I also want to touch briefly on a topic of concern that the
    Chairperson has already mentioned and that directly impacts the
    Inspector General's ability to conduct much-needed oversight of
    the Department of Justice.
        Since arriving in 2012, Mr. Horowitz has worked diligently
    to investigate a myriad of trouble spots. Throughout the course
    of these investigations, however, the Inspector General
    encountered significant roadblocks. Specifically, he has not
    been provided unfettered access to materials essential to
    ongoing investigations and audits, unless the Attorney General
    approves that.
        Think about that. This is the Inspector General. You should
    provide him the material to see what's going on in your
    Department, good and bad.
        I strongly believe that the work of the Inspector General
    is essential to well-functioning government agency. They are
    independent and should not be encumbered by individuals in
    positions of power, even the Attorney General of the United
    States.
        Mr. Attorney General, yesterday the Chair and I sent you a
    letter on this matter. We expect that you will move swiftly to
    address our questions and resolve this controversy. But,
    without an independent Office of Inspector General that can
    truly carry out its oversight responsibilities, I'm concerned
    that the honesty and the integrity of the whole Department
    could be called into question. And that's something none of us
    want.
        Madam Chair, I thank you for your time, and I look forward
    to hearing more from the Attorney General and also the
    Inspector General.
        Thank you.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Collins, did you want to say
    anything, or do you want to go right to the testimony?
        Senator Collins. Madam Chair----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. You're welcome to do what you choose.
        Senator Collins [continuing]. Thank you very much.
        First of all, I want to welcome the Attorney General to the
    subcommittee today which has such great leadership on both
    sides of the aisle.
        I'm going to be directing my questions to you today on
    several topics. One has to do with our broken asylum-granting
    system, which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction with
    the Department of Homeland Security over. Another is the
    testing of the boundaries of executive power by this
    administration; in particular, the aggressive position the
    administration has taken with regard to the President's
    enforcement discretion. And third, I hope that--if you don't do
    so in your testimony, I will be asking you for an update on the
    Department of Justice's activities to bring to justice the
    attackers in the Benghazi case.
        So, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

        Attorney General Holder. Well, good morning, and thank you,
    Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, Senator Collins,
    Senator Kirk, other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2015 budget for
    the Justice Department and to provide an overview of the
    Department's recent achievements and ongoing priorities.
        Now, as we convene this morning, I know that we're all
    mindful of yesterday's mass shooting at Fort Hood. I am being
    regularly briefed on the situation, and I have directed that
    the full resources of the Department of Justice, and, in
    particular, the FBI, be made available to ensure the security
    of everyone on that base. We will work with local officials and
    the Department of Defense to provide assistance to those who
    need it and to help conduct a full and thorough Federal
    investigation.
        As this investigation unfolds and as we work to determine
    exactly what happened, and why, my thoughts and prayers will be
    with all those whose lives have been impacted by this terrible
    tragedy, and with the entire Fort Hood community, which has
    displayed such extraordinary strength and resilience since the
    horrific events of nearly 5 years ago.
        As President Obama said yesterday, it is heartbreaking that
    something like this has happened again. And we owe it to all of
    our men and women in uniform, and also to their families, to
    see that justice is done, to ensure that they are safe here at
    home, and to do everything in our power to prevent these too
    common tragedies from happening again.
        My colleagues and I are firmly committed to doing just
    that, and we are determined to continue building upon the
    exceptional work, I think, that the Justice Department
    employees have performed over the past year. Going forward,
    your support will enable us to build on the results that my
    colleagues have obtained, and to perform the vital mission with
    which we are entrusted.
        Many of our accomplishments over the past year are notable,
    and even historic, but none have been more important than our
    ongoing work to protect the American people from terrorism and
    other threats to our national security. Just last week, the
    Department achieved a major milestone when we secured the
    conviction of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the son-in-law of Osama bin
    Laden and a senior member of al-Qaeda, on terrorism-related
    charges. This verdict has proven that proceedings such as these
    can safely occur in the city that I am proud to call home, as
    in other locations across our great Nation. It was appropriate
    that this defendant, who very publicly rejoiced over the
    attacks on the World Trade Center, faced trial in the shadow of
    where those buildings once stood. We never doubted the ability
    of our Article III court system to administer justice swiftly
    in this case, as it has in hundreds of other cases involving
    terrorism defendants. And this outcome vindicates, I believe,
    the government's approach to securing convictions of senior al-
    Qaeda leaders. It would be a good thing, I believe, for the
    country if this case has the result of putting that political
    debate to rest.
        The President's budget request would strengthen our
    national security work by investing a total of $4 billion in
    the Department's cutting-edge counterterrorism and national
    security programs, including 1.5 million to maintain and
    operate the FBI's new Terrorism Explosive Device Analytic
    Center facility in Alabama. The fiscal year budget also would
    invest in other key priorities, providing $273 million to
    bolster the Department's vigorous enforcement of Federal civil
    rights laws, including $8 million in new resources. It would
    also allocate $1.1 billion to support the administration's work
    to reduce gun violence. It would enhance the Department's
    ability to combat heinous crimes, like human- and sex-
    trafficking, as well. And it would provide $173 million to
    support our efforts to strengthen the Federal criminal justice
    system as a whole through the groundbreaking Smart on Crime
    initiative that was announced last August.
        Now, this initiative comprises a range of targeted
    commonsense reforms, including modification to the Department's
    charging policies with regard to mandatory minimum sentences
    for certain nonviolent, low-level drug crimes, along with a
    renewed focus on evidence-based diversion, rehabilitation, and
    reentry programs. The fiscal year 2015 budget would sustain
    investments in the Bureau of Prisons reentry programs,
    including the Residential Drug Abuse Program, residential
    reentry centers, and reentry-specific education programs. These
    and other proven programs will help to make our criminal
    justice system not only more effective, but also, by freeing up
    resources for police and prosecutors as well as other vital law
    enforcement priorities, make our system significantly more
    efficient. And this, in turn, would enable us to further invest
    in the outstanding work that's performed every day by dedicated
    attorneys and support staff in each of the Department's
    litigating divisions and United States Attorneys' offices.

              CIVIL AND CRIMINAL FINES, PENALTIES, AND SETTLEMENT

        Thanks to their efforts during the fiscal year ending in
    2013, the Justice Department collected a total of more than $8
    billion in civil and criminal fines and penalties. And this
    represents more than double the approximately $3 billion in
    direct appropriations that pay for our 94 U.S. Attorneys'
    offices and main litigating divisions.
        During fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, the
    Department collected a combined total of more than $21 billion,
    a record amount for a 2-year span, and we've obtained a series
    of historic resolutions and taken other significant actions to
    ensure that we're serving as sound stewards of taxpayer dollars
    and protecting American consumers from fraud and other
    financial crimes.
        Last November, the Justice Department secured a $13 billion
    settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Company, the largest
    settlement with a single entity in the history of the United
    States, to resolve Federal and State civil claims related to
    the company's mortgage securitization processes.
        As part of our ongoing efforts to hold accountable those
    whose conduct sowed the seeds of the mortgage crisis, the
    Department also filed a lawsuit against the ratings firm S&P;
    and, with a $1.2 billion agreement that we reached with Toyota
    just last month, again the largest criminal penalty ever
    imposed on an automotive company, we're making good on our
    determination to protect consumers and to address fraud in all
    of its forms.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I'm very eager to work with this subcommittee and with the
    entire Congress to build on these and other successes and to
    secure the timely passage of the President's budget request,
    which provides a total of $27.4 billion in discretionary
    resources for the Department of Justice, including $25.3
    billion for vital Federal programs and $2.1 billion for State,
    local, and tribal assistance programs, as well. This level of
    support will be essential to ensuring that we can continue to
    protect the American people and take important actions to
    strengthen our criminal justice system.
        I want to thank you once again for this opportunity to
    discuss this work with you today, and I'd be happy to answer
    any questions that you might have.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
        Good morning, Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and other
    distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to highlight the President's
    fiscal year 2015 budget for the U.S. Department of Justice--and to
    discuss the Department's recent achievements and future priorities. I
    would also like to thank you for your leadership in securing the
    passage of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2014,
    which restores Justice Department funding to pre-sequestration levels--
    and even adds funding for key priorities.
        In February, as a result of the fiscal year 2014 appropriation, I
    was able to lift the Department-wide hiring freeze that had been in
    place for over 3 years, and had resulted in the loss of over 4,000
    employees. We are now able to fill critical vacancies and resume the
    normal hiring process for Federal agents, prosecutors, analysts and
    other staff we need to fulfill our varied missions, including:
    protecting the American people from terrorism and other national
    security threats; combating violent crime; eradicating financial fraud;
    and safeguarding the most vulnerable members of society.
        Across the board, I'm extremely proud of the exceptional work that
    Justice Department employees perform on a daily basis, despite
    escalating threats and challenges. They are a credit to the Department,
    to our Nation, and to the American people we are privileged to serve.
    Like you, I am committed to securing the resources and support the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) employees need to carry out their important
    duties--and to keep advancing the cause of justice that remains our
    common pursuit.
        The resources provided this fiscal year will help us carry out our
    critical law enforcement responsibilities and enhance public safety.
    The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request builds on the funds
    provided in fiscal year 2014 that are vital to thwarting sophisticated
    adversaries, protecting our citizens from gun violence and other types
    of crime, and maintaining safe and secure operations throughout the
    Federal correctional system.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $27.4 billion in
    discretionary resources for the Department, including $25.3 billion for
    Federal programs and $2.1 billion for discretionary State, local, and
    tribal assistance programs. This represents a 0.4 percent increase over
    the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and allows the Department to
    continue its trajectory towards fiscal and operational health. More
    specifically, the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request:

      --Invests in criminal justice reform. The budget invests $173 million
            in my ``Smart on Crime'' initiative, which is designed to
            promote reforms to the criminal justice system that will
            improve public safety, save money, and ensure the fair and
            effective enforcement of Federal laws.
      --Invests in Federal civil rights enforcement. To help meet the
            Nation's civil rights challenges, the fiscal year 2015 budget
            invests a total of $273 million, including $8 million in new
            resources, to support the Department's enforcement of Federal
            civil rights laws, including laws on human trafficking, hate
            crimes, disability rights, and many others.
      --Maintains critical counterterrorism and counterespionage programs,
            as well as intelligence gathering and surveillance
            capabilities. The budget invests a total of $4 billion to
            sustain recent increases that support national security
            investigations, including an enhancement of $15 million to fund
            the costs of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) new
            Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center--or TEDAC--at
            Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.
      --Supports the administration's initiative to reduce gun violence.
            The budget invests a total of $1.1 billion in Federal and grant
            programs in support of the President's ``Now is the Time''
            initiative, which includes $182 million to sustain investments
            provided in fiscal year 2014. These resources will help ensure
            that those who are not eligible to purchase or possess guns are
            prevented from doing so. In addition, the request delivers
            grant funding to continue the Comprehensive School Safety
            Program, to encourage the development of innovative gun safety
            technology, and to provide training for active shooter
            situations.
      --Enhances efforts to combat and keep pace with increasingly
            sophisticated and rapidly evolving cyber threats. Cybercrimes
            are becoming more common, more sophisticated, and more
            dangerous. The President's budget invests a total of $722
            million, including $8 million in enhancements to Federal
            programs and grants, to address computer intrusions and
            cybercrimes and defend the security of the Department's
            critical information networks.
      --Substantially improves the ability to provide legal assistance to
            foreign law enforcement partners. In order to better assist
            foreign government partners with investigating and prosecuting
            criminals, the budget invests an additional $24 million to
            reduce the current backlog of Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
            requests, to process requests in a matter of weeks, and to cut
            overall response times in half by the end of 2015.
      --Sustains financial fraud law enforcement efforts. The budget
            invests a total of $681 million in the Department's ongoing
            efforts to investigate and prosecute mortgage fraud and
            financial schemes that harm the American people and our
            financial markets.
      --Strengthens enforcement of immigration laws and addresses the
            immigration case backlog. To help increase efficiency in the
            immigration courts, the budget requests enhancements of $23
            million in order to add 35 new Immigration Judge Teams and 15
            new Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys and to expand the
            successful Legal Orientation Program as well as a pilot program
            to implement additional efficiencies in the immigration program
            overall.
      --Maintains safe and secure prison capacity. The budget provides $8.5
            billion to maintain secure, controlled Federal prison and
            detention facilities and to continue bringing newly completed
            or acquired prisons on-line in order to protect public safety
            by alleviating prison crowding. Further, the budget includes
            resources to support implementation of the Prison Rape
            Elimination Act in Federal, State, and local prisons and jails,
            and to help inmates successfully transition back into their
            communities.
      --Enhances State, local, and tribal law enforcement programs. In
            total, the fiscal year 2015 budget requests $3 billion in
            mandatory and discretionary funds for State, local and tribal
            law enforcement assistance. These funds will allow the
            Department to continue to support our State, local and tribal
            partners who fight violent crime, combat violence against
            women, and support victim assistance programs. The fiscal year
            2015 request will bolster the Department's efforts to ensure
            that Federal grant funding flows to evidence-based purposes and
            helps to advance knowledge of what works in State and local
            criminal justice systems.

        In addition, the fiscal year 2015 budget proposes additional
    discretionary investments as part of the Administration's Opportunity,
    Growth and Security Initiative. This initiative targets investments for
    State and local assistance grants, such as the Comprehensive School
    Safety Program and a new youth investment program; resources to speed
    up the process of bringing online newly completed or acquired prisons;
    and funding for the investigation and prosecution of the full spectrum
    of financial fraud.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget recognizes the multi-faceted nature of
    the Department's work and outlines spending priorities for critical
    mission areas. We must continue to grow both tougher and smarter on
    crime. This budget builds on the great work being done by the dedicated
    employees of the Department across the country and around the world to
    reduce violent crime and reform our criminal justice system.
                           becoming smarter on crime
        Just over 1 year ago, at my direction, the Justice Department
    launched a targeted review of the criminal justice system in order to
    identify reforms that would ensure Federal laws are enforced fairly and
    efficiently. In 2013, as part of this review, the Department studied
    all phases of the criminal justice system, including charging,
    sentencing, incarceration and reentry, to identify the practices that
    are successful at deterring crime and protecting the public.
        Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality, and incarceration
    traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. While we
    will continue to aggressively enforce Federal criminal statutes, we
    recognize that we cannot arrest and incarcerate our way to becoming a
    safer nation. To be effective, Federal efforts must also focus on other
    critical aspects of criminal justice, including prevention and reentry.
        With that in mind, the budget requests $173 million in support of
    the Department's efforts to promote alternatives to incarceration for
    people convicted of low-level, non-violent drug offenses, and invests
    in reentry programs in order to reduce recidivism among formerly
    incarcerated individuals. Each dollar spent on prevention and reentry
    at the Federal, State and local levels has the potential to save far
    more in incarceration costs.
              safeguarding the most vulnerable members of society
        Last month, I had the privilege of attending a celebration
    commemorating the upcoming 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of
    1964 alongside many esteemed jurists, public servants and public safety
    officials. In the years that followed adoption of this landmark
    legislation, this struggle--to secure what President Johnson once
    called the ``dignity of man and the destiny of democracy''--would lead
    to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and a range of other
    reforms, both large and small. Together, these changes altered the
    course of the 20th century. Moreover, they led the Department of
    Justice to take an active role in defending the civil rights to which
    everyone in this country is entitled--work that remains among our top
    priorities today.
        Since 2009, the Civil Rights Division has filed more criminal civil
    rights cases than at any other time in our history, including record
    numbers of police misconduct and human trafficking cases. Under the
    leadership of our Civil Rights Division and our Community Relations
    Service (CRS), we are using important tools like the Matthew Shepard
    and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to prevent and respond to
    hate crimes on behalf of those who are victimized because of who they
    are, what they look like, or who they love. Under the leadership of the
    Civil Division, we are working diligently with our Federal agency
    partners to implement the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v.
    Windsor to make real the promise of equal protection under the law for
    all American families--and to extend applicable Federal benefits to all
    married same-sex couples. And we are vigorously enforcing Federal
    voting protections to help ensure that every eligible American has
    access to the franchise.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget will support the Department's
    appropriately aggressive enforcement of Federal civil rights laws in
    all of these areas, in addition to fair housing, fair lending, and
    disability rights, among many others. In total, the request seeks $273
    million to help meet the Nation's civil rights challenges, including an
    additional $8 million in program increases for the Civil Rights
    Division and CRS.
       protecting the american people from terrorism and other national
                                security threats
        As I have said many times before, the Department's top priority
    must always be the protection of the American people from terrorism and
    other national security threats. The fiscal year 2015 budget provides a
    total of $4 billion in direct funding to maintain critical
    counterterrorism, counterespionage, intelligence collection, and
    national security oversight programs. In addition, the budget sustains
    recent increases that support national security investigations. The
    fiscal year 2015 budget also requests a $15 million program increase to
    fund the cost of operations and maintenance of the FBI's new TEDAC
    facility at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, which will become
    operational in late 2014. TEDAC provides direct support to U.S.
    Government efforts to prevent and mitigate improvised explosive device
    attacks both in the United States and abroad, and has already provided
    critical assistance to domestic and international cases, including last
    year's Boston Marathon bombing.
        The FBI uses intelligence and investigations to combat national
    security threats and protect and defend the United States against
    terrorism and foreign intelligence threats. In fiscal year 2013, the
    FBI dedicated approximately 4,500 agents to investigating more than
    18,000 national security cases.
        The National Security Division (NSD) is responsible for overseeing
    terrorism investigations and prosecutions; handling counterespionage
    cases and matters; and assisting the Attorney General and other senior
    department and executive branch officials in ensuring that the national
    security-related investigations and activities of the United States are
    consistent with the Nation's laws and regulations, including those that
    protect privacy interests and civil liberties. In coordination with the
    FBI, the Intelligence Community, and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, NSD's
    primary operational functions are to prevent acts of terrorism and
    espionage inside the United States and to facilitate the collection of
    information regarding the activities of foreign powers and their
    agents.
        The Department has had many noteworthy successes on the national
    security front. We have continued to: strengthen key intelligence-
    gathering capabilities; refine our ability to identify and disrupt
    potential terrorist plots; and ensure that those charged with
    terrorism-related offenses are held accountable to the fullest extent
    of the law. From the recently-unsealed guilty plea of Ahmed Abdulkadir
    Warsame, a former senior al-Shabaab commander and emissary to al-Qaeda
    in the Arabian Peninsula, on charges of terrorism, to the extraordinary
    and highly-coordinated FBI-led response to last year's Boston Marathon
    bombing, the Department and its law enforcement allies have
    relentlessly worked to secure the American homeland and bring those who
    would harm our people to justice. In fact, just last week, the
    Department achieved a major milestone when we secured the conviction of
    Sulaiman Abu Ghayth, the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden and a senior
    member of al Qaeda, on terrorism-related charges.
        This verdict has proven that proceedings such as these can safely
    occur in the city I am proud to call home, as in other locations across
    our great Nation. It was appropriate that this defendant, who publicly
    rejoiced over the attacks on the World Trade Center, faced trial in the
    shadow of where those buildings once stood. We never doubted the
    ability of our Article III court system to administer justice swiftly
    in this case, as it has in hundreds of other cases involving terrorism
    defendants--and this outcome vindicates the Government's approach to
    securing convictions of senior al Qaeda leaders. It would be a good
    thing for the country if this case has the result of putting that
    political debate to rest.
        In addition to its national security work, the Department has
    successfully executed ground-breaking counterintelligence operations to
    safeguard sensitive U.S. military and strategic technologies and keep
    them from falling into the wrong hands. In February, Robert Patrick
    Hoffman II, a cryptologic technician with the Navy, was sentenced to 30
    years in prison for attempting to commit espionage on behalf of the
    Russian Federation against the United States. Working aboard or in
    conjunction with U.S. submarines for much of his naval career, Hoffman
    held security clearances and regularly received access to classified
    national defense information about U.S. submarines and their
    capabilities, and about adversaries, specific missions, and U.S.
    military and naval intelligence. Hoffman supplied to undercover FBI
    agents, among other things, national defense information classified at
    the levels of Secret and Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented
    Information. By attempting to hand over some of America's most closely
    held military secrets, Hoffman put U.S. servicemembers and this country
    at risk.
        National security threats are constantly evolving, requiring
    significant resources to adapt to those threats. However, as President
    Obama noted in a speech at the Justice Department earlier this year, it
    is imperative that we continue working to protect our national security
    while upholding the civil liberties we all hold dear. In January, we
    and our partners in the Intelligence Community took a significant step
    toward fulfilling the President's commitment to greater transparency by
    permitting communications providers to disclose more information than
    ever before about the number of national security orders and requests
    they receive and the number of customer accounts targeted under those
    orders and requests. And as we move forward with the timely
    implementation of other reforms, my colleagues and I remain committed
    to working closely with Congress to implement the President's
    transparency directives and determine the best path forward for these
    programs.
       improving our ability to implement and enforce gun safety measures
        Gun violence has touched every State and locality in America, and
    addressing this epidemic remains a high priority for the Department. In
    2013, following the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings, the
    administration proposed a range of legislative remedies to address mass
    shootings and reduce gun violence. The Department is working to
    implement a number of these actions and requests a total of $1.1
    billion in fiscal year 2015 to address violent gun crimes.
        Of the total, $1 billion in Federal law enforcement resources will
    allow the Department to ensure that those who are not eligible to
    purchase or possess guns are prevented from doing so. Within this
    amount, $182 million is included for the President's ``Now is the
    Time'' initiative to support additional background checks, allow for
    continued focus on inspections of federally-licensed firearms dealers,
    improve tracing and ballistics analysis, and keep guns out of the hands
    of dangerous criminals and other prohibited persons. The Department
    also has been working to strengthen the national background check
    system. For example, in January 2014, the Department proposed a rule to
    clarify the definition of persons prohibited for mental health reasons
    from receiving, possessing, shipping, or transporting firearms.
    Further, an additional $13 million is provided to the FBI to sustain
    the substantial investment made in the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System (NICS) in fiscal year 2014.
        The Department is also taking a hard look at our Federal laws and
    our enforcement priorities to ensure that we are doing everything
    possible at the Federal level to keep firearms away from drug
    traffickers and other criminals. To support the enforcement of Federal
    laws, the Department is requesting an additional $22 million for the
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which will
    allow ATF to sustain the firearms enforcement and inspection efforts
    funded in fiscal year 2014.
        The budget also requests $147 million to help State and local
    governments continue to implement the administration's proposals for
    increasing firearms safety and supporting programs that help keep
    communities safe from mass casualty violence. In addition to the FBI's
    role with the Federal side of NICS, the Department is working to
    strengthen national background checks by addressing gaps in the State
    records currently available in NICS. Incomplete or insufficient records
    significantly hinder the ability of NICS to quickly confirm whether a
    prospective purchaser is prohibited from acquiring a firearm. In fiscal
    year 2015, the Department requests a total of $55 million in grant
    funding to further assist States in making more records available in
    NICS and enhancing the National Criminal History Improvement Program.
        Beyond keeping guns out of the wrong hands, we also want to help
    those on the ground prevent and mitigate violent situations when they
    do occur. To this end, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), with the
    support of the FBI, will be providing a specialized training course for
    active shooter situations for law enforcement officers, first
    responders, and school officials. The Department is requesting a total
    of $15 million to support this training and other officer safety
    initiatives. In addition, the Department is requesting $75 million in
    grant funding for the Comprehensive School Safety Program, which was
    funded for the first time in fiscal year 2014. Finally, the budget
    includes $2 million for OJP to support the administration's challenge
    to the private sector to develop innovative and cost-effective gun
    safety technology. The funding for this initiative will provide prizes
    for those technologies that are proven to be reliable and effective.
     investigating cybercrime and protecting our nation's critical networks
        Like other national security threats, cyber threats are constantly
    evolving and require a coordinated and comprehensive plan for
    protection and response. The Department has a unique and critical role
    in cyber security that emphasizes domestic mitigation of threat actors
    and involves countering the threat by investigating and prosecuting
    intrusion cases, gathering intelligence in support of nation state
    attribution, and providing legal and policy support to other agencies.
    The Department is also responsible for establishing effective internal
    network defense and serving as a model for other departments and
    agencies.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget provides a total of $722 million for
    cyber enforcement and maintains recent increases for NSD's
    prosecutorial efforts and the FBI's Next Generation Cyber Initiative,
    which has enhanced capabilities to combat cyber threats from
    individuals, organized groups and rogue actors. The request also
    includes an increase of $3 million for the Criminal Division to
    strengthen its investigative and prosecutorial capabilities, and $5
    million to provide grants related to cybercrime and intellectual
    property enforcement.
        The Department is committed to carrying out its cyber security
    role, emphasizing intelligence and information sharing as well as the
    preservation of privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties. The
    administration is working to improve Government mechanisms for
    providing timely cyber threat information to the private sector so it
    can better protect and defend itself against cyber threats. Pursuant to
    an Executive Order on Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,
    each Federal department and agency is also required to develop and
    implement privacy and civil liberties safeguards in concert with its
    cyber security activities.
        And although we work tirelessly to bring cyber criminals to
    justice, we need additional tools to strengthen the Justice
    Department's ability to combat crime and ensure individual privacy.
    I've recently called on Congress to create a strong national standard
    for quickly alerting consumers whose personal identifying information
    may be compromised. This would empower the American people to protect
    themselves if they are at risk of identity theft. It would enable law
    enforcement to better investigate these crimes. And it would hold
    compromised entities accountable when they fail to keep sensitive
    information safe. I hope I can count on your support.
         improving collaboration with foreign law enforcement partners
        Criminal activity transcends national boundaries, requiring the
    United States and its foreign partners to cooperate in the provision of
    evidence and the extradition of persons. Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
    (MLAT) requests are the formal way in which countries request
    assistance in obtaining evidence located in a foreign country for
    criminal investigations and proceedings located in another country.
    However, delays and difficulties in obtaining evidence, especially
    Internet records, through the MLAT process are increasingly becoming a
    source of frustration for many of our foreign partners.
        Continued delays in producing this type of information to our
    foreign counterparts could reduce their compliance with U.S.-initiated
    MLAT requests and their cooperation with U.S. law enforcement agencies,
    thus hampering our ability to investigate crime and prosecute
    criminals. In his January speech on the review of signals intelligence,
    the President stated that he ``will devote the resources to centralize
    and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal
    assistance, keeping our high standards for privacy while helping
    foreign partners fight crime and terrorism.'' Pursuant to the
    President's commitment, the Department is leading an interagency effort
    to update, improve, and accelerate the handling of requests from
    foreign governments for evidence requested pursuant to MLATs.
        Over the past decade, the number of requests for assistance from
    foreign authorities handled by the Criminal Division's Office of
    International Affairs has increased nearly 60 percent, and the number
    of requests for computer records has increased 10-fold. While the
    workload has increased dramatically, our ability to handle them has not
    kept pace. The Department's fiscal year 2015 budget requests a total of
    $44 million, including an increase of $24 million for the Criminal
    Division, the FBI and U.S. Attorneys, for the Department to
    significantly expand the number of personnel dedicated to reviewing and
    executing MLAT requests, and for technological enhancements to improve
    the way requests are analyzed, categorized, and prioritized. With these
    additional resources, the Department will implement a robust
    centralized processing system, reduce backlog, cut its response time by
    half by the end of 2015, and respond to legally sufficient requests in
    a matter of weeks. Additionally, the resources will support training
    efforts for foreign partners to ensure they can meet U.S. evidentiary
    standards, which will enable the Department to respond to their
    requests more quickly.
        This MLAT reform effort involves collaboration among the
    Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce. Funds identified in the
    fiscal year 2015 President's budget for improvements to the MLAT
    program will be coordinated across these departments and agencies as
    well as the commercial sector.
                    prosecuting financial and mortgage fraud
        Protecting consumers, investors, and our financial markets from
    fraud is one of the Department's top priorities. The budget maintains
    support to investigate and prosecute financial and mortgage fraud,
    providing a total of $681 million for financial fraud enforcement. It
    also continues efforts to strengthen the Department's ability to pursue
    large-scale financial fraud.
        Fraud harms the American people and has the potential to undermine
    our financial markets, and fraudulent misconduct may have contributed
    to the worst economic crisis in recent history. With its criminal and
    civil enforcement tools, the Department plays a crucial role in
    achieving justice for those who have been victimized. Fraud cases are
    complex matters that can take years to investigate and prosecute. Last
    year, as part of our ongoing effort to hold accountable those whose
    conduct sowed the seeds of the mortgage crisis, the Department filed
    lawsuits against Bank of America and the ratings firm Standard &
    Poor's. Since 2009, we have filed criminal charges against more than
    46,000 white-collar defendants, more than half of whom are financial
    fraud defendants. And in November, the Department reached a $13 billion
    settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co.--the largest settlement with any
    single entity in American history--to resolve Federal and State civil
    claims related to the company's mortgage securitization process. These
    results demonstrate that no firm, no matter how profitable, is above
    the law--and the passage of time is no shield from accountability. They
    also reinforce our commitment to integrity and equal justice in every
    case, in every circumstance, and in every community.
     enforcing immigration laws and addressing the immigration case backlog
        The Department has substantial responsibilities with respect to
    immigration, including enforcement, detention, judicial functions,
    administrative hearings, and litigation. The Department's Executive
    Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) maintains a nationwide presence,
    overseeing the immigration court and appeals processes, receiving cases
    directly from Department of Homeland Security enforcement personnel.
    EOIR's immigration court caseload is increasing to unsustainable
    levels. Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, the caseload
    pending adjudication grew by 56 percent--from 229,000 to 358,000.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes $23 million in new resources
    to support and advance EOIR's mission. Of this amount, $17 million is
    requested for EOIR to support 35 additional Immigration Judge Teams and
    15 additional Board of Immigration Appeals attorneys. An additional $3
    million is included to expand EOIR's Legal Orientation Program, which
    improves immigration court proceedings for those who are detained by
    increasing their awareness of their rights and the overall process.
    Another $3 million is requested to allow EOIR to continue the
    development and expansion of a pilot program that provides counsel to
    vulnerable populations, such as unaccompanied alien children, for which
    funding was provided in fiscal year 2014.
          maintaining safe and secure prison and detention facilities
        The Department continues to prioritize the maintenance of secure,
    controlled prison and detention facilities, as well as investment in
    programs that can reduce recidivism. Federal prisons are operating over
    30 percent above rated capacity. Spending on Federal prisons consumes a
    quarter of the Department's budget--an unsustainable figure that is
    nevertheless projected to continue to increase.
        As part of the ``Smart on Crime'' approach I announced last August,
    I directed a significant change to the Department's charging policies
    to ensure that people accused of certain low-level, non-violent Federal
    drug crimes receive sentences appropriate to their individual conduct--
    and that stringent mandatory minimum sentences are reserved for the
    most serious crimes. Alongside other important reforms, this change
    will make our criminal justice system not only fairer, but also more
    efficient, reducing the burden on our overcrowded prison system and
    freeing up resources for police and prosecutors and other vital law
    enforcement priorities.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes funding to support this
    initiative, providing $8.5 billion for prisons and detention, including
    $6.9 billion for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and $1.6 billion for
    Federal Prisoner Detention under the U.S. Marshals Service. Included in
    the total is $29 million to sustain the investments made in fiscal year
    2014 for BOP's reentry programs, including the Residential Drug Abuse
    Program, Residential Reentry Centers, and reentry-specific education
    programs. In all, the budget requests a total of $660 million for BOP's
    reentry-related activities. These resources provide critical
    opportunities for inmates to successfully transition back into their
    communities. Further, $32 million in program increases are requested
    for Federal detention to pay for increases in the average daily
    detainee population under the U.S. Marshals Service.
       investing in state, local and tribal assistance programs that work
        The Department continues to support its partnerships with State,
    local, and tribal law enforcement. The fiscal year 2015 budget
    maintains these commitments without cutting the Department's Federal
    operational role. Simultaneously, the budget identifies efficiencies to
    help ensure that Federal resources are being targeted to the most
    effective grant programs. The fiscal year 2015 request for State,
    local, and tribal law enforcement assistance is $3 billion, including
    $2.1 billion for discretionary grants and $891 million for mandatory
    grants.
        The Department is requesting $1.5 billion for the Office of Justice
    Programs' discretionary grants. The request increases funding for an
    evaluation clearinghouse, an indigent defense initiative, and evidence-
    based competitive programs. This includes funding to establish the
    Byrne Incentive Grants and Juvenile Justice Realignment Incentive
    grants, which will provide supplementary awards to States and
    localities using formula grant funds for evidence-based purposes. The
    budget also requests funding to address school safety and gun violence
    with resources to improve criminal history records information and for
    the Comprehensive School Safety Program, which initially received
    funding in fiscal year 2014. In addition, the budget requests $33
    million to support the Department's Access to Justice Initiative
    efforts, including to assess and improve the quality of indigent
    defense services in the United States. Finally, the request includes
    $35 million for a new grant for communities to develop plans and
    identify the most critical needs to address sexual assault prevention,
    investigation, prosecution and services, including addressing untested
    sexual assault evidence kits at law enforcement agencies or backlogged
    crime labs.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes a total of $423 million for
    the Office on Violence Against Women, and continues the
    administration's strong commitment to providing Federal leadership in
    developing the Nation's capacity to combat sexual assault and violence
    against women. The request includes an increase of $9 million for Legal
    Assistance to Victims Programs, Campus Violence, Grants to Support
    Families in the Justice System, and the Transitional Housing program.
    These programs fund proven and innovative interventions to save lives,
    hold abusers accountable, and rebuild families and communities. As a
    result of prior investments in this area, civil and criminal justice
    systems are more responsive to victims, and crimes of violence
    committed against women have declined in recent years. Even so,
    reducing such violence and meeting the needs of the almost 1.3 million
    women victimized annually by rape and sexual assault, and the nearly
    seven million victims of intimate partner violence each year, remains a
    critical priority.
        Finally, the request includes $274 million for Community Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS), which supports a $71 million increase for
    COPS Hiring and Tribal Law Enforcement programs. These resources will
    fund the hiring or retention of approximately 1,300 police officers and
    sheriffs' deputies across the United States, thereby supporting the
    efforts of State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies in meeting
    the challenge of keeping their communities safe.
                                   conclusion
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to share the
    significant accomplishments of the Department over the past year, to
    highlight our ongoing priorities, and to discuss how the funding
    proposed in the fiscal year 2015 President's budget will help make the
    criminal justice system more effective and efficient.
        The Department recognizes the need for fiscal restraint, and we
    have focused our resources on priority initiatives. As evidenced by our
    national security and law enforcement achievements, and our continued
    ability to demonstrate a significant return on investment, we have
    proven our ability to target and respond to the Nation's highest
    priorities efficiently and effectively. I look forward to working with
    this subcommittee and with the entire Congress to build on these
    successes. And I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

        Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        We're going to follow a 5-minute time limit and try to get
    to as many people as we can. And if there's a chance, we will
    do a second round.

                                FEDERAL PRISONS

        So, let me get right to my question. Mr. Attorney General,
    one of the biggest areas, in terms of the Justice Department,
    is the funding of Federal prisons. And my question to you is--
    two--and we're concerned about two things--one, the adequacy of
    the funding; second, the protection of prison guards, looking
    back to that terrible death. And, number three, what is your
    plan? Because there are now 18,000 prison guards, doing a great
    job. We're very proud of our guards in the Cumberland
    facility--and the stress that they're under every day. But,
    you've got initiatives here. And now, the prison guard
    population is one-third of the Justice Department.
        So, we've got to keep the bad people off the street, but
    are we just loading up our Federal prisons, and are there other
    ways where we protect America? It's almost impossible to keep
    up with this prison population demand. Could you give us your
    views on the resources needed and the policy directions you see
    going in?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I agree with you, Madam
    Chairwoman. We have to focus on looking at the intake, how many
    people we are bringing into our Federal prison system, and make
    sure that only those people who should be charged with Federal
    crimes are actually brought into the system. And so, that's one
    of the ways in which we can, I think, do a better job.
        The safety of the people who work at the Federal Bureau of
    Prisons, the people who are there in our system on a day-to-day
    basis, is what we must keep uppermost in our minds. Our budget
    request includes a total of $6.8 billion to maintain the
    enhancements provided in the 2014 budget and to support
    mandatory prison operations. And one of the things that we want
    to do, as well, is to prioritize the filling of staff positions
    so that we have adequate numbers of people in our prisons. That
    will not only mean that people are treated fairly, humanely in
    the system, it also keeps our employees safe. We have a renewed
    and good relationship with the union that represents our prison
    officers. And I think that, through the combination of the work
    that Director Samuels is doing, with the help of this
    committee, I think that we can keep our Bureau of Prisons
    adequately funded, and keep the people who work there safe.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, I met with prison--well, of
    course, I've been up to the Cumberland prison, but also with
    prison guards that were mates of--teammates, if you will, of
    Officer Williams, who died in Pennsylvania. They had--they,
    through the union, really had very specific things that they
    felt they could do to--that they needed to do to protect
    themselves. And I would encourage you to have ongoing and
    regular meetings with them, because it's almost like--it's not
    labor management negotiation, it's safety conversation on
    protecting them so they can protect us.

                                 HEROIN CRISIS

        In my time, I'm going to go to another question, and this
    goes to the heroin crisis. The heroin crisis is sweeping
    America. I'm now hearing it in my own State of Maryland, from
    county executives, cops on the beat, and so on. Heroin is
    selling in Baltimore today for $6 a bag. You know, cheaper than
    buying a bag of kale at a gourmet grocery store kind of thing.
    The Governor of Vermont made it the focus of the State of the
    Union. Senator Leahy has spoken. Could you share with us, one,
    your view on this, and what are the resources needed at the
    Department of Justice level and how you would work with State
    and local law enforcement on dealing with this, really, new
    epidemic that is both criminal and public health?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I first started to hear
    about the resurgence of the use of heroin about 3 years or so
    ago as I was going around the country to various U.S.
    Attorneys' offices, and was struck by the fact that I was
    hearing about heroin. This was something that I had consigned,
    in my own mind, to a problem that existed in the 1960s. But,
    there is no question that over the course of these last few
    years this has become a national problem. It's not a regional
    problem, it's not a State problem; this is something that is
    national in significance.
        What we need to do is have a balanced approach to dealing
    with this issue. We need to have a strong enforcement component
    to it. Our Drug Enforcement Administration takes the lead in
    that regard. We've recovered record amounts of heroin coming
    from the Mexican cartels into the United States. But now, this,
    I think, is important--we need to focus on the public health
    component as well, and work with our partners at HHS and at
    CDC, to come up with ways in which we can educate people about
    the issues that surround heroin use, and also the connected
    problem of prescription drug abuse, the use of opioids, and how
    that leads to the use of heroin.
        This is all part of a problem that will require, I think,
    more than simply the Justice Department to really get at it,
    though I think we have to be in the lead, given our enforcement
    responsibilities that we take very seriously.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. My--thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General--my time is up. I'm going to turn to Vice Chairman
    Shelby.
        But, I think we cannot underestimate that this heroin
    matter is a new epidemic. And if we were hit by an infectious
    disease or a new kind of flu, we'd have Fauci, from NIH, and
    Francis Collins, and Sebelius on the edge of her chair, and
    Arne Duncan worrying about children in school needing
    vaccinations. I think we've got to go to the edge of our chair
    here.
        This is prescription drugs, this is prescription drug
    addiction that's then leading to people buying heroin because
    it's easier to get. We've got suburban people driving into
    Baltimore looking into heroin markets that were featured in
    some of those awful movies about us. I mean, we are really
    concerned about what this is, and it's--and I think, if we
    marshal the resources of the Federal Government, working with
    the American Medical Association, doctors in the community, et
    cetera, we can deal with this. This is not only crime, it is
    public health.
        And can I count on you to take the lead in this?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, I will. And I will engage
    with other members of the Cabinet. But, beyond that, to go
    beyond the Federal Government to try to enlist others who I
    think have an interest, and should have an interest, in this--
    as you've indicated, the American Medical Association and
    others--so that we can really get at this problem in a balanced
    way. This is simply not an enforcement problem, this is
    something we have to deal with as a public health issue as
    well.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Right.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.

                               DRUG-RELATED CRIME

        I just want to pick up on the Chairwoman's area, there.
    What percent of the people in Federal prison, roughly--and you
    might want to furnish the exact number, if you don't have it
    offhand--for the record--are in prison but related to drug
    abuse, drug use, drug sales, or connected to drugs?
        Attorney General Holder. Roughly 50 percent.
        Senator Shelby. Fifty percent.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. And in the State, I believe it's higher
    than that.
        Attorney General Holder. I think that's correct. In most
    States, I think that the number is probably higher.
        Senator Shelby. What is the rate of--not just drug
    related--what's the rate of recidivism, repeat offenders, in
    the prison--that go into the prison system and go back, you
    know, after a while?
        Attorney General Holder. Again, that'll vary from State to
    State. I think the Federal rate is----
        Senator Shelby. I'm speaking of the Federal. The Federal.
        Attorney General Holder. Okay. Federal rate is roughly, I
    think, around 35-40 percent.
        Senator Shelby. About a third, more or less----
        Attorney General Holder. Right. I think that's about right.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Of the people who go to prison
    come back.
        Attorney General Holder. Right.
        Senator Shelby. So, basically, our prison systems, State
    and Federal, are challenged, to say the least, are they not, on
    rehabilitating----
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. People, getting them back in
    society?
        Attorney General Holder. Absolutely.
        Senator Shelby. What percent of the Federal prison--of
    people in Federal prison are there connected in some way to
    violent crime, the people that we need to get off the streets,
    period?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't know----
        Senator Shelby. Can you furnish that for the record?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, we can certainly furnish that
    for the record----
        Senator Shelby. Do you have----
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. We have drug
    offenses, about 50 percent; weapons, explosives, arson, about
    5.4 percent. So----
        Senator Shelby. But, violent-related.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. People that you wouldn't want in your
    neighborhood or your school or around your children----
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. You know, period.
        Attorney General Holder. I can provide you with----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. A more precise
    number, Senator.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. What percentage of the Federal prison population is
    connected in some way to violent crime?
        Answer. Of the sentenced inmates in BOP custody, one third (33.8
    percent) are serving time for a violent offense, defined to include
    homicide, robbery, aggravated assault, sex offenses, weapons and
    explosives (68,486 out of 202,397). Half (49.5 percent) have a previous
    conviction for a violent offense (100,142 out of 202,397). Data as of
    August 30, 2014.

        Senator Shelby. Do you believe that a lot of our prisons
    are overcrowded, State and Federal?

                                FEDERAL PRISONS

        Attorney General Holder. Yes. If you look at the Federal
    prison system, we don't have enough beds for the people, and
    especially when you look at those people who we consider the
    most significant offenders. It's one of the reasons why we try
    to bring online more of our prisons.
        Senator Shelby. Do you believe it's the--when you make
    priorities, as a prosecutor, that you should look at violent
    crime and get people off the street, get them out of doing harm
    to other people in institutions first?
        Attorney General Holder. Sure. There are a range of things
    that we have to----
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Do in the Federal
    system. National security, violent crime, drug offenses. We
    have a range of things that we have to do, working with our
    State and local partners, as well. They do the vast majority of
    the prosecuting when it comes to violent crime.
        Senator Shelby. I know it's been said that the Department,
    led by you, is trying to figure ways out to lessen the impact
    of some tough sentencing, which is statutory, I think. So, a
    lot of that--a lot of the sentencing by Federal courts over--on
    drugs and other things, I believe that's according to statute.
    Is that right, Mr. Attorney General?

                               SENTENCING REFORM

        Attorney General Holder. There are certain mandatory
    minimum sentences that exist with regard to how we charge
    certain crimes. We have discretion as to----
        Senator Shelby. I'm talking about after they're sentenced,
    they're sentenced on--based on a statute, are they not?
        Attorney General Holder. There are guidelines that are
    advisory now, but they're no longer mandatory.
        Senator Shelby. Well, once a judge sentences a prisoner for
    X years after going through a court or a plea, do you have the
    power, as the Attorney General, to change that sentence?
        Attorney General Holder. I have limited amounts of power.
        Senator Shelby. Like what? Explain.
        Attorney General Holder. With regard to people, for
    instance, as the Chair was saying, people who I can release, or
    the director of Bureau of Prisons can release on the basis of
    compassionate release, somebody who is 70-80 years old, who is
    no longer a threat to society. I have that capacity. But,
    generally, the Attorney General----
        Senator Shelby. It's statutory, is it not?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. Statutory and regulatory.
    But, generally, the Attorney General does not have the ability
    to reduce sentences. That is something the President can do.
        Senator Shelby. And if there's any change in the laws on
    sentencing, it came from Congress--it had come from Congress to
    modify, repeal, or enact something to supersede it, is that
    correct?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. And that's why we are
    supporting the efforts of Senator Lee, Senator Leahy, and
    Senator----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Durbin, to try to
    make changes to our Federal system.

                           ROLE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

        Senator Shelby. I just have a few seconds left, but this is
    important, I think. A lot of us--I raised it in my opening
    statement--we're concerned about the issues raised dealing with
    the Inspector General. I think Congress has been clear, as has
    this committee, that the Inspector General must have unfettered
    access to any and all documents necessary to carry out his
    duties. Do you disagree with that?
        Attorney General Holder. I would say that the Inspector
    General should have access to those materials necessary to do
    the investigations that he does, and consistent with the laws
    that govern some of the material that he might want access to.
        Senator Shelby. Well, it's all consistent with the law,
    but----
        Attorney General Holder. Well, the law is written in such a
    way that, with regard to certain requests that are made, the
    Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General has to make a
    determination that it can be appropriately shared.
        But, one thing I would point out. There has never been an
    instance, as long as I have been Attorney General, that the
    Inspector General has asked for materials that I have said he
    could not have. That has just not happened.
        Senator Shelby. It hasn't happened.
        Attorney General Holder. Has not happened.
        Senator Shelby. Do you believe that the Inspector General
    should have to seek your approval to access grand jury
    documents relevant to ongoing investigations, something that
    he's charged, statutorily, to investigate and oversee?
        Attorney General Holder. I think, as the law exists now
    with regard to grand jury material, wiretap information, there
    is an approval process that I think is an appropriate one to go
    through. But, as I said, there's never been an instance where,
    with regard to a request made by an Inspector General, I or the
    Deputy Attorney General have not said, ``You can't have access
    to that material.''
        Senator Shelby. Have you, or will you, direct the
    Department of Justice that you oversee to grant the Inspector
    General unfettered access to relevant documents to carry out
    his investigations within the Department, even though it might
    be detrimental to somebody in the Department of Justice,
    including yourself?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. I mean, the question of
    whether or not this material is turned over or the Inspector
    General has access to it is not a function of who is under
    investigation or what harm is going to happen to the
    Department. It is really a function of making sure that we are
    following the----
        Senator Shelby. But, what if----
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Laws that exist.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. He was investigating somebody
    high up in the Justice Department, and he had reason to do
    this, and he needed documents. Would you give him access to
    those documents? Would you cause him trouble?
        Attorney General Holder. They'd have access to the
    documents, as they have in the past.
        Senator Shelby. And you're not going to block the Inspector
    General from doing his work.
        Attorney General Holder. No. There is no tension between
    making sure the Inspector General has the documents that he or
    she needs and also making sure that the laws that govern the
    release of those materials are followed. And we have done so in
    the past.
        Senator Shelby. Well, if a head of the Department, even the
    Justice Department, like you or, say, Secretary of Energy or
    Secretary of State, or whatever, if you have an Inspector
    General there to do oversight and uncover wrongdoing, if they
    could say, ``You can't go there,'' it would impede their
    investigation, would it not?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, but the Attorney General has
    a unique responsibility, in that I am the possessor of, for
    instance, grand jury material, wiretap information that the
    Secretary of State or Secretary of Energy would not have access
    to, and so, the need for the statutory requirements that we
    have to go through at the Justice Department are different than
    what would exist in other executive-branch agencies.
        Senator Shelby. But, the Inspector General at the
    Department of Justice couldn't do his job unless they had
    unfettered access to stuff he was seeking. You seem to be
    stalling on giving him access to things in the Justice
    Department. I don't understand that.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, you'll have the ability to
    talk to the Inspector General. I think he'll echo----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. What I've just said,
    which is that there has never been an instance where material
    has been sought that has not been granted to them.
        There was a question that was actually raised by Mr.
    Horowitz's predecessor about whether or not there was a legal
    basis for the position that we were taking. What we offered to
    do was to send it to the Office of Legal Counsel for a
    determination as to whether the view that the Attorney General
    or the Deputy Attorney General was taking was correct. The
    decision was made by the Inspector General not to have that OLC
    opinion done. We have copies of the letter, that I will be more
    than glad to make available to the committee, that shows that
    what we have done is consistent with the law and also
    consistent with the important responsibilities that the
    Inspector General has.
        [The information follows:]
    summary of the department of justice office of the inspector general's
     position regarding access to documents and materials gathered by the
                        federal bureau of investigation

                                  Introduction

        In November 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
    initiated a review of the Department's use of the material witness
    statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3144. Pursuant to our responsibilities under
    Section 1001 of the Patriot Act, a significant part of our review is to
    assess whether Department officials violated the civil rights and civil
    liberties of individuals detained as material witnesses in national
    security cases in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. In
    addition, the review will provide an overview of the types and trends
    of the Department's uses of the statute over time; assess the
    Department's controls over the use of material witness warrants; and
    address issues such as the length and costs of detention, conditions of
    confinement, access to counsel, and the benefit to the Department's
    enforcement of criminal law derived from the use of the statute.
        In the course of our investigation, we learned that most of the
    material witnesses in the investigations related to the September 11
    attacks were detained for testimony before a grand jury. At our
    request, between February and September 2010 the Department of Justice
    National Security Division and three U.S. Attorneys' offices (Southern
    District of New York (SDNY), Northern District of Illinois (NDIL),
    Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA)) provided us with grand jury
    information concerning material witnesses pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
    6(e)(3)(D), which permits disclosure of grand jury matters involving
    foreign intelligence information to any Federal law enforcement
    official to assist in the performance of that official's duties. We
    also sought a wide range of materials from other Department components,
    including the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). All of the Department's
    components provided us with full access to the material we sought, with
    the notable exception of the FBI.
        In August 2010, we requested files from the FBI relating to the
    first of 13 material witnesses. In October 2010, representatives of the
    FBI's Office of General Counsel informed us that the FBI believed grand
    jury secrecy rules prohibited the FBI from providing grand jury
    material to the OIG. The FBI took the position that it was required to
    withhold from the OIG all of the grand jury material it gathered in the
    course of these investigations. The FBI has also asserted that, in
    addition to grand jury information, it can refuse the OIG access to
    other categories of information in this and other reviews, including
    Title III materials, Federal taxpayer information; child victim, child
    witness, or Federal juvenile court information; patient medical
    information; credit reports; FISA information; foreign government or
    international organization information; information subject to non-
    disclosure agreements, memoranda of understanding or court order;
    attorney client information; and human source identity information. The
    information we have requested is critical to our review. Among other
    things, we are examining the Department's controls over the use of
    material witness warrants, the benefit to the Department from the use
    of the statute, and allegations of civil rights and civil liberties
    abuses in the Department's post-9/11 use of the statute in the national
    security context. The requested grand jury information is necessary for
    our assessment of these issues.
        The FBI has also asserted that page-by-page preproduction review of
    all case files and e-mails requested by the OIG in the material witness
    review is necessary to ensure that grand jury and any other information
    the FBI asserts must legally be withheld from the OIG is redacted.
    These preproduction reviews have caused substantial delays to OIG
    reviews and have undermined the OIG's independence by giving the entity
    we are reviewing unilateral control over what information the OIG
    receives, and what it does not.
        The FBI's position with respect to production of grand jury
    material to the OIG is a change from its longstanding practice.\1\ It
    is also markedly different from the practices adopted by other
    components of the Department of Justice. The OIG routinely has been
    provided full and prompt access to grand jury and other sensitive
    materials in its reviews involving Department components in high
    profile and sensitive matters, such as our review of the President's
    Surveillance Program and the investigation into the removal of nine
    U.S. Attorneys in 2006. Those reviews would have been substantially
    delayed, if not thwarted, had the Department employed the FBI's new
    approach.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Since 2001, when the OIG assumed primary oversight
    responsibility for the FBI, the OIG has undertaken numerous
    investigations which required review of the most sensitive material,
    including grand jury material and documents classified at the highest
    levels of secrecy. Through all of these reviews, the FBI never refused
    to produce documents and other material to the OIG, including the most
    sensitive human and technical source information, and it never asserted
    the right to make unilateral determinations about what requested
    documents were relevant to the OIG reviews. On the rare occasion when
    the FBI voiced concern based on some of the grounds now more broadly
    asserted in this matter, quick compromises were reached by the OIG and
    the FBI. Indeed, with only minor exceptions, the FBI's historical
    cooperation with the OIG has been exemplary, and that cooperation has
    enabled the OIG to conduct thorough and accurate reviews in a timely
    manner, consistent with its statutorily based oversight mission and its
    duty to assist in maintaining public confidence in the Department of
    Justice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In many respects, the material witness warrant review is no
    different from other recent OIG reviews conducted in connection with
    our civil rights and civil liberties oversight responsibilities under
    the Patriot Act in which Department components granted the OIG access
    to grand jury and other sensitive material. For example, in our review
    of the FBI's use of ``exigent letters'' to obtain telephone records, at
    our request the Department of Justice Criminal Division and the FBI
    provided us grand jury materials in two then ongoing sensitive media
    leak investigations involving information classified at the TS/SCI
    level. The grand jury materials were essential to our findings that FBI
    personnel had improperly sought reporters' toll records in
    contravention of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and
    Department of Justice policy.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ We described this issue in our report, A Review of the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation's Use of Exigent Letters and Other Informal
    Requests for Telephone Records, (January 2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Similarly, in our review of the FBI's investigations pertaining to
    certain domestic advocacy groups, the OIG assessed allegations that the
    FBI had improperly targeted domestic advocacy groups for investigation
    based upon their exercise of First Amendment rights. In the course of
    this review, the FBI provided OIG investigators access to grand jury
    information in the investigations we examined. This information was
    necessary to the OIG's review as it informed our judgment about the
    FBI's predication for and decision to extend certain investigations.
    The lack of access to this information would have critically impaired
    our ability to reach any conclusions about the FBI's investigative
    decisions and, consequently, our ability to address concerns that the
    FBI's conduct in these criminal investigations may have violated civil
    rights and civil liberties.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Our findings are described in our report, A Review of the FBI's
    Investigations of Certain Domestic Advocacy Groups (September 2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When the OIG has obtained grand jury material, the OIG has
    carefully adhered to the legal prohibitions on disclosure of such
    information. We routinely conduct extensive pre-publication reviews
    with affected components in the Department. The OIG has ensured that
    sensitive information--whether it be law enforcement sensitive,
    classified, or information that would identify the subjects or
    direction of a grand jury investigation--is removed or redacted from
    our public reports. In all of our reviews and investigations, the OIG
    has scrupulously protected sensitive information and has taken great
    pains to prevent any unauthorized disclosure of classified, grand jury,
    or otherwise sensitive information.
        For the reasons discussed below, the OIG is entitled to access to
    the material the FBI is withholding. First, the Inspector General Act
    of 1978, as amended (Inspector General Act or the Act), provides the
    OIG with the authority to obtain access to all of the documents and
    materials we seek. Second, in the same way that attorneys performing an
    oversight function in the Department's Office of Professional
    Responsibility (OPR) are ``attorneys for the government'' under the
    legal exceptions to grand jury secrecy rules, the OIG attorneys
    conducting the material witness review are attorneys for the government
    entitled to receive grand jury material because they perform the same
    oversight function. Third, the OIG also qualifies for disclosure of the
    grand jury material requested in the material witness review under
    amendments to the grand jury secrecy rules designed to enhance sharing
    of information relating to terrorism investigations.
    I.  THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
        The FBI's refusal to provide prompt and full access to the
    materials we requested on the basis of grand jury secrecy rules and
    other statutes and Department policies stands in direct conflict with
    the Inspector General Act. The Act provides the OIG with access to all
    documents and materials available to the Department, including the FBI.
    No other rule or statute should be interpreted, and no policy should be
    written, in a manner that impedes the Inspector General's statutory
    mandate to conduct independent oversight of Department programs. See,
    e.g., Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259, 267 (1981) (A court ``must read
    [two allegedly conflicting] statutes to give effect to each if [it] can
    do so while preserving their sense and purpose.'').
                A.  The Inspector General Act Grants the OIG Full and
                        Prompt Access to any Documents and Materials
                        Available to the DOJ, Including the FBI, that
                        Relate to the OIG's Oversight Responsibilities
        The Inspector General Act is an explicit statement of Congress's
    desire to create and maintain independent and objective oversight
    organizations inside of certain Federal agencies, including the
    Department of Justice, without agency interference. Crucial to the
    Inspectors General (IGs) independent and objective oversight is having
    prompt and complete access to documents and information relating to the
    programs they oversee. Recognizing this, the Inspector General Act
    authorizes IGs ``to have access to all records, reports, audits,
    reviews, documents, papers, recommendations, or other material
    available to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and
    operations with respect to which that Inspector General has
    responsibilities under this Act.'' 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 6(a)(1). The
    Act also authorizes the IGs to ``request'' necessary ``information or
    assistance'' from ``any Federal, State, or local governmental agency or
    unit thereof,'' including the particular establishments the IGs
    oversee. Id. Sec. 6(a)(3); id. Sec. 12(5) (defining the term ``Federal
    agency'' to include the establishments overseen by the Inspectors
    General). Together, these two statutory provisions operate to ensure
    that the Inspectors General are able to access the information
    necessary to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.
        The only explicit limitation on IGs' right of access to information
    contained in the Inspector General Act concerns all agencies'
    obligation to provide ``information or assistance'' to the Inspectors
    General. However, this limitation does not apply to IGs' absolute right
    of access to documents from their particular agency. This circumscribed
    limitation provides that all Federal agencies shall furnish information
    or assistance to a requesting IG ``insofar as is practicable and not in
    contravention of any existing statutory restriction or regulation of
    the Federal agency from which the information is requested[.]'' 5
    U.S.C. Sec. 6(b)(1) (emphasis added).\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The legislative history is silent on the reason for
    conditioning agencies' furnishing of ``information or assistance'' to
    all IGs on practicability or statutory restriction, but imposing no
    such limitation on an agency's absolute requirement to provide its
    documents to its own IG. However, there are possible explanations for
    the distinction. For example, providing access to documents and
    materials maintained in agency systems and files is simple,
    inexpensive, and an undeniable precondition to the fair, objective, and
    successful exercise of the IGs' oversight responsibilities.
    Accordingly, the Act's unconditional language authorizing IGs to have
    access to the documents and materials of the agency it oversees is
    understandable and sensible. In contrast, agencies may not always be
    able to fulfill requests for ``information or assistance'' immediately,
    even from their agency's IG. A request of one agency from another
    agency's IG may require more careful scrutiny because it would entail
    information being transmitted outside of the requested agency. In
    addition, busy agency schedules must be accommodated when fulfilling a
    request for an interview; subject matter experts may not be immediately
    available to interpret documents or may have left the agency's
    employment; responses to interrogatories often require revisions and
    approvals; and annotations, explanations, and written analyses of
    existing documents and materials can take significant amounts of time.
    Despite the OIG's historical success at reaching reasonable compromises
    with components of the DOJ responding to requests for ``information or
    assistance,'' the OIG readily acknowledges that circumstances could
    arise where a component's delay, difficulty, or even refusal in
    responding to a request for ``information or assistance'' would be
    reasonable. These considerations are not applicable, however, to IGs'
    access to documents and materials of the agency it oversees, and
    therefore, that provision of the Act authorizes access in absolute
    terms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another provision of the Inspector General Act grants the
    Inspectors General discretion to report instances of noncooperation to
    the head of the relevant agency, whether that noncooperation impedes on
    the IGs' authority to obtain documents or ``information and
    assistance.'' Under that section, when an IG believes ``information or
    assistance'' is ``unreasonably refused or not provided, the Inspector
    General shall report the circumstances to the head of the establishment
    involved without delay.'' 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 6(b)(2). The FBI
    contends this reporting provision of the Act is a further limitation on
    the agencies' obligation to provide documents and ``information and
    assistance'' to the Inspectors General. The FBI has argued that the
    provision implicitly recognizes that requests for both documents and
    ``information and assistance'' can be ``reasonably refused.''
        The OIG believes the FBI's reliance on this reporting section as
    limiting an IG's right of access to documents in the custody of the
    agency it oversees is misplaced. This provision of the Act is entirely
    consistent with the right of full and prompt access to documents and
    materials and does not create a limitation, explicit or implicit, on
    the authorities provided elsewhere in the Act. By granting the
    Inspectors General the discretion to decide that some instances of
    noncooperation by an agency do not rise to the level of a reportable
    incident, the provision accounts for the practical reality that many
    instances where Inspectors General are not granted access to documents
    or materials, or are not provided ``information or assistance'' in
    response to a request, do not merit a report to agency management.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ For example, IG document requests can be very broad,
    particularly before IG investigators have learned the details of the
    program under review. In such instances, formal requests are often
    informally and consensually narrowed after discussions with the agency
    under review, and a report to the agency head is unnecessary.
    Similarly, an agency's failure to provide the Inspector General with
    access to a document is often inadvertent or such a minor inconvenience
    that the Inspector General could reasonably view the noncooperation as
    de minimis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To summarize, the Inspector General Act provides the Inspectors
    General a right of full and prompt access to documents and materials in
    the custody of the agency they oversee, a right to request
    ``information or assistance'' from any agency that is modestly limited,
    and an obligation to report instances of agency noncooperation to the
    agency head when, in the judgment of the Inspector General, such
    noncooperation is unreasonable. Accordingly, the Act provides
    Inspectors General unconditional authority to gather documents and
    records in the custody of the agency they oversee, an authority
    necessary to obtain the basic information to conduct independent and
    objective reviews and investigations.
                B.  The Only Limitation on the OIG's Authority to Conduct
                        Audits and Investigations within its Jurisdiction
                        is Section 8E of the Inspector General Act, and
                        that Limitation Must Be Invoked by the Attorney
                        General
        In the law creating the DOJ OIG, Congress inserted an exception to
    the normal authority granted to Inspectors General. In a section
    captioned ``Special provisions concerning the Department of Justice,''
    the IG Act provides the Attorney General the authority, under specified
    circumstances and using a specific procedure, to prohibit the OIG from
    carrying out or completing an audit or investigation, or from issuing
    any subpoena. See 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 8E. This authority may only be
    exercised by the Attorney General, 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 8E(a)(1)-(2),
    and only with respect to specific kinds of sensitive information. Id.
    Sec. 8E(a)(1). The Attorney General must specifically determine that
    the prohibition on the Inspector General's exercise of authority is
    necessary to prevent the disclosure of certain specifically described
    categories of information, or to prevent the significant impairment to
    the national interests of the United States. Id. Sec. 8E(a)(2). The
    Attorney General's decision must be conducted in writing, must state
    the reasons for the decision, and the Inspector General must report the
    decision to Congress within 30 days. Id. Sec. 8E(a)(3). These
    provisions represent an acknowledgement of the fact that the Department
    of Justice often handles highly sensitive criminal and national
    security information, the premature disclosure of which could pose a
    threat to the national interests.
        These exacting procedures confirm that the special provisions of
    Section 8E represent an extraordinary departure from the baseline rule
    that the Inspectors General shall have unconditional access to
    documents and materials, and broad authority to initiate and conduct
    independent and objective oversight investigations. These procedures
    also confirm that only the Attorney General, and not the FBI, has the
    power to prohibit the OIG's access to relevant documents and materials
    available to the Department.
    II.   GRAND JURY SECRECY RULES
        The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provide the general rule of
    secrecy applicable to grand jury information and various exceptions to
    that general rule. One of the exceptions allows disclosure of grand
    jury information to ``an attorney for the government.'' This exception
    provides a basis, additional to and independent of the Inspector
    General Act, for disclosing the requested grand jury materials to the
    OIG.\6\ The OIG's reliance on the ``attorney for the government''
    exception to obtain access to grand jury material is supported by an
    Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion and a Federal court decision. OIG
    access to grand jury material under this exception is consistent with
    the broad authority granted to the OIG under the Inspector General Act,
    and it avoids an oversight gap so that Department employees cannot use
    grand jury secrecy rules to shield from review their adherence to
    Department policies, Attorney General Guidelines, and the Constitution.
    The ``attorney for the government'' exception allows for automatic
    disclosure of grand jury materials and is, therefore, particularly well
    suited to ensure that the OIG's ability to access documents and
    materials, and to access them promptly, is coextensive with that of the
    Department and the FBI.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(i) provides: ``Disclosure of a grand jury
    matter--other than the grand jury's deliberations or any grand juror's
    vote--may be made to: (i) an attorney for the government for use in
    performing that attorney's duty. . . .'' Fed. R. Crim. P.
    6(e)(3)(A)(i).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                A.  OIG Attorneys Are ``Attorneys for the Government''
        In an unpublished opinion issued subsequent to United States v.
    Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418 (1983) (a Supreme Court opinion
    narrowly construing the term ``attorney for the government'' as used in
    the exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy), the OLC
    determined that, even in light of the Court's decision, the Rule was
    broad enough to encompass Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)
    attorneys exercising their oversight authority with regard to
    Department attorneys.
        In Sells, Civil Division attorneys pursuing a civil fraud case
    sought automatic access to grand jury materials generated in a parallel
    criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court interpreted the exception that
    provides for automatic disclosure of grand jury materials to
    ``attorney[s] for the government'' for use in their official duties, as
    limited to government attorneys working on the criminal matter to which
    the material pertains. Sells, 463 U.S. at 427. The Court held that all
    other disclosures must be ``judicially supervised rather than
    automatic,'' id. at 435, because allowing disclosure other than to the
    prosecutors and their assistants would unacceptably undermine the
    effectiveness of grand jury proceedings by: (1) creating an incentive
    to use the grand jury's investigative powers improperly to elicit
    evidence for use in a civil case; (2) increasing the risk that release
    of grand jury material could potentially undermine full and candid
    witness testimony; and (3) by circumventing limits on the government's
    powers of discovery and investigation in cases otherwise outside the
    grand jury process. See id. at 432-33.
        In its unpublished opinion, OLC concluded that the three concerns
    the Supreme Court expressed in Sells were not present when OPR
    attorneys conduct their oversight function of the conduct of Department
    attorneys in grand jury proceedings. OLC concluded that as a delegee of
    the Attorney General for purposes of overseeing and advising with
    respect to the ethical conduct of department attorneys and reporting
    its findings and recommendations to the Attorney General, OPR is part
    of the prosecution team's supervisory chain. Thus, OPR attorneys may
    receive automatic access to grand jury information under the
    supervisory component inherent in the ``attorney for the government''
    exception.
        OIG attorneys should be allowed automatic access to grand jury
    material in the performance of their oversight duties because OIG and
    OPR perform the identical functions within the scope of their
    respective jurisdictions. Like OPR attorneys conducting oversight of
    Department attorneys in their use of the grand jury to perform their
    litigating function, OIG attorneys are part of the supervisory chain
    conducting oversight of the conduct of law enforcement officials
    assisting the grand jury. Both the OIG and OPR are under the general
    supervision of the Attorney General, compare 28 C.F.R. 0.29a(a) (OIG)
    with 28 C.F.R. 0.39. Just like OPR, the Inspector General must ``report
    expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector General
    has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal
    criminal law.'' 5 U.S.C. App. 3, Sec. Sec. 4(d) & 8E(b)(2). OIG
    attorneys make findings and recommendations to the Attorney General
    regarding the conduct of law enforcement officials assisting the grand
    jury, and the Attorney General then imposes any discipline or
    implements reform. Therefore, for purposes of the ``attorney of the
    government'' exception, the OIG is in the same position as OPR, both
    with respect to its oversight function and its relationship to the
    Attorney General.
        More to the point, whatever formal differences exist in the
    relative structures of the OIG and OPR, the two offices are
    functionally indistinguishable for purposes of access to grand jury
    materials for all of their oversight purposes. The risks to the secrecy
    of the underlying grand jury proceedings from disclosure to the OIG, if
    any, are no different from those created by automatic disclosure to
    OPR. OPR's oversight of the conduct of Department attorneys is an
    after-the-fact examination of what happened during the grand jury
    process, just as is OIG's oversight of law enforcement agents' conduct.
    OIG review of law enforcement conduct in such circumstances is not
    undertaken to affect the outcome of a civil proceeding related to the
    target of an underlying criminal investigation. Therefore, disclosure
    of grand jury materials to the OIG runs no risk of creating an
    incentive to misuse the grand jury process in order to improperly
    elicit evidence for use in a separate administrative or criminal
    misconduct proceeding against the target of the grand jury's
    investigation. Similarly, because our review is of law enforcement
    conduct and not of lay witnesses who are called to testify, the
    willingness of those witnesses to testify should not be implicated. OIG
    oversight also ensures that the Department's law enforcement officials
    who testify before the grand jury do so fully and candidly, and that
    Department employees do not ignore their legal obligations to the grand
    jury.
        Moreover, the OIG's inherent supervisory role with regard to
    Department employees who assist the grand jury was recognized by a
    Federal court overseeing proceedings relating to the death of Bureau of
    Prisons inmate Kenneth Michael Trentadue. The district court granted
    the government's motion for access to grand jury materials, finding
    that the OIG's investigation of alleged misconduct ``is supervisory in
    nature with respect to the ethical conduct of Department employees.''
    The court stated that ``disclosure of grand jury materials to the OIG
    constitutes disclosure to `an attorney for the government for use in
    the performance of such attorney's duty[.]' '' In re Matters Occurring
    Before the Grand Jury Impaneled July 16, 1996, Misc. #39, W.D. Okla.
    (June 4, 1998).
        Accordingly, there is no principled basis upon which to deny OIG
    attorneys the same access as OPR is allowed to review grand jury
    materials necessary to carry out its oversight function. Both OPR and
    OIG attorneys require access to grand jury materials to fulfill a
    supervisory function directed at maintaining the highest standards of
    conduct for Department employees who assist the grand jury. As such,
    OIG attorneys should also be able to obtain automatic access to matters
    that pertain to law enforcement conduct in matters related to the grand
    jury within the jurisdiction of the OIG.
                B.  The OIG is entitled to Receive Grand Jury Materials
                        Involving Foreign Intelligence Information
        Another exception to the general rule of grand jury secrecy allows
    an attorney for the government to disclose ``any grand-jury matter
    involving foreign intelligence, counterintelligence . . ., or foreign
    intelligence information . . . to any Federal law enforcement,
    intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national
    security official to assist the official receiving the information in
    the performance of that official's duties.'' Fed. R. Crim. P.
    6(e)(3)(D). This exception was added in 2001 as part of the USA PATRIOT
    Act and was designed to enable greater sharing of information among law
    enforcement agencies and the intelligence community to enhance the
    government's effort to combat terrorism.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Public Law 107-56, Sec. 203(A)(1), 115 Stat. 272, 279-81
    (2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This exception encompasses the OIG's request for the grand jury
    materials at issue in its material witness warrant review. The grand
    jury proceedings pursuant to which the materials were collected were
    all investigations of international terrorist activity conducted in the
    wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. All of the grand
    jury information gathered in them is thus necessarily ``related to,''
    ``gathered . . . to protect against,'' or ``relates to the ability of
    the United States to protect against,'' among other things,
    ``international terrorist activities.'' See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 401a and
    Rule 6(e)(3)(D). All of the grand jury material gathered in those
    investigations thus constitutes foreign intelligence, counter
    intelligence, or foreign intelligence information (collectively,
    Foreign Intelligence Information).
        In addition, OIG officials qualify as law enforcement officials
    within the meaning of the rule by virtue of the Inspector General's
    authority to conduct criminal investigations, apply for search
    warrants, make arrests, and investigate violations of civil rights and
    civil liberties. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 6(e)(1); USA PATRIOT
    ACT, Public Law 107-56, Sec. 1001, 115 Stat. 272, 391 (2001). Also, the
    OIG's oversight activities constitute law enforcement duties for
    purposes of the foreign intelligence exception because they directly
    affect the design and implementation of the Department's law
    enforcement programs.
        The OIG has discussed the access issues with Department leadership
    and sought their assistance in resolving the dispute with the FBI.
    Although the Department's consideration of all these issues is ongoing,
    in July 2011, the Department concluded that, at a minimum, the foreign
    intelligence exception authorizes an ``attorney for the government'' to
    disclose grand jury information to the OIG for use in connection with
    OIG's law enforcement duties, such as the material witness warrant
    review, to the extent that the attorney for the government determines
    that the grand jury information in question involves foreign
    intelligence. Since then, an ``attorney for the government'' in the
    Department's National Security Division (a Department component under
    review in the Material Witness Warrant review), has been conducting a
    page-by-page review of the materials withheld by the FBI to determine
    whether they qualify as Foreign Intelligence Information under the
    exception before providing them to the OIG. In addition, the FBI has
    continued its own page-by-page review of some of the requested files to
    identify and redact grand jury and other categories of information,
    before the National Security Division attorney performs yet another
    review for the purpose of sending the material back to the FBI for the
    removal of grand jury foreign intelligence information redactions.
        The Department's confirmation that the foreign intelligence
    exception is one basis for authorizing the OIG to obtain access to
    grand jury information was helpful. However, the page-by-page review of
    the material being conducted by the FBI and National Security Division
    to implement that decision is unnecessary. In our view, such page-by-
    page review is not necessary here because all of the grand jury
    material we have sought to date in the material witness review was
    collected in investigations of international terrorist activity
    conducted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
    and thus necessarily falls within the very broad definitions of foreign
    intelligence, counterintelligence, or foreign intelligence information.
    See 50 U.S.C. Sec. 401a and Rule 6(e)(3)(D). Therefore, the exception
    allows the OIG to receive all of the grand jury information from those
    investigations.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ As noted above, such page-by-page reviews are also improper
    because they are contrary to the provisions of the Inspector General
    Act granting the OIG broad access to any document or material that is
    available to the agency overseen; undermine the independence of the
    Inspector General by granting a component under review unilateral
    authority to determine what materials the Inspector General receives,
    and result in unacceptable delays in the production of materials
    necessary for the OIG to conduct its oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although the Department's determination that the OIG is entitled to
    access to the requested grand jury information in the material witness
    review under the foreign intelligence exception is helpful, that
    decision does not resolve the access issue. First, it does not address
    access to grand jury material that does not involve foreign
    intelligence information. Second, the Department's preliminary decision
    under the foreign intelligence exception does not address access to
    grand jury material in other OIG reviews. And third, the decision has
    been construed by the National Security Division and the FBI to require
    page-by-page review of the information, thereby undermining the
    independence and timeliness of the OIG's review as described above.
    Accordingly, a full decision confirming the OIG's right of access to
    grand jury and other information under the Inspector General Act and
    the ``attorney for the government'' exception is still necessary to
    enable the OIG effectively to carry out its oversight mission.
    III.   CONCLUSION
        The objective and independent oversight mandated by the Inspector
    General Act depends on the fundamental principle that the Inspectors
    General should have access to the same documents and materials as the
    establishments they oversee. This principle explains why the Inspector
    General Act grants the IGs access to the documents and materials that
    are available to their establishments. It explains why OIG
    investigators are routinely granted access to TS/SCI materials when
    reviewing TS/SCI programs. It explains why OIG investigators are
    routinely read into some of the government's most highly classified and
    tightly compartmented programs, such as the President's Surveillance
    Program and the programs involved in the Robert Hanssen matter. And it
    explains why any instance of unreasonable denial of access to documents
    or materials under the Inspector General Act must be reported to the
    head of the agency, and why the Attorney General's decision to preclude
    an OIG audit, investigation, or subpoena must be reported to Congress.
        The FBI's withholding of grand jury and other information is
    unsupported in law and contrary to the Inspector General Act and
    exceptions to the general rule of grand jury secrecy. The OIG is
    entitled to access under the Inspector General Act. Moreover, the OIG
    qualifies for two exceptions to the general rule of grand jury secrecy.
    See supra; see also 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 6; Fed. R. Crim. P.
    6(e)(3)(D), 6(e)(3)(A)(i). It is true, of course, that under Section 8E
    of the Inspector General Act, the Attorney General could deny the OIG
    access to the documents at issue, as many of the documents constitute
    sensitive information within the scope of that Section. See 5 U.S.C.
    App. 3 Sec. 8E. But the Attorney General has not done so, and until he
    makes the written determination required in Section 8E(a)(2) and sets
    out the reasons for his decision, the OIG is entitled to prompt and
    full access to the materials.
        Denying the OIG access to the materials it is seeking would also
    represent an unnecessary and problematic departure from a working
    relationship that has proven highly successful for years. Since its
    inception, the OIG has routinely received highly sensitive materials,
    including strictly compartmented counterterrorism and
    counterintelligence information, classified information owned by other
    agencies, and grand jury information, and it has always handled this
    information without incident. The OIG has always conducted careful
    sensitivity reviews with all concerned individuals and entities, both
    inside and outside the Department, prior to any publication of
    sensitive information, and it has been entirely reasonable and
    cooperative in its negotiations over such publications. The OIG's
    access to sensitive materials has never created a security
    vulnerability or harmed the Nation's interests; far from it, the OIG's
    access to sensitive information has markedly advanced the Nation's
    interests by enabling the independent and objective oversight mandated
    by Congress.
        Simply put, there is no reason, legal or otherwise, to depart from
    the time-tested approach of allowing the OIG full and prompt access to
    documents and using a thorough prepublication sensitivity review to
    safeguard against unauthorized disclosure of the information therein.
    Access to grand jury and other sensitive materials is essential to the
    OIG's work, perhaps never more so than when the OIG is overseeing such
    important national security matters as the Department's use of material
    witness warrants and the FBI's use of its Patriot Act authorities. But
    whatever the subject matter, the authorities and mandates of the
    Inspector General are clear, and neither grand jury secrecy rules nor
    any other statutory or internal policy restrictions should be read in a
    manner that frustrates or precludes the OIG's ability to fulfill its
    mission.

        Senator Shelby. But, we want to make sure the Inspector
    General can do his job, even in the Justice Department.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Shelby, why don't we, then,
    continue this with the Inspector General? And----
        Senator Shelby. We will.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Given the fact that
    there's an 11:30 vote----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. We want to be sure
    members have a chance to----
        Senator Shelby. Thank you for your time.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Answer their questions.
    No, and not to stifle--this is really crucial----
        Senator Shelby. It is.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. And we acknowledge the
    essential nature of this conversation. And we'll, hopefully----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Be able to squeeze in the
    Inspector General.
        Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.

                                GRANTING ASYLUM

        Mr. Attorney General, I mentioned, in my opening remarks,
    that the Department of Justice, along with the Department of
    Homeland Security, plays a critical role in reviewing claims
    for asylum. I believe that this system is seriously broken. It
    has allowed individuals to remain in this country under grants
    of asylum who never should have been allowed to remain here.
    And yet, it takes too long to adjudicate the legitimate cases
    of asylum-seekers, thus delaying their ability to work and
    support their families, and imposing a huge burden on
    communities' general assistance funds while these asylum-
    seekers are waiting for their cases to be adjudicated.
        I'd like to give you an example of both, and then get your
    response and find out what you're doing with the Department of
    Homeland Security to improve the system.
        Later this month, as we who live in New England are
    particularly aware, it will be 1 year since the terrorist
    attacks at the Boston Marathon. The circumstances under which
    the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing came to be in
    the United States underscores the need for reform of our asylum
    process. The younger of the two Tsarnaev brothers came to the
    U.S. on a tourist visa in 2002, and was granted asylum on his
    father's petition shortly thereafter. Now, asylum is supposed
    to be available only to those who can show a credible fear of
    persecution in their home country. Yet, the elder Tsarnaev came
    to the United States, leaving behind his wife and three other
    children in the country that he claimed to fear. So, it's
    difficult for me to understand how he possibly could have met
    the burden of proving a credible fear of persecution by the
    country in which he left his wife and remaining children.
        Even more troubling are the questions surrounding the grant
    of asylum to Ibragim Todashev. That is the Chechen immigrant
    who was killed while being questioned by the FBI agents and
    local law enforcement regarding his association with the
    Tsarnaevs and also a triple homicide. It turns out that he came
    to the U.S. in 2008 on a J-1 visa to participate in an exchange
    program that was sponsored by an entity in my State, the
    Council on International Education Exchange. And that is a J-1
    visa sponsor organization.
        Now, from the start, it appears that Todashev had no
    intention of complying with the J-1 visa rules. And indeed,
    shortly after he arrived, the Council withdrew their
    sponsorship of him because he failed to provide the required
    documentation with respect to employment. That very day, the
    Council in Maine instructed him to make immediate plans to
    leave the country, recorded the information on the Federal
    database that is used. And yet, despite this agency doing
    everything correct, and despite the fact that Mr. Todashev was
    out of compliance with the requirements of his visa, he was
    later granted asylum and even a green card. This shocked the
    entity in Maine that reported him from being out of compliance
    with the visa years ago.
        I find this very troubling. How is that a young man from
    Chechnya comes to the United States to participate in a
    cultural exchange program, immediately violates the conditions
    of his visa, is told to leave the country, and then is granted
    asylum? That, to me, shows there's a real problem with sharing
    of information and with the system.
        Now, on the other side, we have the problem of legitimate
    asylum-seekers, and they have been forced to rely on local
    governments for the money that they need to live on. In Maine,
    for example, the cities of Portland and Lewiston, alone, have
    contributed $10 million from their general assistance programs
    to support nearly 4,000 asylum-seekers and their families over
    the past 2 and a half years while they're awaiting the
    adjudicating of their claims to give them a work authorization.
        So, we've got problems on both ends of the spectrum, which
    suggests to me that the entire system is broken. What is the
    Department of Justice doing to work with the Department of
    Homeland Security to solve these very serious problems?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, the responsibility for the
    immigration system, I think, largely falls into the hands of
    DHS, but that is not to try to shirk the responsibility that
    the Justice Department has. We simply need more immigration
    judges. The number of cases that have been pending has
    continued to increase, an increase of 56 percent since 2009.
    Our budget request will enable EOIR, our EOIR, immigration
    component, to add 35 new immigration judge teams. That would
    increase our capacity to look at these cases, adjudicate them
    in an appropriate way, listen to the evidence, and make
    decisions that are based on the facts as they are actually
    developed. We simply don't have, at this point, the ability to
    do the job in as timely a way as I think we should have that
    ability to do.
        Senator Collins. Well, I support your request for
    additional resources, but, frankly, if those judges aren't
    looking at the databases and aren't looking at the information
    from DHS, consulting with the Department of State on whether
    there should be a credible fear of prosecution, looking at
    whether there are violations of visas, adding more judges won't
    solve the problem. I think we need to do both.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. That was an eye opener. Thank you very
    much. It was very meaty. And it also shows, when we do
    immigration reform, we have to look at these practical
    implementations at the local level. What Maine is paying is
    stunning.
        Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.
        Senator Shaheen [continuing]. Thank you very much for being
    here.

                       HEROIN AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE

        As I'm sure you're aware, what we've seen in New Hampshire
    and northern New England is a real epidemic spread of heroin
    and prescription drug opioid use. And we're seeing that very
    much in New Hampshire over the last 10 years. The number of
    people admitted to State treatment programs has increased 90
    percent for heroin use and 500 percent for prescription drug
    use. And, just in the last year, we've seen double the number
    of deaths from heroin abuse between 2012 and 2013.
        Now, this summer, New Hampshire plans to institute a new
    prescription drug monitoring program in the State because of a
    Department of Justice grant that we have received. And I wonder
    if you could comment on how effective these types of monitoring
    programs have been in other parts of the country, and what
    other Federal resources might be available to help us in the
    States as we try and combat this real epidemic of heroin and
    prescription drug use?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, Senator, I think you're
    correct to point out--and the term that's used, I think, is a
    correct one, there is an epidemic. It is one that we certainly
    see in your State, in that region of the country, but it's
    something that we see nationwide. And I think we have to have a
    balanced approach to dealing with this. There has to be an
    enforcement component. The DEA will lead that. We have an
    increase of more than 320 percent, between 2008 and 2013, in
    the amount of heroin that we have taken from the cartels that
    was meant for our shores.
        But, beyond that, enforcement alone is not enough. We have
    to also make sure that we identify this problem as a public
    health problem. Police officers, doctors, educators. We have to
    come up with treatment programs, prevention programs, and
    educational programs.
        I don't think that we should repeat the mistake, frankly,
    that we made when we dealt with the crack epidemic, where we
    looked at it only as an enforcement issue. There has to be an
    enforcement component, but we have to bring into play all of
    these other resources that we have, including supporting the
    programs that you have described, these monitoring programs. It
    is why I think it is so important that our capacity to aid our
    State and local partners be made whole in our budget. These are
    issues that the Federal Government clearly has an interest in,
    but, on the ground, it's our State and local partners who have
    to do these kinds of things. And I want to have the ability,
    through our grant making ability, to support these efforts.

                                DRUG MONITORING

        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. And obviously the Byrne
    Justice grants have been very helpful to us in New Hampshire,
    and there has been a real coordinated effort on the part of law
    enforcement. I would hope that you might consider sending
    someone up from the Justice Department to meet with our local
    law enforcement officials as we try and address this issue,
    because, as you point out, it's going to require a multilevel
    approach to really do something to make a difference as we look
    at how many people are being affected.
        Can you talk a little bit about some of the other efforts
    the Department has undertaken to better integrate these kinds
    of strategies, other than--we know the Byrne grants are very
    helpful, we know that the monitoring programs are another way
    to try and address it. What else is the Department doing that
    can be helpful to States like New Hampshire?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, we certainly have a variety
    of things. I mean, we have a great U.S. Attorney in New
    Hampshire. And so, there is----
        Senator Shaheen. Who's doing a great job, I might add.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. And so, there is
    certainly the help that we can give on the enforcement side
    there.
        With regard to grants, I think that's certainly something
    that we want to consider. We have the COPS program, so that we
    have the ability to put more police officers on the ground,
    again, to deal with these kinds of issues. We also want to come
    up, I think, with programs that we work with the Department of
    Health and Human Services, as the Chair had suggested. This has
    to be something that is more than simply a Justice Department
    initiative. And I think that we have the ability now to really
    potentially nip this in the bud. But, I think that we have a
    relatively small window before this potentially gets even more
    out of control than it is.
        And I think, as I said, if we take a balanced approach
    involving agencies beyond the Justice Department making sure
    that we are supportive of our State and local partners, and so
    that we educate, and especially educate young people, about the
    dangers of prescription drug use, opioid use, and the problem
    with heroin use, I think that we can really have a significant
    impact on this problem.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Shaheen, we thank you for
    raising the issue here. We--also, others have raised it. I hear
    it, too. We've asked the Attorney General to really take the
    lead in interagency, because we've got to go to--starting with
    the prescription drug issue up to this. So, thanks.
        And I say to my members here that, as the Attorney General
    develops a strategy, we can arrange a staff briefing to get
    updates and make sure we put this in.
        Senator Kirk, a well-known anti-gang fighter.

                                     GANGS

        Senator Kirk. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Attorney General,
    about the $18 and a half million that this subcommittee has
    approved to fight gangs of national significance to also
    highlight the work of Anita Alvarez, the State's Attorney for
    Cook County, that took down an entire gang, called the Black
    Souls, at one shot with using resources from your Department. I
    would say that's a very good model that the public can get
    behind, taking out a whole gang. I would say that this was not
    one of the vast gangs--like we have the Gangster Disciples,
    over 18,000 members. There were 23 defendants, in the case of
    the Black Souls arrest in June.

                         GANGS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

        I would just highlight that issue as a way of attacking
    this problem. We do have about 253 factions of the GDs in
    Chicagoland. If we can execute the $18-and-a-half-million
    strategy to whack a number of those factions and totally
    eliminate them, that you will have a lot of support from this
    subcommittee.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I certainly appreciate that,
    Senator. I think you're right to identify that as a challenge
    that we have to meet. You know, Chicago, I think, in some ways,
    gets an unfair rap. This is not a problem that is Chicago only.
    This is a problem that exists throughout the country, this
    problem of gangs. Our Marshal Service plans to hire gang and
    technical operation group investigators in seven regional
    fugitive task forces. And we've begun that process, because we
    understand this is a problem that is really nationwide in
    scope. And the effort that you described, where you take down
    significant numbers of these gang members at one time, can
    really tend to cripple them. And so, we're looking to make
    those kinds of cases.
        We want to be strategic in the way in which we use the
    resources that we have. But, the reality is, unless we get at
    this gang problem, we won't get at what I think is really the
    root of our violence problem in too many of our cities. And,
    you know, as I said, it's just not Chicago, it goes well beyond
    Chicago.
        Senator Kirk. Yes. And----
        Madam Chairwoman.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. And, Senator Kirk, we want to continue
    the effort that you so ably undertook, and keep this going.
    You're onto something big, here, and we think it's crucial.
        Senator Kirk. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Merkley.

                                FINANCIAL FRAUD

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you.
        About a year ago, you set off a bit of a firestorm when you
    noted that one of the reasons that certain companies couldn't
    be prosecuted is because of the economic impact of potential
    indictments. And later, you backed off that a little bit. But,
    the general point continues to resonate that there have been a
    host of dramatic activities. It seems like every 3 months, we
    have another major scandal, and these scandals involve
    wrongdoing; and often at the heart of it is criminal
    wrongdoing, but largely the institution ends up paying a fine
    and everyone goes back to business as usual.
        I'm just kind of stunned by the list of things that have
    happened during the time that I've been in the Senate. We have
    offshore tax evasion by international banks, we have the
    manipulation of the LIBOR interest index, we have structured
    mortgage-backed securities that were designed to fail, we have
    foreclosure fraud, including robo-signing. We have the
    laundering, of which, I think, the premier example was Hong
    Kong Shanghai Bank Corporation, of what was estimated to be
    hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly a trillion dollars,
    and there were laundering activities that involved terrorist
    activities, drug rings, they involved transactions, the
    proceeds of transactions with states where we have economic
    sanctions that are very important to our national security,
    like our relationship with Iran, and trying to prevent Iran
    from having a nuclear weapon. We have the manipulation of
    electricity prices in an Enron-style scheme. I mean, it just--
    the list goes on.

                             INDICTING CORPORATIONS

        Have we reached a different point now? Have we successfully
    tackled the issue of ``too big to fail'' and its close cousin,
    which is more in your realm, of ``too big to jail''?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, what I'd say is, first, that
    there might have been some misinterpretation, misunderstanding
    about what I said. So, I wouldn't say that I necessarily pulled
    back from what I said in that initial statement. Maybe I
    clarified it. But, let me be very clear. No institution is too
    big, no person is too important, to be held accountable in a
    criminal sense, if that is appropriate.
        And if you look at what we have done, beginning in 2013,
    and look at the guilty pleas we've gotten from financial
    industries--UBS, RBS, SAC Capital, Wegland, a Swiss bank; if
    you look at individuals, we've gotten individuals from
    JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, UBS,
    Rabobank, ICAP, Galleon, SAC, Stanford Financial Group. So, we
    have gotten pleas, both from institutions and from individuals.
    We've also done creative and, I think, appropriate things--
    appropriately aggressive things with regard to our use of the
    civil law, as well.
        I am proud of what this Department has done in holding
    accountable people who were partially responsible for the
    mortgage meltdown that led to our financial crisis, and other
    things that we have done in the financial realm. This
    Department's record, under my leadership, will, I think, stand
    the test of time. And I'll compare it to any other Justice
    Department, any other Attorney General, at any other time.
        Senator Merkley. So, you would say there is no hesitation
    to pursue criminal charges because of the potential impact on
    an institution? I mean, Arthur Andersen was the example so
    often put forward. And certainly a large bank falling would
    have big reverberations. We all understand that, and that's
    been the dilemma. But, are you saying, today, that dilemma
    doesn't exist and it's not weighed at all by the Justice
    Department?
        Attorney General Holder. There are factors that we
    considered. There was a process that was begun under a Deputy
    Attorney General named Holder, back in the Clinton
    administration, where we put out a certain number of factors
    that have to be considered before a determination is made about
    when an institution is criminally prosecuted.
        If you go after an organization, and you put that
    organization out of business as a result of the indictment,
    that is something that I think you should appropriately
    consider. There are innocent people who then get punished--
    potentially, employees, shareholders. Doesn't mean that you
    shouldn't--you might have to make the determination that
    because the company is a recidivist or the harm is so great
    that that is, in fact, the price that innocent people will have
    to pay.
        But, these are the kinds of things that we have to
    consider. And I think our track record shows that, where we
    have made the determination that people and institutions should
    be held accountable, we have not hesitated in doing so.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I'll close with this. I think what
    really stuck in my mind is that, the same week that the
    settlement came out with HSBC, which, I may be wrong, but I
    don't think involved any individuals being prosecuted--that
    same week, there was a story about a woman whose boyfriend
    stashed his drug money in a coffee can in her attic. And, if I
    recall right, I think she is serving 15 years in prison. And
    so, one involved a few dollars, the other hundreds of billions
    of dollars. And it just seemed like the sort of thing that
    sticks in people's minds as to whether the justice system is
    not weighted heavily in favor of the powerful. And I just want
    to encourage you to do all you can--and I understand that often
    it makes sense when individuals are involved, to go after the
    individuals rather than the institution, for the reasons we're
    discussing. But, it's important to our system in the United
    States that the powerful don't pay a fine while the ordinary
    person goes to prison.
        Attorney General Holder. Senator, you make an excellent
    point----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you very much. Thank you.
        Attorney General Holder. I was just going to say this. One
    of the reasons why our Smart on Crime initiative has at its
    base the notion that there has to be proportionality in regard
    to how we enforce the criminal law. And so, what I'm trying to
    do is work with Congress so that we put some sense of balance
    back into the system that has gotten a little out of balance.
    But, the concerns that you raise are very legitimate ones.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
        Senator Murkowski.

                                     DRUGS

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam
    Chairman, you have raised, as well as Senator Shaheen, the
    issue of apparent heroin and what we need to do as we move
    forward. And you've used the terminology that we need to be on
    the edge of our chair when it comes to issues like heroin.
        I would suggest, also--and I present this to you, Mr.
    Attorney General--that we are seeing an increasing level of
    synthetic drugs that are coming into our communities and doing
    great damage. And, of course, the problem is that, as a State,
    you can say that, based on this formulary, this is a drug under
    this schedule, but all these individuals have to do is change
    that formulary, and they evade or avoid those laws. We're
    seeing some really devastating impact in some of our very, very
    remote communities, where the only way to get these drugs is by
    the mail. And the drugs are coming into the community through
    the mail, and----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Through the Post Office?
        Senator Murkowski. Through the United States Post Office,
    Madam Chairman.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. And it is--it's something that we've
    been trying to work on some issues up north, but, again, we're
    seeing--I don't know whether we call it an epidemic, a crisis,
    but we are being beat on these issues and the impact to our
    communities, again, utilizing legal processes to get these
    drugs in there that are, in many cases, wiping out families.
    So----
        Attorney General Holder. Well, Senator----
        Senator Murkowski [continuing]. We need some assistance,
    here.
        Attorney General Holder. Senator, you've raised something
    that I think is a point that we really need to focus on. And I
    had the same reaction that the Chair did when I first heard
    about this. But, you're right, the Postal Service, the mail, is
    being used to facilitate drug dealing. We need to work with the
    Postal Service to come up with ways in which we get at that
    problem. It is shocking to see the amount of drugs that get
    pumped into communities all around this country through our
    mail system. And we have to deal with that. That's a major
    problem that we have to deal with.
        Senator Murkowski. It is major. We need to be talking
    further about this. I've got some ideas, but we need to get on
    it yesterday.

                         PROSECUTION OF SENATOR STEVENS

        Mr. Attorney General, as you know, I continue to seek
    further answers in the miserable prosecution that brought
    Senator Ted Stevens down. We had the FBI Director, Mr. Comey,
    before the committee last week. He indicated, at that time, to
    me that the FBI agent who had brought about this whole issue,
    that he had been severely disciplined. He--the investigation
    came under scrutiny, he was severely disciplined. He didn't
    indicate what that was. And I think we all know there may be
    varying degrees of--what might be severe discipline to one is a
    slap on the wrist to another. Can you shed any light on the
    status of that individual, whether he's still working for the
    FBI? If so, in what capacity? I have requested from Mr. Comey a
    copy of the report to be submitted here to the subcommittee so
    we can further review it. But, it is important that we
    understand what happened.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. I'll support that effort to
    make sure that you get that information with regard to the FBI
    agent. There also were two prosecutors, two lawyers, who were
    found to have acted inappropriately. They have been sanctioned.
    They have appealed the penalties that we sought to impose. And
    their appeals are now presently pending before the Merit
    Systems Protection Board. Once that body makes its
    determination, we'd be more than glad to share with you--I
    think that's appropriate--to share with you what the Board
    decides to do with those lawyers. But, we imposed sanctions
    against those lawyers, and that is now--as I said, that has
    been appealed to the MSPB.
        Senator Murkowski. And so, they're still working with the
    FBI?
        Attorney General Holder. I'm talking about the lawyers. The
    lawyers are still at--still at----
        Senator Murkowski. Excuse me. With Department of Justice.
        Attorney General Holder. They're still at the Department,
    yes.
        Senator Murkowski. So, I--again, I would suggest, you know,
    Is this really harsh discipline?
        Let me inquire further in this area. Last year, I
    introduced the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act, and what
    we're attempting to do is ensure that the obligation to
    disclose the exculpatory evidence to Federal defendants, in
    accordance with Brady rules, is uniformly applied across the
    districts. I think we saw, in the Stevens case, that this was
    part of the problem. This bill was endorsed by broad spectrum
    of folks, but, at the end of the day, apparently was
    unacceptable to the Department. And yet, there was no real
    assistance or guidance, in terms of what was not acceptable to
    the Department.
        So, what I would ask of you--I mean, I can keep trying to
    write bills on this. I'm not going to give up. I think that
    this is too important. But, if you would be willing to work
    with us to determine what might be acceptable, in terms of
    those parameters--because, again, I think, when we lack
    uniformity with regards to these--this obligation to disclose
    this evidence, you're going to get outcomes that will not only
    be upsetting, but are difficult, then, to defend from within
    your Department.
        So, if you would give me some assurance that we can be
    working with you to try to better define this, I'd appreciate
    it.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, certainly we want to work
    with you and certainly maybe make available to you, or aware
    of, the training that we do in the Department. There----
        Senator Murkowski. We've been told about the training. But,
    again, you've got--you don't have uniformity across the
    districts. And so, if you're--if you've got training going on
    over here, and you focus in one area, and the application is
    different than we have over there, it doesn't achieve the same
    end result.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. And that's something we've
    tried to eradicate through this training so that there is one
    person in every office, every U.S. Attorneys' Office--at least
    one--who can be seen as almost an ethics guru, a person to whom
    you can go if you have a question about what materials should
    be turned over. And we also try to make sure that every
    prosecutor understands his or her obligations under what is
    clear Supreme Court law, as defined in Brady and in subsequent
    cases.
        I think that the problems that were identified in the
    Senator Stevens case, and which I think justified my decision
    to dismiss the case, are not typical of what happens with
    Federal prosecutors around this country who, in millions of
    cases, making millions of decisions, are complying with their
    Brady and other ethical obligations.
        And I think there's a danger that we paint with too broad a
    brush the really terrible experience that we had in Stevens,
    and blame other people, other prosecutors who have not done
    anything improper, inappropriately, and they are seen in the
    same light.
        So, I'd be more than glad to work with you and talk to you
    about this issue, and try to come up with a way in which we can
    satisfy you that we are doing a good job. And if there are
    suggestions that you have about ways in which we can do this
    better, I'd be more than glad to sit down and talk to you and
    work with you in that regard.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Landrieu.
        Senator, before you begin, I want to advise the committee
    that the votes at 11:30 a.m., have been postponed to late this
    afternoon, now pending at approximately 4:30. Who knows.
        Senator Landrieu.

                        SAFETY OF CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

        Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Attorney General Holder, for
    your service. And thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership.
        I have three questions. One of them is about the safety of
    our corrections officers in some of our high-security Federal
    prisons. As you know, one of the challenges that the Chairwoman
    of this committee has taken up, and the Nation is focused on,
    is the overcrowding of our prisons, the per-capita--you know,
    the per-capita statistics about the number of people in prison
    in the U.S. We've had discussions about this, this morning. We
    need to change our policies, we need to provide additional
    resources. But, I want to focus specifically on the safety of
    our corrections officers.
        You may be aware that in Louisiana we had one of our
    corrections officers brutally----
        Attorney General Holder. Right.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Brutally beaten and stabbed.
    He, because of the rules of the Department of Justice and the
    staffing requirements, was on a floor, Madam Chair, with 100
    prisoners out of their cells, and there was one security
    officer.

                                PRISON STAFFING

        Now, in the letter that I wrote to you, and you responded,
    one of the responses--part of the response was that you all had
    provided pepper spray for some of these officers. Now, I'm not
    sure how effective pepper spray is going to be, Mr. Secretary,
    in the hands of one officer with 100 prisoners out of their
    cells.
        So, the budget request to help upgrade the security for
    these officers was $79 million. It was not submitted in your
    budget. There are other priorities, I understand. But, did
    you--did this come up to you? Did it come to a lower level of
    decision about the allocation of resources to protect these
    officers that we're asking to do pretty dangerous jobs in
    pretty dangerous situations? And would you reconsider?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, the concerns you've raised
    are very legitimate, Senator. And what we're trying to do is
    work at this from two angles:
        First, to work with the union. We have a different
    relationship with the new leadership of the union, a new
    director of the Bureau of Prisons, and I think we have made
    really substantial progress in that relationship. It is not as
    antagonistic as it once was. And, I think, through that
    relationship and through the interaction that they're going to
    have, I think we'll do better.
        We're also prioritizing the filling of staff positions. The
    fiscal year 2015 request supports the hiring of 4300 new
    officers that were included in our 2014 enacted appropriation.
    We need, simply, more bodies, and that is why we are
    prioritizing filling staff positions, so that we have more
    people there, in addition to whatever else that we're doing
    with the union.
        Senator Landrieu. Okay. Well, I would appreciate your
    continued focus on that. The prison in Pollock is this
    particular situation, but I understand there have been
    literally dozens, if not, you know, hundreds, of incidents of
    attacks against correctional officers. And, while we do want to
    focus on the safety of the prisoners, which is important, as
    well, we really want to focus on the safety of the men and
    women in uniform doing their job to keep order in the prison
    and in our country.

                   TRANSITION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDERS

        My second question is about domestic violence. It's
    something that the Chairman and I have supported, and many
    members of this committee, literally for years and years.
    There's some kind of new provision that you all are encouraging
    in the budget called ``transition officers''--I'm sorry,
    ``technical assistance providers'' to the domestic violence
    shelters around the country. I've been hearing some complaints
    about that from my network of--that I trust; in and out of
    administrations, Republican and Democrat, they've been very,
    very good to do this work. They're saying that some of these
    transition technical assistance providers come in without a lot
    of knowledge about what's actually happening on the ground in
    our regions and in our cities. I'm encouraged that your budget
    includes 423 million to reinforce efforts to combat domestic
    violence. We rank, Louisiana, one of the top States,
    unfortunately, for domestic violence in the country.
        But, can you comment about this office, this new
    contractual arrangement with technical assistance providers?
    What are they supposed to be doing, and why are they needed?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I'll be very honest with
    you, I'm not familiar with the complaints that you have raised.
    And perhaps our staffs can get together and we can get some
    more specifics about the complaints that have been raised so
    that we can examine who these people are and what the nature of
    the problems might be.
        We have an Office on Violence Against Women budget request
    of $423 million, and this whole notion of combating domestic
    violence, sexual assaults, and violence against women
    generally, is a priority for this Justice Department, and it
    has been a priority of mine throughout my career. To the extent
    that there are issues in the way in which we are using all--
    those resources, I'd----
        Senator Landrieu. Well, I would----
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Like to spend some
    more time with you --
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Appreciate that, because I
    know it's been a priority, and I want to commend you and the
    President for your emphasis on it. But, that's what worries me,
    when this came up. So, I'll follow----
        And, Ms.--Madam Chairman, I'm just going to submit this
    question to the record.
        The New Orleans Police Department entered into a consent
    decree with your office. There doesn't seem to have--they don't
    have the review that was required yet. My question, in writing,
    What is causing the delay? And what process are you using to
    review the NOPD Justice? And I'll submit that in----

        [Note: See response to Senator Landrieu's question in the
    ``Additional Committee Questions'' at the end of the hearing.]

        Attorney General Holder. Okay.
        Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Writing.
        Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator, that was excellent.
        Senator Boozman, you've been very patient.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair, as always.
        And thank you for being here.
        I was looking--when you look back 15 years ago, the Bureau
    of Prisons' enacted budget was $3.1 billion. I think this year
    we're asking for--fiscal year is $6.9 billion, which I'm very
    supportive of. Senator Landrieu has outlined some of the
    problems that we have. I've had the opportunity to visit some
    prisons, and see that there are really difficult situations.
    The problem is--right now, it's taking up 25 percent of your
    budget--as opposed to, not too long ago, just 16 percent. So,
    we've got to do something to bend the cost curve.

                                  DRUG COURTS

        One of the things that I'm being supportive of, very
    interested in, is drug courts. And a GAO study in 2011
    confirmed that drug courts reduce crime by up to 58 percent.
    The best drug courts cut crime rates in half, return $27 to
    their communities for every $1 invested.
        The other thing is, when people go off to prison, usually
    they're working, and help to support the family----
        Attorney General Holder. Right.
        Senator Boozman [continuing]. So you leave the family
    destitute.
        So, I would really encourage us to look at that. I think
    it's something--to me, it's just a no-brainer. We don't do a
    good job of supporting at the Federal level, our States aren't
    doing a good job of it. We do need to look and make sure that--
    I say the good drug courts are returning that----we do need to
    have standards and make sure that they're doing things
    appropriately. But, again, if you could look at that, and I
    know that you are interested in, it's something that we can get
    done.
        The other thing I'm really concerned about as has been
    mentioned on several occasions today, is the prescription drug
    problem. Now, we don't want to put meth on the back burner,
    which it seems to be done a little bit, because, when I talk to
    our sheriffs--though it might not be used as much, it's the
    cause of the violent crime. It's the--when you look at who's in
    prison, you've got all these people using different things, but
    the people that are actually in prison causing violent crimes
    are meth-related. So, there's just something about that drug
    that totally rewires your system.
        But, in regard to the prescription drug problem, I really
    do wish you'd get a task force together. This is something that
    the CDC needs to be involved, the NIH and research, our
    prescribers--there's no good data as to how addictive this
    stuff is. And so, it's being overprescribed. We need to educate
    the prescribers more than we need to educate the individuals
    that are doing it.
        We all have these drug take-back days. You can go into some
    little community, and they have a drug take-back, and there'll
    be pounds and pounds of this stuff that come in. These are the
    good people, that actually go to the trouble to drop it off. As
    I visit with my sheriffs, going to the rehab centers and asking
    them where they're getting it, many of the people that got
    their prescription drug pills through the mail or whatever, it
    was sold to them through senior citizens that are supplementing
    their Social Security. The VA's been terrible about this, and
    they're doing a better job. You know, we're staying after----
        So, I guess what I would really encourage, we really need
    to get all of those groups together. Prescribing is a huge
    issue. We need to get really aggressive. I think that--my
    understanding is that probably the leading cause of accidental
    death in young people now is----
        Attorney General Holder. Drugs.
        Senator Boozman [continuing]. Prescription drugs and
    alcohol. If we had the same sort of casualty rate overseas,
    with young people dying as a result of some sort of situation
    we were in, as far as a war, there would be a tremendous
    uproar.
        But--I've gone on too long, but if you would just consider
    those things, I think we can actually do some good.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, Senator, I actually think
    that you didn't go on too long, because I think what you've
    talked about is extremely important. The use of drug courts is
    extremely important. About a third of our budget now is taken
    up by expenses connected to the Bureau of Prisons. And we
    certainly have to do all that we can to keep people who work in
    our prisons safe. But, if a third of the budget, and
    increasingly more of the budget, is going to the Bureau of
    Prisons, that's fewer prosecutors that we can hire, fewer
    agents who we can put out on the streets. And drug courts are a
    way in which we can handle these kinds of problems in a way
    that's more cost-effective, reduce the prison population, and
    that has all kinds of benefits that flow from it.
        We have focused on heroin here today, but your focus on
    meth is exactly right. This continues to be a problem that is
    directly connected, for whatever reason--pharmacological, I'm
    not sure--with violence. And we cannot lose sight of that
    problem, as well.
        So, the approaches that you are talking about, I think make
    a great deal of sense and are consistent with the approaches
    that we are trying to push as part of the Smart on Crime
    initiative, where we are looking at new, innovative ways--
    evidenced-based ways in which we can deal with these issues.
    Strong enforcement--we're not giving up on that at all--but
    also looking at ways in which we deal with these drug problems
    in new ways, through, for instance, as you describe, drug
    courts, which I think have a great record, if done well, of
    turning people around, getting them off their habits, and
    cutting the recidivism rates, which ultimately saves us money.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. I'm turning to Senator Leahy, who
    spoke to me about the heroin problem and has continued to speak
    in a very forceful way.
        And you can hear where we are here, Mr. Attorney General.
    Senator Boozman has really outlined how, in some ways, the
    Federal Government are enablers, from the Post Office to the
    VA, giving drugs to one group, et cetera. And we've got--this
    is where the Interagency Task Force needs to happen, and I
    think sooner rather than later.
        Senator Leahy, I know you've spoken on this, and, of
    course, you're the chair of our Judiciary Committee. We're
    eager to hear your questions and, again, your----
        Senator Leahy. Well, I----
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Expertise in this area.
        Senator Leahy. Madam Chair, I appreciate what you've said
    and what Senator Shaheen said earlier about what I've been
    doing up in Vermont. The Attorney General and I have known each
    other for a long time, long before he was Attorney General.
    We've talked about this a great deal.

                                     DRUGS

        I saw the article, the other day on the front page of the
    Post, about where they've tried to--I guess this was in New
    Jersey--have a program set up so that if somebody is having an
    overdose and one of the people with the person can call for
    medical help without being arrested----
        Attorney General Holder. Right.
        Senator Leahy [continuing]. Themselves. We actually did
    this in a thing called The Place, in Burlington, Vermont, for 7
    or 8 years, back in the late '60s and early '70s, because, as
    chief law enforcement officer of that county, I could put it
    off limits. The police agreed with me on that. Somebody could
    come in, having an overdose, their friends could come in. They
    just had to empty their pockets of any drugs they had, but
    nobody would follow up the record. We had young interns and
    residents at the medical school who volunteered their time to
    be there, one of whom is now a very noted surgeon in this area.
        So, I appreciate what you said. And Senator Shaheen and
    Senator Boozman and I have talked about this before.
        Also, just my--and--well, this is not the issue here
    today--Senator Murkowski talked about the Senator Stevens case.
    Just so it doesn't appear to be partisan, I totally agree with
    her. And you and I discussed that. I applauded your decision to
    dismiss that case. It should not have been handled the way it
    was. And I agree with that.
        On a happier note, when the Justice Department arrested
    Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, you received
    a huge amount of criticism because you had read him his Miranda
    rights and did not bring him straight to Guantanamo so he might
    face a military commission and instead you said that America's
    strong enough, we can use our courts, the best in the world,
    and brought him to New York. And he was convicted--in fact, I'd
    much rather be the prosecutor in that case than the defense
    attorney--and demonstrated that--I think we've had three or
    four convictions in the military tribunals, we've had several
    hundred in our Federal courts. So, thank you for doing that. It
    proved that--proved to the rest of the world, we use our
    system, it works. And you got a good conviction there. So, I
    commend you on that.
        In Burlington, Vermont, we've implemented a community
    impact team approach, law enforcement tools for targeting drug
    traffickers, but also steering addicts to treatment. I would
    urge you and the Department to continue helping local and State
    governments in these kinds of programs.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, that is certainly our
    intention. It is interesting, I'd like to hear more about The
    Place and see how that worked. Those are the kinds of locally
    based, innovative kinds of things that we want to identify. If
    the evidence shows that they are effective, we want to try to
    support it. And that's why I think the grant making function of
    the Justice Department can be so important.
        We are working, as best we can, to deal with this epidemic
    of heroin, the continuing problem of meth. Drugs continue to be
    a problem for this Nation. The connection between drugs and
    violence is inescapable. The number of people who are on drugs
    or have drug-related crimes who are in our prisons is still
    exceedingly high. And no one should take from this Smart on
    Crime initiative any sense that we are retreating from our
    enforcement responsibilities in that regard. All we're trying
    to do is to come up with ways in which we can be more effective
    and ultimately knock down the recidivism rate by dealing with
    people who have drug problems that tend to breed crime.
        Senator Leahy. Well, your excellent U.S. Attorney in
    Vermont, Tris Coffin, has worked with the local and State, and
    that's been very helpful, to have the Justice Department so
    involved.
        I--in that regard, I know the Office of Juvenile Justice
    and Delinquency Prevention, we've mentioned, has indicated an
    intention to change eligibility requirements for grantees on a
    national mentoring program by requiring they have a presence in
    just 30 States rather than the current requirement they serve
    at least 45 States. Obviously, when you're representing the
    second-smallest State in the country, I worry--are you going to
    give priority to national programs that have shown a proven
    capacity?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, we certainly want to
    support--again, what we want to do is try different things.
    And, for those things that the evidence shows work, we want to
    support those. And, to the extent that you have a concern about
    OJJDP's perhaps pulling back, that's something I'd like to talk
    to you about, or our staffs could talk about, because I don't
    want size to be the prime determinant as to how we are
    apportioning our funds or how we're using our grant making
    capability. We want to make sure that, in large cities and in
    small towns, to the extent that we can, a positive Justice
    Department presence is there.

                               IMMIGRATION COURTS

        Senator Leahy. And lastly, if I just might note, Madam
    Chair, the Nation's immigration courts are understaffed--you've
    got 32 vacancies, nearly half of the 200 immigration judges
    eligible for retirement, pending caseload has grown by 50
    percent. You've requested $17 million to support an additional
    35 immigration judges to help process the backlog of over
    350,000 cases. Is this a priority? Because I really worry that
    we're going to reach such a tipping point that justice will
    just be totally denied.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. It is a priority. We have
    made a specific request for those 35 immigration judge teams.
    We think that that would have the potential to reduce a
    caseload, I think, of between 20- and 35,000 cases. We have to
    get at the backlog that exists. We can do that, I think, by
    coming up with innovative procedures and processes. But, I
    think, at base, we just simply need more immigration judges,
    and that's why we have included in our fiscal year 2015 request
    those additional funds for those additional teams.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. And, Senator Leahy, we're sharing with
    the Attorney General your idea on how to look at cops on the
    beat involved in heroin, as well as the interagency.
        Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                                SEX TRAFFICKING

        My Reserve unit last night got a briefing from the FBI
    about 69 task forces that are dealing with crimes of sex
    trafficking, exploitation of young women, in particular. And I
    was just really impressed with what I saw. So, I want to come
    visit and see how can we maximize that. I think the committee
    would be astonished as to what's going on out there. At least I
    was, I'll just speak for myself. And I just want to commend you
    on that program.

                            EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION

        So, tell us, if you could--in 2016, sequestration kicks
    back in. Could you walk through, fairly quickly, what does it
    mean to your Department, future Attorney Generals, to be able
    to protect this Nation if sequestration is fully implemented,
    going forward?
        Attorney General Holder. I can tell you that it will have a
    devastating impact, as it did over the course of the last
    couple of years. Since I put into effect a hiring freeze, I
    guess 3 years or so ago, we lost about 4,000 people, in total,
    in the Justice Department--about 1,470 attorneys and support
    staff, 900 attorneys and support staff. We lost 6 percent of
    the roughly 10,000 lawyers in the Department. The FBI lost over
    900 agents, analysts, and other staff. DEA lost 700; ATF, 500;
    United States Marshals, 300.
        Those are pretty daunting numbers, and you can't expect the
    Justice Department to do the job that the American people want
    us to do, and that we want to do, if we are faced with that
    kind of issue again.
        I would not wish this upon any of my successors.
        Senator Graham. And it gets worse over time, right?
        Attorney General Holder. Absolutely. We have in place now a
    budget for the next 2 years that will, I think, help us make up
    some of the lost ground. But, unless we have, in 2016, a
    realistic budget that deals with the need--we can't have
    another flat budget, and we certainly can't go to
    sequestration--unless we have a budget that increases the
    amount of money that goes to the Justice Department, we're
    going to find ourselves in the same place. And, at the end of
    the day, it's going to have at some point, an effect on
    performance. It simply will.
        Senator Graham. We'll be less safe as a Nation?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that's absolutely right.

                                   TERRORISM

        Senator Graham. Do you agree with me that we're still
    involved in a war against radical Islam, for lack of a better
    definition?
        Attorney General Holder. For lack of a better definition, I
    would agree with that, yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. And homegrown terrorism is a threat
    that we have to deal with now? It's probably growing.
        Attorney General Holder. Absolutely, and it's----
        Senator Graham. So, our----
        Attorney General Holder. It is growing. That is the one
    that keeps me up at night.
        Senator Graham. Yes. Rightly so.
        Cyber attacks on this country, we're going to have to get
    ahead of that. A lot of infrastructure to be built. Do you
    agree?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Graham. So, the threats we face are growing, and
    our budgets are shrinking?
        Attorney General Holder. That's right.
        Senator Graham. Who would have thought of that? The
    Congress. Okay? Not you. So, I hope the Congress will rethink
    this and we can, in bipartisan fashion, give some relief to
    sequestration, where Republicans give, Democrats give, and we
    replace it with something that will make sure the country's
    safe.
        Now, back to my favorite topic, how to defend America
    that's at war. I've always told you that I agree that Article
    III courts have a very viable role in the war on terror. And
    you've told me that you believe there's a place for military
    commissions. Are we still on the same sheet of music?
        Attorney General Holder. Agreed, yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Do you agree with me that enemy
    combatant status being conferred on a potential terrorist
    suspect is still lawful in this country, and we can hold
    somebody as an enemy combatant if they meet the criteria?
        Attorney General Holder. If they meet the criteria, yes,
    there is a legal basis to do that.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Do you agree with me that
    intelligence-gathering is very important when it comes to
    stopping potential attacks against the country?
        Attorney General Holder. I totally agree with that, and
    we've done so in the use of our Article III system, gathered
    intelligence from people before we have prosecuted them.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Now, how long have we held people at
    Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants? Isn't there a group being
    held for years down there?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, I think there are people
    there for----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. There 10, 11, 12
    years.
        Senator Graham. So, this idea that bin Laden--we caught him
    because of waterboarding. People say that's not true. And I'm
    in that camp. I think we were able to catch bin Laden because
    we gathered intelligence over a long period of time from people
    held at Guantanamo Bay, and we put the puzzle together. Do you
    think that's a fair statement?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, I think there were a variety
    of things that led to the death of bin Laden. Some was
    intelligence gathered from people who were detained at
    Guantanamo.
        Senator Graham. And some was outside.
        Attorney General Holder. Some outside.
        Senator Graham. Now, here's what I want to make sure you
    understand. I will support Article III courts, but, Mr.
    Attorney General, you'll never convince me that the criminal
    justice system is the best way to gather intelligence in a war.
    I don't know of any military in the world that uses their
    criminal justice system to gather intelligence from enemy
    combatants. They have a military intelligence-gathering
    process, which is a completely different legal endeavor. Do you
    agree that gathering intelligence is different than
    prosecuting?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, it is. And it's why the
    process that we have put together involves the use of the HIG--
    --
        Senator Graham. The HIG, yes, good system.
        Attorney General Holder. We put the HIG in there, they
    talk----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. To people who we
    capture. We then put in a whole different team that's
    responsible for the trial of the case.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Convictions are great. I'm more
    worried about finding, from that suspect, what the enemy's up
    to. The trial is important. The son-in-law of bin Laden, how
    long was he interrogated before his Miranda rights were read?
        Attorney General Holder. I believe about a week or so. I'm
    not sure about that.
        Senator Graham. I think it's hours, not days.
        Attorney General Holder. All right. Well, I'm not----
        Senator Graham. And here----
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. I'd have to----
        Senator Graham. Right.
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Get you a more----
        Senator Graham. Here's my only point. I think the Article
    III trial was the right venue for him. Here's where we differ.
    If we keep criminalizing the war--when we capture these guys,
    if we don't hold them for a period of time to gather
    intelligence, and put them right into the criminal justice
    system, I believe we're missing great opportunities to find out
    what the enemy's up to, because I personally believe that once
    you Mirandize someone and give them a lawyer, it is much harder
    to gather intelligence than it would be if you let your
    military and CIA officers lawfully--not torture--gather
    intelligence.
        So, I just hope that you'll be sensitive to this, because I
    think we're giving up intelligence-gathering opportunities by
    putting people in court right off the bat. And it makes it more
    likely we get attacked if we go down criminalizing the war.
    That's just my two cents' worth.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I think our experience has
    shown--and I think, in some ways, it's surprising--that once we
    come into contact with these people, and even after they're
    given their rights, there is still, for whatever reason, a
    desire on their part to talk, and they waive their rights,
    frequently, and speak with us, and we've had, I think, very
    fruitful interactions, where we have gathered usable
    intelligence in the Article III setting. People, I think, tend
    to forget that--I have sent people to the military commissions.
    I think we have to have both. But, I don't think we should shy
    away from using a system that is tried and true----
        Senator Graham. I----
        Attorney General Holder [continuing]. And that I think
    has----
        Senator Graham. I'm way over my time. I couldn't agree----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. You are.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. With you more. I just want to
    make sure that, before we put them in the military commission
    and Article III courts, that we try to gather as much
    intelligence as possible, lawfully, before we try them. That's
    all I'm saying.
        Attorney General Holder. And look--and that's what we try
    to do.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, we thank you for
    your testimony today. And, as you could see, this is a pretty
    smart, aggressive committee, and--but, most of all, where
    we're--we really want to work across the aisle and, really,
    protecting our people, starting first of all with the
    Constitution. So, we want to protect the Constitution, we want
    to protect the people against all enemies, foreign and
    domestic. And that means the scam and scum who prey on people
    with greed, like mortgage fraud, all the way up to these
    despicable acts of terrorism. You've got a big job, and we wish
    you had a bigger budget, but we're going to take a good look at
    it and see how we can support you.
        Yes.
        Attorney General Holder. I just--maybe I could say just one
    thing, and that is a thank you to this committee and to the
    Chair, as well as Senator Shelby. We had dark days in 2013, and
    the flexibility that you allowed us with regard to moving money
    around meant that people at the Justice Department did not have
    to be furloughed, it meant that people had the basic ability to
    pay mortgages, to keep their kids in school, to buy groceries.
    It allowed the Justice Department to do its job, under very
    trying circumstances. We would not have been able to do that
    without the flexibility that you gave us.
        So, on behalf of the 113,000 men and women of the Justice
    Department, I want to thank you--this committee generally, but
    you two specifically--for that flexibility.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, really, we could not have done
    it had we not worked on a bipartisan partnership and, really,
    with our colleagues in the House, Congressmen Rogers and Lowey.
    But, this is where we're trying to say, we're here--we're all
    in it together. We all take the same oath to the Constitution
    and to protect it. And so, we thank you for that. And you're in
    the front lines, and we're going to worry about the bottom
    lines.
        So, we're going to excuse you now and say that if there are
    questions related to the Attorney General, the record will be
    open, and we----
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Ask them to respond in 30
    days.
        We're going to go to the Inspector General now.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chair, I have several questions for
    the record for the Attorney General, but I'm sure others do,
    too.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Yes. So, the Senator's right will be
    protected, as are others.
        We're really doing these 60 hearings in 6 weeks, so there
    are many who wanted to come, but couldn't. So, there'll be
    additional questions.
        Thank you very much, Mr.----
        Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Attorney General.
        So, we now call upon the Inspector General, Michael
    Horowitz.
        Mr. Horowitz, we're glad to see you, and we're glad a
    changing in the vote schedule allows us to take your testimony
    in person. Both Senator Shelby and I are vigorous supporters of
    the Inspector General system, and we look forward to your
    testimony and your advocacy here.
        Please proceed, sir.
    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR
                GENERAL
        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking
    Member Shelby, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    inviting me to testify today, and for your continued strong
    support of our work.
        It would be hard for me to overstate the importance of
    having an appropriated budget this fiscal year that we can plan
    around and that will enable us to rebuild our staff, which
    shrunk by nearly 10 percent over the past 2 years. Moreover,
    removing furlough and shutdown threats provides a much-deserved
    boost to the morale of our staff, which has steadfastly
    performed at an extraordinarily high level over the past 2
    years.
        Since my appearance before you last June, our office has
    issued numerous reports that have important implications for
    the Department's budget and that promote transparency and
    increased efficiency. Just last month, for example, we reported
    on the Department's efforts to address mortgage fraud, we
    examined the operations of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
    Task Force Fusion Center, we audited the FBI's management of
    Terrorist Watch List nominations, and we reported on the
    Federal Bureau of Prisons' efforts to improve acquisitions
    through strategic sourcing, and we continue to conduct
    extensive oversight of the Department's cyber security efforts
    and its national security initiatives.
        For example, we are reviewing the FBI's implementation of
    its next-generation cyber initiative, as well as the FBI's
    regional computer forensic laboratories. We are reviewing, with
    three other inspector generals, the U.S. Government's handling
    and sharing of intelligence information leading up to the
    Boston Marathon bombing. We also continue our efforts to ensure
    that allegations from whistleblowers are reported,
    investigated, and handled appropriately.
        I'm proud that our efforts were recently recognized with
    certification from the Office of Special Counsel. We will
    continue to foster an open and effective environment for
    whistleblowers to come forward with information about waste,
    fraud, abuse, and misconduct.
        Late last year, in our Annual Top Management Challenges
    Report, we identified six areas where the Department is facing
    major challenges: addressing the crisis in the Federal prison
    system, protecting taxpayer funds from mismanagement and
    misuse, enhancing cyber security, safeguarding national
    security consistent with civil rights and civil liberties,
    ensuring effective and efficient law enforcement, and restoring
    confidence in the integrity, fairness, and accountability of
    the Department. I'd like to highlight the first two of those
    areas today.
        The crisis in the Federal prison system continues today.
    During my testimony before this subcommittee last year, I
    discussed at length two interrelated crises in the Federal
    prison system. The first is that costs continue to consume an
    ever-larger share of the Department's budget, with no evidence
    that the cost curve has been broken. For example, the BOP's
    budget continues to increase over the last 2 years at an even
    faster rate than the Department's budget. Moreover, while the
    number of Department employees has decreased since fiscal year
    2012, the number of BOP employees has increased during that
    same time. As a result, one out of every three Department
    employees now works for the BOP. In the past year, the
    Department has announced several new initiatives to address
    this challenge, but much will depend on the success of their
    implementation, which we will, of course, monitor.
        In connection with this challenge, the Department must
    consider its growing number of elderly inmates. From fiscal
    year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the population of BOP inmates
    over age 65 increased by 31 percent, while the population of
    inmates 30 or younger decreased by 12 percent. This demographic
    trend has significant budgetary implications, because older
    inmates have higher healthcare costs and are more expensive to
    incarcerate. The OIG is currently conducting a review in this
    important area.
        The other half of the prison crisis, which was discussed
    earlier today, is ensuring the safety and security of staff and
    inmates in overcrowded Federal prisons. Despite having a nearly
    $7 billion budget as of November 2013, the BOP was operating
    its facilities at approximately 36 percent over rated capacity.
    Moreover, the BOP's inmate-to-staff--inmate-to-correctional-
    officer ratio has remained at approximately 10 to 1 for more
    than a decade. In comparison, in 2005 the five largest State
    correctional systems had no more than an inmate-to-correctional
    ratio of over 6 to 1. Thus, not only must the Department
    evaluate the BOP's cost structure, it must also find ways to
    address capacity and staffing challenges.
        Avoiding wasteful and ineffective spending is another
    fundamental responsibility of Federal agencies in any budgetary
    environment, but it's particularly important in the current
    climate. In 2013, the OIG reports identified more than $35
    million in questioned costs and more than $4 million in
    taxpayer funds that could have been put to better use. The
    Department must remain vigilant on the monies it gives to third
    parties, whether contractors or grants, and make sure that they
    demonstrate that the money--the value that's being received is
    worth the money that's being given out.
        Let me turn briefly now to two areas of our effectiveness
    that I'd like to address. Providing strong and independent
    oversight of the IG's--of the ability of the IG to oversee the
    Department is critical. For any oversight agency to be
    conducted effectively, we must have complete and timely access
    to all records in our agency's possession that we deem relevant
    to our ongoing reviews. This is the principle Congress codified
    in Section 6 of the IG Act. Most of our audits and reviews are
    conducted with full and complete cooperation from the
    Department. However, there have been occasions when our office
    has had issues arise with timely access to certain records due
    to the Department's view that access was limited by other laws.
    Ultimately, in each instance, the Attorney General or the
    Deputy Attorney General provided the OIG with permission to
    receive the materials, and they have made it clear they will
    continue to do so, as necessary, going forward.
        However, requiring an Inspector General to request and
    receive permission from Department leadership in order to
    review critical documents impairs our independence and can
    delay our work unnecessarily. Stated simply, under the
    Inspector General Act, an Inspector General should be given
    prompt access to all relevant documents within the possession
    of the agency it is overseeing.
        Let me turn briefly to an issue, finally, that was
    discussed during my testimony before you last June. Unlike
    Inspectors General throughout the Federal Government, our
    office does not have the authority to investigate alleged
    misconduct by lawyers in the Department. In those instances,
    the Inspector General Act grants exclusive investigative
    authority to the Department's Office of Professional
    Responsibility. My office has long questioned the distinction
    between the treatment of agents who engage in alleged
    misconduct and those of Department attorneys. Last month, the
    independent, nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight issued
    a report that was critical of the OPR's lack of transparency,
    and recommended that Congress empower our office to investigate
    misconduct by DOJ attorneys.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Our office's statutory and operational independence from
    the Department ensures the integrity of our investigations and
    that they occur through a transparent and publicly accountable
    process. Giving the OIG the ability to exercise jurisdiction on
    all attorney misconduct cases, just as it does in matters
    involving non-attorneys, would enhance the public's confidence
    in the outcomes of these important investigations and provide
    our office with the same authority as every other Inspector
    General.
        Thank you again. I look forward to working with the
    subcommittee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael E. Horowitz
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee:
        Thank you for inviting me to testify at today's hearing on the
    Department of Justice's (Department or DOJ) fiscal year 2015 budget
    request. At the outset, I want to thank the subcommittee for its
    continued strong support of our work. Perhaps the biggest challenge I
    have had in my 2 years as Inspector General has been trying to manage
    the staffing and budget for our 400-plus person agency as we faced,
    seemingly every few months, another budget crisis, with ever-present
    threats of furloughs and shutdowns. It would be hard for me to
    overstate the importance of having an appropriated budget for this
    current fiscal year that we can now plan around. Our current budget
    will enable us to rebuild our staff, which has shrunk by nearly 10
    percent over the past 2 years, thereby enhancing our ability to conduct
    oversight of the Department. Our fiscal year 2015 budget request is
    relatively straightforward--we are seeking funding at our current base
    level of $86.4 million, plus $2.2 million in adjustments to base to
    cover, for example, rent increases and other inflationary costs.
        Having a budget, and removing the furlough and shutdown threats,
    also provides a much-deserved boost to morale among Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG) employees, who have remained admirably
    dedicated to the office's mission despite the significant budget
    uncertainty of the past few years. As we prepare later this month to
    mark the 25th anniversary of our office's creation in April 1989, I am
    confident that we are an organization capable of conducting the high
    quality, independent oversight that Congress mandated so many years
    ago.
        In my testimony today, I would like to highlight some examples of
    our recent and ongoing oversight work, discuss two significant
    challenges facing the Department that will impact its fiscal year 2015
    budget, and briefly comment on two legislative initiatives that I
    believe would materially enhance the OIG's ability to conduct timely
    and independent oversight.
            recent doj oig oversight of the department's operations
        Our office has issued numerous reports since my appearance before
    the subcommittee last June that have important implications for the
    Department's budget, and that promote transparency, increase
    efficiency, and enhance our national security. The findings from four
    reports that we issued in just the last month exemplify these results.
    First, our audit of the Department's efforts to address mortgage fraud
    identified examples of DOJ-led efforts to prioritize the investigation
    and prosecution of mortgage fraud cases, but also found that, despite
    having been appropriated significant funding for the purpose, DOJ and
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) did not uniformly ensure that
    mortgage fraud was prioritized at a level commensurate with its public
    statements. The OIG also found significant deficiencies in DOJ's and
    the FBI's ability to report accurately on its mortgage fraud efforts.
    Second, our report examining the operations of the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Fusion Center (OFC) found deficiencies
    in the OFC's operations that could limit its contribution to the OCDETF
    Program's effectiveness in dismantling significant drug trafficking and
    money laundering organizations. We also found that OFC management took
    actions during our review that created difficulties for the OIG in
    obtaining information from OFC employees, and that there were
    reasonable grounds to believe that two OFC employees who met with us to
    describe concerns they had about the OFC's operations were subsequently
    subjected to adverse retaliatory personnel actions. Third, our follow-
    up report on the FBI's management of terrorist watchlist nominations
    found that the FBI's time requirements for the submission of watchlist
    actions could be strengthened and identified weaknesses in the database
    used by the FBI to submit, monitor, and track non-investigative subject
    nominations. Finally, our report on the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
    (BOP) efforts to improve acquisition through strategic sourcing found
    that while the BOP had established national contracts and blanket
    purchase agreements, it had not established a program to implement and
    oversee the General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Strategic
    Sourcing Initiative or other Federal strategic sourcing initiatives,
    and thus may be missing an opportunity for greater cost savings.
        Reviews completed at the end of the last fiscal year were similarly
    important. In September, we issued a report on the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) income-generating undercover
    operations in which we found that ATF did not properly authorize,
    manage, or monitor these investigations, misused their proceeds, and
    failed to properly account for 2.1 million cartons of cigarettes that
    were associated with these investigations, the retail value of which
    was more than $127 million. Also in September, we issued an interim
    report on the Department's use and support of unmanned aircraft systems
    (UAS), often referred to as ``drones,'' in which we found that the
    technological capabilities of drones--such as their ability to fly for
    extended periods of time and maneuver effectively yet covertly around
    residences--and the current, uncoordinated approach of Department
    components to using UAS may merit the Department developing consistent
    UAS policies to guide their use. Notably, that report also found that
    two of the Department's grantmaking components had failed to require
    award recipients to report specific data necessary to measure the
    success of UAS testing, or to share the results of their programs with
    the Department.
        In addition, we continue to conduct extensive oversight of the
    Department's efforts to combat significant crime issues, such as cyber
    security, and its national security initiatives. For example, we have
    initiated a review of the FBI's implementation of its Next Generation
    Cyber Initiative and a review of the FBI's Regional Computer Forensic
    Laboratories, among two of the Department's most important efforts to
    respond to the serious, rapidly evolving threat posed by cyber
    criminals. On national security issues, we are reviewing, with three
    other Inspectors General, the U.S. Government's handling of
    intelligence information leading up to the Boston Marathon bombings.
    This review is examining the information available to the U.S.
    Government before the bombings and the information-sharing protocols
    and procedures followed between and among the intelligence and law
    enforcement agencies. We also are continuing our reviews of the FBI's
    use of National Security Letters (NSL), requests for business records
    under Section 215 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),
    the Department's use of pen register and trap-and-trace devices under
    FISA, and the Department's use of the material witness warrant statute,
    18 U.S.C. Sec. 3144. We are also continuing our review of the Federal
    Witness Security Program and will evaluate the Department's progress in
    implementing corrective measures in response to the recommendations
    contained in the interim report, which we discussed during my
    appearance before the subcommittee last June.
        In addition, our Investigations Division's case load continues
    unabated: during fiscal year 2013, it received more than 12,000
    complaints, had dozens of arrests and convictions resulting from
    corruption and fraud cases, and investigated allegations that resulted
    in more than 250 administrative actions against Department employees.
        Finally, before turning to our assessment of the challenges facing
    the Department, I would like to give you a brief update on our efforts
    to ensure that allegations against whistleblowers are reported,
    investigated, and handled appropriately. Among other initiatives, last
    year we developed an education program on whistleblower rights and
    protections for our employees, posted informational posters at our
    offices, and created a section our public Web site containing
    information about whistleblower rights for employees throughout the
    Department. I am proud to report that we were recognized for our
    efforts last year with certification from the Office of Special Counsel
    under 5 USC Sec. 2302(c). Additionally, we continue to lead a working
    group of Federal Whistleblower Ombudspersons that we helped launch
    through the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
    (CIGIE). I will continue to increase awareness among my staff and
    provide the training and reporting mechanisms necessary to foster an
    open and effective environment for whistleblowers to come forward with
    information about waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct within the
    Department.
                   future work and top challenges facing doj
        Let me turn now to the issues that we feel represent significant
    challenges facing the Department of Justice in 2014, and will impact
    its budget in the coming fiscal year.
        In December 2013, we identified the following six major challenges
    for the Department:

      --Addressing the Crisis in the Federal Prison System;
      --Safeguarding National Security Consistent with Civil Rights and
            Liberties;
      --Protecting Taxpayer Funds from Mismanagement and Misuse;
      --Enhancing Cybersecurity;
      --Ensuring Effective and Efficient Law Enforcement; and
      --Restoring Confidence in the Integrity, Fairness, and Accountability
            of the DOJ.

        I would like to highlight for the subcommittee two challenges with
    potentially significant impacts on the Department's budget, and on its
    operational efficiency and effectiveness. A detailed discussion of our
    assessment of each challenge is available on in the ``Top Challenges''
    section of our Web site, http://www.justice.gov/oig.
    The Crisis in the Federal Prison System Continues
        During my testimony before the subcommittee last year, I discussed
    at great length the two interrelated crises the Department is facing
    regarding the Federal prison system. The costs of the Federal prison
    system continue to escalate, consuming an ever-larger share of the
    Department's budget. In an era of flat budgets, the continued growth of
    the prison system budget poses a threat to the Department's other
    critical programs--including those designed to protect national
    security, enforce criminal laws, and defend civil rights. Second,
    Federal prisons are facing a number of important safety and security
    issues, including, most significantly, that they have been overcrowded
    for years. Meeting this challenge will require a coordinated,
    Department-wide approach in which all relevant Department components
    participate in helping to reduce the costs and crowding in our prison
    system.
        The Department's leadership has acknowledged that rising prison
    costs threaten the Department's ability to fulfill its mission in other
    areas. Yet the costs of the Federal prison system continue to grow,
    with no evidence that the cost curve has been broken. For example, even
    though the Department's discretionary budget increased slightly from
    fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2014, the BOP's budget once again
    increased at an even faster rate, resulting in the BOP's share of the
    Department's budget continuing to grow. Moreover, while the number of
    Department employees has actually decreased since fiscal year 2012, the
    number of BOP employees has increased during that same time. As a
    result, the BOP now has over 38,000 employees, or approximately one-
    third (33 percent) of all the employees at the Department.
        To its credit, in the past year the Department has announced
    several new initiatives to address this issue, such as an initiative to
    limit the number of defendants charged under statutes carrying
    mandatory minimum sentences, and the Smart on Crime initiative, which
    sets out five principles designed to identify reforms to enforce
    Federal laws more fairly and efficiently. Efforts to better align the
    investigative and prosecutive policies that drive incarceration costs
    with the Department's current budget situation represent important
    steps toward addressing rising Federal prison costs, but much will
    depend on the success of their implementation.
        The Department must also ensure that it is identifying and
    addressing the growing challenges that will affect the Federal prison
    budget in coming years. One ongoing challenge is BOP's management of
    its private prison contracts, which is the subject of an ongoing OIG
    review. Another such challenge is the increasing number of elderly
    inmates. From fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2013, the population of
    inmates over the age of 65 in BOP-managed facilities increased by 31
    percent, from 2,708 to 3,555, while the population of inmates 30 or
    younger decreased by 12 percent, from 40,570 to 35,783. This
    demographic trend has significant budgetary implications for the
    Department because older inmates have higher medical costs. The
    National Institute of Corrections has estimated that elderly inmates
    are roughly two to three times more expensive to incarcerate than their
    younger counterparts. For example, according to BOP data, in fiscal
    year 2011, the average cost of incarcerating a prisoner in a BOP
    medical referral center was $57,962 compared with $28,893 for an inmate
    in the general population. Moreover, inmate health services costs are
    rising: BOP data shows that the cost for providing health services to
    inmates increased from $677 million in fiscal year 2006 to $947 million
    in fiscal year 2011, a 40 percent increase. The OIG is currently
    reviewing the trends in the BOP's aging inmate population, the impact
    of incarcerating a growing population of aging inmates, the effect of
    aging inmates on the BOP's incarceration costs, and the recidivism rate
    of inmates age 50 and older who were recently released.
        Managing the cost of the Federal prison system is just part of the
    Department's challenge; it must also ensure the safety of staff and
    inmates in Federal prison and detention facilities. This task has been
    made exponentially harder by the prolonged, system-wide overcrowding in
    BOP's correctional facilities: as of November 2013, the BOP was
    operating with its facilities at approximately 36 percent over rated
    capacity, with medium security facilities operating at approximately 45
    percent over rated capacity and high security facilities operating at
    approximately 51 percent over rated capacity.
        The growth of the inmate population, along with the Department's
    tightened budget situation in recent years, has prevented the BOP from
    reducing its inmate-to-correctional officer ratio, which has remained
    at approximately 10-to-1 for more than a decade. In comparison, the
    Congressional Research Service reported that among the five largest
    State correctional systems in 2005--California, Texas, New York,
    Florida, and Georgia--the highest ratio of inmates to correctional
    officers was just over 6-to-1. And importantly, overcrowding at BOP
    institutions is not just a problem for the BOP; it also has a
    significant impact on the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which is
    responsible for housing pre-trial detainees and is projected to detain
    an average of 62,131 individuals per day in fiscal year 2014, a 15-
    percent increase since fiscal year 2004. The USMS estimates that the
    BOP will only be able to house approximately 18 percent of USMS
    detainees, meaning that the USMS must pay to house the remainder--an
    average of about 50,000 detainees per day--in approximately 1,100
    State, local, or private facilities.
        There are several other important safety and security issues at
    Federal prison and detention facilities that the OIG is monitoring
    carefully. For example, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA)
    expanded the Department's responsibility to prevent the sexual abuse of
    inmates in BOP facilities and detainees in the custody of the USMS. The
    OIG's agents have long been involved in leading investigations of staff
    on inmate sexual misconduct, resulting in numerous criminal convictions
    and administrative actions by the BOP and the USMS. PREA also required
    the Department to issue national standards for preventing, detecting,
    reducing, and punishing sexual abuse in prison, which it did in May
    2012. With national standards in place, the Department must ensure that
    those standards are being met, which will require careful oversight of
    BOP, USMS, and Federal contract facilities, including residential
    reentry centers, and an extensive program for compliance auditing. The
    OIG intends to monitor the Department's efforts to ensure that the
    national standards are met.
    DOJ Must Continue its Efforts to Protect Taxpayer Funds from
            Mismanagement and Misuse
        Avoiding wasteful and ineffective spending is a fundamental
    responsibility of Federal agencies in any budgetary environment, but in
    the current climate of budget constraints the Department needs to take
    particular care to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and
    effectively as possible. The OIG's recent oversight work has
    demonstrated the challenges facing the Department. In fiscal year 2013
    alone, the OIG's reports, including those related to audits performed
    by independent auditors pursuant to the Single Audit Act, identified
    more than $35 million in questioned costs and more than $4 million in
    taxpayer funds that could be put to better use.
        The Department must remain particularly vigilant when taxpayer
    funds are distributed to third parties, such as grantees and
    contractors. In part due to the sheer volume of money and the large
    number of recipients involved, grant funds present a particular risk
    for mismanagement and misuse: according to the USASpending.gov Web
    site, from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2013 the Department
    awarded approximately $17 billion in grants to thousands of
    governmental and non-governmental recipients.
        These risks were evident in a recent OIG audit which questioned
    nearly all of the more than $23 million in grant funds awarded by the
    Department to Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), which
    resulted in the Department's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) deciding
    to freeze the disbursement of all grant funds to BBBSA. Even so, it is
    my understanding that BBBSA subsequently submitted an application to
    the Department of Labor for grant funds and was awarded a grant
    totaling $5 million. This situation demonstrates the importance of
    ensuring that there is appropriate information sharing between grant-
    making agencies across the Federal Government.
        The Department has reported taking important steps toward improving
    its management of this vast and diverse grantmaking effort. For
    example, the Associate Attorney General's Office established a Grants
    Management Challenges Workgroup that is responsible for developing
    consistent practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant
    administration and management areas. In January 2012, the Department
    issued policy and procedures the workgroup developed to implement the
    Department-wide high risk grantee designation program, which allows the
    Department to place additional restrictions on the use of funds it
    provides to grantees who, for example, are deemed financially unstable
    or have failed to conform to the terms and conditions of previous
    awards. The Department should continue to be aggressive in identifying
    high risk grantees and placing appropriate restrictions on their
    funds--or halting their funding altogether. It should also use the
    other tools at its disposal to mitigate the risk of releasing funds to
    grantees, such as ensuring that grantees have adequate accounting
    procedures in place to track their use of Department funds and actively
    seeking suspension and debarment of grantees in appropriate cases,
    especially where doing so will help to protect grant funds administered
    by other Federal agencies.
               strengthening the independent oversight of the doj
        Providing strong and effective independent oversight over agency
    operations is at the core of any OIG's mission. The taxpayers rightly
    expect much from Inspectors General, and it is important that we have
    the necessary tools to allow us to conduct our significant oversight
    responsibilities. The Inspector General Act provides us with many of
    those tools. However, there are several areas where our ability to
    conduct effective and independent oversight can be strengthened. I
    would like to highlight for you today two such areas that directly
    affect the work of the DOJ OIG.
    Access to Documents Relevant to OIG Reviews
        For any OIG to conduct effective oversight, it must have complete
    and timely access to all records in the agency's possession that the
    OIG deems relevant to its review. This is the principle codified in
    Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act, which authorizes Inspectors
    General ``to have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews,
    documents, papers, recommendations or other material available to the
    applicable establishment which relate to programs and operations with
    respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under this
    Act.'' This principle is both simple and important, because refusing,
    restricting, or delaying an OIG's access to documents may lead to
    incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed findings or
    recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from correcting
    serious problems in a timely manner.
        Most of our audits and reviews are conducted with full and complete
    cooperation from Department components and with timely production of
    material. However, there have been occasions when our office has had
    issues arise with timely access to certain records due to the
    Department's view that access was limited by other laws. For example,
    issues arose in the course of our review of Operation Fast and Furious
    regarding access to grand jury and wiretap information that was
    directly relevant to our review. Similar issues arose during our
    ongoing review of the Department's use of Material Witness Warrants.
    Ultimately, in each instance, the Attorney General or the Deputy
    Attorney General provided the OIG with permission to receive the
    materials because they concluded that the two reviews were of
    assistance to them. The Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
    have also made it clear that they will continue to provide the OIG with
    the necessary authorizations to enable us to obtain records in future
    reviews, which we of course appreciate. However, requiring an Inspector
    General to rely on permission from Department leadership in order to
    review critical documents in the Department's possession impairs the
    Inspector General's independence and conflicts with the core principles
    of the Inspector General Act.
        We have had similar issues raised regarding our access to some
    other categories of documents. And I understand from the Inspector
    General for the Peace Corps that her office has had a similar issue
    regarding access to records within her agency. Although our office has
    not yet had an instance where materials were ultimately withheld from
    us that were necessary to complete a review, we remain concerned about
    the legal questions that have been raised and the potential impact of
    these issues on our future reviews. Moreover, issues such as these
    have, at times, significantly delayed our access to documents, thereby
    substantially impacting the time required to complete the reviews.
        My view, and I believe the view of my colleagues in the Inspector
    General community, is straightforward and follows from what is
    explicitly stated in the Inspector General Act: an Inspector General
    should be given prompt access to all relevant documents within the
    possession of the agency it is overseeing. For a review to be truly
    independent, an Inspector General should not be required to obtain the
    permission or authorization of the leadership of the agency in order to
    gain access to certain agency records, and the determination about what
    records are relevant and necessary to a review should be made by the
    Inspector General and not by the component head or agency leadership.
    Such complete access to information is a cornerstone of effective
    independent oversight.
    Limitations on the DOJ OIG's Jurisdiction
        Let me briefly turn to an issue that was discussed during my
    testimony last June before this subcommittee, which is an oversight
    limitation that is unique to my office: unlike Inspectors General
    throughout the Federal Government, our office does not have authority
    to investigate all allegations of misconduct within the agency we
    oversee. While we have jurisdiction to review alleged misconduct by
    non-lawyers in the Department, under Section 8E of the Inspector
    General Act, we do not have the same jurisdiction over alleged
    misconduct committed by Department attorneys when they act in their
    capacity as lawyers--namely, when they are litigating, investigating,
    or providing legal advice. In those instances, the Inspector General
    Act grants exclusive investigative authority to the Department's Office
    of Professional Responsibility (OPR). As a result, these types of
    misconduct allegations against Department lawyers, including those that
    may be made against the most senior Department lawyers (including those
    in leadership positions) are handled differently than misconduct
    allegations made against law enforcement agents or other Department
    employees.
        My office has long questioned this distinction between the
    treatment of misconduct by attorneys acting in their legal capacity and
    misconduct by other Department employees. Such a system cannot help but
    have a detrimental effect on the public's confidence in the
    Department's ability to review misconduct by its own attorneys. In
    recent months, others have expressed a similar concern. For example,
    the independent, non-partisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
    issued a report last month that was critical of OPR's longstanding lack
    of transparency and recommended empowering our office to investigate
    misconduct by DOJ attorneys. And I would like to thank Senator
    Murkowski for co-sponsoring S.2127, a bipartisan bill that would amend
    the Inspector General Act to enable our office to investigate
    allegations of attorney misconduct.
        The jurisdictional limitation on our office is a vestige of the
    fact that OPR preexisted the creation by Congress in 1988 of the DOJ
    OIG, resulting in the statutory carve-out on our jurisdiction. The
    Department has consistently taken the position that because OPR has
    specialized expertise in examining professional conduct issues
    involving Department lawyers, OPR should handle professional misconduct
    allegations against Department attorneys. Whatever merit such an
    argument may have had in 1988 when the OIG was established by Congress,
    it is surely outdated.
        Over the past 25 years, our Office has shown itself to be capable
    of fair and independent oversight of the Department, including
    investigating misconduct allegations against its law enforcement
    agents. Indeed, a similar argument was made many years ago by those who
    tried to forestall our Office's oversight of alleged misconduct by FBI
    agents. This argument against Inspector General oversight of the FBI
    was rejected, and we have demonstrated through the numerous
    investigations and reviews involving Department law enforcement matters
    since then, including our Operation Fast and Furious review, that our
    office has the means and expertise to handle the most sophisticated
    legal and factual issues thoroughly, effectively, fairly, and
    independently. Moreover, Inspectors General across the Federal
    Government have the authority to handle misconduct allegations against
    lawyers acting as such within their agencies, and they have
    demonstrated that they are fully capable of dealing with such matters.
    Seen in this context, the carve-out for OPR from our Office's oversight
    jurisdiction is best understood as an unnecessary historical artifact.
        Eliminating the jurisdictional exception for OPR in the Inspector
    General Act would ensure the ability of our Office to fully review and,
    when appropriate, investigate allegations of misconduct of all
    Department employees. Moreover, even with such a jurisdiction change,
    the Department's OPR would almost certainly remain in place to handle
    ``routine'' misconduct allegations that do not require independent
    outside review by an OIG, much as the internal affairs offices at the
    FBI and the Department's other law enforcement components remain in
    place today even though the OIG's jurisdiction was expanded years ago
    to include those components. The current system with the law
    enforcement components works well, particularly given the OIG's limited
    resources. Each day, the OIG reviews new allegations of misconduct
    involving law enforcement personnel and determines which ones warrant
    investigation by an independent OIG, such as those that involve high-
    level personnel, those that involve potential crimes and other serious
    misconduct, and those that involve significant issues related to
    conduct by management. Those that we determine do not meet these
    standards are returned to the law enforcement component's internal
    affairs unit for handling, although the OIG frequently requires the
    internal affairs unit to report back to the OIG on the outcome of its
    investigation or review.
        Our Office's statutory and operational independence from the
    Department ensures that our investigations of alleged misconduct by
    Department employees occur through a transparent and publicly
    accountable process. Unlike the head of OPR, who is appointed by the
    Attorney General and can be removed by the Attorney General, the
    Inspector General is a Senate confirmed appointee who can only be
    removed by the President after notification to Congress, and the
    Inspector General has reporting obligations to both the Attorney
    General and Congress.
        Giving the OIG the ability to exercise jurisdiction in all attorney
    misconduct cases, just as it does in matters involving non-attorneys
    throughout the Department, would enhance the public's confidence in the
    outcomes of these important investigations and provide our office with
    the same authority as other Inspectors General.
                                   conclusion
        Due in large part to the continued support of this subcommittee,
    fiscal year 2013 represented a strong and productive year for the OIG,
    which we are continuing in fiscal year 2014. I look forward to working
    closely with this subcommittee to ensure that our office can continue
    its vigorous oversight through fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions that you may have.

        Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz. You and your
    team do such a great job.
        And, tell me, how many employees do you have?
        Mr. Horowitz. We have on board now about 405, roughly.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. And what is your budget?
        Mr. Horowitz. $86.4 million is our base, and we've asked
    for that for the next fiscal year, plus 2.2 million in
    enhancements.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. So, it would be 2.2 million more.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Is that correct? Well, we ask you to
    do a very important job overseeing $37 billion.

                          CYBER SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS

        I know Senator Shelby will be raising questions about
    access to records. I want to welcome your insights on prison
    reform, but I'm going to go to cyber security. It's an area of
    keen interest with me----
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. And have been an
    advocate. And one of the things I fear is techno-boondoggles.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. You know, we go through the FBI case
    file thing. Now, we understand the FBI--excuse me, the fiscal
    '15 budget request from Justice is 722 million. They're
    actually decreasing it, though the threat is increasing. You
    note that--you cite 130 open recommendations for improving the
    security of the Department's own IT system. Could you comment
    on what you think are--where you think appropriate in an open
    and public session, so we don't tip any bad guys, here----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. What you think they need
    to do to improve their cyber security. And do you think it's
    money, do you think it's management, or do you think it's a
    government wide problem?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. I have my own views. I would like to
    hear yours, sir.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes. Our 130 recommendations come from our
    FISMA audits, which are obviously marked sensitive, given the
    nature of the information, but generally they have involved the
    handling of configurations of systems and account management of
    those systems, as well. We've made a number of very specific
    requests, and have outlined the issues that I think need to be
    addressed. I think, generally, it is a function of both the
    needs--additional needs, potentially, for the systems, as well
    as the possibility of the requirement for additional personnel.
    We, ourselves, for example, are struggling with both of those
    issues, as well, in a tightening budget environment, making
    sure we've got the right IT people, as well as enough funding
    for the right systems. And so, that's one of the things I've
    tried to do with our budget this year, is catch up,
    essentially, from where we fell behind over the last 2 years.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Do you feel that the Justice
    Department is prime time in implementing your recommendations?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think that, in a number of areas, the
    Department needs to do a better job in implementing the
    recommendations we make faster, and going and looking at them
    seriously and taking them seriously. We continue to push on
    that. The Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General,
    have supported that effort, and we will continue to press on
    that.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. So, you feel you have the support. So,
    again, I'll come back, is it a resource issue? Is it a
    consistent resource issue? Senators Shelby, Graham, others,
    have raised, you know, sequester----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Closed--you know, slam
    down and shut down, furloughs. What's the issue, here? We can't
    hire tech people?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it's probably a combination of both
    issues that you identified, that the needs continually change,
    they're continually evolving, technology is continually
    evolving, the threats are continually evolving; and that's one
    of the reasons, frankly, we've undertaken the next cyber
    initiative review, because Congress has given a substantial
    amount of money to the Department to undertake that effort, and
    that is a very significant part of the Department's budget and
    a critical part of dealing with threats, going forward.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, thank you.
        We could ask more, but I'm going to turn to Senator Shelby,
    here.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Inspector General. We appreciate the work
    you're doing, your dedication. And, as the Chairman said, we
    want to make sure you have the tools to do your job, because
    the Inspector General, whether it's in the Justice Department,
    whether it's in the Pentagon, or whether the--we created that
    position for a reason----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. And so forth. You know this
    well.

                            INSPECTOR GENERAL ACCESS

        Do you believe that you, the Inspector General of the
    Department of Justice, should have to seek approval of the
    Attorney General to access grand jury documents, or any
    documents, relevant to ongoing investigations?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't, Senator. It's inconsistent, in my
    view, with the----
        Senator Shelby. With your mandate, is it?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. And the--with the Inspector
    General----
        Senator Shelby. Because, even though it's the Justice
    Department, but it could be any Department----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. If you have to go to the head
    of the Department, the Secretary----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. For example, a Cabinet-level
    position, to approve what you're seeking, it seems that could
    be, under dire circumstances, an impediment to doing your job.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, and ultimately--that's correct--and
    ultimately, the letters that we've gotten from the Attorney
    General or the Deputy Attorney General----
        Senator Shelby. Yes.
        Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. Giving us access have focused on
    a finding that the review was important to their oversight of
    the Department. The Act sets it up such a way that the
    oversight decisions, I think, should be made by Inspectors
    General, not by the Secretaries or Cabinet hats.
        Senator Shelby. Have you been, basically--have you had
    unfettered access to relevant documents?
        Mr. Horowitz. In--with regard to certain records, we have
    only gotten them after the Attorney General----
        Senator Shelby. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. Or the Deputy General have made
    a determination----
        Senator Shelby. After you had to jump through a lot of
    hoops, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. After we had to get a letter from them to the
    component, informing them that they had the permission to give
    us the documents.
        Senator Shelby. Do you know if your fellow Inspector
    Generals, say, at the Department of State or Pentagon or
    Agriculture or, you name it--Commerce--do they have to jump
    through these hoops to do that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I understand that there's one Inspector
    General at the Peace Corps, for example, who has tried to get
    records to do the oversight I think Congress expected in
    connection with sexual attacks on volunteers oversees, that has
    an opinion from her general counsel indicating that the IG Act
    does not give her authority to look at those records.

                               AUTONOMY OF OFFICE

        Senator Shelby. Have you thought about whether or not
    perhaps we need to address this legislatively, to be direct on
    this to Secretaries and--Attorney General, whoever--that they
    must furnish unfettered access to documents? Otherwise, you
    can't do your job.
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it's critical that Inspectors General
    have that ability to make the decision for themselves, and
    legislation obviously would clear it up entirely, and it's a
    relatively small fix, understanding legislation is always
    difficult to get enacted.
        Senator Shelby. Well, it might not be that hard to get
    enacted, when the Chair of an Appropriations Committee--who
    knows. But, I think that we need to make sure, under all
    circumstances, that you and your fellow Inspector Generals have
    unfettered access to documents that could root out wrongdoing
    in any Department.
        Mr. Horowitz. I couldn't agree more, Senator. And, I think,
    ultimately, that what's set up now is--Who should make that
    decision? Should it be the Inspector General who decides what's
    relevant----
        Senator Shelby. No.
        Mr. Horowitz [continuing]. And what's needed?
        Senator Shelby. I think you're put there to do that job, in
    your sworn oath to do that job.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. We believe the Inspector Generals--
    this is a bipartisan----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. Approach that--should
    have access to the information, compliant with existing law.
    There are certain rules and so on. I'm not a lawyer. But, you
    know, there's legal compliance and there's access. So, that's
    one thing.
        Second thing, I am familiar with this--or becoming familiar
    with this Peace Corps situation. A young lady, who was a Peace
    Corps volunteer, saw another Peace Corps volunteer allegedly
    sexually assault, reported it, and then the Peace Corps server
    who reported it was murdered. Well--this is big.
        So, we want to maintain the integrity of the Inspector
    General process. We believe in the Inspector General process.
    Government should be never so big or so insulated or so
    isolated that it does not have an independent Senate-confirmed
    institution to red-team their work for waste, fraud, or other
    forms of mismanagement. So, we look forward to working with you
    on this.
        And, Mr. Inspector General, you come with an extensive
    background in sentencing, incarceration, and so on. You
    actually were head of the Sentencing Commission.
        Mr. Horowitz. I was a member of the Sentencing----
        Chairwoman Mikulski. Yes, sir. So, you come with, actually,
    hands-on experience. And you've seen the good and bad and ugly.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. So, we really welcome your insight on
    how we can reduce the prison population without increasing the
    risk to our communities. And also, the thoughts on how we can
    look out for the safety of our prison guard population, where
    they, themselves, don't feel that they're captive by the
    prisoners.
        You bring up a compassionate situation, the over 65. We
    welcome your insights. I think evidence shows that, if you
    committed murder, you're not likely to commit murder after 65.
    But, if you're a sexual predator, you'll be--you could be out
    in that playground once again.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. So, we welcome your insights on how we
    can work constructively, evidence-based conceptual thinking,
    and your own experience, because you--you bring the experience
    of longitude from, really, enforcement to sentencing, and now
    the Inspector General. We're--we really appreciate your
    service.
        So, I'm going to ask the staff, on both sides of the aisle,
    because this has been raised----
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. By other members, so this
    is not a party thing----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. This is a committee
    thing--to meet with our staff on how we can implement, working
    with the Attorney General, prison reform. We also want to work
    with you--Senator Shelby and I--for you to get the access to
    the information that you need.
        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
        Chairwoman Mikulski. So, we're going to possibly be having
    votes soon, so--we could talk with you all day, but we're going
    to thank you for your service, look forward to these reports,
    ask staff to work hands-on----
        Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
        Chairwoman Mikulski [continuing]. With you, and look
    forward to bringing about some much needed reform.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Chairwoman Mikulski. If there's no further questions--
    Senators may submit additional questions--this committee stands
    in recess to the call of the Chair.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted to Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                            stopping child predators
        Question. What was the level of funding for each component agency
    handling Adam Walsh Act efforts at the Department in fiscal year 2013
    and what is the level in fiscal year 2014? How does the Department
    coordinate efforts?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
            (NCMEC) estimates there are over 100,000 non-compliant sex
            offenders at-large in the United States. The Adam Walsh Child
            Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248) gave the
            U.S. Marshals Service the authority to treat convicted sex
            offenders as fugitives if they fail to register, as well as to
            assist jurisdictions to locate and apprehend these individuals.

        Answer. The Department received a total of $186.5 million in fiscal
    year 2013 and $200.2 million in fiscal year 2014 for Adam Walsh Act
    (AWA) programs. The funding levels in thousands of dollars by component
    are as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                       Component                        2013         2014
                                                      funding      funding
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Prisons.............................        9,741        9,838
    Criminal Division.............................        4,389        4,639
    INTERPOL, Washington..........................        1,490        1,924
    Office of Justice Programs....................       54,386       57,730
    Office on Violence Against Women..............       22,281       27,000
    United States Attorneys.......................       40,757       43,660
    United States Marshals Service................       52,429       55,425
                                                   -------------------------
          Total, Adam Walsh Act Resources.........      186,473      200,226
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The primary vehicle for coordination of the AWA enforcement is the
    Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
    Tracking (SMART) Office, which is part of the Office of Justice
    Programs and was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
    Safety Act of 2006. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) Sex
    Offender Investigations Branch (SOIB) and National Sex Offender
    Targeting Center (NSOTC) work in conjunction with SMART to assist at
    all levels of domestic, international, military, and tribal law
    enforcement to identify, locate, and prosecute non-compliant sex
    offenders. In addition, USMS Sex Offender Investigations Coordinators
    (SOIC) coordinate sex offender enforcement with all necessary law
    enforcement partners in their districts, including Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys, registering agencies, local law enforcement, U.S. Probation,
    and local prosecutors.
        Personnel from the USMS and the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children (NCMEC) are assigned to the NSOTC, along with an
    agent from the Department of State's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS)
    and two members of the United States Army. The NSOTC has also assigned
    an intelligence analyst to the Customs and Border Protection Targeting
    Center, a Senior Inspector to USNCB-INTERPOL's Human Trafficking and
    Child Protection Division, and a contractor to serve as a liaison with
    the SMART Office. These employees work to track and verify information
    on sex offenders who travel abroad. The NSOTC also meets with the
    Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) to discuss and coordinate DOJ programs
    and training related to Native American sex offenders.
        In addition, the Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the
    reallocation of funds derived from penalties against Byrne Justice
    Assistance Grant (JAG) awards to States that have not yet substantially
    implemented the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and
    Notification Act (SORNA). The SMART Office assists interested
    jurisdictions in developing and/or enhancing programs designed to meet
    SORNA implementation requirements.
        Question. In fiscal year 2012, the Marshals Service estimated it
    needed a dedicated force of 500 deputies to fully implement the Adam
    Walsh Act. Have they reached this level yet? If not, why not and when
    will they reach this level?
        Answer. The USMS has an estimated 211 positions (160 operational
    and 51 administrative) and approximately $56 million available to
    support the AWA. With these resources, and with the growing
    partnerships with State, local, and tribal authorities, in fiscal year
    2013, the USMS opened 2,191 criminal investigations for violations of
    18 U.S.C. Sec. 2250. From those investigations, 316 Federal warrants
    were issued and 279 convictions were obtained. Additionally, the USMS
    planned and participated in over 390 sex offender related enforcement
    operations with 1,368 law enforcement agencies, resulting in 39,854
    compliance checks of known registered sex offenders.
        USMS continues to vigorously pursue violators of the AWA to stem
    the violence against children by targeting apprehension of sex
    offenders who prey on children; augment staffing in areas of the
    country with large numbers of non-compliant sex offenders; expand the
    staff at the NSOTC; and provide broader support to States in enforcing
    sex offender registration laws and in prosecuting non-compliant sex
    offenders.
        Question. In December 2012, the Marshals Service received
    administrative subpoena authority for these investigations in the Child
    Protection Act (Public Law 112-206). When were deputies first able to
    start using this authority? How many fugitive sex offenders have been
    arrested due to this authority?
        Answer. Following enactment of this legislation, the USMS formed a
    working group to ensure appropriate implementation of the
    administrative subpoena authority. The USMS realized the critical
    importance of developing clear policy and protocols with sufficient
    controls, oversight, and accountability to address privacy concerns
    with the information collected. The USMS analyzed risks involving
    privacy information and met with stakeholders to craft a policy that
    addressed and resolved several concerns. During this time, the USMS
    reviewed other systems and devised an implementation strategy that
    safeguarded the privacy of information. Because the administrative
    subpoena language limits and restricts its use, the USMS also addressed
    changes to its law enforcement database system to restrict access to
    the collected information.
        As of August 2014, all USMS Sex Offender Investigations Branch
    (SOIB) personnel and full-time Sex Offender Investigations Coordinators
    have been trained on the policy, standard operating procedures and
    updates to the Criminal Case Module in the Justice Detainee Information
    System (JDIS) including administrative subpoena enhancements. The
    enhancements allow the administrative subpoena process to be managed
    entirely within JDIS and allow access to documents and information to
    be restricted to only those with a vested interest in the case.
    Training sessions for district management were provided last October
    2014. This training provided a brief overview of the USMS
    Administrative Subpoena program and a detailed presentation on the
    request and approval process. The USMS/SOIB will continue to provide
    training on administrative subpoenas including programmatic and legal
    updates to USMS investigators during the SOIC Basic Training courses,
    and to district senior management during regional management trainings.
        The widespread use of administrative subpoenas did not begin until
    September 1, 2014. To date, 34 administrative subpoena requests have
    been submitted, of which 31 were approved and served, two were denied,
    and one is currently going through the approval process.
                               human trafficking
        Question. With multiple Justice Department agencies involved in
    fighting human trafficking, how are you coordinating efforts and
    tracking results?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking crimes involve the act of compelling or
            coercing a person's labor, services, or commercial sex acts.
            The coercion can be subtle or overt, or physical or
            psychological. Trafficking doesn't just mean smuggling people
            in or out the country as traffickers have demonstrated their
            ability to exploit other vulnerable populations like runaway
            children and documented guest workers.
              The Justice Department has multiple agencies working on
            issues related to human trafficking and in fiscal year 2013,
            made 161 forced labor and sex trafficking prosecutions, a 25
            percent increase, and the highest number of human trafficking
            cases on record. Prosecutions are handled by the U.S. Attorneys
            Office and Civil Rights Division, grant funding is provided
            through the Office of Justice Programs and the FBI is the lead
            investigative agency. For fiscal year 2015, the Department
            requests $45 million to combat human trafficking across the
            Department, a decrease of $3 million below fiscal year 2014.

        Answer. As the Department's anti-trafficking enforcement efforts
    continue to grow in scope, complexity, and impact, we are continuing to
    strengthen coordination among the many DOJ components participating in
    these efforts. The Department's Human Trafficking Working Group
    coordinates between and among DOJ components involved in victim
    assistance programs, State and local law enforcement grants and
    technical assistance programs, and Federal law enforcement. The Federal
    Enforcement Working Group coordinates among the Civil Rights Division's
    specialized Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit (HTPU), the Executive
    Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the U.S. Attorneys' Offices
    (USAOs), FBI, and other Federal law enforcement agencies. HTPU and the
    Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Department's Criminal
    Division (CEOS) coordinate extensively on cases and issues that affect
    child sexual exploitation, including sex trafficking of minors, which
    is within the subject matter expertise of CEOS, and international sex
    trafficking, sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud, and coercion,
    and forced labor which is within the subject matter expertise of HTPU.
    The Office of the Deputy Attorney General coordinates among DOJ
    agencies on policy issues, performance data, and interagency matters
    affecting multiple DOJ components.
        Question. How does the Justice Department collaborate with other
    Federal agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and
    Department of Labor? Do agencies regularly share information?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking crimes involve the act of compelling or
            coercing a person's labor, services, or commercial sex acts.
            The coercion can be subtle or overt, or physical or
            psychological. Trafficking doesn't just mean smuggling people
            in or out the country as traffickers have demonstrated their
            ability to exploit other vulnerable populations like runaway
            children and documented guest workers.
              The Justice Department has multiple agencies working on
            issues related to human trafficking and in fiscal year 2013,
            made 161 forced labor and sex trafficking prosecutions, a 25
            percent increase, and the highest number of human trafficking
            cases on record. Prosecutions are handled by the U.S. Attorneys
            Office and Civil Rights Division, grant funding is provided
            through the Office of Justice Programs and the FBI is the lead
            investigative agency. For fiscal year 2015, the Department
            requests $45 million to combat human trafficking across the
            Department, a decrease of $3 million below fiscal year 2014.

        Answer. Coordination among the Department of Justice (DOJ),
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Labor (DOL) has
    never been stronger. All of these agencies participate in the Federal
    Enforcement Working Group (FEWG), which brings together the National
    Program Managers and subject matter experts from HTPU, EOUSA, FBI Civil
    Rights Unit, DHS--Homeland Security Investigations--Human Smuggling and
    Trafficking Unit, DOL--Wage and Hour Division and DOL-OIG to streamline
    coordination among Federal investigators and Federal prosecutors both
    at the HQ level and at the regional level. Through the efforts of this
    interagency FEWG, in 2011 the Attorney General and Secretaries of
    Homeland Security and Labor jointly developed the Anti-Trafficking
    Coordination Team (ACTeam) Initiative. During Phase I of this
    Initiative, the FEWG conducted a nationwide rigorous, competitive,
    interagency selection process culminating in the launch of six Phase I
    Pilot ACTeams charged with implementing a coordinated interagency
    strategy to advance Federal human trafficking investigations and
    prosecutions. Based on the results of Phase I, the interagency FEWG
    unanimously agreed to initiate Phase II during 2014. In connection with
    this initiative, DOJ, DHS, and DOL jointly developed and delivered an
    intensive week-long Advanced Human Trafficking Training Program for
    interagency teams of Federal investigators and Federal prosecutors.
        In addition, DOJ and DHS collaborate extensively on their U.S.-
    Mexico Bilateral Enforcement Initiative which has established
    coordination structures to exchange leads and evidence with Mexican law
    enforcement counterparts to more effectively apprehend traffickers,
    rescue victims, recover victims' children, and dismantle trafficking
    networks operating across the U.S.-Mexico border. DOJ and DOL meet
    regularly to collaborate on cross-training and cross-referral protocols
    to enhance victim identification capacity.
        To strengthen victim services, DOJ, HHS, and DHS co-chaired an
    interagency effort to develop the Federal Strategic Action Plan on
    Services for Victims of Human Trafficking in the United States 2013-
    2017. The plan outlines Federal governmentwide goals for short- and
    long-term improvements in identifying and serving victims of human
    trafficking. A draft plan was circulated for informal public comment in
    April 2013 and a series of weekly interagency meetings was held to
    review the comments and improve the plan. The final plan was released
    at a survivor forum in January 2014 and is available at http://
    www.ovc.gov/pubs/FederalHuman
    TraffickingStrategicPlan.pdf.
        Question. How is the Department addressing sex trafficking on the
    Internet?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking crimes involve the act of compelling or
            coercing a person's labor, services, or commercial sex acts.
            The coercion can be subtle or overt, or physical or
            psychological. Trafficking doesn't just mean smuggling people
            in or out the country as traffickers have demonstrated their
            ability to exploit other vulnerable populations like runaway
            children and documented guest workers.
              The Justice Department has multiple agencies working on
            issues related to human trafficking and in fiscal year 2013,
            made 161 forced labor and sex trafficking prosecutions, a 25
            percent increase, and the highest number of human trafficking
            cases on record. Prosecutions are handled by the U.S. Attorneys
            Office and Civil Rights Division, grant funding is provided
            through the Office of Justice Programs and the FBI is the lead
            investigative agency. For fiscal year 2015, the Department
            requests $45 million to combat human trafficking across the
            Department, a decrease of $3 million below fiscal year 2014.

        Answer. The Department of Justice shares Congress's concerns about
    sex trafficking on the Internet. The Department has attacked this
    problem with a robust investigative and prosecutorial response, as well
    as through training and outreach. The Criminal Section of the Civil
    Rights Division (CRT) and CRT's Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit
    (HTPU), in collaboration with United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs)
    nationwide, have principal responsibility for prosecuting human
    trafficking crimes, except for cases involving sex trafficking of
    minors. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the
    Department's Criminal Division (CEOS) shares responsibility and
    collaborates closely with USAOs nationwide in the investigation and
    prosecution of Federal cases involving child sexual exploitation,
    including the prostitution of children and the extraterritorial sexual
    abuse of children.
        In 2011, the Department expanded Project Safe Childhood (PSC).
    Founded in 2006, PSC had initially focused on the effective prevention,
    investigation, and prosecution of technology-facilitated child sexual
    exploitation crimes. In 2011, the Department broadened the program to
    cover all Federal child sexual exploitation crimes, including the sex
    trafficking of children and child sex tourism. As a result of the
    expansion of PSC, U.S. Attorneys conducted threat assessments of the
    harm posed in their districts by crimes involving the commercial sexual
    exploitation of children, resulting in enhanced ability to develop and
    share expertise on the prevention and prosecution of these crimes. In
    the Department's Strategic Plan for fiscal year 2014-2018, one of the
    four priority goals is to protect vulnerable populations by increasing
    the number of investigations and prosecutions concerning child
    exploitation, human trafficking, and non-compliant sex offenders, and
    by improving programs to prevent victimization, identify victims, and
    provide services. The Department co-led an interagency effort to
    develop the Federal Strategic Action Plan on Services for Victims of
    Human Trafficking in the United States, which is available at http://
    www.ovc.gov/pubs/FederalHumanTraffickingStrategicPlan.pdf. This plan is
    intended to improve the response to all victims of trafficking,
    including those whose trafficking was facilitated by the Internet.
        The sections below provide examples of the Department's successful
    prosecutions, ongoing initiatives and partnerships with law enforcement
    agencies, and training and outreach efforts involving sex trafficking
    on the Internet.
    1. A. Prosecutions
        United States v. Daniel Burton (D. Md.): In January 2014, Daniel
    Burton, a/k/a Snoop, age 30, of Capitol Heights, Maryland was sentenced
    to 262 months in prison followed by a lifetime term of supervised
    release following his guilty plea to the sex trafficking of a minor.
    According to his plea agreement, in March 2008, Burton recruited a 13-
    year-old girl to engage in prostitution for him. Burton drove her to
    hotels, photographed her in lingerie, and advertised her on Craigslist
    for sexual services. The girl had sex with many clients that responded
    to the ads, and Burton kept all the money she earned. Burton provided
    the girl with alcohol, marijuana, and ecstasy. On April 8, 2008, law
    enforcement saw a Craigslist ad for the girl's sexual services and
    arranged a ``date.'' Law enforcement arrived at the hotel and arrested
    Burton, who was sitting outside.
        The case was investigated by the FBI-led Maryland Child
    Exploitation Task Force (MCETF), created to combat child prostitution,
    with members from 10 State and Federal law enforcement agencies. MCETF
    also partners with the Maryland Human Trafficking Task Force, formed in
    2007 to discover and rescue victims of human trafficking while
    identifying and prosecuting offenders.
        United States v. Weylin Rodriguez, et al. (M.D. Fla.): In March
    2013, Weylin Rodriguez received a sentence of life imprisonment
    following his conviction in November 2012 by a Federal jury for sex
    trafficking of three minors and two adults through the use of force,
    fraud, and coercion, as well as firearms offenses. Co-conspirators
    Tatjuana Joye and Pria Gunn pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to
    engage in sex trafficking of minors and by force, fraud and coercion.
    In December 2012, Gunn was sentenced to 46 months incarceration and in
    February 2013, Joye, who cooperated with the Government's
    investigation, was sentenced to time served. Rodriguez ran a
    prostitution ring called ``GMB'' (aka ``Get Money Bitch'') and lured
    several minors and young adults into his ring through a variety of
    means, including promising them jobs as models. Rodriguez advertised
    the victims on backpage.com and also forced the victims to walk the
    streets to pick up ``dates.'' The victims were required to follow
    numerous rules and give all the money from their ``dates'' to
    Rodriguez. To prevent the victims from leaving his ring, Rodriguez
    inflicted severe beatings on them and threatened them with guns.
        The FBI's Tampa, Florida Office, the Orlando Metropolitan Bureau of
    Investigation, and the Orange County (Florida) Sheriff's Office
    investigated the case, with additional investigation conducted by the
    Osceola County (Florida) Sheriff's Office and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Police Department (North Carolina).
    1. B. Investigations and Initiatives
        In 2003, the FBI established the Innocence Lost National Initiative
    (ILNI) as a means to combat the increasing frequency of commercial
    sexual exploitation of children through prostitution, much of which is
    initiated online via advertisements. The ILNI is victim centered, and
    is primarily designed to identify and recover children. Over the past
    11 years, the FBI and its partners have developed specific operations
    to target both the supply side (individuals responsible for the
    facilitation of this crime problem) and the demand side (those who pay
    to engage in sex with children).
        Over 2,100 investigations opened since the inception of the ILNI
    have resulted in over 1,450 convictions on Federal, State, and local
    charges, and over 3,100 children recovered and/or identified. The
    youngest victim was 9 years old. Substantial sentences of convicted
    pimps have been obtained, including 13 life sentences and many
    sentences ranging from 25 to 50 years in prison.
        The FBI has partnered with nearly 400 State, local, and Federal
    agencies to form 69 Child Exploitation Task Forces (CETF) throughout
    the United States. FBI field offices focus their resources on criminal
    enterprises engaged in the transportation of juveniles for the purpose
    of prostitution, using intelligence driven investigations and employing
    sophisticated investigative techniques. The FBI uses the Internet as an
    investigative tool to identify online advertisements for prostitution
    involving children located on over 100 Web sites.
        In addition, the FBI has coordinated seven iterations of Operation
    Cross Country (OCC) since June 2008. OCC is a national enforcement
    operation, conducted over 3-to-5-day periods, to combat commercial
    sexual exploitation of children through prostitution in the United
    States. FBI field offices, working with their law enforcement partners,
    participated in the operation by targeting venues such as truck stops,
    motels, and casinos where children are exploited, as well as the
    Internet. Law enforcement officers from over 450 local, State, and
    Federal law enforcement agencies joined together to recover victims and
    apprehend those who have victimized them. As a result of these
    operations, 434 child victims have been safely recovered and 581 pimps
    engaged in the commercial sexual exploitation of children have been
    arrested.
    1. C. Training
        The Department has led and participated in numerous training events
    in recent years. CEOS provides advice and training to prosecutors, law
    enforcement personnel and government officials both worldwide and in
    the United States. The FBI also provides training and promotes
    interagency sharing of skills in investigating sexual exploitation
    offenses to develop a nationwide capacity to provide a rapid,
    effective, and measured investigative response to crimes against
    children.
        CEOS attorneys travel all over the world to conduct trainings for
    investigators, law enforcement and others involved in investigations
    and prosecutions of child exploitation offenses, including sex
    trafficking over the Internet. For example, CEOS attorneys participated
    in three separate training conferences in Mexico in 2013, including
    presenting at the Homeland Security Investigations Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (HSI ICE) Human Trafficking Seminar in August 2013.
    CEOS also consults with numerous foreign delegations in the United
    States to discuss efforts to enhance worldwide efforts against child
    sexual exploitation crimes, including commercial sexual exploitation of
    children.
        Furthermore, in the United States, CEOS conducts trainings and
    participates in coordination meetings with law enforcement and
    prosecutors' offices. The FBI provides training on child exploitation
    investigations as well. Since 2003, the FBI has partnered with NCMEC to
    host Protecting Victims of Child Prostitution training courses. To
    date, over 1,300 law enforcement officers and prosecutors have received
    this training on the comprehensive identification, intervention, and
    investigation of the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
        Question. What is being done to address human trafficking on tribal
    land?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Human trafficking crimes involve the act of compelling or
            coercing a person's labor, services, or commercial sex acts.
            The coercion can be subtle or overt, or physical or
            psychological. Trafficking doesn't just mean smuggling people
            in or out the country as traffickers have demonstrated their
            ability to exploit other vulnerable populations like runaway
            children and documented guest workers.
              The Justice Department has multiple agencies working on
            issues related to human trafficking and in fiscal year 2013,
            made 161 forced labor and sex trafficking prosecutions, a 25
            percent increase, and the highest number of human trafficking
            cases on record. Prosecutions are handled by the U.S. Attorneys
            Office and Civil Rights Division, grant funding is provided
            through the Office of Justice Programs and the FBI is the lead
            investigative agency. For fiscal year 2015, the Department
            requests $45 million to combat human trafficking across the
            Department, a decrease of $3 million below fiscal year 2014.

        Answer. The Department of Justice's strong commitment against human
    trafficking is represented in every United States Attorney's Office in
    each district. All USAOs participate in a human trafficking taskforce,
    where Indian country cases are discussed. In particular to Indian
    country, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys recently
    conducted a forensic interviewing class wherein DOJ employees were
    trained to better interview victims of human trafficking (including
    Native victims).
        Additionally, the FBI investigates human trafficking and other
    crimes that occur in Indian country. The FBI is also making a concerted
    effort to increase awareness through training of Federal and tribal law
    enforcement and victim specialists as well as supporting investigations
    as they are identified. The FBI is working to also provide training
    opportunities that highlight victim identification, investigative
    techniques, and available resources.
        From July 8, 2013 through July 12, 2013, the Department's Office on
    Violence Against Women (OVW) conducted a site visit to western North
    Dakota meeting with local law enforcement, tribal leaders, victim
    advocates, the U.S. Attorney for North Dakota, State and tribal
    coalition leaders, and service providers from both North Dakota and
    Montana. OVW is exploring providing funds to law enforcement and victim
    service providers in western North Dakota and eastern Montana to
    address domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking.
    In fiscal year 2012, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) solicited
    proposals to address the issue of human trafficking in Native American
    communities by developing and providing training to build awareness of
    the existence of human trafficking in Indian Country, and providing law
    enforcement and community stakeholders with the tools necessary to
    begin the process of victim identification, rescue and restoration,
    while providing appropriate consequences for perpetrators in a
    consistently applied manner. BJA received four applications through a
    competitive process and awarded $305,000 to the Upper Midwest Community
    Policing Institute (UMCPI) to develop and pilot the training.
        Since the award to UMCPI was made in September 2013, UMCPI, working
    with BJA, developed curriculums and delivered human trafficking
    trainings to tribal law enforcement. A summary of the curriculums and
    the training sessions is provided below.
    Curriculum Development
        The Human Trafficking in Native American Communities curriculum was
    developed by UMCPI, based on recommendations from a focus group of
    subject matter experts that included State, tribal and municipal law
    enforcement personnel, some with expertise in human trafficking;
    Federal officials from the U. S. Attorney's Office--Western Washington
    and Department of Homeland Security; and State Social and Health Indian
    Child services unit. The curriculum provides training for tribal law
    enforcement, tribal leaders and community stakeholders that includes
    components covering: (1) basic understanding of human trafficking; (2)
    outreach to the community, tribal leaders and service providers; (3)
    the development of protocols and policies to increase the community's
    capacity to address human trafficking; and (4) specialized
    investigative and case coordination training for law enforcement.
        Tribal Youth Peer-to-Peer Human Trafficking in Indian Country
    Prevention Curriculum is an interactive, culturally responsive
    curriculum that is to be delivered by persons who currently work with
    Native American youth and who have completed the required train-the-
    trainer program, offered by UMCPI. The curriculum is designed to
    provide Native American youth with an understanding of the types of
    human trafficking that can occur; how human trafficking can occur in
    their community and provide them with information to help them identify
    internal and external resources that can serve as protective factors
    against human trafficking crimes.
        UMCPI is also reviewing its other existing human trafficking
    training, to explore how such training may be customized for the Native
    American Community.
    Trainings
      --Representatives from law enforcement, tribal council, social
            services, casino security, wildlife law enforcement, courts,
            and a gaming regulatory commission attended the Human
            Trafficking in Native American Communities pilot training.
      --Representatives from education, recreation, tribal wellness
            organizations and tribal council and a research organization
            attended two Tribal Youth Peer-to-Peer Human Trafficking in
            Indian Country Prevention pilot trainings.
    Future Trainings
      --Two additional Human Trafficking in Native American Communities
            pilot trainings are scheduled to be held between August and
            December 2014.
        BJA is currently working with UMCPI to determine available funding
    for future training classes. Additional information about UMCPI's human
    trafficking training is available at its Web site, http://
    www.umcpi.org/Services/NationalInitiatives/HumanTrafficking.aspx.
                                  task forces
        Question. How does the Department ensure there is not duplication
    of effort across task forces? How is task force effectiveness measured?
    Which component agencies have the largest number of task forces?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The Justice Department has 570 task forces covering areas
            from terrorism and fugitive apprehension to intellectual
            property and child recovery. These task forces are comprised of
            teams of not only Federal law enforcement but State and local
            police and intelligence agencies working together to identify
            and respond to crime at the local level.

        Answer. While several DOJ components operate task forces with
    similar missions, each component brings a unique set of experience and
    skills to its investigations. Further, DOJ has several deconfliction
    mechanisms, such as DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) and the
    Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Fusion Center, to
    ensure that task forces are not conducting investigations of the same
    target. In fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013, the Department
    consolidated or eliminated more than 40 task forces to reduce intra-
    agency overlap and ensure efficient task force management. The
    Department recently adopted a mandatory policy regarding the use of
    deconfliction systems in the course of all current and future
    investigative activity, which took effect on May 30, 2014.
    Implementation of this policy will address investigative, target, and
    event data; improve effective coordination and collaboration of
    investigative activity; maximize departmental performance; and most
    importantly ensure officer safety. Regarding effectiveness, each of the
    agencies' task forces have a unique mission, defined goals, and
    individualized performance metrics incorporated into their overall
    agency leadership and culture. DEA operates 250 task forces, including
    its regional task forces, its Tactical Diversion Squads, and High
    Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) task forces. FBI operates 217
    Safe Streets and Safe Trails task forces focused on violent gangs,
    violent crime, and major theft, and the USMS operates 67 fugitive task
    forces, including its 7 Regional Fugitive Task Forces.
        Question. How have cuts by State and local governments to their law
    enforcement agencies impacted these operations? Have there been demands
    for additional task force help in communities or States that have had
    to downsize their public safety budgets? Or has participation in task
    forces declined because States and localities can't spare the personnel
    to participate?
        Answer. DOJ's investigative agencies have seen mixed impacts on
    State and local task force participation. For example, DEA's Tactical
    Diversion Squads have seen a significant increase in participation
    while participation on ATF's task forces and FBI's Joint Terrorism Task
    Forces has remained stable. In some localities, participation is down
    on FBI's criminal task forces while requests for operational assistance
    have increased.
                               assets forfeiture
        Question. What has been shared with State and local partner
    agencies via equitable sharing programs or as part of asset forfeiture
    in fiscal year 2012 and 2013 and what is expected to be shared in
    fiscal year 2014?
        Answer. The Department's Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP) made
    payments of $447.3 million in fiscal year 2012 and $657.2 million in
    fiscal year 2013 to State and local partner agencies through the
    equitable sharing program. In fiscal year 2014, the AFP made equitable
    sharing payments of $425.1 million to State and local partner agencies.
        Additionally, the Department's AFP made available $140.5 million in
    fiscal year 2012 and $154.7 million in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year
    2014 for expenses incurred by State and local law enforcement officers
    participating in joint law enforcement operations with Federal
    agencies.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                               immigration courts
        Question. What will be the real impact, of an additional 35
    immigration judge teams, to the existing backlog when the staffing
    needs appear to be so dire?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I am concerned about the large and expanding docket of our
            Nation's immigration court system. Between 2009 and 2013, the
            pending caseload grew 50 percent. The Executive Office for
            Immigration Review has stated the court system has 32
            vacancies. To make matters worse, nearly half of the 200
            immigration judges are eligible for retirement. However, I was
            encouraged the Department of Justice requested a $17 million to
            support an additional 35 Immigration Judge teams to help
            process the backlog of over 350,000 cases.

        Answer. The addition of 35 Immigration Judge Teams will allow
    EOIR's immigration courts to process a greater number of pending cases.
    The number of pending cases over time depends on the volume of existing
    cases, new charging documents filed by DHS, and case completions. EOIRs
    current pending caseload volume in fiscal year 2014 is approximately
    389,000 proceedings. The number of annual completions by an Immigration
    Judge varies according to a number of factors, including the type of
    docket to which the judge is assigned. Taking into account variable
    completion rates among judges, EOIR estimates that 35 additional IJ
    teams will likely complete between 21,000 and 28,000 proceedings
    annually. The effect of this added productivity upon the pending
    caseload or backlog will depend on the number of additional charging
    documents filed by DHS during the same period. Finally, any gains in
    staffing and productivity may be lowered slightly due to normal staff
    attrition.
        Question. What other steps is EOIR taking to promote efficiencies
    to address the immigration court backlog?
        Answer. EOIR continues to work closely with DHS, other government
    agencies, and non-profit organizations to explore ways to promote
    efficiencies to address the immigration courts pending caseload. In
    conjunction with these groups, EOIR has conducted test pilots across
    the country in the areas of non-contested dockets, alternatives-to-
    detention, pre-trial conferences, and unaccompanied alien children
    scheduling adjustments to try to streamline immigration proceedings.
        To improve the effective and efficient adjudication of immigration
    removal proceedings for vulnerable populations, such as unaccompanied
    alien children and detained aliens who are deemed mentally incompetent
    to represent themselves in immigration proceedings, EOIR dedicated over
    $3 million in fiscal year 2014 resources to provide legal aid services
    to these populations.
        Additionally, in fiscal year 2014, EOIR dedicated approximately
    $6.6 million for the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), which improves
    efficiencies in immigration court proceedings for detained aliens by
    increasing their awareness of their rights and the overall process. As
    a result of the increased funding provided in fiscal year 2014, EOIR
    expanded the program to provide these services at five additional adult
    facilities and four family detention facilities. Today, the LOP is
    available at 32 sites across the country. Evaluation reports have shown
    that LOP participants complete their immigration court cases in
    detention an average of 12 days faster than detainees who do not
    participate in an LOP, which saves the Government approximately $12.3
    million annually. EOIR has requested another $2.8 million in fiscal
    year 2015 to respond to elevated demand at existing LOP sites and to
    add 12 more sites.
                                forensics reform
        Question. Would you agree that there must be national leadership in
    the area of forensic science, and that the Department of Justice,
    working with the FBI and other elements of the executive branch, can
    play a central role in the development of this important part of our
    criminal justice system?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Last month, I introduced a comprehensive bill aimed at
            strengthening and improving the forensic sciences used in the
            criminal justice system. I am pleased that Senator Cornyn has
            joined as a cosponsor of this bill, and hope that we can
            continue to build support for this bipartisan, commonsense
            bill. I know that the Department of Justice has been a leader
            in the forensic sciences, particularly with regard to DNA
            analysis in their FBI crime labs. But I think you will also
            agree with me that more work needs to be done.

        Answer. Yes, the Department of Justice (DOJ) agrees that there must
    be national leadership in the area of forensic science. To that end,
    DOJ, in collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, established the National Commission on Forensic Science to
    provide Federal leadership in forensic science while also encouraging
    strong State and local participation. The Commission will have an
    important role in strengthening the validity and reliability of the
    forensic sciences and enhancing quality assurance and quality control.
    Scientifically valid and accurate forensic analysis supports all
    aspects of our justice system.
        Question. Will you commit to working with me on the forensics
    reform bill that I introduced last month?
        Answer. The Department is committed to working closely with you and
    others in Congress to strengthen forensic science. We are grateful for
    your interest in this important issue and will be glad to work with
    Congress on efforts to enhance the validity and reliability of forensic
    sciences.
                                  budget cuts
        Question. Can you describe what DOJ programs have faced shrinking
    budgets in recent years and what impact, if any, this threatens to have
    on public safety?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              In recent years the Bureau of Prisons' budget has expanded at
            unprecedented levels despite overall funding for the Justice
            Department remaining relatively stagnant.

        Answer. Since fiscal year 1994, the Federal prison population more
    than doubled, and the detention population more than tripled. As a
    result, the budget for prisons and detention has constituted an
    increasing portion of the Department's total budget. Prisons and
    detention costs increased from 27 percent of DOJ's discretionary budget
    in fiscal year 2000 to 31 percent in fiscal year 2013, leaving less
    funding for other DOJ functions even before sequester. During this same
    period, including grants for State and local law enforcement, funding
    for grants decreased from 26 percent of DOJ's fiscal year 2000 budget
    ($4.0 billion) to 8 percent ($2.0 billion) in fiscal year 2013.
        If this trend continues unabated while DOJ's total authority
    remains flat, the discretionary funding available for other DOJ
    activities that protect public safety--including resources for
    investigation, prosecution, prevention, intervention, and assistance to
    State and local law enforcement--will decrease.
        This reality has only served to intensify the need for smarter
    investments to protect public safety. For this reason, on August 12,
    2013, the Attorney General announced his ``Smart on Crime'' initiative,
    which prioritizes prosecutions of the most serious cases, reforms
    sentencing policies to help control Federal prison spending and ensure
    that people convicted of low-level, non-violent drug offenses receive
    appropriate sentences, invests in alternatives to incarceration for
    low-level, non-violent offenders, and improves reentry to curb repeat
    offenses and re-victimization.
                                prisoner reentry
        Question. In furthering its goal of ensuring public safety, what
    has the Department of Justice found to be the most effective tools or
    methods to reducing recidivism rates?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Last year, Senator Portman and I introduced the Second Chance
            Reauthorization Act, which is aimed at improving prisoner
            reentry.

        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is committed to fulfilling
    the objectives outlined in the Second Chance Act (SCA). Reentry
    programming provides a major opportunity to reduce recidivism, save
    taxpayer dollars and make our communities safer. One of the primary
    goals of the SCA has been to reduce recidivism by using risk and needs
    assessments to identify returning offenders with moderate- to high-risk
    of returning to prison or jail. Focusing on these moderate- to high-
    risk offenders allows agencies to concentrate their resources on those
    offenders with the most significant needs. The Department's Bureau of
    Justice Assistance (BJA) manages the SCA grant programs and believes
    that the most effective tools to prevent recidivism are a set of
    ``comprehensive wrap-around services'' based on evidence-based programs
    that meet the identified needs of individual offenders. For example, it
    does little good to find an offender a job if his or her substance
    abuse or mental health problems are barriers to keeping the job.
    Likewise, simply having a place to live may not stabilize an offender
    unless he or she has access to supportive case management services
    designed to help him or her adjust to independent living situations.
    There are no ``silver bullets'' that will magically eradicate
    recidivism; rather, it takes a complete tool box of services to apply
    to each unique situation based on the specific needs of the returning
    offender.
        Bureau of Prisons (BOP) also offers a variety of programs to help
    inmates return to their communities as law-abiding citizens, including
    work, education, vocational training, substance abuse treatment,
    observance of faith and religion, psychological services and
    counseling, and other programs that impart essential life skills.
        To strengthen the focus on its reentry mission, BOP created the
    Reentry Services Division (RSD) in fiscal year 2013. RSD will enhance
    reentry programming and community resource transition, thereby
    decreasing the recidivism rate of released offenders and increasing
    public safety. RSD is comprised of five branches that were previously
    part of the Correctional Programs Division: National Reentry Affairs,
    Chaplaincy Services, Residential Reentry Management, Female Offenders,
    and Psychology Services.

    Some of BOP's most successful programs include:

      --Federal Prison Industries (FPI or trade name UNICOR) is one of the
            BOP's most important correctional programs. Approximately
            13,000 inmates work in FPI. It has been proven to substantially
            reduce recidivism. Research has demonstrated that inmates who
            participate in the FPI are 24 percent less likely to reenter
            the Federal system than similar non-participating inmates. FPI
            gives inmates the opportunity to develop marketable work skills
            and a general work ethic--both of which can lead to viable,
            sustained employment upon release. This is particularly
            noteworthy for reentry given the barriers to post-release
            employment many offenders face. FPI also keeps inmates
            productively occupied; inmates who participate are
            substantially less likely to engage in misconduct.
        --FPI inmate employment has significantly decreased in recent
                years. This decrease is a result of the downturn in the
                economy, a decrease in supplies needed to support the war
                effort, as well as legislative changes. Legislation enacted
                over the past few years (including various provisions in
                Department of Defense authorization bills and
                appropriations bills) also have weakened FPI's standing in
                the Federal procurement process by requiring FPI to compete
                for the work of Federal agencies in many instances where it
                was previously treated as a mandatory source of supply.
        --More recently, Congress has enacted legislation to assist in
                enhancing inmate work opportunities. Staff in BOP's New
                Business Development Group are dedicated to developing
                repatriation and Prison Industries Enhancement
                Certification Program (PIECP) opportunities, and are
                enthusiastically pursuing many different products and
                working with a number of different potential partners.
      --Educational programming provides inmates with an opportunity to
            learn the functional skills that support their reintegration
            into the community. Inmate education programs include literacy,
            English-as-a-Second Language (ESL), occupational education,
            advanced occupational education (AOE), parenting, release
            preparation courses, and a wide-range of adult continuing,
            wellness, and structured and unstructured leisure time
            activities. At the end of fiscal year 2013, 34 percent of the
            designated inmate population was enrolled in one of more
            education/recreation program. Empirical research has found that
            participation in educational programs leads to a 16 percent
            reduction in recidivism by inmates who participate in these
            programs.
      --The BOP's substance abuse strategy includes a required drug
            education course, non-residential drug abuse treatment,
            residential drug abuse treatment, and community transition
            treatment. Because certain non-violent offenders who
            successfully complete all components of this recidivism-
            reducing program are eligible for an incentive of up to 1 year
            off their sentence, inmates are strongly motivated to
            participate. Empirical research has shown that inmates who
            complete the residential drug abuse treatment program are 16
            percent less likely to recidivate and 15 percent less likely to
            have a relapse in their substance use disorder use within 3
            years after release (male inmates).
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                   prosecuting gitmo detainees in u.s. courts
        Question. Now that we have seen that conviction rates have been
    higher in Federal criminal courts than in Military Commissions, aren't
    there some GTMO detainees who we would be better off prosecuting in
    Federal criminal court, especially for conspiracy and material support?
        Answer. The Department has never doubted the ability of the Article
    III court system to administer justice swiftly and effectively in
    terrorism-related prosecutions. Hundreds of terrorism-related cases
    have demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach, including the
    March 2014 conviction by a Federal jury in Manhattan of Sulaiman Abu
    Ghayth, the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden and a senior member of al
    Qaeda, and the May 2014 conviction by a Federal jury in Manhattan of
    Mustafa Kamel Mustafa a/k/a ``Abu Hamza al Masri'', another al Qaeda-
    linked figure who, among other things, conspired to establish a
    terrorist training camp here in the United States. The decision of
    whether to prosecute terrorism cases in Article III courts or in
    military commissions must be based on the facts and circumstances and
    our national security interests on a case-by-case basis. As you know,
    however, Section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    fiscal year 2014 continues the ban against using Department of Defense
    funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any
    type of trial or any other purpose.
        Question. If GTMO detainees can be held safely and securely before,
    during, and after their trial in Federal criminal courts, when will we
    start bringing GTMO detainees into the United States for prosecution
    again?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Like you, I was pleased to see that, last month, a senior al-
            Qaeda figure named Sulaiman Abu Ghayth was convicted in Federal
            criminal court of all three counts against him, which could
            bring a sentence of life in prison.
              With the high rate of convictions we have seen in the Federal
            courts since 9/11, I'd like to get your thoughts on
            transferring detainees from Guantanamo for prosecution in the
            U.S. Although Abu Ghayth was not transferred from Guantanamo,
            he was a senior al-Qaeda figure. And there is the precedent of
            Guantanamo detainee Ahmed Ghailani being transferred to New
            York City where he was sentenced to life in prison in Federal
            court for conspiracy to kill Americans even though he was
            acquitted of most of the other charges against him.

        Answer. There is ample evidence that terrorism defendants can be
    held safely and securely before, during, and after trial in the United
    States. As you know, however, the National Defense Authorization Act
    for fiscal year 2014 continues the ban against using Department of
    Defense funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States
    for trial or any other purpose.
        Question. Will you please work with this Committee to oppose any
    restrictions on these transfers to the U.S. that would make it harder
    to bring these terrorists in Guantanamo to justice?
        Answer. The Administration remains committed to closing the
    detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, as continued operation of the
    facility weakens our national security. We welcomed the loosening of
    some of the restrictions related to the transfer of detainees to
    foreign countries in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
    year 2014. However, the continuing restrictions on transfer of
    Guantanamo detainees to the United States and the remaining
    restrictions on transfer of detainees to third countries unnecessarily
    curtails the flexibility and options available to the executive branch.
    The Justice Department will continue to work with Congress to remove
    these transfer restrictions.
                                terrorist asylum
        Question. Mr. Attorney General, as you know, one of the arguments
    critics use to justify their position that more terrorists should be
    sent to Guantanamo is that they can be granted asylum if they are
    prosecuted on U.S. soil. What is your response to that claim?
        Answer. As explained more fully in the recently submitted
    congressional report requested by Section 1039 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, no Guantanamo detainee
    relocated to the United States would have a right to receive a grant of
    asylum in the United States. Asylum is a discretionary form of relief
    generally available to an alien who demonstrates, inter alia, that he
    was persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution in his country
    of nationality on account of his actual or imputed race, religion,
    nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
    opinion. Although an alien who is physically present in the United
    States may, with limited exceptions, file an application for asylum,
    that application may be denied as a matter of discretion even if the
    alien were able to satisfy the eligibility requirements. Moreover, in
    many cases involving Guantanamo detainees, one or more of a number of
    statutory bars to eligibility could also apply. For example, an alien
    who has engaged in terrorist activity as described in INA
    Sec. 212(a)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(B), is ineligible for
    asylum. An alien is also barred from obtaining asylum where he has
    ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in persecution on
    account of a protected ground or where there are reasonable grounds for
    regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States.
    Additionally, where an alien, having been convicted of a particularly
    serious crime, poses a danger to the community or where there are
    ``serious reasons for believing that the alien has committed a serious
    nonpolitical crime'' outside the United States, the alien is also
    barred from receiving asylum.
      funding for the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives
                                (atf) attrition
        Question. How will the loss of special agents affect ATF's ability
    to conduct criminal investigations, train new agents, and carry out the
    Bureau's work?
        Answer. ATF's ability to effectively address violent crime in our
    communities and neighborhoods is directly tied to the number of special
    agents and industry operations investigators in our workforce. ATF
    faces several challenges including the anticipated retirement and
    attrition of hundreds of special agents in the next few years. While
    ATF has traditionally worked in partnership with State and local law
    enforcement agencies to leverage its capabilities and impact on violent
    crime, these approaches alone are not sufficient to overcome
    significant losses within its agent cadre. The loss of hundreds of
    special agents jeopardizes ATF's mission capacity; however, the fiscal
    year 2014 Appropriation began to address this challenge and ATF was
    able to hire approximately 217 special agents in fiscal year 2014. With
    the funding requested in the fiscal year 2015 President's budget, ATF
    will be able to sustain the hiring effort started this year.
        Question. What steps is ATF taking to address this attrition?
        Answer. ATF hired approximately 217 special agents in fiscal year
    2014 in an effort to offset the impact of recent attrition as well as
    projected future attrition and retirements. ATF anticipates that a
    sustained hiring effort will be required over the next several years in
    order to maintain the special agent cadre and ensure that there is no
    degradation of ATF's mission capability as a result of personnel loss.
        ATF is also revitalizing and expanding its advanced agent training
    programs and leadership development programs. For example, ATF has
    undertaken course redesign/review efforts related to its advanced
    investigations training program, the advanced firearms training
    program, and the Industry Operations Investigator (IOI) training
    programs. The goal for these efforts is to create updated curricula
    that can be broken out into individual modules and delivered by
    instructors already in the field. ATF is also accelerating its
    leadership development efforts. For example, ATF has completed
    development and implementation of the ATF Leadership Philosophy, which
    provides a consistent contextual basis for developing and emphasizing
    leadership principles throughout the organization. ATF has also
    initiated development of a new Leadership and Command course for agents
    in the supervisory and managerial ranks, addressing a critical need
    within those cadres. Further, ATF is investing in additional training
    opportunities for managers through the Center for Creative Leadership
    (CCL) and is increasing its support for its Aspiring Leaders and
    Leadership Enhancement programs.
        While hiring new agents serves as a numerical offset to attrition,
    many years of training and experience are required before a new agent
    is fully capable of replacing a senior agent. ATF is working to
    accelerate that development process, taking advantage of the existing
    experience of senior agents within the workforce to prepare new agents
    for the technical and leadership challenges that lie ahead.
        Question. How does the President's budget request for ATF address
    this attrition?
        Answer. ATF anticipates that a sustained hiring and training effort
    will be required over the next several years in order to maintain ATF's
    special agent cadre and ensure that ATF's mission capability is not
    degraded due to retirements and attrition. ATF hired approximately 217
    special agents in fiscal year 2014 in an effort to offset the impact of
    recent attrition as well as projected future retirements and the fiscal
    year 2015 President's budget sustains these hiring efforts.
        Question. How imperative is it that Congress fully fund ATF in line
    with the President's budget request?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request includes
    $22 million in adjustments to base that sustains the momentum and
    positive steps the Bureau is made in fiscal year 2014 to address areas
    of concern and vulnerability. In particular, ATF anticipates that a
    sustained hiring and training effort will be required over the next
    several years in order to maintain ATF's special agent cadre and ensure
    that ATF's mission capability is not degraded due to retirements and
    attrition.
                          unaccompanied alien children
        Question. Have you considered developing dockets in immigration
    courts dedicated to children, so that non-profit organizations and pro
    bono attorneys can better coordinate legal representation and child
    advocates for children? If so, what steps have you taken thus far?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              A recent surge in widespread organized crime and violence in
            Central America has led to an unprecedented increase in the
            number of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) crossing the U.S.-
            Mexico border. Many of these children wind up in the custody of
            the Office of Refugee Resettlement. I applaud the work done for
            these children by the Legal Orientation Program. However, the
            Program doesn't serve children who have been released from
            custody. Considering the increased numbers of these children,
            and the fact that many of those already released from custody
            still have pending immigration cases, more has to be done to
            ensure these children have Child Advocates and attorneys to
            represent them navigate immigration court.
              Congress allocated $315 million for the Executive Office for
            Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Office of the Pardon Attorney
            in the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 113-
            76), instructing DOJ to ``better serve vulnerable populations
            such as children,'' and ``improve court efficiency through
            pilot efforts aimed at improving legal representation.''

        Answer. EOIR has established ``juvenile dockets'' throughout the
    country to facilitate consistency, encourage child-friendly courtroom
    practices, and promote pro bono representation for unaccompanied alien
    children (UAC). Currently, there are juvenile dockets in 26 immigration
    court locations. In addition, DOJ has appointed an Assistant Chief
    Immigration Judge (ACIJ) for vulnerable populations, who has the
    responsibility for continuing the development and implementation of
    EOIR policy concerning vulnerable populations. The ACIJ is focusing on
    the UAC population in particular, and is working with EOIR's Office of
    Legal Access Programs and the various immigration courts to further
    improve training for court staff, as well as examine and implement
    improved procedures for handling UAC cases.
        Question. Will the DOJ take steps to allocate funds to provide
    legal representation for unaccompanied children?
        Answer. The Department of Justice, through EOIR, entered into a
    strategic partnership with the Corporation for National and Community
    Service (CNCS), which operates the AmeriCorps national service program,
    to provide legal aid to certain unaccompanied minors and to improve the
    effective and efficient adjudication of immigration removal proceedings
    involving those children. The Justice Department and CNCS partnership,
    known as Justice AmeriCorps, responds to Congress' direction to EOIR in
    its fiscal year 2014 appropriation ``to better serve vulnerable
    populations such as children [and to] improve court efficiency through
    pilot efforts aimed at improving legal representation.'' On September
    12, 2014, CNCS awarded $1.8 million in grants to organizations and
    coalitions providing services at approximately 17 sites. It is
    anticipated that the organizations and coalitions will begin providing
    legal representation services in January 2015.
        In addition, EOIR allocated $200,000 in funding to the Vera
    Institute of Justice to provide direct legal representation for
    unaccompanied children appearing before the Baltimore Immigration
    Court. The Baltimore Representation Initiative for Unaccompanied
    Children will be operational January 2015.
        Question. Will the DOJ commit to looking at how to expand access to
    legal counsel for immigrant children?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is committed to looking at how to
    expand access to legal counsel for immigrant children. In addition to
    launching the Justice AmeriCorps program and the Baltimore Initiative
    to provide legal aid to unaccompanied children, the Department
    continues to work closely with other government agencies and non-profit
    organizations to explore ways to increase access to legal services for
    unaccompanied children in removal proceedings, as well as other
    vulnerable populations. Over the past several years, EOIR, together
    with its government and non-governmental partners, has made great
    strides to improve the adjudication process for children. These
    include:
      --Issuing guidance to immigration court staff to implement more
            child-friendly court practices and improve access to pro bono
            legal services.
      --Creating special children's dockets at the majority of immigration
            courts to better accommodate pro bono legal services and
            implement more child-friendly court practices.
      --Expanding Immigration Judge training for hearing cases involving
            children.
      --Facilitating Legal Access Programs funded by the Office of Refugee
            Resettlement (ORR), which provides ``know your rights''
            presentations and pro bono legal services at all ORR shelter
            care locations.
      --Creating the Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of UAC
            (LOPC), which funds non-governmental organizations to provide
            legal orientation presentations and pro bono referral services
            to the custodians (adult caregivers) of UACs. The purpose of
            this program is to inform UAC custodians of their
            responsibilities in ensuring the child's appearance at all
            immigration proceedings, as well as protecting the child from
            mistreatment, exploitation and trafficking. In fiscal year
            2014, EOIR allocated $2.5 million in funding to this program.
      --Engaging public stakeholders to improve access to pro bono legal
            services, especially for children and family groups. These
            ongoing efforts have included large stakeholder meetings with
            EOIR's Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Chief
            Immigration Judges in cities with the largest unaccompanied
            child populations.
                           immigration court backlog
        Question. Assuming that the 35 new immigration judge teams were to
    be filled, would that suffice for EOIR's needs?
        Answer. Hiring 35 Immigration Judge teams will assist EOIR with
    managing the incoming caseload. As of November 2014, EOIR's Immigration
    Judge Corps consists of 241 Immigration Judges, which is below an
    optimal staffing level to appropriately address the incoming and
    pending caseload. In light of the ongoing surge in immigration,
    especially along the Southwest Border, EOIR initiated the hiring of
    more than 30 Immigration Judges in fiscal year 2014 to address a
    longstanding shortfall exacerbated by a 5 percent to 10 percent
    attrition rate per year. EOIR anticipates the above-mentioned 35
    Immigration Judge teams in 2015 will allow EOIR to better address the
    incoming caseload and begin to reduce the pending caseload.
        Question. What impact will an additional 35 immigration judge teams
    have on the existing backlog?
        Answer. The addition of 35 Immigration Judge Teams will allow
    EOIR's immigration courts to process a greater number of pending cases.
    The number of pending cases over time depends on the volume of existing
    cases, new charging documents filed by the Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS), and case completions. EOIRs current pending caseload
    volume in fiscal year 2014 is approximately 389,000 proceedings. The
    number of annual completions by an Immigration Judge varies according
    to a number of factors, including the type of docket to which the judge
    is assigned. Taking into account variable completion rates among
    judges, EOIR estimates that 35 additional Immigration Judge (IJ) teams
    will likely complete between 21,000 and 28,000 proceedings annually.
    The effect of this added productivity upon the pending caseload or
    backlog will depend on the number of additional charging documents
    filed by DHS during the same period. Finally, any gains in staffing and
    productivity may be lowered slightly due to normal staff attrition.
        Question. What other steps is EOIR taking to promote efficiencies
    to address the immigration court backlog?
        Answer. EOIR continues to work closely with DHS, other government
    agencies, and non-profit organizations to explore ways to promote
    efficiencies to address the immigration courts pending caseload. In
    conjunction with these groups, EOIR has conducted test pilots across
    the country in the areas of non-contested dockets, alternatives-to-
    detention, pre-trial conferences, and unaccompanied alien children
    scheduling adjustments to try to streamline immigration proceedings.
        To improve the effective and efficient adjudication of immigration
    removal proceedings for vulnerable populations, such as unaccompanied
    alien children and detained aliens who are deemed mentally incompetent
    to represent themselves in immigration proceedings, EOIR dedicated over
    $3 million in fiscal year 2014 resources to provide legal aid services
    to these populations.
        Additionally, in fiscal year 2014, EOIR dedicated approximately
    $6.6 million for the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), which improves
    efficiencies in immigration court proceedings for detained aliens by
    increasing their awareness of their rights and the overall process. As
    a result of the increased funding provided in fiscal year 2014, EOIR
    expanded the program to provide these services at five additional adult
    facilities and four family detention facilities. Today, the LOP is
    available at 32 sites across the country. Evaluation reports have shown
    that LOP participants complete their immigration court cases in
    detention an average of 12 days faster than detainees who do not
    participate in an LOP, which saves the Government approximately $16.6
    million annually. EOIR has requested another $2.8 million in fiscal
    year 2015 to respond to elevated demand at existing LOP sites and to
    add 12 more sites.
        Question. Since many people in immigration court lack attorneys and
    a basic understanding of the immigration court process, what steps is
    EOIR employing, or considering, to give these people better access to
    information so they can move through court proceedings more
    expeditiously without sacrificing due process?
        Answer. EOIR has established an Office of Legal Access Program to
    administer several programs and initiatives to provide people with
    better access to legal information and counsel. The programs and
    initiatives include: the Legal Orientation Program (LOP), the Legal
    Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children
    (LOPC), Self Help Legal Centers, Self Help Guides, Model Hearing
    Program, and Pro Bono Liaison Judge meetings.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
                           new orleans consent decree
        Question. What is causing the delay in Department of Justice's
    review of the New Orleans Police Department's policies?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              As you know the New Orleans Police Department entered into a
            consent decree with the Department of Justice in 2012. A
            Federal court imposed an October deadline for the review of
            important policies and those policies have not been fully
            reviewed.

        Answer. A comprehensive Consent Decree designed to bring the New
    Orleans Police Department (NOPD) into compliance with the Constitution
    is in place, and in July 2013 the court appointed an experienced
    monitoring team to oversee implementation of the Decree.
        The Department and the city of New Orleans, with the Court's
    approval and oversight, have worked cooperatively to devise a policy
    review process that will allow the NOPD to adopt and implement policies
    that are consistent with the law as quickly and efficiently as
    possible.
        NOPD has provided a limited number of policies to DOJ and the
    Consent Decree Monitor (``Monitor''), and both DOJ and the Monitor have
    provided comments and suggestions regarding those policies in a timely
    manner. NOPD, DOJ, and the Monitor have worked together to revise those
    policies to ensure that they comply with the Consent Decree and
    applicable law, and to ensure that they will be effective for NOPD's
    particular needs. In some instances, that process is ongoing. In
    others, that process has been completed and DOJ and the Monitor have
    provided final approval for NOPD to adopt and implement those policies.
        The Department continues to work closely with the city and police
    department, as well as the Monitor, to facilitate transformative change
    and ensure reform of the New Orleans Police Department. The Department
    has reviewed, and will continue to review, all policies submitted to it
    in a timely fashion and in compliance with the Decree and all Court
    Orders.
        Question. What process is the Department of Justice utilizing to
    review NOPD's policies? Are there subject matter experts within the DOJ
    who are actively engaged in the review of the policies? If not, are the
    DOJ lawyers qualified to adequately and efficiently review the
    policies?
        Answer. Once NOPD submits policies to DOJ and the Monitor, DOJ
    lawyers review those policies to ensure that they comply with the law
    and the Consent Decree, are internally consistent, and provide NOPD
    officers with effective guidance. In performing that review, DOJ
    lawyers consult the Monitoring team, subject matter experts, and any
    other necessary sources in order to ensure that the review is thorough
    and effective.
        Question. Did the Department of Justice analyze the effects of
    creating the office of police secondary employment in New Orleans? Has
    the Department of Justice ever included provisions related to secondary
    employment in any other consent decree? If so, in which municipalities?
        Answer. The Department's investigation of NOPD revealed that NOPD's
    unregulated system of secondary employment was a significant
    contributor to unconstitutional policing in New Orleans. As detailed in
    the Department's findings letter, unregulated secondary employment both
    undermines the accountability structure within NOPD and encourages
    corruption, favoritism, and unprofessional and unconstitutional
    policing more broadly. For these reasons, which were specific to NOPD,
    for the first time, provisions related to secondary employment were
    included in the Consent Decree, which the city has agreed, and the
    Federal courts have found, is fair, adequate, and reasonable. In
    crafting the Consent Decree, DOJ worked with the city to create a
    system that would allow officers to continue to work secondary
    employment, but that would also address the ways in which secondary
    employment has contributed to a pattern or practice of unconstitutional
    conduct. DOJ remains committed to working with the city to ensure that
    its secondary employment system is fair and accountable.
        Question. Has the Department of Justice undertaken any efforts to
    regulate the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office's paid detail system? Does
    the Department of Justice have a position on whether OPSO's staffing
    levels in the jail are affected by deputies performing paid details?
    Has the Department of Justice undertaken that analysis in light of its
    stated position that staffing is a major issue at the jail?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is enforcing compliance with the
    consent judgment it achieved in Jones v. Gusman, 12cv859, a pattern or
    practice civil rights case addressing conditions in the Orleans Parish
    Prison. Secondary employment by Sheriff Deputies is beyond the scope of
    that agreement. As required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
    the terms of the consent judgment are narrowly tailored to address the
    constitutional violations in the jail. Among other terms, the consent
    judgment requires correctional staffing and supervision that is
    sufficient to adequately supervise prisoners, fulfill the terms of the
    consent judgment, and allow for the safe operation of the jail,
    consistent with constitutional standards. In February 2014, as required
    by the consent judgment, the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office provided a
    staffing analysis and plan to all parties to the consent judgment and
    to the city of New Orleans. Staffing remains a very serious problem at
    the jail and the United States is attempting to determine the causes of
    the problem in the context of the litigation. The United States is
    aware of a substantial increase in the hiring of Deputies for paid
    details and assessing whether that increase has an impact on the
    implementation of the consent decree or raises justiciable issues. The
    Department of Justice is committed to vigorously enforcing the consent
    judgment, including all PLRA-compliant measures to achieve adequate
    staffing and supervision to address the ongoing unconstitutional
    conditions and unacceptable levels of violence in the jail.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Jeff Merkley
                         white collar crime prosecution
        Question. How many criminal prosecutions and convictions has the
    DOJ secured related to the 2008 crisis? If there is a stark difference,
    why is that so? To what degree have inadequate resources constrained
    DOJ's efforts? How many DOJ prosecutors work full time on white collar
    crime? Can you give me specific numbers on the following types of
    crimes (differentiate between full time and as a percentage of
    individual portfolios, please also differentiate from those who have
    been detailed to other assignments):
      --mortgage and securities fraud;
      --market manipulation in derivatives, oil or other commodities,
            financial indices, or currencies;
      --offshore tax evasion;
      --money laundering and sanctions; and
      --payment system and other financial fraud.
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              In the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 1980's pervasive fraud
            led to economic disaster. The DOJ during those years
            aggressively stepped up its white collar task forces and over
            150 people from DOJ and Treasury worked on Savings and Loan
            fraud full time. By 1992, there had been over 1,100 criminal
            prosecutions with over 839 convictions.
              By contrast, the DOJ's response to the recent crisis appears
            much more muted.

        Answer. With regard to your first question on the number of
    criminal prosecutions and convictions that the Department has secured
    related to the 2008 crisis, it must be stated at the outset that the
    Department's position is, and always has been, that no person, and no
    corporation, is above the law. The Department is committed to
    aggressively investigating allegations of wrongdoing at financial
    institutions and, along with our law enforcement and regulatory
    partners, holding individuals and corporations responsible for their
    conduct through the criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement
    tools available to us. That being said, it is difficult to pinpoint
    precisely which cases are and are not directly related to the
    catastrophic economic events that began unfolding in 2008. What we can
    report is that the Department has prosecuted an incredible number of
    financial fraud cases since the inception of the financial crisis.
    Specifically, from fiscal year 2008 through the second quarter of
    fiscal year 2014, the United States Attorneys' Offices filed 21,544
    financial fraud cases against 31,349 defendants.\1\ During that same
    time period, 28,496 defendants were convicted of financial fraud
    crimes, and 18,063 were sentenced to prison for such crimes. Some of
    the more notable individuals in the financial industry prosecuted in
    the aftermath of the financial crisis are:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Financial fraud encompasses the following program categories:
    Federal procurement fraud; Federal program fraud; financial institution
    fraud; bankruptcy fraud; advance fee schemes; other fraud against
    businesses; consumer fraud; securities fraud; commodities fraud; other
    investment fraud: mortgage fraud; or corporate fraud.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --JP Morgan (London Whale individuals)
      --Goldman Sachs (Rajat Gupta; Matthew Taylor)
      --Morgan Stanley (Garth Peterson)
      --Credit Suisse (Kareem Serageldin and several others)
      --UBS (2 London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) individuals and
            individuals in antitrust cases)
      --Rabobank (3 LIBOR individuals)
      --ICAP (3 LIBOR individuals)
      --Galleon (Rajaratnam and several others)
      --SAC Capital (many)
      --Stanford Financial Group (Allen Stanford and others)
        Further, with respect to prosecutions of institutions, beginning in
    2013, the Department has obtained guilty pleas from the following
    financial industry institutions:
      --UBS Subsidiary (LIBOR) (plus $100 million fine)
      --RBS Subsidiary (LIBOR) (RBS parent paid $100 million penalty)
      --SAC Capital (plus $1.8 billion in fines and forfeiture)
      --Wegelin (Swiss Bank)
        Moreover, in November 2013, the Department announced the largest
    settlement with a single entity in American history: a $13 billion
    settlement with JPMorgan, to resolve Federal and State civil claims
    arising out of the packaging, marketing, sale and issuance of
    residential mortgage-backed securities by JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and
    Washington Mutual.
        With regard to your second question on the differences between the
    1980s savings and loan (S&L) crisis and the 2008 financial crisis, the
    circumstances of the two situations and the types of criminal conduct
    found in those two events were vastly different. In the S&L crisis, in
    part because of pervasive speculative lending practices by financial
    institutions, financial institution examiners and Federal investigators
    were confronted with hundreds of failed financial institutions across
    the country. The FBI's investigations of failed financial institutions
    reached its peak at 758 in July 1992. Financial Institution Fraud Unit,
    Financial Crimes Section, FBI, Financial Institution Fraud and Failure
    Report--Fiscal Year 2002 at 2-3 (2002), http://www.fbi.gov/stats-
    services/publications/fiff-2002. Moreover, during the period of the
    late 1980s to the early 1990s, approximately 60 percent of the fraud
    reported by financial institutions related to bank insider abuse. Id.
    at 1. Those financial practices, which often involved collusion between
    bank insiders and outsiders as well as falsification of records by bank
    insiders regarding particular loans and borrowers, were vastly
    different in types from those associated with the 2008 crisis.
        With regard to your third question, concerning the degree to which
    inadequate resources have constrained the Department's efforts, the
    Department has sought appropriate resources to pursue all types of
    white-collar crime. The Department's efforts to combat financial fraud
    will continue to play a key role not only in ensuring that those who
    have engaged in fraudulent activities will be held accountable for
    their illegal conduct, but in deterring future fraudulent conduct and
    in recovering funds for fraud victims.
        With regard to your fourth and fifth questions, regarding the
    number of Department of Justice prosecutors who ``work full time on
    white collar crime,'' the Department does not maintain the precise type
    of statistical data you are seeking. While Assistant United States
    Attorneys often specialize in certain areas of criminal law and are
    assigned to specific sections within their offices' criminal divisions,
    they are generally not required to work full-time in any one area. This
    allows the United States Attorneys' offices flexibility in assigning
    cases and managing workload. Prosecutors track their time using
    category codes that describe the types of cases on which they have
    worked (e.g., white collar crime, violent crime, immigration). In
    fiscal year 2008, the United States Attorneys' offices devoted more
    than 831 full-time equivalent (FTE) workyears to white collar crime.\2\
    That number has increased every fiscal year since then. The largest
    increase was between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, when the
    number of FTE devoted to white collar crime rose by more than 100 FTE.
    The table below shows the FTE workyears for white collar crime over the
    last six fiscal years, including overtime hours (hours in excess of 40
    hours per week) that average more than 200 additional FTE per fiscal
    year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ One FTE equals 2080 hours.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        [See Table below]
        Although there are white collar crime subcategories to which
    prosecutors can assign time, they are limited to financial institution
    fraud and healthcare fraud. Consequently, the Department cannot break
    down white collar crime FTE workyears according to the specific
    categories you identified. There are, however, specific components of
    the Department that are dedicated exclusively to prosecuting one or
    more types of white collar crime. With regards to the types of white-
    collar crime mentioned in your questions, relevant components would
    include the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division, the Criminal
    Enforcement Sections of the Tax Division, and the Criminal Sections of
    the Antitrust Division. The Fraud Section of the Criminal Division has
    approximately 100 trial attorneys and supervisors, the Criminal
    Enforcement Sections of the Tax Division also have approximately 100
    trial attorneys and supervisors, and the Criminal Sections of the
    Antitrust Division have approximately 101 trial attorneys and
    supervisors.

                                                 WHITE COLLAR CRIME FTE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal
                          Workyears                         year      year      year      year      year      year
                                                            2008      2009      2010      2011      2012      2013
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Attorney Workyears..................................    831.66    944.80    982.71   1028.79   1029.76   1067.29
    Attorney 40+ Workyears..............................    180.65    194.32    226.29    227.75    226.07    225.75
    Attorney and 40+ Workyears..........................   1012.31   1139.12   1209.00   1256.54   1255.83   1293.04
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 payment fraud
        Question. I'm very concerned about financial institutions and
    payments providers engaging in payments fraud or providing services to
    those engaged in illegal activities, such as lending into States in
    violation of State payday lending laws. Are you committed to continuing
    to investigate and pursue payment fraud and crack down on institutions
    that clear payments for illegal lenders?
        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) is committed to protecting
    the American people from fraudulent practices in all industries. The
    Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act
    (``FIRREA'') allows for civil penalties in a variety of situations in
    which frauds are perpetrated affecting federally insured financial
    institutions. Those situations include instances where a financial
    institution knowingly participates in a fraud or processes transactions
    deliberately ignoring evidence that they are fraudulent. One key DOJ
    mission is to investigate violations of Federal law, especially those
    involving fraudulent conduct that threatens to harm the American
    public. We are working diligently to protect the public from this fraud
    by holding accountable those banks and payment processors that violate
    Federal law.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher A. Coons
                           victims of child abuse act
        Question. Last year, Congress demonstrated its commitment to
    helping victims of child abuse by appropriating $19 million under the
    Victims of Child Abuse Act. I welcome DOJ's fiscal year 2015 request of
    $11 million for these programs, especially compared to levels in past
    budgets. Does DOJ plan to embrace an increased role in helping victims
    of child abuse in 2015 and beyond?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request for the
    Office of Justice Programs (OJP) reflects the administration's strong
    support for addressing the needs of young people within the justice
    system and its commitment to promoting evidence-based programs and
    practices throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The
    fiscal year 2015 President's budget request supports programs to serve
    victims of child abuse, to prevent and address youth violence, to
    improve outcomes of young people involved in the juvenile justice
    system, and ensure that all kids, particularly at-risk kids, are not
    swept up into the juvenile justice system. The request includes
    increased or continued funding for programs such as the Defending
    Childhood/Children Exposed to Violence Program ($23 million), Missing
    and Exploited Children's Programs ($67 million), and Title V Prevention
    Programs ($42 million)--a combined $34 million increase in fiscal year
    2015 over the fiscal year 2014 enacted levels for these programs.
        DOJ remains committed to utilizing existing resources to address
    the most urgent national priorities and to ensure the most efficient
    possible use of the juvenile justice funding appropriated under OJP.
    OJP will continue to respond to the changing needs of the juvenile
    justice community by providing greater flexibility in the use of
    funding (where allowed by statute) and improving coordination of these
    programs with other juvenile justice programs. The Office of Juvenile
    Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) also will look at how other
    resources can be leveraged to help the Child Advocacy Centers (CACs)
    and Multi-Disciplinary Teams (MDTs) operate more efficiently and cost
    effectively.
                            bulletproof vest program
        Question. In your proposed fiscal year 2015 budget, you requested
    $22.5 million for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. As you may
    know, I have joined several other Senators in advocating for a $30
    million appropriation for this program. What impact would this
    additional $ 7.5 million have on DOJ's ability to help State and local
    law enforcement acquire this life-saving equipment?
        Answer. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program fills a
    critical need for State, local, and tribal law enforcement and public
    safety agencies by reimbursing them for up to half of the cost for
    qualifying, life-saving body armor for their officers. The fiscal year
    2015 funding request of $22.5 million is equal to the fiscal year 2014
    enacted level and will allow this program's activities to continue at
    their current level of effort. An additional $7.5 million would allow
    jurisdictions to purchase an estimated 8,700 additional vests.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                          fiscal year 2015 budget cuts
        Question. Why does the budget include undefined reductions to
    programs instead of providing an accurate funding picture for the
    Department? More importantly, why must these difficult decisions be
    made after the appropriations bills have passed?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The 2015 budget includes more than $500 million in
            programmatic cuts. I am curious why the Department failed to
            identify these cuts in advance of the budget submission.
            Moreover, I question whether law enforcement components can
            actually deliver the level of cuts required.

        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 budget provides an accurate funding
    picture of the Department by estimating the actual fiscal year 2015
    current services need, or the cost to maintain current operations and
    staffing levels planned through fiscal year 2015. In addition, the
    fiscal year 2015 budget is fiscally responsible in terms of spending
    because it meets the caps set by Congress in the Bipartisan Budget Act
    of 2013. In order to adhere to the congressionally directed caps, the
    DOJ Federal programs must absorb $503 million in unspecified program
    and administrative offsets. These offsets support anticipated
    inflationary increases, such as the costs for base pay, benefits and
    rent. These offsets are unspecified because of the limited time
    available between the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act and the
    conclusion of the fiscal year 2015 budget process. The $503 million in
    proposed offsets represents a fraction of the $1.6 billion in sequester
    cuts that the Department absorbed during the last 9 months of fiscal
    year 2013. DOJ program managers will have this fiscal year to identify
    opportunities for savings and prepare for the offsets.
        Question. Do you really believe that the FBI can cut $168 million,
    the U.S. Marshals Service can find $33 million, or that the U.S.
    Attorneys can eliminate $30 million from their budget--without cutting
    core mission requirements or essential personnel? And if so, why didn't
    you require them to do so before the budget was released?
        Answer. The Department proposed programmatic reductions in order to
    adhere to the fiscal year 2015 caps set by Congress with the Bipartisan
    Budget Act of 2013. The fiscal year 2013 sequester cut the salaries and
    expenses (S&E) appropriations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI) by $541.7 million, U.S. Marshals Services (USMS) by $59.1 million
    and U.S. Attorneys (USA) by $98.6 million. These cuts were much deeper
    than the programmatic offsets the fiscal year 2015 budget proposes and
    components will have more time to consider how to identify savings.
    Core mission requirements are not threatened because even with the
    proposed fiscal year 2015 offsets, S&E funding will essentially remain
    flat from the fiscal year 2014 appropriated levels for the FBI, USMS
    and USA.
                                    doj cuts
        Question. According to your own statements, sequestration was
    devastating to the Department and its ability to perform core mission
    activities--why then will this version of sequestration be less
    devastating? Is there really that much fat to trim inside the
    Department of Justice?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              In a 2013 Washington Post Op Ed on the impact of
            sequestration you said, ``This shameful state of affairs is
            unworthy of our great Nation, its proud history and our finest
            legal traditions. In purely fiscal terms, the cuts imposed by
            sequestration defy common sense . . .'' By eliminating the
            discretionary sequester for 2014 and 2015 Congress has done its
            part to ensure that the Department can be properly funded.
            However, the Department's decision to include its own version
            of a sequester in the 2015 budget request defies logic.

        Answer. The fiscal year 2015 request demonstrates the Department's
    continued commitment to fiscal prudence and adheres to the spending
    caps directed by Congress in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The
    fiscal year 2014 Appropriations Act restored the fiscal year 2013
    sequester funding cuts to the Department and provides sufficient
    resources to lift the hiring restrictions put in place on January 21,
    2011. Even with the proposed program offsets, law enforcement funding
    essentially remains flat from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year 2015.
    However, these levels are significantly higher than the fiscal year
    2013 sequestered funding levels that hindered the Department's capacity
    to perform its mission. For example, funding for the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation increases by nearly 11 percent from fiscal year 2013 and
    funding for the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Attorneys increases by
    nearly 7 percent from fiscal year 2013.
                             smart crime initiative
        Question. First, what authority do you currently have to alter
    incarceration rates? Can you reduce sentences for incarcerated
    criminals, can you change the minimum sentence required for a drug
    crime--what action can you take?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The budget advances the Smart on Crime Initiative which seeks
            to reform the criminal justice system by improving public
            safety and saving money. Reducing the number of ``low-level''
            Federal crimes prosecuted and pursuing alternatives to
            incarceration are listed as two of the initiative's core
            principals. While reform of our criminal justice system is a
            laudable goal, I am concerned that the principals of the
            proposal may be contradictory and in fact, lead to higher crime
            rates and an increase in the number of serious crimes
            committed.

        Answer. Once a Federal offender is sentenced by a Federal judge,
    the Department of Justice generally cannot reduce the sentence imposed.
    But before sentencing, Federal prosecutors have always exercised
    discretion in the cases they bring and offenses they charge. Most
    criminal prosecutions are brought at the State level. Within that
    context, Federal prosecutors maximize the Federal enforcement
    contribution to improving public safety efforts by prosecuting the
    right criminal cases consistent with our mission. Our U.S. Attorneys
    set quality, evidence-based priorities for the types of cases we bring
    with an eye toward promoting public safety, deterrence, and fairness.
    This necessarily means focusing our resources on the most significant
    cases.
        Question. You have stated that the Department will shift to a focus
    solely on the most serious cases. First, I wonder how such a shift is
    not negligent. Second, how can you be sure that a focus on only the
    most serious cases will not result in an increase in crime rates or an
    escalation in the number of serious crimes committed?
        Answer. As stated above, most criminal prosecutions are brought at
    the State level. Federal prosecutions contribute to public safety
    efforts by prosecuting cases consistent with our particular mission.
    Our U.S. Attorneys collaborate with their State and local partners and
    set quality, evidence-based priorities for the types of cases we bring
    so that all of the public safety resources--local, State and Federal--
    working together, will maximize public safety, deterrence, and
    fairness. This means in most districts focusing our Federal resources
    on the most significant cases. It does not mean that lower level
    offenders are not held accountable for their crimes. It does mean that
    Federal resources will be focused--as they must be given limits on
    those resources--on the more serious cases.
        Question. What happens to the criminals we decline to prosecute?
        Answer. Many lower level offenders will be prosecuted at the State
    level. However, some will be subject to diversion or other alternatives
    to imprisonment. These alternatives have a long history and allow non-
    violent, less serious offenders who are in need of drug treatment, for
    example, to receive such treatment in lieu of imprisonment. If crafted
    properly, these alternatives can have the twin effects of reducing the
    burden on the Federal prisons and reducing crime rates.
        Question. Is this proposal the best path forward or is it simply a
    means to reduce the overall prison population in hopes of decreasing
    Federal spending on incarceration?
        Answer. The Smart on Crime Initiative is modeled after many State
    criminal justice reforms, which have reduced prison spending while
    improving public safety in States across the country. We continue to
    monitor and work with the States to determine the best approaches to
    achieving improved public safety while also achieving cost
    efficiencies.
        Question. Will this initiative simply shift more of the burden to
    the States?
        Answer. No. As stated previously, while many lower level offenders
    will indeed be prosecuted at the State level, some will be subject to
    diversion or other alternatives to imprisonment within the Federal
    criminal justice system.
                           tedac/hds/ncetr facilities
        Question. Could you speak to the importance of the facilities
    individually and collectively? Would you also explain how these
    facilities fit into the larger national security framework?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              After many years of working with the Department and the FBI,
            I was pleased to see that the 2015 budget included $15 million
            for the FBI's new TEDAC Facility. The budget also includes
            funding for the FBI's Hazardous Devices School and the ATF's
            National Center for Explosives Training and Research. These
            facilities are unique and serve important functions in the
            overall national security framework.

        Answer. The FBI's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center
    (TEDAC) and Hazardous Devices School (HDS) and ATF's National Center
    for Explosives Training and Research (NCETR) serve extremely important
    functions in protecting public safety and national security. While
    these three facilities are focused on combating explosives and their
    threat to the Nation, they each perform discrete missions in the phases
    of the forensic, intelligence and training cycle.

        TEDAC: Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) are one of the most
    readily available weapons utilized by terrorists and criminals to
    damage critical infrastructure and inflict casualties. The U.S.
    Government relies on TEDAC to conduct forensic and technical
    exploitation of IEDs and related materials collected around the globe
    in order to gather and share intelligence with domestic and foreign
    partners to identify bomb makers, to develop techniques to disarm and
    disrupt IEDs, and most importantly, to prevent future attacks. TEDAC
    also shares device design information with HDS to inform the training
    provided to bomb technicians responsible to render IEDs safe and
    protect our citizens.
        In February 2013, the President updated the national strategy
    focused on countering the IED threat. The implementation plan resulting
    from the updated policy statement calls for a ``single U.S. Government
    strategic-level IED exploitation center and repository of IEDs.'' TEDAC
    fulfills this mission and is the only U.S. Government entity that meets
    the requirement outlined in the 2013 Counter IED Implementation Plan.
    TEDAC operations will transition over the next few years from Quantico,
    Virginia to new facilities in Huntsville, Alabama, as a multi-phased
    construction effort concludes. These new facilities will enable TEDAC
    to continue supporting the national security framework through
    operations, such as nominating individuals to the Terrorist Screening
    Database and the Department of Defense Biometric Enabled Watchlist
    (BEWL), which biometrically matches IEDs examined by TEDAC to those
    included in DOD's Automated Biometrics Identification System (ABIS). In
    addition to continuing current operations, the facilities will house
    the TEDAC Improvised Explosives Detection and Synthesis (TIEDS) Center,
    which is a research and development partnership with the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS). The TIEDS Center will conduct research and
    experimentation focused on improvised explosives synthesis and
    characterization, improvised explosives detection technologies, and
    testing and evaluation of Render Safe Procedures and tools in order to
    deliver real time information on IED threats to the intelligence, law
    enforcement, and homeland security communities. TEDAC's vast research
    experience with IEDs and visibility into the threat will allow for the
    development of appropriate countermeasures for TSA and other members of
    the homeland security community to stay ahead of the IED threat.
        The intelligence gleaned from TEDAC exploitation and analysis also
    feeds directly into curriculum development for training conducted by
    HDS. This enables bomb technicians and law enforcement partners to
    receive training on real threats that are being encountered worldwide
    and what countermeasures are needed for defeat.

        HDS: The HDS operates through a joint partnership between the FBI
    and the United States Army. The FBI administers HDS and maintains the
    sole authority to certify and accredit all of the approximately 3,100
    public safety bomb technicians assigned to 468 public safety bomb
    squads in the United States. The success of the public safety bomb
    technician community in the United States is, in large part, the result
    of standardized certification and render-safe procedure training. The
    standardized training at HDS enables bomb technicians assigned to
    different bomb squads to work effectively together in complex, multi-
    jurisdiction operations, such as the Boston Marathon bombing response
    or the dozens of special events held each year, including the Super
    Bowl.
        HDS also provides advanced training in evolving threats such as
    radio-controlled IEDs, large vehicle-borne IEDs, suicide bombers, and
    improvised or homemade explosives. HDS develops and provides this
    training to address the threats posed by devices used by terrorists and
    criminal enterprises around the world. The intelligence that TEDAC
    provides through device exploitation is critical to defining and
    implementing advanced render safe training.
        Finally, standard certification and training is critical to
    national security as public safety bomb technicians trained at HDS are
    the first line of defense against the full spectrum of IED threats,
    including weapons of mass destruction (WMD). HDS trains bomb
    technicians to identify a potential WMD, to notify the FBI, and to
    integrate seamlessly with FBI Special Agent Bomb Technicians and
    national assets, should such resources be required. Without the
    standardized training that HDS provides, there is a real risk that
    Federal WMD response assets would not be notified about a potential WMD
    in time to take emergency action.
        In addition to TEDAC's identified role in the national Counter-IED
    strategy, the FBI, on behalf of the Department of Justice, leads the
    Joint Program Office for Countering IEDs, which coordinates the efforts
    of the Department and oversees the implementation of the U.S. policy to
    Counter IEDs.

        NCETR: The ATF's NCETR serves an integration function for ATF by
    bringing together NCETR resources with the United States Bomb Data
    Center, ATF's international bomb and arson training, ATF criminal
    investigations, ATF industry operations, TEDAC and HDS. NCETR also
    consolidates key ATF explosives, fire, canine, and response operations
    in Huntsville, Alabama. NCETR consists of the Explosives Enforcement
    and Training Division, the Explosives Research and Development
    Division, and the Fire Investigation and Arson Enforcement Division,
    all located at Redstone Arsenal, along with the National Canine
    Division in Front Royal, Virginia and ATF's partnership in the National
    Explosives Task Force in Washington, DC. ATF provides training
    facilities and the expertise of its training staff in the delivery of
    life-saving advanced explosives and arson training for our Nation's
    explosives handlers, bomb technicians, criminal investigators, State
    and local law enforcement personnel, and our military's EOD operators
    at NCETR.
        NCETR provides advanced explosives training and research that
    leverages lessons learned and best practices to provide focused support
    to ATF's core mission of investigating the criminal misuse of
    explosives and regulation of the industry, and to align this support
    with the whole-of-Government counter-IED effort.
        NCETR employs a layered approach to explosives training in support
    of the Whole of Government approach to the C-IED effort, and to meet
    the goals and tasks of the JPO Training and Operations working group.
    As an example, ATF's Advanced Explosives Disposal Techniques (AEDT) was
    developed by ATF and its State and local partners in the 1990's to
    address the high incidence of injuries and deaths to bomb technicians
    during explosives disposal operations. AEDT provides a ``cradle to
    grave'' approach to the identification, handling and disposal of
    commercial, military and homemade or improvised explosives materials.
    Everything from production methods, storage, explosives range
    management, environmental concerns, personal protective equipment and
    clothing, and the latest disposal tools and techniques are covered in
    AEDT. This includes a ground-breaking disposal tool and related
    techniques developed by an ATF agent, for which the U.S. Patent Office
    issued a patent. The tool and instruction on its application to
    disposal operations is given to every bomb technician attending the
    course.
        A follow up course entitled HME-Identification, Process and
    Disposal, furthers the bomb technicians' knowledge and confidence in
    the identification, processing, handling and disposal of some of the
    most dangerous explosives materials they will come in contact with,
    Homemade Explosives (HME). The HME course is attended by public safety
    bomb technicians as well as military Explosives Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
    personnel, stressing interoperability of personnel from both groups at
    scenes such as the Boston Marathon bombings.
        These are but two of the courses at NCETR that naturally complement
    the training delivered at the FBI's Hazardous Devices School, the
    school house for bomb technician certification and other advanced
    training.
        NCETR also provides training to military partners on a frequent
    basis. Through a long partnership and a full time liaison position with
    the Department of Defense (DOD), ATF delivers the HME-IPD course to a
    mixed class of public safety and military bomb technicians. NCETR
    program personnel have also developed HME-related and advanced Post-
    Blast investigation courses in support of requests by U.S. military
    command staff to support the NATO Centers of Excellence in Spain and
    Slovakia.
        ATF is the only U.S. Government (USG) agency with fire and arson
    investigation as part of its core mission, and the sole USG agency with
    Special Agents qualified to testify as expert witnesses as to fire
    origin and cause, through the Certified Fire Investigator training
    program managed by NCETR. The programs that support that mission are
    now located at NCETR, including integrating ATF's fire investigation
    and arson enforcement operational and training programs, and support to
    the field through the National Response Teams, Certified Fire
    Investigators, and bomber and arsonist Profilers.
        Operationally, NCETR oversees the National Response Team, which
    responds to major bombings and explosions, IED incidents, as well as
    fire and arson incidents that require resources beyond the capabilities
    of State and local partner agencies. NCETR also oversees the combined
    Certified Explosives Specialist and Explosive Enforcement Officer
    program, ATF's subject matter experts for criminal investigations of
    matters related to explosions, bombings, explosives, IEDs and related
    activity. Not only does NCETR manage the training of these personnel,
    but it also coordinates the operational responses of personnel from
    across the country to large incidents anywhere in the U.S., and to
    locations outside the U.S. on request from foreign partners through the
    U.S. State Department. Well over 90 percent of the criminal acts
    involving explosions, explosives and bombings are non-terrorism related
    and ATF has responsibility for investigation of these incidents, as
    well as the origin and cause investigation of accidental explosions.
        The Explosives Research and Development Division (ERDD) at NCETR
    also supports ATF's role in the national security framework through a
    number of projects and ongoing and developing partnerships. ERDD is
    near completion in development of a $2.2 million project to develop a
    homemade explosive synthesis capability/laboratory on Corkern Range.
    These range modifications include two portable explosives synthesis
    buildings, an extensive instrumentation capability, an explosive
    storage magazine, and hazardous materials storage. The research and
    testing that will be carried out on ATF's Corkern Range will support a
    wide range of government projects in support of the Nation's C-IED
    strategy, as well as ATF's explosives enforcement and regulatory
    missions.
        ATF also has the sole responsibility for the regulation of the
    explosives industry, which is supported by NCETR training efforts. ATF
    Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs) attend Advanced Explosives
    Training for Investigators (AETI) at NCETR, focusing on the procedures
    required for completing the safe execution of inspections of Federal
    explosives licensee premises, as required by the Safe Explosives Act of
    2002.
                           ig access to doj documents
        Question. Do you believe that the Inspector General should have to
    seek your approval to access grand jury documents relevant to ongoing
    investigations?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I am very concerned about the issues that have been raised by
            the Inspector General. Congress has been clear, as has this
            Committee, that the Inspector General must have unfettered
            access to any and all documents necessary to carry out his
            duties.

        Answer. The Department's leadership appreciates the importance of
    access to information, including information subject to statutory
    disclosure restrictions, to the Office of the Inspector General's
    (``OIG'') ability to perform its oversight function and complete its
    investigations and reviews effectively. However, where there are legal
    restrictions on what the Department can do with certain sensitive
    information, the Department is obligated to ensure that any
    distribution of the information is consistent with those congressional
    directives. The Department takes its obligation to abide by these legal
    requirements very seriously.
        Section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 appropriately
    provides the Inspector General with broad access to the records in the
    Department. See 5 U.S.C. App. 3, Sec. 6(a)(1). However, Congress also
    has enacted strict limits on the disclosure and dissemination of
    certain categories of sensitive information. For instance, in Federal
    Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), Congress codified the venerable
    tradition of grand jury secrecy by barring an ``attorney for the
    Government'' and other enumerated persons from disclosing ``a matter
    occurring before the grand jury.'' Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(B).
    Similarly, in the Federal Wiretap Act, Congress expressly made it a
    crime to disclose information intercepted on a wiretap ``[e]xcept as
    otherwise specifically provided in this chapter,'' and delineated the
    narrow conditions under which investigative and law enforcement
    officers might intercept, use, or disclose wiretap information. See 18
    U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2511(1); 2516; 2517 (Title III).
        The interaction between the general access provision in the
    Inspector General Act and Congress's specific statutory directives
    regarding the handling of sensitive information, such as Rule 6(e) and
    Title III, presents an unsettled and potentially complex legal
    question. As such, when questions regarding OIG's access to such
    materials arose in 2011 in connection with two OIG reviews, the
    Department sought to identify avenues within the relevant statutes that
    would permit disclosure of the requested materials to the Inspector
    General.
        First, in connection with the material witness review, the
    Department concluded that Rule 6(e)(3)(D) authorized an attorney for
    the Government to disclose responsive grand jury information involving
    foreign intelligence to the OIG. The Department determined that the
    Inspector General was a Federal law enforcement official authorized to
    receive access to grand jury information involving foreign intelligence
    under this provision, and the disclosure would assist her in connection
    with the performance of her law enforcement duties, given that the
    material witness review involved allegations of misconduct by law
    enforcement agents that potentially reflected a violation of criminal
    law. Likewise, the Department concluded that section 2517(1) permitted
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation to disclose Title III wiretap
    information to the OIG in connection with the material witness review
    because OIG agents are ``investigative officers'' entitled to receive
    wiretap information in connection with their law enforcement duties.
    Again, since the material witness review involved allegations of
    misconduct by law enforcement agents that potentially reflected a
    violation of criminal law, this OIG review fulfilled the statutory
    requirement that disclosure be in connection with law enforcement
    duties.
        With respect to the review of Operation Fast & Furious and related
    investigations, the Department concluded that Federal Rule of Criminal
    Procedure Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) authorized the Attorney General, an
    ``attorney for the Government,'' to disclose grand jury information to
    Government personnel in the OIG as necessary to the performance of the
    Attorney General's duty to enforce Federal criminal law, including his
    supervisory responsibilities over the Department's programs, policies,
    and practices related to the enforcement of Federal criminal law.
        The Department is unaware of any specific materials that the OIG
    believed necessary to its reviews, but to which the OIG was not granted
    access. However, in light of the Inspector General's continued interest
    of in addressing the legal issues implicated by the competing
    congressional directives in section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector General
    Act and other statutes limiting the disclosure and dissemination of
    particular categories of sensitive information, the Department has
    requested formal Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) guidance. As we have
    informed the Department's OIG, if the outcome of the OLC's legal review
    does not assure the OIG of the access it needs to carry out its
    mission, the Department intends to work with that office to develop
    appropriate legislative remedies.
        Question. What law or laws, in your view, prohibit the Inspector
    General from obtaining access to documents directly relevant to ongoing
    audits or investigations?
        Answer. It is not the case that statutes restricting the disclosure
    of sensitive information necessarily ``prohibit'' the OIG from
    obtaining access to documents. As we explained in response to the
    previous question, the Department has found ways to disclose the
    requested information to the OIG pursuant to exceptions to the
    statutory prohibitions. Examples of statutes that we have had occasion
    to consider in the context of OIG requests include the restrictions
    contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) (grand jury
    information); the Federal Wiretap Act, Title III of the Omnibus Crime
    Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (information obtained by wiretap);
    and section 1681u(f) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (financial
    information obtained from credit agencies by FBI national security
    letters). The Department has not conducted a comprehensive survey of
    all statutes that might potentially restrict the disclosure of
    sensitive information in a manner that would raise a significant legal
    question about whether those statutory provisions limit the Inspector
    General's access to the covered information.
        Question. If it is your view that there are specific laws that
    prohibit the Inspector General from having access to documents directly
    relevant to ongoing audits or investigations, what are the relevant
    sections within those laws granting you, the Attorney General, the
    authority to preempt those prohibitions?
        Answer. As just described, statutory provisions restricting the
    disclosure of certain categories of information generally contain
    exceptions that might allow the OIG access to protected information in
    connection with investigations and audits. Some of these exceptions are
    premised on a determination by the Attorney General or another attorney
    responsible for conducting or supervising the prosecution of violations
    of Federal criminal law. Where the statute provides an exception to the
    general bar on disclosure that is premised on a determination by the
    Attorney General or another attorney for the Government, such a
    determination would be a prerequisite to the Inspector General gaining
    access to statutorily protected information under that provision. A
    determination by the Attorney General or another qualifying attorney
    authorizing the OIG to access the information, however, does not
    ``preempt'' a statutory bar on disclosure; rather, the determination
    that disclosure to the OIG is appropriate is simply an application of
    the terms of an exception Congress set out in the relevant statute. The
    Department is unaware of any specific materials that the OIG believed
    necessary to its reviews, but to which the OIG was not granted access.
        Question. You mentioned that you have never denied the Inspector
    General's request to access documents. However, if that situation were
    to arise, what recourse would the Inspector General have, in your view,
    to appeal or challenge that decision?
        Answer. As stated above, the Department is committed to continuing
    to ensure that, consistent with applicable legal requirements, the OIG
    has access to all of the information it believes necessary to complete
    its reviews. Indeed, the Department is unaware of any specific
    materials that the OIG believed necessary to its reviews, but to which
    the OIG was not granted access. The Department has requested a formal
    opinion from OLC to address the legal issues implicated by the
    competing congressional directives in section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector
    General Act and other statutes limiting the disclosure and
    dissemination of particular categories of sensitive information. This
    request is pending. If the outcome of the OLC's legal review does not
    assure the OIG of the access it needs to carry out its mission, the
    Department intends to work with that office to develop legislative
    remedies. In the meantime, if the Inspector General were dissatisfied
    with the access to statutorily protected information the Department
    afforded him, he could ask the Attorney General to reconsider any
    determination made regarding the application of a statutory exception.
        Question. Since there has never been an official ruling by the
    Office of General Counsel at the Department of Justice regarding access
    to documents by the Inspector General, would you be willing to see an
    official ruling from the General Counsel on these matters? If so, when
    could we expect you to do so?
        Answer. As stated above, the Department has requested a formal
    opinion from OLC to address the legal issues implicated by the
    competing congressional directives in section 6(a)(1) of the Inspector
    General Act and other statutes limiting the disclosure and
    dissemination of particular categories of sensitive information. This
    request is pending.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander
                               meth in tennessee
        Question. Given that the methamphetamine epidemic is one of the
    most urgent drug problems facing our Nation, especially in rural
    communities with limited resources, why isn't the Department doing more
    to expand the Clandestine Drug Laboratory Cleanup Program?
        Answer. Tennessee has been participating in the Drug Enforcement
    Administration's (DEA's) Authorized Central Storage (ACS or
    ``Container'') Program since July 2011. DEA receives funding for the
    Clandestine Drug Laboratory Cleanup Program from the Community Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS) program to assist State and local law
    enforcement with clandestine methamphetamine lab cleanups and training.
    After a shutdown of the cleanup program in February 2011 due to lack of
    funding, COPS funding was restored to restart the program in fiscal
    year 2012. Since that time DEA aggressively worked to expand the
    Container Program. There are currently 18 States with signed Letters of
    Agreement (LOA) with DEA for Container Programs with two more expected
    to be added by fiscal year 2016:
      --At the end of fiscal year 2011, there were six States with
            operational container programs (Illinois, Indiana, Alabama,
            Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Tennessee).
      --In fiscal year 2012, seven additional States (Arkansas, Michigan,
            Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Florida) were
            operational.
      --In fiscal year 2013, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania signed
            Letters of Agreement, which are expected to become operational
            in fiscal year 2014.
      --In 2014, two States (Georgia and Iowa) were added and became
            operational.
        Because of the expansion of the Container Program, DEA has been
    able to keep program costs down. This has allowed DEA to fulfill meth
    lab cleanup and training requests from the States participating in the
    Container Program, as well as fund on-site cleanups in the lower volume
    States that do not have high enough demand to sustain a Container
    Program economically. The Container Program has resulted in significant
    cost savings in States that have operational Container Programs (a
    contractor cleanup averages $2,730, while a container cleanup averages
    $306). In fiscal year 2013, DEA funded a total of 7,891 lab cleanups.
    Included in the total are the pickup and disposal of 7,099 labs through
    220 Container Program pickups from the 10 States participating in the
    program, and 792 State and local cleanups DEA administered during the
    same time period. In fiscal year 2014, DEA funded a total of 8,213 lab
    cleanups. Included in the total are the pickup and disposal of 7,880
    labs through 248 Container Program pickups from the 16 States
    participating in the program, and 333 State and local cleanups DEA
    administered during the same time period. While Kansas, New York and
    Pennsylvania have signed LOA's, they are not yet operational.
        At the clandestine lab training facility, DEA trains Federal,
    State, local, and foreign law enforcement officials on the latest
    techniques in clandestine laboratory detection, enforcement, and
    safety. In fiscal year 2013, DEA provided clan lab training to 1,696
    State and local law enforcement officers. In fiscal year 2014, DEA has
    provided clan lab training to 1,484 State and local law enforcement
    officers. Overall, DEA trained 39,932 law enforcement officers in
    fiscal year 2014. In addition to State and Local Clandestine Laboratory
    Certification Training, DEA also provided Site Safety Training,
    Tactical Training, and the FBI's National Improvised Explosive
    Familiarization Training course, which was also attended by the
    National Guard.
        Question. Last year Congress provided $7.5 million for a
    competitive grant program for State Anti-Methamphetamine Task Forces.
    When will the Department allow States to apply for these funds? What
    criteria will the Department use to evaluate proposals from States?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2014 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program
    (CAMP) was designed to advance public safety through providing funds to
    investigate illicit activities related to the manufacture and
    distribution of methamphetamine. Funds awarded in this program shall be
    used for investigative purposes to locate or investigate illicit
    activities, including precursor diversion, laboratories, or
    methamphetamine traffickers through State and local collaboration. The
    COPS Office received 19 eligible applications and made 10 awards
    totaling approximately $6 million.

    Funding Provisions:

      --Fiscal year 2014 CAMP grants provided funding for 24 months to
            State law enforcement agencies for equipment, overtime and
            other approved personnel costs for law enforcement officers
            assigned to the investigation of methamphetamine production and
            trafficking.
      --Funding awarded to State law enforcement agencies may be used to
            support law enforcement personnel costs for allied agencies'
            officers participating in a State anti-methamphetamine task
            force.
      --The COPS Office has identified an ``up to $1 million'' cap on award
            amounts.

    Eligibility:

      --The fiscal year 2014 COPS Anti-Methamphetamine Program was a
            targeted competitive solicitation which will focus on funding
            State law enforcement agencies (note: this does not include DC,
            tribal agencies or the territories) with identified meth
            problems, as indicated through the following sources:
        --Meth lab seizures data
        --Precursor chemicals seizures data
        --Meth-related arrests data
        --Drug arrests for Meth
      --State law enforcement agencies eligible to apply include, but are
            not limited to the following:
        --State AG's Offices
        --State Bureaus of Investigation
        --State Park Police
        --State Police Agencies
                     doj efforts to fight counterfeit drugs
        Question. What steps have you taken to meet that requirement? What
    challenges does the Department face prosecuting these cases, and does
    the Department need increased resources or authorities to improve law
    enforcement efforts against counterfeit drugs?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Drug counterfeiting is a serious public health threat. Nearly
            40 percent of the drugs Americans take are made abroad, and
            about 80 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients used
            in our drugs are manufactured overseas. The Department and U.S.
            Attorney offices across the country play a critical role in
            fighting counterfeit drugs by investigating and prosecuting
            illegal counterfeiting activity. For example, last year three
            individuals were indicted in the Middle District of Tennessee
            for obtaining prescription drugs from ``street collectors'' in
            New York and Miami and selling them as if they had been
            obtained from the wholesale distribution market. Also last
            year, 11 people were indicted for illegal importation and
            distribution of counterfeit drugs from Turkey, India, and
            Switzerland. Law enforcement agencies face substantial
            challenges investigating and prosecuting these often complex,
            global crime operations. The operations are often located
            abroad and scattered in several countries. Law enforcement
            needs assistance from foreign regulators and foreign law
            enforcement officials to obtain information and gather
            evidence, which those countries are often unable or unwilling
            to provide.
              The 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation
            Act (FDASIA) directed the Attorney General to give a higher
            priority to the prosecution of cases involving counterfeit
            drugs.

        Answer. The Department has taken a number of steps to meet the
    requirement of the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and
    Innovation Act (FDASIA).
        In combatting counterfeit drugs, the Department of Justice holds
    the primary responsibility for the enforcement of intellectual property
    rights. The enforcement of such rights is vital in ensuring the safety
    and efficacy of the drugs that Americans take every day. Formed in
    2010, the Department of Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property
    monitors and coordinates overall intellectual property enforcement
    efforts at the Department and ensures that it continues to remain a
    priority. It is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General. Under the
    leadership of the Intellectual Property Task Force, the FBI, and
    Justice Department components including the Criminal, Civil and
    Antitrust Divisions and the Bureau of Justice Affairs have worked to
    improve the protection of intellectual property, both in the U.S. and
    abroad. Upon the release of the administration's 2013 Joint Strategic
    Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement (JSP), the Attorney General,
    in a posting on the Department of Justice Web site, stated, ``the
    Department and its partners stand poised to take these critical efforts
    to a new level.'' The posting is available at, http://
    blogs.justice.gov/main/archives/3017. The Department's core role within
    the JSP includes forging law enforcement partnerships, dedicating grant
    funding to these partners, and increased enforcement against
    counterfeit drug trafficking organizations.
        Through the Office of Justice Programs' Intellectual Property
    Enforcement Program, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funds State
    and local projects that emphasize collaboration and coordination with
    all relevant enforcement organizations, including prosecutors,
    multijurisdictional task forces, and appropriate Federal agencies
    (e.g., local Federal Bureau of Investigation offices and U.S.
    Attorneys' Offices) in the enforcement of Intellectual Property (IP)
    laws. Specifically in the area of counterfeit drugs, the Bureau of
    Justice Assistance administered a grant in fiscal year 2014, for
    Protecting Public Health, Safety, and the Economy from Counterfeit
    Goods and Product Piracy. This funding provided national support for
    and to improve the capacity of State, local, and tribal criminal
    justice systems to address intellectual property criminal enforcement.
    BJA also offered funding for National Training and Technical Assistance
    for the Intellectual Property Enforcement Program. Additionally, the
    National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), supported by BJA, developed a
    research-based public outreach campaign to educate the public on IP
    crimes in general, particularly about the health and safety risks that
    result from IP crime.
        The Department, through the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs), the
    Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) in the Criminal
    Division and the Consumer Protection Branch (CPB) in the Civil
    Division, has continued to prioritize and pursue investigations and
    prosecutions in every priority area identified by the Department of
    Justice Task Force on Intellectual Property (``IP Task Force'' or
    ``IPTF''), including cases involving health and safety, trade secret
    theft and economic espionage, large-scale online piracy and
    counterfeiting, and links to organized criminal enterprises. The JSP
    details ongoing enforcement initiatives, including the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation Intellectual Property Program, and is located at,
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/2013-us-ipec-
    joint-strategic-plan.pdf.
        The passage of the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and
    Innovation Act provided the Department with enhanced penalties under
    Title 18 for trafficking in counterfeit drugs. The cases below
    illustrate recent action taken by the Department to hold those
    accountable for distributing misbranded, unapproved, adulterated, or
    counterfeit drugs.
      --On February 20, 2014, Ricky Lee Campbell, of Sacramento,
            California, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in
            counterfeit pharmaceuticals. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the
            Eastern District of California successfully prosecuted Campbell
            and his co-defendant, Susan Yvonne Eversoll. The defendants
            offered Viagra and Cialis for sale using CraigsList,
            Pennysaver, and via text message blasts. Searches of Campbell
            and Eversoll's residences produced more than 6,000 counterfeit
            tablets of Viagra and Cialis. Eversoll pleaded guilty to the
            conspiracy in December 2013, and was sentenced on March 6,
            2014, to 18 months in prison. Campbell was sentenced on May 8,
            2014 to a term of 41 months imprisonment, to be followed by 16
            months of supervised release.
      --The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
            Missouri announced on January 16, 2014, that two Turkish
            nationals were charged with obtaining unapproved, misbranded,
            adulterated and counterfeit cancer treatment prescription drugs
            from Turkey and other foreign countries and smuggling the drugs
            into the United States, including three shipments sent from
            Turkey to Chesterfield, Missouri. According to court filings,
            the defendants were employees of a Turkish prescription drug
            wholesaler. They used shipping labels that concealed the
            illegal nature of the prescription drug shipments, including
            customs declarations falsely describing the contents as
            ``gifts'' or ``documents'' or ``product sample'' with no or low
            declared monetary values.
      --In January, 2014, the Southern District of Texas and the Criminal
            Division successfully prosecuted a defendant for conspiracy to
            import counterfeit and misbranded drugs. A total of 3,200
            counterfeit Viagra and 4,000 counterfeit Cialis pills were sent
            from China to the defendant's home. Although the pills looked
            authentic, when tested, law enforcement determined that the
            counterfeit Viagra had less active pharmaceutical ingredient
            than was stated on the packaging, and the counterfeit Cialis
            did not contain any of the brand's active pharmaceutical
            ingredients.
      --The Criminal Division successfully prosecuted defendant Grisel
            Azcuy in the Eastern District of New York on December 10, 2013,
            for conspiracy to traffic in counterfeit goods and distribute
            misbranded drugs in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371 and
            conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute
            pharmaceutical drugs that included oxycodone, hydrocodone,
            alprazolam and diazepam in violation of 21 U.S.C Sections 846
            and 841.
      --The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California
            announced on September 12, 2013, that defendant Martin Paul
            Bean III was sentenced to serve 24 months in custody for his
            role in a scheme to sell unapproved foreign oncology drugs to
            doctors in the United States. Bean had pleaded guilty to
            conspiracy to commit a number of Federal offenses, including
            wire fraud, mail fraud, selling unapproved drugs, selling
            misbranded drugs, and importing merchandise contrary to law. In
            pleading guilty, Bean admitted that between February 24, 2005
            and October 30, 2011, he operated a business (GlobalRx Store)
            from his residence in Florida and unlawfully sold over $7
            million of prescription oncology drugs to doctors throughout
            the United States. Bean ordered unapproved drugs from foreign
            sources, including sources in Turkey, India, and Pakistan, and
            sold them to doctors within the United States at substantially
            discounted prices.
      --The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
            announced, on September 11, 2013, that Naman Bader of
            Philadelphia received a 12-month prison sentenced for smuggling
            and illegally distributing more than 2 million prescription
            pills, such as Xanax, Valium, phentermine, Ativan, Klonopin,
            Ambien, and their generic equivalents, valued at approximately
            $10,310,406. Additionally, approximately 25,000 counterfeit
            Viagra and Cialis pills were seized in international mail
            parcels during the course of the investigation. Bader's co-
            conspirator, Rehan Shah, was sentenced on December 5, 2012, to
            15 months in prison.
      --The U.S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Texas and
            the Criminal Division announced on August 6, 2013 the arrests
            of two individuals, Jamal Khattab, of Katy, Texas, and Fayez
            Al-Jabri, of Chicago, for allegedly conspiring to traffic in
            counterfeit and misbranded medicine, specifically Viagra. The
            indictment charged Khattab with one count of conspiracy, one
            count of smuggling goods into the United States, two counts of
            trafficking in counterfeit goods, two counts of trafficking in
            misbranded drugs and two counts of trafficking in counterfeit
            drugs. Al-Jabri was charged with one count of trafficking in
            counterfeit goods, one count of trafficking in misbranded drugs
            and one count of trafficking in counterfeit drugs. Jamal
            Khattab was sentenced on August 15, 2014 to a term of 21 months
            incarceration, 1 year of supervised release, and payment of
            $7,000 in restitution, plus a $300 special assessment. Fayez
            Al-Jabri was sentenced on July 17, 2014 to a term of 41 months
            incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, and payment of
            $15,066.92 in restitution.
      --On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
            Colorado obtained, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
            (FDA), executed seizure warrants for 1,677 Web sites that were
            illegally selling counterfeit or misbranded drugs that
            purported to be brand name pharmaceuticals. This enforcement
            action was coordinated as part of as part of International
            Internet Week of Action, and in conjunction with Interpol's
            Operation Pangea VI. Many of the sites falsely claimed to be
            hosted in Canada, while others falsely claimed to be affiliated
            with major U.S. pharmacy retailers by using the names of those
            retailers in the domain names. Drugs purchased from the sites
            provided did not have FDA approval and did not have Canadian
            origins. The Web sites offered medications to treat, among
            other things, conditions related to diabetes, schizophrenia,
            pain and inflammation.
      --On April 18, 2013, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern
            District of Illinois announced the indictment of a pharmacist
            on 15 counts of violating the FD&C Act and FDASIA for obtaining
            counterfeit Viagra and Cialis from China and illegally
            dispensing the bogus medications at his pharmacy.
      --The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California
            successfully prosecuted Edward Alarcon for a plot in which he
            possessed, and had the intent to distribute for profit, more
            than 2,000 Chinese-made counterfeit and misbranded Viagra
            pills. After a 3-day jury trial in January 2013, Alarcon was
            convicted on two counts of trafficking in counterfeit OxyContin
            and Cialis. The evidence presented at trial showed that Alarcon
            had purchased the bogus OxyContin from Bo Jiang, a Chinese
            national and the alleged head of a counterfeit drug ring.
            Alarcon had offered to sell counterfeit Cialis, Viagra and
            Levitra on Craigslist. The district court judge sentenced the
            defendant to 15 months in Federal prison on April 4, 2013. In a
            related case, Francis Ortiz Gonzalez, who worked as a
            ``dropshipper'' for Jiang in the United States, was sentenced
            in January 2014 to 2 years in Federal prison and ordered to pay
            $324,530 in restitution for trafficking counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals.
        You have asked about challenges the Department faces in prosecuting
    these cases involving counterfeit drugs, including resource challenges.
        In March 2011, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement
    Coordinator publically released a White Paper on Intellectual Property
    Enforcement Legislative Recommendations and it is accessible at, http:/
    /www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ip_white_paper.pdf. In this
    White Paper, the administration recommended six legislative changes to
    improve U.S. enforcement efforts involving pharmaceuticals, including
    counterfeit drugs:
        1.  Require importers and manufacturers to notify the FDA and other
    relevant agencies when they discover counterfeit drugs or medical
    devices, including the known potential health risks associated with
    those products;
        2.  Extend the Ryan Haight Act's definition of ``valid
    prescription'' (and its telemedicine exemption) under the Federal Food,
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to drugs that do not contain controlled
    substances;
        3.  Adopt a track-and-trace system for pharmaceuticals and related
    products;
        4.  Provide for civil and criminal forfeiture under the FFDCA,
    particularly for counterfeit drug offenses;
        5.  Increase the statutory maximums for drug offenses under the
    FFDCA, particularly for counterfeit drug offenses; and
        6.  Recommend that the U.S. Sentencing Commission increase the U.S.
    Sentencing Guideline range for intellectual property offenses that risk
    death and serious bodily injury, and for those offenses involving
    counterfeit drugs (even when those offenses do not present that risk).
        The Department recognizes recent congressional action, but also
    reiterates the need for implementation of the other recommendations
    noted in this White Paper. For example, many online pharmacies sell
    prescription drugs that are not controlled substances under Federal
    law. Non-controlled prescription drugs are regulated under the FFDCA
    and require a valid prescription, but the FFDCA does not define what
    constitutes a valid prescription. Currently, States have different
    definitions of what constitutes a valid prescription. Internet
    pharmacies typically operate across State lines. The pharmacy may be in
    one State (or overseas), the doctor who issues the prescription may be
    in another State, and the customer may be located in a third State. In
    such cases, it is not clear which State law applies. Extending the Ryan
    Haight Act's definition of ``valid prescription'' to non-controlled
    prescription drugs would help standardize what constitutes a valid
    prescription. A Federal definition of what constitutes a ``valid
    prescription'' for non-controlled prescription drugs would also provide
    clarity in Internet pharmacy investigations where there is a question
    as to whether the drugs are being dispensed pursuant to a valid
    prescription.
        Prosecuting foreign Internet pharmacies for dispensing controlled
    and non-controlled prescription drugs under FFDCA presents some unique
    challenges for the Department of Justice. The Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) noted in a report released in July 2013 the substantial
    challenges in the criminal investigation of rogue Internet pharmacy
    operators, include the increasingly complex nature of the criminal
    organizations and the difficulties in pursuing investigations and
    prosecutions of conduct that occur mainly overseas and often span
    several foreign countries. For example, the Department may have
    difficulties prosecuting an offender because of the lack of an
    extradition treaty between the foreign country and the United States.
    The report is available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655751.pdf and
    further details these challenges.
        Question. What has the Department and its current intellectual
    property law enforcement coordinators done to help stop the tide of
    counterfeit and unsafe pharmaceuticals from hitting our shores? Are
    there any recent joint operations with our partners in Asia that have
    been successful? What are the greatest challenges that you see in
    countries like China and India?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The Department of Justice currently funds 22 positions
            focusing on intellectual property crime and has requested
            funding for an additional 11 positions, including two
            International Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property
            Coordinators (ICHIPs).

        Answer. As detailed in the Department's Prioritizing Resources and
    Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO IP) Act Annual Report for
    fiscal year 2013, the Department has prioritized cases involving public
    health and safety, including prosecuting the importers and distributors
    of counterfeit and sub-standard medicines. These cases may fall under
    the prohibition against trafficking in counterfeit goods (18 U.S.C.
    Sec. 2320) or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 351, 352).
        By working closely with investigative agencies and the National IPR
    Coordination Center, the Department has successfully prosecuted
    numerous cases involving counterfeit pharmaceuticals imported from
    overseas. Some recent examples include:
      --In January 2014, two Turkish nationals were charged in the Eastern
            District of Missouri with obtaining unapproved, misbranded,
            adulterated, and counterfeit cancer treatment and prescription
            drugs from Turkey and other foreign countries and smuggling the
            drugs into the United States.
      --In January 2014, a Texas resident pleaded guilty to conspiring to
            import and attempting to traffic counterfeit drugs. The
            counterfeit pharmaceuticals, which either did not contain any
            active ingredient or contained an insufficient amount of the
            active ingredient, were sent to the defendant's home in Texas
            from China in open foil blister packs without packaging or
            labels.
      --In December 2013, a Chicago resident pleaded guilty to conspiring
            to traffic and trafficking in counterfeit and misbranded
            pharmaceuticals. The defendant smuggled the counterfeit drugs
            from China into the United States in bulk for later
            distribution in smaller quantities. As part of the
            investigation, an undercover agent successfully infiltrated the
            counterfeit pharmaceutical trafficking organization and
            received approximately 17,000 counterfeit and misbranded Viagra
            tablets over a two-and-a-half year period.
      --In April 2013, an Illinois resident was charged with trafficking in
            counterfeit drugs, violating the Federal Food, Drug, and
            Cosmetic Act in connection with illegally obtaining drugs from
            China and dispensing them at his pharmacy.
      --In January 2013, a Puerto Rican man was sentenced to 2 years in
            prison for being a key member of an organization that
            distributed large quantities of Chinese-made, counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals across the United States. The defendant worked
            as a ``dropshipper'' for the counterfeit drug ring allegedly
            headed by a Chinese national whose last known residence was in
            New Zealand. The purported head of the drug ring was arrested
            by New Zealand law enforcement pursuant to a provisional arrest
            warrant, but he fled shortly after being released on bond and
            remains a fugitive. In a related case, in April 2013, a
            California resident was sentenced to 15 months in prison for
            his role in a scheme to distribute the Chinese-made counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals. He purchased the drugs from the alleged head
            of the counterfeit drug ring and offered to sell them on
            craigslist.
      --In October 2012, a New Zealand physician was sentenced to 18 months
            in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of trafficking
            in counterfeit pharmaceuticals. The investigation into the
            defendant's illicit activities began in 2006 after Customs and
            Border Protection intercepted a parcel shipped from China
            containing counterfeit drugs, and the defendant was identified
            as the sender. The defendant was originally indicted in
            December 2007, but remained at large until March 2012 when he
            was arrested at San Francisco International Airport flying into
            the United States from Hong Kong.
      --In September 2012, a Puerto Rican distributor of counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals was sentenced to 21 months in prison. The
            pharmaceuticals were exported from China into Puerto Rico,
            where the defendant re-shipped the drugs into other U.S.
            locations, including to undercover agents in Houston.
      --In July 2012, a California man was sentenced to 1 year and a day in
            prison after pleading guilty to trafficking in counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals. The defendant admitted that he imported these
            products into the United States from China and India and then
            sold the pills on craigslist.
        In addition to seizing counterfeit and misbranded drugs and
    prosecuting the distributors, the Department has seized websites used
    to facilitate distribution of illegal sales of pharmaceuticals:
      --In June 2013, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of
            Colorado and the Food and Drug Administration seized 1,600
            domain names associated with Web sites selling counterfeit or
            misbranded drugs as a part of INTERPOL's Operation Pangea VI,
            an international week of action targeting the online sale of
            counterfeit and illicit medicines.
      --In October 2012, in Operation Bitter Pill, Homeland Security
            Investigations in coordination with the Department of Justice
            seized 686 Web sites illegally selling counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals. The operation was part of INTERPOL's Operation
            Pangea V.
        The Department also works closely with the State Department to
    provide training in effective law enforcement techniques to reduce the
    trade in illicit pharmaceuticals into developing countries. The sale of
    counterfeit medicines in developing countries can simultaneously
    destroy the market for legitimate products and have devastating health
    consequences on the local population. As part of a multi-year series of
    programs to build IP enforcement capacity, the Department, working with
    the World Customs Organization, was able to support a 23-nation effort
    to seize counterfeit medicines across the African continent which
    resulted in the seizure of more than 550 million doses of counterfeit
    medicine during a 10-day period in April 2013.
        In addition to our efforts to increase awareness and enforcement in
    consumer countries, we continue to develop cooperative law enforcement
    mechanisms to pursue a range of IP offenses in source countries,
    including the ongoing effort to reach the producers of counterfeit and
    substandard pharmaceuticals.
      --The U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group's Intellectual Property Criminal
            Enforcement (JLG IP) working group provides a forum to discuss
            ways to improve law enforcement cooperation and coordination on
            intellectual property matters, including counterfeit
            pharmaceuticals, and to exchange information and coordinate
            enforcement activities. The JLG IP working group is co-chaired
            by China's Ministry of Public Security and DOJ's Criminal
            Division. The JLG IP working group coordinates with U.S. law
            enforcement officials in China to facilitate the exchange of
            evidence.
      --In May 2013, the Department of Justice hosted the third
            Intellectual Property Crime Enforcement Network (IPCEN)
            conference in Bangkok, Thailand. Sixty intellectual property
            crime investigators and prosecutors from the 10 members of the
            Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), as well as
            South Korea and China, attended. The IPCEN conference is
            designed to help prosecutors and investigators in the region
            develop a network of IP enforcement authorities and foster
            bilateral and regional cooperation in IP cases, including
            counterfeit pharmaceutical cases.
        There are no recent examples of joint operations with our partners
    in Asia that are public at this time. However, we have seen a
    substantial increase in the willingness of law enforcement officials in
    some producer nations to cooperate in the disruption of counterfeit
    pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities, and we are looking for
    opportunities to develop joint operations through the IPCEN and JLG.
        In India we have been challenged by the lack of a central law
    enforcement authority with jurisdiction over counterfeit and
    substandard pharmaceutical investigations, making a coordinated
    approach to enforcement difficult. Additionally, larger issues relating
    to patent enforcement and access to medicines in India often limit
    political will and overshadow efforts at cooperative action against
    counterfeit pharmaceuticals.
        In China, law enforcement officials recognize the growing threat of
    counterfeit pharmaceuticals to the Chinese population and take well-
    publicized actions to cut down on domestic IP crime. Chinese officials
    have shown an increasing willingness to work with U.S. law enforcement
    and rights holders to ensure the legitimacy of pharmaceuticals in the
    supply chain, using the Joint Liaison Group as a coordination
    mechanism. However, the sheer volume of production in China of
    counterfeit pharmaceuticals and other IP-infringing goods continues to
    make enforcement a challenge.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                     fairness in disclosure of evidence act
        Question. Suppose I were to ask the Department to provide a
    drafting service, get a bit introspective about what might be
    acceptable bearing in mind the comments in the Judiciary hearing last
    year and send me a bill that is worth moving forward on. Would you do
    this for me?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              Last year I introduced the Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence
            Act with the intention of ensuring that the obligation to
            disclose exculpatory evidence to Federal defendants in
            accordance with the Brady ruling was uniformly applied across
            the districts. The bill was endorsed by a wide variety of
            organizations across the ideological spectrum from the American
            Civil Liberties Union to the American Bar Association to the
            U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Suffice it to say, prosecution
            interests were not as enamored with the bill. When the bill
            went to hearing in the Judiciary Committee last year there was
            widespread support within the Department for taking Brady
            obligations seriously and there was a promising colloquy with
            Senator Leahy and others about open file discovery. At the end
            of the day my bill was unacceptable to the department but the
            department failed to express the parameters of a bill that
            would be acceptable. This issue is very very important to me
            and I intend to pursue it. I would like to find common ground
            with the Justice Department. So rather than me continuing to
            draft bills that are unacceptable--[continued above as the
            start of the question]

        Answer. The Department of Justice firmly believes that rather than
    seeking legislative solutions, the American people are better served by
    the steps the Department already has taken--and will continue to take--
    since the time of the Stevens prosecution. Through improved policies,
    increased training, and the appointment of new Department experts on
    the topic of discovery obligations, the Department's prosecutors have
    at their disposal an array of resources to assist them in meeting their
    discovery obligations. In addition to supervisory attorneys, this
    includes: discovery coordinators in each U.S. Attorney's Office or
    Department component; the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office;
    online resources; a full-time National Criminal Discovery Coordinator
    in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General; and experienced attorneys
    throughout the Department.
                              attorney misconduct
        Question. In advance of the next round of reporting from the GAO,
    let me ask are you satisfied with the attorney misconduct program
    within the department? Are there any changes you would like to see
    implemented? I understand that the Department has long resisted
    permitting the Inspector General to inquire into issues of attorney
    misconduct. Senator Lee, I and others think this is shortsighted. The
    Inspector General is intended to be an independent figure with the
    power to inquire into all goings on within the Department furthering
    the public interest of integrity and efficiency. Is there any good
    reason that the Department should oppose S. 2127 which would remove
    Inspector General Act impediments pertaining to attorney misconduct?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              I would like to speak with you about the issue of attorney
            misconduct within the department. USA Today did a series on
            attorney misconduct, the Project on Government Oversight
            recently issued a report attorney misconduct and I have the GAO
            working on a study mandated by this subcommittee on the same
            subject that will be available later this year. We hear that
            attorney misconduct is seriously addressed but looking back at
            the discipline meted out on the Stevens prosecutors one might
            question whether the discipline is severe at all. And the POGO
            report indicates that rarely if ever are disciplined
            prosecutors referred to their State bars.

        Answer. The Department takes all misconduct allegations with the
    utmost seriousness. The Department's Office of Professional
    Responsibility (``OPR'') has been recognized consistently as a strong,
    independent entity within the Department that has a long,
    distinguished, and strong history of investigating allegations of
    attorney misconduct and recommending appropriate punishment. OPR has a
    unique expertise and has well-developed policies, procedures, and an
    analytical framework to guide its work. Importantly, OPR, unlike the
    Office of the Inspector General (OIG), has a singular focus on
    investigating attorney misconduct.
        While the Administration does not yet have an official position on
    S. 2127, similar bills have been introduced a number of times in the
    past; none have proceeded, and for good reasons. Previous efforts to
    unnecessarily expand the jurisdiction of the OIG have failed, in part,
    because expanding their jurisdiction would not create a better attorney
    discipline system, but instead would create an inconsistent and
    inefficient system while eroding accountability.
        As with S. 2127, previous efforts at expanding the OIG's
    jurisdiction have sought to effectively cede OPR's current jurisdiction
    to the OIG on all matters, allowing the OIG to handle certain attorney
    misconduct investigations of its choosing, while OPR handles the
    remainder. This concurrent jurisdiction undoubtedly would lead to
    inconsistent results without addressing any of your concerns.
        When Congress created an Inspector General (IG) for the Department
    of Justice in 1988, the Department strongly insisted upon recognition
    of the special character of Department attorneys' exercise of authority
    to investigate, litigate and give legal advice. Since its creation in
    1975, OPR has developed unique expertise in applying the complex legal
    and ethical standards applicable to Department attorneys conducting
    investigations, litigating cases, and providing legal advice. OPR has
    developed unique investigative policies and procedures, as well as an
    analytical framework that together ensure the application of fair and
    consistent findings with regard to matters of professional misconduct.
    OPR is staffed with experienced attorneys, including former attorneys
    from the OIG, as well as attorneys who worked in private practice, have
    experience with the national Innocence Project, and have experience
    with attorney ethics investigations.
        For these reasons, Congress specifically carved out of the IG's
    jurisdiction the authority to investigate allegations relating to an
    attorney's authority to investigate, litigate, and provide legal
    advice; and required that such allegations continue to be referred to
    OPR. Since 1988, the OIG has raised periodically its claim that it
    should be empowered to investigate matters falling within OPR's
    jurisdiction. Each time the issue has been raised, Congress has wisely
    refrained from altering the carefully considered limitation on the IG's
    authority.
        In its nearly 40 years' existence, OPR has been called upon to
    investigate allegations of misconduct against high-ranking DOJ
    officials, including the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney
    General. OPR in fact acts independently and without interference from
    senior Department leadership. Since its inception, OPR has been led by
    a Counsel who is a career Senior Executive Service Department employee,
    who remains unchanged with successive Attorneys General and
    presidential administrations. No serious allegation has ever been
    raised that any Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General has
    interfered with any OPR investigation.
        Although the OIG for many years has claimed a need to increase its
    own jurisdiction, the OIG points to no instance in which Department
    senior leadership interfered with an OPR investigation; nor does the
    OIG point to a single OPR investigation that failed to appropriately
    hold accountable Department leaders or other Department attorneys. OPR
    has not hesitated to investigate senior Department leadership at the
    highest levels in the past where appropriate, and to find misconduct by
    Department attorneys when the evidence supported such findings. In any
    event, if the OIG wishes to take over an investigation that falls
    within the jurisdiction of OPR, the OIG may make such a request to the
    Deputy Attorney General.
        Moreover, your concerns about the Stevens case would not have been
    addressed had the attorney misconduct investigation been handled by the
    OIG. As I understand it, your principal objection to the Department's
    handling of the Stevens attorney misconduct investigation is your
    belief that the punishment was insufficient. Had the OIG handled the
    investigation, the perceived problem of insufficient punishment would
    not have been rectified. OPR conducted a full and thorough
    investigation and determined in a detailed, 672-page report that two
    attorneys engaged in professional misconduct and that a third exercised
    poor judgment. OPR's findings were shared with Judge Sullivan, who
    presided over the Stevens matter and with Congress.
        As a result of OPR's findings, the Department imposed significant
    periods of suspensions without pay to the attorneys who were found to
    have engaged in professional misconduct. As is the right of any civil
    servant under similar circumstances, the attorneys appealed the imposed
    discipline to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB); an
    administrative judge for the MSPB vacated the suspensions based on a
    finding of harmful procedural error when the original disciplinary
    proposing official was replaced. The Department appealed that decision
    to the full Board, believing that the replacement of the proposing
    official was proper. The full board affirmed the initial decision,
    finding similar harmful procedural error. Regardless of whether OPR or
    the OIG investigated this incident of attorney misconduct, there is no
    reason to believe the MSPB outcome would have been any different. OPR
    has the authority to investigate allegations of misconduct, but does
    not have the authority to impose discipline. Likewise, the OIG would
    have had no such authority. Rather, the OIG would only have authority
    to report its findings and conclusions to the Attorney General and the
    Deputy Attorney General; the Department, under longstanding civil
    service rules, would retain authority to impose discipline. But just as
    is the case under the present system, any attorney--like all Federal
    Government workers--would retain the right to appeal a suspension of
    more than 14 days to the MSPB.
        With respect to concerns about referrals of attorney misconduct to
    State bars, OPR's long-standing policy and practice in all
    investigations is also to review the State bar rules that govern each
    individual attorney who is under investigation, and to assess whether
    there has been a violation of those specific State bar rules. If the
    Department determines that the conduct violates an applicable State bar
    rule, OPR refers the matter to the relevant State bar and provides
    information about its finding. OPR routinely makes such referrals.
        Another reason OIG's jurisdiction to include attorney misconduct is
    neither warranted or appropriate is that having two entities
    responsible for attorney misconduct investigations would necessarily
    lead to inconsistent application of the often complex rules and
    standards governing attorney conduct and would leave Department
    attorneys uncertain as to the extent of their obligations. This
    uncertainty, in turn, would reduce accountability because of the lack
    of clear direction and opaque expectations regarding attorney conduct.
    This will inevitably create a dysfunctional system in which similarly-
    situated Department attorneys will be treated differently for
    essentially similar conduct. It would be grossly unfair to subject
    attorneys to disparate treatment based on which investigative entity
    takes jurisdiction; decreased accountability would be the predictable
    result.
        With respect to transparency, the Privacy Act prevents OPR from
    releasing personal information about Department employees, except in
    limited circumstances, and those same limitations would apply to the
    OIG. Accordingly, whether OPR or some other entity undertakes
    disciplinary investigations, the same Privacy Act limitations are
    applicable. Although the Privacy Act prohibits the release of protected
    information, OPR annually discloses a substantial amount of information
    about its work and findings. OPR's annual report contains substantive
    and statistical information setting forth the complaints it receives
    and the numbers of inquiries and investigations it accepts and
    resolves. The fiscal year 2012 Annual Report, for example, not only
    included summaries of representative inquiries handled by OPR during
    the year but also included summaries of nearly every investigation OPR
    closed during fiscal year 2012. Future annual reports will do the same.
    Beyond that, OPR regularly provides complainants, including defense
    attorneys or judges who complain about the conduct of Department
    attorneys, information concerning the resolution of their complaint.
    Contrary to the suggestion in the POGO report otherwise, where bar
    rules are implicated, OPR also shares its misconduct findings and
    reports with bar disciplinary authorities.
                           ted stevens investigation
        Question. During last week's hearing with the FBI Director, Mr.
    Comey indicated that an FBI Agent whose conduct in the Ted Stevens
    investigation came under scrutiny was severely disciplined. But he
    didn't explain what severely disciplined meant. One person's severe
    discipline might be another's slap on the wrist. Can you shed any light
    on whether the individual is still working for the FBI, in what
    capacity, and what the discipline was. [If not, insist once again that
    the report be filed with the subcommittee so we can determine what went
    on].
        Answer. In light of the privacy interests implicated here, FBI
    would be prepared to brief the Committee on this matter.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kirk
                                     gangs
        Question. Would a tool like this be useful on a national scale in a
    classified or unclassified manner? Do any of our Federal law
    enforcement agencies gather this type on information on gangs of
    national significance (gang profiles, membership, signs or symbols,
    signature crimes, etc.) and share it with their State and local
    partners? If this is already being done, what is the manner that the
    information is shared?
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              The Chicago Crime Commission, a non-partisan, not-for-profit
            organization, printed The Gang Book in 2012 that details the
            leadership, membership, locations and other unique identifying
            factors of gangs and their factions in both the city of Chicago
            and the suburbs. The Gang Book also published the number and
            type of crimes reported as ``gang related.'' This information
            is useful for suburban police departments that are experiencing
            gang crime for the first time.

        Answer. This type of tool is already being used on a national scale
    and is very helpful. The National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC)
    operates NGIC Online, which is an information system composed of Web
    based tools for researching gang related intelligence and sharing this
    information with the largest possible segment of the law enforcement
    community. NGIC Online can be accessed by all Law Enforcement Online
    (LEO) users, which are comprised of local, State, Federal, tribal, and
    correctional law enforcement. NGIC Online has several resources,
    including the following: Gang Encyclopedia, Gang Dictionary, General
    Intelligence Library, and Officer Safety Alerts. There is also a
    mechanism within NGIC Online wherein law enforcement can submit a
    request for information to NGIC subject matter experts for support on
    gang investigations. NGIC also produces the bi-annual gang report,
    which is available to all law enforcement through the NGIC Online
    database.
        In addition, the Department's Office of Justice Programs' (OJP),
    Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), administers the Regional
    Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, which is a federally
    funded, locally operated program that provides secure intelligence and
    information sharing to law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections, and
    probation/parole officers at all levels of government. Although Federal
    agencies participate, the focus is information sharing between law
    enforcement no matter the size of the agency. In addition to
    information sharing services, RISS provides assistance to these
    agencies in the areas of investigative support, equipment loans for
    investigation and surveillance, court preparation, training, and field
    support.
        All RISS resources are used by State, local, and tribal agencies on
    a daily basis to investigate many types of crimes, especially narcotics
    and gangs (which are connected on many occasions). One specific
    resource of interest to gang investigators in the RISS program is the
    RISSGang system. RISSGang provides a place for officers to share and
    provide gang information on a national level to include gang profiles,
    tattoos, gang signs and symbols, and types of specific crimes
    affiliated with each gang. The gang information is made available
    through the RISSGang Web site, which is available to all law
    enforcement, and has a bulletin board feature, a searchable database,
    secure e-mail, and a method for officers to securely view gang Web
    sites without revealing the officers' IP address or identity as a
    government official.
        Question. Gang activity is increasingly expanding to new forms of
    illegal activity including sex trafficking. How is DOJ communicating
    and working with State and local law enforcement to combat sex-
    trafficking? How is DOJ working with other Federal agencies and our
    allies to combatting international sex tourism? What are the biggest
    trends in sex trafficking? What areas are seeing increased activity?
    Please outline the biggest loopholes within current law that enable sex
    traffickers to evade the law enforcement and criminal prosecution.
        Answer. Through the FBI's Violent Crimes Against Children Section,
    the FBI has established 69 Child Exploitation Task Forces (CETFs)
    throughout the country. The FBI partners with nearly 400 local, State,
    and Federal law enforcement agencies, with approximately 760 law
    enforcement officers to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of
    children. This robust effort allows for multi-dimensional investigative
    strategies to be employed. The national level intelligence and
    investigative resources are layered with the local level intelligence
    to develop large enterprise level investigations. In addition to
    fostering the sharing of information across law enforcement, the CETFs
    facilitate prosecutions within both State and Federal courts of those
    who facilitate the commercial sexual exploitation of children. Without
    question, because of the partnerships through the FBI CETFs, law
    enforcement is able to more fully impact this crime problem without the
    limitations of any jurisdictional boundary.
        The FBI also operates its Child Sex Tourism Initiative in which FBI
    agents assigned to our Legal Attache offices around the globe
    investigate U.S. citizens who travel overseas and engage in illicit
    sexual acts with children. These agents work with foreign law
    enforcement, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and various victim
    services organizations in order to investigate and prosecute those
    engaged in child sex tourism. The Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also have agents stationed
    overseas that investigate child sex tourism and other crimes. The FBI
    has regular contact with ICE in order to collaborate on these cases.
        Trends related to the domestic child sex trafficking threat are
    typically reflected in the methodologies used by pimps to run their
    operations. This is reflected in the trend of using non-escort focused
    Web sites to post prostitution advertisements. Additionally, pimps are
    distancing themselves from their operations by assigning greater
    responsibility to associates and ``bottom girls'' (frequently the most
    trusted girl under the direction of a pimp). Some special events, such
    as the Super Bowl, continue to spur a surge of sex trafficking
    operations leading up to and during the event. Training and outreach
    efforts have resulted in an increased awareness of domestic child
    prostitution. As a result, law enforcement and the public are more
    conscious of indicators specific to domestic child sex trafficking,
    leading to an increase in reports of suspected trafficking. Domestic
    child sex trafficking continues to impact communities across the
    Nation.
        The Office of Justice Program's (OJP's) National Institute of
    Justice (NIJ) regularly consults with a range of State and local
    practitioners, including law enforcement, prosecutors, community
    organizations and victim service providers, to identify the prominent
    trends in human trafficking. These consultations revealed that the
    nature of trafficking cases calls into question the assumptions about
    who traffickers are, how they become traffickers and what might serve
    as the greatest deterrent to their entry into trafficking. In response,
    NIJ commissioned a study focused on answering these questions for all
    those convicted of trafficking at the Federal level, another examining
    the role of gangs in sex trafficking in San Diego, and a third
    exploring the role of organized crime in sex trafficking in the United
    States (all due to be completed in 2015). Combined with our recently
    completed studies of labor trafficking (published in 2013) and the
    unlawful commercial sex economy (published in 2014), these studies will
    provide a more clear picture of trends in sex trafficking in the United
    States.
        The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and the Bureau of Justice
    Assistance (BJA) jointly administer the Enhanced Collaborative Model to
    Combat Human Trafficking grant funding program to support anti-
    trafficking law enforcement task forces that take a comprehensive
    approach to combating all forms of human trafficking--sex trafficking
    and labor trafficking of foreign nationals and U.S. citizens (male/
    female, adults/minors). The task force model supports partnerships
    between local, tribal, State, and Federal law enforcement and victim
    service providers to build community capacity to rescue and serve
    trafficking victims. In addition to funding these task forces, OVC and
    BJA support practitioner-driven, evidence-based training and technical
    assistance (TTA) that is responsive to the needs of victim service
    organizations, law enforcement, allied professionals, and the
    communities they serve.
        Over the past several years, BJA and its partner, the Upper Midwest
    Community Policing Institute, have developed and delivered nationwide
    training for law enforcement, State prosecutors, State judges, and
    tribal law enforcement to promote awareness of human trafficking as
    well as advanced skills on how to investigate cases of human
    trafficking. In fiscal year 2014, BJA posted a solicitation seeking to
    continue the delivery of: (1) human trafficking training for
    prosecutors--to increase the capacity of State prosecutors to
    successfully prosecute perpetrators of trafficking; and (2) advanced
    human trafficking training for law enforcement--to increase the
    capacity of law enforcement to investigate, identify, and rescue
    victims of all forms of human trafficking.
                                 cyber security
        Question. I am greatly concerned about the data breach incident at
    the end of 2013 that resulted in up to 110 million credit cards numbers
    stolen from Target. This is just one of many incident that happened
    last year. How does DOJ coordinate with the Secret Service, which has
    the lead agency on counterfeit activity, regarding data breaches? Do
    you have all of the legal authorities you need to effectively
    coordinate with other agencies? If not, is there further congressional
    action that will help you better protect the American people?
        Answer. Consistent with law, the FBI has a very forward-leaning
    approach to sharing information and intelligence with our partners,
    specifically the U.S. Secret Service (USSS). While the USSS is the lead
    agency for traditional counterfeit activity, an intrusion into computer
    networks is an altogether separate Federal violation, the investigation
    of which is a responsibility shared by both the FBI and USSS, and the
    FBI is the lead agency on national security intrusions. As such, the
    FBI and the Secret Service have a long history of jointly investigating
    computer intrusions, including large-scale data breaches, whether
    committed by financially-motivated criminals or other criminal actors.
    Over the past 2 years, the FBI has shared national security case
    details with the USSS, and both agencies are leading members of the
    National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, the founding mandate of
    which is to serve as the focal point for all government agencies to
    coordinate, integrate, and share information related to all domestic
    cyber threat investigations. In addition, both agencies engage in
    robust, bilateral collaboration at both the headquarters and field
    levels to ensure maximum resources are brought to bear against these
    criminal cyber threats in the most effective manner possible. Lastly,
    both agencies also participate in the International Organized Crime
    Intelligence and Operations Center (IOC-2), a forum for member agencies
    to meet and more effectively coordinate international criminal
    prosecutions--prosecutions which include cyber activities.
        The FBI has a variety of means to coordinate with its partner
    agencies in the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities. To
    successfully identify, pursue, and defeat our cyber adversaries, data
    collection and sharing among U.S. agencies must continue to evolve.
    That evolution requires a constant evaluation of the authorities
    governing such coordination including ensuring agency-specific data
    sharing restrictions, while often necessary, do not unduly burden that
    sharing. Another aspect of that evolution is increasing the speed at
    which intelligence is shared. In that vein, the FBI, working with
    partners in government and the private sector, will likely turn to
    machine-to-machine data sharing, but such enhanced coordination may
    require authorities not currently in place. This is an issue actively
    being reviewed at the present and will continue to be examined for the
    foreseeable future.
        Finally, cybersecurity legislation that requires companies to
    report intrusion activity to the Government and provides liability
    protections for those companies that share with and assist Government
    would have a positive impact on the FBI's cyber investigations.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator John Boozman
                           victims of child abuse act
        Question. I certainly hope that you will follow up on that
    commitment given that while this year funds weren't cut, they were
    significantly reduced from the levels that this subcommittee provided
    the past 2 years and I would appreciate you reaffirming your support
    for CAC's.
        Lead-in information from original document.--
              For the first time in several years, I am happy that the
            administration's budget request did not zero out funds for the
            Victims of Child Abuse Act, yet it reduced the funding by $8
            million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. As you know,
            VOCA funds vital programs that ensure that children who have
            been victims of abuse receive adequate assistance and care.
              Specifically VOCA provides funding to the National Children's
            Alliance, local Children's Advocacy Centers, and Regional
            Children's Advocacy Centers, among other programs. These
            centers are an essential part of communities and are deeply
            supported by community leaders, local law enforcement, health
            officials and members of the legal establishment.
              In a hearing in January of this year, you stated, ``I will be
            advocating on behalf of these Children's Advocacy Centers. I
            think they are proven to work, and given who they assist, I
            think that as we're trying to decide what our priorities are,
            the protection of our most vulnerable citizens, our children,
            has to be a place where we put our money.''

        Answer. The Children's Advocacy Center (CAC) Program, funded under
    the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCA), is considered to be an effective
    multidisciplinary model. The CACs represent vital public-private
    partnerships. In 2012, more than 286,000 children were served at such
    centers, with over 197,000 cases of reported sexual abuse. One of the
    primary goals of the CAC Program is to ensure that child abuse victims
    are not further traumatized by the systems designed to protect them.
    CACs bring together multidisciplinary teams of child abuse
    professionals from law enforcement, prosecution, medical, mental
    health, child protective services, and victim advocacy agencies to
    coordinate the investigation and prosecution of child abuse. This model
    has been implemented in more than 850 communities throughout the United
    States and in numerous foreign countries.
        Research on the effectiveness of CACs indicates positive results
    from faster criminal charging decisions, increased prosecution rates,
    improved access to medical care, child and caregiver satisfaction and
    lower average per-case costs. Research has demonstrated that the
    coordinated response efforts also cost $1,000 less per case based on
    elimination of duplication of efforts.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted to Hon. Michael E. Horowitz
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
        Question. Public trust and confidence are essential to successful
    Federal law enforcement efforts. However, the Department has faced
    significant issues in recent years that jeopardize that very trust and
    confidence. In fact, restoring public confidence, trust and integrity
    in the Department has been a top management challenge since 2007.
      --Seven years is a long time for any department to struggle with such
            a serious management challenge. Has the Department made any
            progress and if so, could you share some examples?
      --What changes, in your view, would help to restore public trust and
            confidence? In other words, what does the Department need to do
            to resolve this management challenge?
        Answer. We agree that the public's trust and confidence are
    essential to successful Federal law enforcement efforts, and that the
    Department of Justice (Department) has faced numerous significant
    issues in recent years that have jeopardized that support. For example,
    our 2007 and 2008 Top Management Challenges report noted the
    politicized personnel decisions of Department components had identified
    in three of our reviews. In 2010, the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    issued a report concerning allegations that the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) had targeted certain domestic advocacy groups for
    scrutiny based upon their exercise of rights guaranteed under the First
    Amendment to the United States Constitution. More recently, our 2012
    report on improper hiring practices in the Justice Management Division
    (JMD) found problems with nepotism in multiple offices in JMD, marking
    the third OIG investigation in the last 8 years involving improper
    hiring practices within JMD. Also in 2012, we described significant
    issues involving the conduct of both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
    District of Arizona in connection with their handling of Operation Fast
    and Furious and Related Matters. And in a 2013 report assessing the
    enforcement priorities of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
    Division, we identified issues in the handling of a small number of
    cases that the OIG believed risked undermining public confidence in the
    non-ideological enforcement of the voting rights laws. The review also
    revealed several incidents in which ideological polarization fueled
    disputes and mistrust that harmed the functioning of the Voting
    Section, including numerous examples of harassment and marginalization
    of employees and managers due, at least in part, to their perceived
    ideological or political beliefs.
        Despite the problems we have identified over the past several
    years, we also have noted the Department's significant efforts to
    restore its reputation for impartiality and excellence since we first
    included this issue in our Top Management Challenges report. For
    example, following our 2006 report on the FBI's handling of the Brandon
    Mayfield case, the FBI Laboratory implemented major reforms that have
    strengthened the objectivity and reliability of its latent fingerprint
    identifications and have helped restore the FBI Laboratory's reputation
    as a leader in this discipline; in response to our 2013 review of its
    purchase of promotional items, the U.S. Marshals Service instituted a
    new promotional items policy and other internal controls that we
    believe will help restore the public's confidence that appropriated
    funds will be used in the manner intended by Congress; and following
    our 2008 report on politicized hiring, the Civil Rights Division has
    taken major steps to improve public confidence that its hiring
    practices are fair, transparent, and merit-based.
        Nevertheless, significant challenges remain. One especially
    important concern that continues to be raised by, among others, Members
    of Congress, Federal judges, and public interest groups is the
    Department's ability to discipline its attorneys for misconduct. In
    December 2013, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the Ninth Circuit issued a dissenting opinion stating that there
    was an ``epidemic of Brady violations'' by Federal and State
    prosecutors, and that ``[o]nly judges can put a stop to it.'' In
    reaching this conclusion, Chief Judge Kozinski cited a plethora of
    Federal and State court decisions finding Brady violations by
    prosecutors, and he noted that professional discipline is ``rare.'' In
    March 2013, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) raised similar
    concerns about prosecutorial misconduct and the transparency of the
    Department's disciplinary decisions, and recommended that the OIG
    should be authorized to investigate allegations of misconduct by
    Department attorneys rather than the Department's Office of
    Professional Responsibility (OPR), which currently has responsibility
    for these investigations. As we have repeatedly noted in the past, and
    as POGO stated in its recent report, providing the OIG with this
    jurisdiction would result in independent oversight of alleged
    prosecutorial misconduct, greater transparency over the process, and an
    increase in accountability, with the inevitable result being that the
    public's trust and confidence in the disciplinary process would
    improve. This is particularly true in matters where the lack of
    independence and transparency of an OPR review might reasonably call
    its conclusions into doubt. For these reasons and others, the OIG
    supports the bipartisan Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2014 (S.
    2127), introduced by Senator Lee and co-sponsored by Senators Tester,
    Grassley, Murkowski, and Coburn, which would amend the Inspector
    General Act to allow the OIG to investigate allegations of misconduct
    involving Department attorneys.
        Question. It is my understanding that the Attorney General has
    granted all of your requests to access documents. If that is true, why
    are you concerned about the current process for accessing certain
    documents and records?
        Answer. For any OIG to conduct effective oversight, it must have
    complete and timely access to all records in the agency's possession
    that the OIG deems relevant to its review. This principle is codified
    in Section 6(a) of the Inspector General Act, which authorizes
    Inspectors General ``to have access to all records, reports, audits,
    reviews, documents, papers, recommendations or other material available
    to the applicable establishment which relate to programs and operations
    with respect to which that Inspector General has responsibilities under
    this Act.'' Refusing, restricting, or delaying an OIG's access to
    documents may lead to incomplete, inaccurate, or significantly delayed
    findings or recommendations, which in turn may prevent the agency from
    correcting serious problems in a timely manner.
        We have had multiple instances recently where one or more
    Department components have declined to provide the OIG with materials
    that were relevant to an ongoing OIG review because of a claim that the
    Inspector General Act did not authorize our access to those materials
    in light of limitations in other Federal laws. Ultimately, in each
    instance, the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General issued an
    order granting the OIG permission to receive the materials because they
    concluded that our ongoing reviews were of assistance to them in
    managing the Department. However, there are significant issues with
    this process. First, requiring an OIG to receive permission from
    Department leadership in order to obtain documents that the OIG has
    determined are necessary for its review is inconsistent with an OIG's
    independence. Second, authorizing access to relevant records only after
    the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General concludes that the
    review would assist them in managing the Department is wholly
    inconsistent with the Inspector General Act, which expressly authorizes
    an independent Inspector General to determine what reviews are
    necessary and should be undertaken. Third, a process that requires the
    OIG to elevate certain document requests to the highest levels of the
    Department, including in routine audits, results in significant delays
    in the timeliness of our work. Indeed, one of our reviews was delayed
    for almost a full year because of these issues. And just this year,
    another review was delayed approximately 3 months when a component
    initially objected to producing certain materials that were highly
    relevant to an OIG audit; the OIG obtained access only after
    discussions between the Inspector General and the component head
    resolved the matter. Moreover, the FBI, which was the component that
    objected in 2010 and 2011 to producing certain documents to the OIG,
    thereby triggering the involvement of the Attorney General and Deputy
    Attorney General, has since put in place a process that requires its
    Office of General Counsel to review and produce documents to the OIG in
    connection with an audit or review. We did note the FBI Director's
    testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this week in
    which he stated that he has directed his General Counsel to approve the
    production of documents to the OIG much faster than in recent years.
    This process, which has resulted in delays of our audits and reviews,
    is in our view a significant waste of the FBI's limited legal
    resources, not to mention of the OIG's, particularly since the Attorney
    General has stated that he is going to ensure that we receive all of
    the materials that we need for our reviews and audits.
        Question. Do you agree that certain laws include a specific process
    whereby the Attorney General is responsible for granting or denying
    access to specific documents and records? If not, could you detail the
    differences in your opinion from that of the Attorney General?
        Question. We are not aware of any laws that include a specific
    process whereby the Attorney General is responsible for granting or
    denying access to specific documents and records. On the contrary,
    Section 6 of the Inspector General Act provides OIGs with authorization
    to access relevant documents and materials that are already in the
    possession of the establishment each oversees. The only exception to
    that authorization relevant to the Department of Justice OIG is found
    in Section 8E of the Inspector General Act, which authorizes the
    Attorney General to prevent the Inspector General from obtaining
    certain information in certain circumstances, but only after the
    Attorney General has made the necessary determination under Section 8E.
    Further, the Attorney General is required to issue a written
    explanation of the reasons for his decision to the Inspector General,
    which is then provided to Congress within 30 days. These statutory
    safeguards serve to underscore the fact that the Inspector General Act
    is intended to allow the OIG complete and timely access to the
    Department's documents and materials, while providing the Attorney
    General carefully circumscribed avenues for withholding information in
    exceptional circumstances--and only with prompt and specific
    notification to the Inspector General and Congress. We have attached a
    memorandum from 2011 that summarizes our views on Sections 6 and 8E of
    the Inspector General Act as they relate to the OIG 's access to
    certain documents and materials gathered by the FBI.
        Question. What, in your view, is the best way to address the
    limitation that has been placed on your access to certain documents and
    records? Do we need to pass legislation or can the problem be remedied
    by the Attorney General? Is it as simple as the Attorney General
    requiring the entire Department to allow you unfettered access to the
    documents and records necessary to conduct oversight?
        Answer. We believe that the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney
    General can immediately remedy the problem by finding as a matter of
    policy and practice that the OIG is entitled to access all documents in
    the Department's possession that are relevant to an OIG review, and by
    directing all Department components to comply with such a finding by
    providing the OIG with timely access to relevant documents. Such a
    directive would obviate the need for additional legislation so long as
    it is in place. However, in the absence of such a finding and
    directive, given the Department's current process of requiring the OIG
    to obtain permission from Department leadership in order to obtain
    access to certain records in the Department's possession, we believe
    that corrective legislation would be necessary.
        Question. The Attorney General stated that the Office of General
    Counsel has never ruled on the issue of access to documents and records
    by the Inspector General. If the Attorney General does not seek a
    formal ruling as I have requested of him, would you be willing to seek
    a formal ruling on these matters?
        Answer. The OIG does not believe that a formal ruling is necessary
    to decide this issue because the Inspector General Act is already clear
    in authorizing the OIG to access all documents and materials in the
    possession of the Department that are relevant to our reviews.
    Moreover, the Department's practice until 2010 had been to provide the
    OIG with access to all relevant materials in the Department's
    possession.
        Nevertheless, if the Attorney General concludes that a legal
    opinion is necessary, the OIG does not object to the Department
    requesting that its Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) rule on the issue of
    OIG access to grand jury, Title III, and Fair Credit Reporting Act
    information. However, given the continuing access issues that the OIG
    is facing and the impact that those issues have on our independence, it
    is critical that such a process move expeditiously and that OLC issue
    its opinion promptly. Additionally, we would object if the Department
    were to ask OLC for a broad opinion that covered OIG access to
    documents beyond the three categories of materials currently in
    dispute, or that sought to address access to documents by other Federal
    Inspectors General, because of the impact such a broad ruling could
    have on those other Federal OIGs and the lengthy process that would
    ensue were the OLC to consult those OIGs for their views.
        Question. Mr. Horowitz, you have raised concerns about the
    distinction the Department makes between the treatment of misconduct by
    attorneys acting in their legal capacity and misconduct by other
    Department employees. In fact, your office has no authority to
    investigate misconduct by attorney's acting in their legal capacity.
    That authority has been granted to the Department's Office of
    Professional Responsibility.
      --Why do you believe that these types of investigations should be the
            responsibility of your office rather than the Office of
            Professional Responsibility? Are there specific examples of
            investigations being called into question because they were
            handled by the Office of Professional Responsibility?
        Answer. As stated in our response to the first question, we believe
    that all Department employees should be held to the same standards of
    accountability for misconduct, and we have long questioned the
    distinction between the treatment of misconduct by attorneys acting in
    their legal capacity and misconduct by other Department employees,
    including law enforcement agents. We believe the institutional
    independence of the OIG, which is codified in the Inspector General
    Act, and which OPR lacks, is critical to the effectiveness of our
    misconduct investigations. Moreover, Inspectors General across the
    Federal Government have the authority to handle misconduct allegations
    against lawyers acting as such within their agencies, and they have
    demonstrated that they are fully capable of dealing with such matters.
        Additionally, the OIG 's strong record of transparency is vital to
    ensuring the Department's accountability, particularly in cases where
    the independence or fairness of an internal review might be called into
    question. As noted in response to the first question, in recent months,
    others have expressed a similar concern, including the independent,
    non-partisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO), which issued a
    report last month that was critical of OPR's longstanding lack of
    transparency and recommended empowering our office to investigate
    misconduct by DOJ attorneys. The POGO report identifies specific
    examples of OPR investigations--including of the prosecution team in
    the case of former Senator Ted Stevens and of Department attorneys Jay
    Bybee and John Yoo in the torture memorandum issue--that it believes
    have fed skepticism about whether the Department is capable of
    investigating misconduct by its attorneys.
        Question. Would such a change require a legislative fix or is this
    something that can be handled by the Attorney General?
        Answer. In 2002, the 21st Century Department of Justice
    Appropriations Authorization Act amended Section 8E of the IG Act to
    specifically allocate to OPR exclusive jurisdiction over alleged
    misconduct by Department attorneys (except OPR attorneys) where the
    allegations relate to the exercise of the authority to investigate,
    litigate, or provide legal advice (Section 8E(b)(3)). Thus,
    notwithstanding a general provision of the IG Act (Section 9(a)(2))
    that permits agency heads to transfer functions to the OIG, based on
    the specific language in the current law relating to jurisdiction over
    attorney professional misconduct allegations, it would appear that the
    Attorney General does not have the authority to transfer that function
    to the OIG. We therefore believe that legislation, such as the
    bipartisan legislation recently introduced by Senator Lee and co-
    sponsored by Senators Tester, Grassley, Murkowski, and Coburn, is the
    best way to address the issue.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                             usa patriot act review
        Question. On March 17, 2010, I wrote to former Inspector General
    Glenn Fine and asked him to complete a number of audits of government
    surveillance authorities, including the use of Section 215 orders, pen
    register and trap and trace devices, and National Security Letters. On
    June 15, 2010, Inspector General Fine responded to my letter,
    indicating that a review to examine these provisions would be initiated
    by the Office of Inspector General. I understand that these reviews
    have commenced, yet, nearly 4 years later, I still have not seen final
    reports.
        What is the status of these reviews and when can I expect to
    receive completed reports from your office?
        Answer. We have completed the three reports regarding the above-
    mentioned matters and we expect to issue our latest report on the FBI's
    use of National Security Letters in the next few weeks. We provided our
    report on Section 215 orders and our report on pen register and trap
    and trace usage to the FBI on February 28 for a classification review
    of FBI information, but still have not received a completed
    classification review from the FBI or a date on which it will be
    completed. Without completed classification reviews from the FBI and
    the non-Department agencies whose information appears in the reports,
    we are prohibited from issuing our reports, including to Congress.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The next hearing will be on Thursday, April 10, at 10 a.m.,
    in which we will take testimony from Secretary Pritzker, the
    Secretary of Commerce.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., Wednesday, April 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    April 10.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Reed, Merkley, Coons, Shelby,
    Collins, and Kirk.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. PENNY PRITZKER, SECRETARY

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The CJS
    Subcommittee will come to order.
        Today we will take the testimony of the Department of
    Commerce for the 2015 fiscal year. This is their budget
    request, and we will be listening to the Commerce Secretary,
    Penny Pritzker, testifying for the first time at CJS. One might
    recall that Secretary Pritzker was appointed in July of 2013.
    We had already had our hearings, though we've had many
    substantive and constructive conversations.
        Also, we want to note that we will be putting into the
    record the testimony of the Inspector General, Todd Zinser. But
    in the interest of time, we're just going to enter that. We
    want to thank Mr. Zinser and the Inspector General Service
    Corps for all of the work that they do that gives us important
    insights on how we can manage our people and our resources
    better. We want to thank him for that. Just the fact that we're
    going to have many votes today, we've had to condense it.
        His statement will not only be part of the record, but I
    will be including some of the issues he raises in my questions.
        There is a vote at 10:30 a.m., so it will be the goal of
    Senator Shelby, my vice chairman, and myself to make our
    statements and listen to you, Madam Secretary, and then we'll
    return for questions.
        This is one of 60 hearings that we're holding in six weeks
    because we want to complete our hearings as promptly but
    diligently as we can so we can mark up our bills and strive,
    for the first time since 1996, not to have a lame duck.
        Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing from you on
    both the budget request and the priorities of the Department of
    Commerce. We know that you bring to us a strong business
    background and that the tradition of the Secretary of Commerce
    has always been a President's liaison to the business
    community. We note that one of the signature priorities that
    you put forth is that America is open for business, and we look
    forward to hearing about that.
        One of the things we agree about on a bipartisan basis are
    the great words of Ronald Reagan when he said ``the best social
    program is a job,'' and we want to hear how the Department of
    Commerce helps generate jobs in our country and retain jobs in
    our country, and maybe even in manufacturing bring some of
    those jobs back home.
        We know that today we want to hear about trade, innovation,
    and jobs. We want to know how the Department of Commerce is
    helping generate jobs by increasing exports and promoting
    economic growth. We need to also hear about spurring
    innovation, safeguarding our intellectual property and
    enforcing our trade laws, but at the same time having strong
    oversight.
        The Department of Commerce has been plagued by some
    persistent problems, problems with the Census, problems with
    the NOAA satellite program, but I must say that under your
    diligent management you have really tried to solve those
    problems, and we appreciate that.
        One of the areas that we see as one of the future jobs in
    this country is in the area of information quality assurance.
    The trendy, chic word now is ``cyber-security.'' But if you
    lose your identity or somebody steals your intellectual
    property, it's not a trendy phrase; it is a harsh economic
    reality affecting either a person, a business, or the future of
    our country.
        We see NIST, the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, as one of the greatest and yet most undervalued
    agencies in the Federal Government constellation, and it
    provides the private sector a civilian portal in which they can
    engage in both inventing products, talking with each other, and
    working constructively. We want to hear the role of NIST in
    today's world and what does it take to do that, though we know
    that NIST plays a very important role in manufacturing.
        The other thing of great concern is the stealing of our
    intellectual property, and that goes to, again, cyber security.
    But in this array of agencies you have the Patent and Trade
    Office, which is absolutely crucial. We believe in private
    property. We're capitalists on this committee. We believe in
    private property and that if you invented it, you should get to
    keep it and make sure that nobody steals it.
        But we need an aggressive Patent Office. We know the
    Judiciary Committee is looking at this. We know that we've had
    a backlog.
        There's the International Trade Office and the
    International Commercial Service where we actually have people
    overseas that help our American businesses connect. We don't
    always talk about that in this committee, and we want to hear
    about it.
        And also very important is NOAA, the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration. NOAA is important to all of us who
    are coastal Senators. I'm sure they'll be coming in later.
    You're not a coastal Senator unless you--I mean, the coastal
    Senators are united that we're all concerned about fisheries,
    about the species decline, and also, the very important weather
    satellites and the Weather Service.
        Most people think weather comes from the Weather Channel.
    We think it's wonderful the way the private sector has taken
    the data and information NOAA generates and turns it into such
    a useful, exciting product for the American people. But you
    can't have the Weather Channel unless you have the Weather
    Service. And quite frankly, whether you're a military, a
    maritime service, or you are a municipal leader wondering what
    to do on a snow day or how to have tornado alerts in your
    community, you need NOAA. So we need to hear more about that.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        There are other questions and things that I'm going to say.
    I'm going to yield any time I have back, ask unanimous consent
    that my full statement be in the record so that Senator Shelby
    can speak, we can get you to your testimony before the vote.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
        This is one of 60 hearings the Appropriations Committee will hold
    over a 6 week period. We are doing our due diligence and the necessary
    work to get the job done. Our goal is to enact all 12 Appropriations
    bills before October 1, for the first time since 1996, in order to
    restore regular order--which means certainty and reliability in the
    appropriations process.
        Today we will hear from Secretary Penny Pritzker about the
    Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2015 budget request and
    priorities. We also have written testimony from Commerce's Inspector
    General Todd Zinser.
        We welcome Secretary Pritzker, who joined the Commerce Department
    in June of last year. We are very lucky to have her. She has a strong
    business background and has been a great leader at Commerce. Now she is
    the CEO of the Department of Commerce and America's Businesswoman in
    Chief, a leader to keep the economy rolling through trade, innovation,
    and jobs.
        The Commerce Department is a major economic engine for America. The
    President's request totals $8.8 billion for the Department. Today my
    goal is to examine how these funds will spur innovation. That includes
    safeguarding our intellectual property, and enforcing our trade laws. I
    want to know how the Department will create jobs, increase exports, and
    promote economic growth. We will also discuss how Commerce protects our
    citizens through forecasts and warnings about severe weather. Finally,
    is Commerce doing all it can to protect taxpayer dollars and use funds
    wisely?
        The Secretary of Commerce is the spokesperson for American
    business. But the Secretary is also the chief manager responsible for
    addressing major challenges and persistent problems that need strong
    oversight including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's satellite procurement and the 2020 Census.
        The Department of Commerce needs to be cyber-obsessed, creating
    ways to protect its own DOT.GOV systems, while working with the private
    sector to better protect DOT.COM. I want to be clear--cybersecurity is
    not surveillance. Cybersecurity means understanding and protecting us
    and our information from criminals out to steal our credit card
    information and personal identities, and to rob companies' intellectual
    property.
        The total fiscal year 2015 National Institutes for Standards and
    Technology (NIST) budget request is $900 million, and includes $91
    million for cybersecurity, research, and partnerships with private
    sector. NIST's job is to partner with the private sector to solve
    today's cybersecurity problems. Earlier this year, NIST issued the
    voluntary Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure
    Cybersecurity. Through research in the labs and at the National
    Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, NIST is generating innovation that
    protects people and companies, and creates cybersecurity jobs of the
    future that can never leave the United States.
        NIST is not the only agency standing sentry over American
    innovation. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) protects ideas and
    inventions helping America's economy thrive. Inventors' new ideas
    become new products and, through entrepreneurship, new companies that
    create jobs. But inventors need a patent office to protect their ideas.
    The PTO is improving and getting patents out faster, but it can do
    more. More than 600,000 patents are waiting for approval, and it takes
    almost 2\1/2\ years to get a patent. PTO needs strong oversight from
    the Secretary and Congress. The PTO has been functioning without a
    Director since February 1, 2013.
        Once a product is invented, we need to sell it around the world.
    The International Trade Administration (ITA) enforces our trade laws
    and agreements, protecting entire American industries. It promotes
    American products internationally and brings companies and jobs home to
    the United States. ITA's budget request of $507 million is an increase
    of $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 level of $470 million. The
    ITA's Foreign Commercial Service helps American companies sell more
    goods overseas, getting products from American manufacturers to
    international customers. Exporting American goods and services supports
    roughly 10 million jobs in the United States.
        The Economic Development Administration (EDA) invests in
    communities in all 50 States. EDA provides funding for projects such as
    water infrastructure for new hospitals, supporting thousands of local
    workers. Projects that promote infrastructure and innovation set our
    small businesses up for success. Every dollar put into the community
    through EDA grants leverages $10 in local investment and creates jobs
    throughout the country.
        When it comes to protecting people, every member of this
    subcommittee is pro-weather and pro-science. America has experienced
    several severe weather events these past few years and scientists
    suggest that extreme weather will continue. NOAA's satellites need to
    be fit for duty. We owe it to our communities, especially to the
    coastal States that depend on accurate hurricane forecasts and to the
    interior States that depend on timely tornado warnings. One-third of
    our GDP is directly affected by the weather. While Commerce's budget
    shows continued reforms to NOAA's satellite programs in response to
    critical reviews from this Committee and expert outside analysts, I
    remain concerned about the stability of these important satellite
    programs.
        The Inspector General identified Census planning and management as
    a key challenge for the Department of Commerce. Controlling costs for
    the 2020 Census is a top oversight concern for the Inspector General,
    the Government Accountability Office, and the Appropriations Committee.
    The budget request of $1.2 billion for the Census is an increase of
    $266 million above the fiscal year 2014 level of $945 million to
    prepare for 2020 Census. I want to know what is being done to make the
    2020 Census less expensive than the 2010 Census and to prevent techno-
    boondoggles that caused 2010 Census costs to skyrocket.
        I want to thank all the men and women of the Commerce Department--
    trade experts, statisticians, patent and trademark examiners,
    scientists and engineers, ocean surveyors, and weather forecasters.
    They work hard every day promoting American businesses, protecting
    American ideas and resources, keeping our economy moving forward and
    creating jobs. Secretary Pritzker--thank you for your leadership and
    also for your continued oversight of the Department of Commerce. We
    look forward to hearing your testimony.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Welcome, Secretary Pritzker. As the chair said, this is
    your first hearing, your first appearance before this
    committee.
        The Department of Commerce, as everybody knows, is
    responsible for a broad range of activities critical to our
    Nation. Weather forecasting, fisheries management, economic
    development, and trade enforcement are just a few of the
    Department's responsibilities.
        In a time of constrained budgets, prioritization and strong
    oversight are essential to keeping the Department on the right
    path, and the request for 2015 is $8.7 billion, $568 million
    more than the 2014 enacted level.
        The budget request attempts to balance, as I understand it,
    the wide range of activities under the purview of the
    Department. Finding that balance remains a challenge. Costly
    satellite procurements and the build-up to the 2020 Census adds
    significant budget pressures that could impact other important
    core programs.
        Ensuring that priority satellite projects stay on schedule
    and on budget is essential to the overall budget picture. As
    the Department develops long-range plans for satellite
    procurements, I believe it must maintain a focus on these
    projects that ensure weather forecasters have the data and
    information they need to protect life and property. And while
    there are a number of satellite projects on the books,
    resources are limited.
        I am concerned that the Department has not prioritized
    these costly projects yet based on the value of services they
    provide to the core mission of the agency. Madam Secretary,
    when it comes to projects of this magnitude and this cost, the
    Department, I believe, must differentiate between the must-
    haves, must-haves such as JPSS and GOES-R and the nice-to-
    haves, nice-to-have projects like Cosmic, and Cosmic-2.
        Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that all of the satellite
    projects that the Department is focused on are truly necessary
    to the core mission of NOAA, which is very important to all of
    us that the chairman referenced. My concern is exacerbated by
    reports from the GAO and the Department of Commerce Inspector
    General suggesting that a gap in polar satellite data is
    likely.
        Without this data, weather forecasters would be unable to
    do their jobs and the safety of millions of Americans could be
    in jeopardy. Yet the Department thus far has failed to present
    a viable gap mitigation plan in the 2015 request, choosing
    instead to advance nice-to-have satellite projects. I wish you
    would look at that very, very closely. It certainly troubles a
    lot of us.
        Finally, I want to touch on the Department's request for
    Economic Development Administration funds. The Department has
    once again proposed to shift support away from traditional
    effective economic development programs that help distressed
    communities to fund a new community planning program. The
    Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership Program
    proposes to support 25 communities in this country, just 25
    communities that the Administration believes have the best
    economic development planning regime in place.
        The program gives selected communities a seal of approval
    intended to signal to business and industry around the world
    that the community has been chosen by the Government, by the
    Administration, as worthy of investment. Additionally, chosen
    communities will be granted priority access to Federal
    resources. Sounds like central planning to me.
        I'm concerned that this type of system allows the
    Administration ultimately to pick a lot of winners and losers,
    and there are many communities that have worked diligently in
    this country to recruit business and industry, and I worry that
    their future efforts might be disadvantaged by this new program
    if they're not chosen. And what's more, I'm concerned that they
    might be further disadvantaged in obtaining Federal grants
    because their grant applications won't be given the same
    consideration as a chosen community.
        I believe sustained growth and competitiveness should be a
    priority for communities everywhere in this country. It should
    not be restricted to a few manufacturing communities hand-
    picked by this Administration or any administration, and I look
    forward to working with you at the Department on these issues
    because I think they're very important.
        We welcome you again to the committee.
        Senator Mikulski. We want to note that Senator Jack Reed
    from Rhode Island, Senator Merkley, and Senator Mark Kirk are
    here.
        Understanding the vote, I'd like to get to Secretary
    Pritzker's testimony and try to get in as many questions as we
    can before the vote.
        Madam Secretary, why don't you proceed with your testimony?

                      SUMMARY STATEMENT OF PENNY PRITZKER

        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you very much. Chairwoman
    Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss
    President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the
    Department of Commerce.

                HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BUDGET

        The Department of Commerce budget request of $8.8 billion
    reflects President Obama's commitment to support American
    businesses and create economic opportunity, while building upon
    the important investments that Congress enacted in fiscal year
    2014.
        As you may know, the Department recently rolled out its
    priorities and strategic plan called the ``Open For Business
    Agenda.'' The budget reflects our priorities in several ways.
    First, we will build on the four consecutive record-breaking
    years of American exports and the trend of rising business
    investment into the United States. We propose that the
    International Trade Administration receive an 8 percent
    increase, which will bolster our work to support current and
    potential exporters, boost in-bound investment through our
    highly effective SelectUSA program, and strengthen trade
    enforcement.
        I should also note that 2015 will conclude the biggest
    element of the President's Export Control Reform Initiative,
    which strengthens our national security and allows for more
    trade with our allies.
        Second, we will continue to support American innovation.
    The Commerce Department is becoming known as the Department of
    Innovation. Over the past few years, we have laid down more
    than 100,000 miles of broadband, bringing more opportunity to
    businesses and communities across the country. We have also
    reduced the patent application backlog, though we still have
    more work to do.
        To continue driving innovation, the budget includes
    increased funding for research at bureaus such as the National
    Institute for Standards and Technology; as you know, NIST
    attracts private sector partners to collaborate with us in
    areas ranging from advanced manufacturing to cyber security.
        Looking forward, we will expand efforts to help small
    manufacturers adopt new technologies and increase their
    competitiveness through AMTech and our MEP program.
        In addition, the budget reflects the President's call for a
    national network of manufacturing innovation, a powerful model
    focused on pre-competitive research which already has
    bipartisan support in the House and the Senate.
        We will also drive innovation through regional capacity
    building, continued support for minority-owned businesses, and
    both executive and legislative efforts to continue
    strengthening our patent system, an issue that Congress is
    currently working to address.
        Third, we will do more to unleash the potential of data.
    The budget proposes a significant increase, to $754 million, to
    prepare for an efficient and effective 2020 Census. We have
    embarked on aggressive research and testing programs that will
    help us identify ways to make it easier for people to respond
    to the Census. We will consistently review the benchmarks of
    this program to ensure that we are better able to meet our
    goals.
        As you know, business and government leaders across the
    country use crucial data to make decisions about growth and
    hiring. Also, I recently announced that we will partner with
    the private sector to make more NOAA data accessible and usable
    for entrepreneurs and the public. This budget supports this
    effort into fiscal year 2015.
        Fourth, we will gather and act on environmental
    intelligence. The budget includes $2 billion for satellites
    which provide weather and climate data to protect lives and
    property. These funds will also help businesses and communities
    adapt to a changing planet.
        I should note that these satellite programs are currently
    on schedule and on budget thanks to our rigorous monitoring and
    management efforts.
        The budget also includes $519 million for our National
    Ocean Service, which provides the resilience of our coasts, as
    well as $917 million for our National Marine Fisheries Service.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        In closing, as a former business leader, I strongly believe
    that this budget reflects wise, targeted investments of
    taxpayer dollars, investments that will be highly valued by the
    Commerce Department's stakeholders. I look forward to answering
    your questions and achieving the important vision laid out in
    our Department's strategic plan.
        [The statements follow:]
                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Penny Pritzker
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss with you
    President Obama's fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of
    Commerce. The investments included in the fiscal year 2015 budget
    request build upon the important investments you enacted in fiscal year
    2014 and I am grateful for your support.
        Our fiscal year 2015 budget requests $8.8 billion, a 7 percent
    increase over fiscal year 2014. This budget supports the Department's
    ``Open for Business Agenda'' by promoting trade and investment;
    spurring innovation; fueling our data-driven economy; and producing
    environmental intelligence. Investing in these areas builds on
    President Obama's vision for creating economic opportunity for all
    Americans. This budget will help drive economic growth and job creation
    and reflects his confidence in the Department's ability to help
    businesses grow, compete, and innovate as the voice of business in the
    administration.
        The President's vision for creating economic growth is further
    supported through the Department's request in the Opportunity, Growth,
    and Security Initiative. This fully paid for initiative lays out a
    roadmap for additional investments in critical areas such as research
    and development, climate resilience, economic development, and
    manufacturing.
        We are committed to working with the Congress to pass a budget that
    will continue to help create the conditions necessary for businesses to
    grow and hire, and for the U.S. economy to thrive.
                         promoting trade and investment
        Increasing trade and investment is a critical component of growing
    our economy. Exports have driven nearly one-third of economic growth
    since 2009 and support 11.3 million jobs. Ninety-six percent of
    companies that export are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Today,
    95 percent of potential customers are outside our borders and growing
    the number of export-related jobs, which pay 18 percent more on
    average, will require expanding our ability to reach these foreign
    markets. To promote exports and greater investment in the U.S.,
    including foreign direct investment and U.S. companies reinvesting in
    America, the budget includes $497 million for the International Trade
    Administration (ITA), an 8 percent increase over the 2014 enacted
    level. I want to thank the subcommittee for their support of SelectUSA
    in fiscal year 2014 and we plan to put more muscle behind this new
    program, which will bring more foreign investment dollars to the United
    States and encourage American companies to reinvest in America.
        To reinforce the important role that investment plays in the health
    of our economy, the budget also proposes to rename the International
    Trade Administration to the International Trade and Investment
    Administration (ITIA). This new name more accurately reflects the
    Commerce Department's commitment to expanding exports while also making
    inbound investment and reshoring a bigger part of the DNA of our
    economy. Five million six hundred thousand jobs are supported by
    inbound investment and the trends are in our favor to attract more. The
    additional resources requested in the fiscal year 2015 budget will
    enable ITIA, and specifically SelectUSA, to help more states and
    regions attract additional investments and create more jobs.
        Funding requested for ITIA includes $15 million, a $7.7 million
    increase from fiscal year 2014, to accelerate operations of the
    Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC), an interagency effort to
    address unfair trade practices and barriers to boost U.S. exports, and
    $20 million, a $13 million increase from fiscal year 2014, to expand
    SelectUSA.
        The budget includes $4 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis
    (BEA) to improve the measurement and understanding of U.S. foreign
    direct investment in support of the SelectUSA initiative. The
    additional funds will support increased export promotion activities in
    underserved markets around the world. The budget also supports the
    administration's BusinessUSA initiative, a one-stop shop to connect
    business with Federal Government resources more effectively and
    efficiently.
        The budget includes $111 million for the Bureau of Industry and
    Security (BIS), a $9 million increase, to enforce our export control
    laws to ensure that our national security is protected even as we
    foster trade. This will support BIS's continuing work on export control
    reform, which will help advance national security and economic
    competitiveness by better focusing U.S. controls on transactions to
    destinations or end users of concern, while facilitating secure trade
    for controlled items with U.S. allies and close partners by expanding
    export control officers operations, enhancing current intelligence
    efforts, and expanding the bureau's national enforcement and analytical
    capabilities.
                              spurring innovation
        Much of what makes America unique is our spirit of innovation and
    entrepreneurship. Today, the United States has 6 million workers
    employed in technology and the highest concentration of knowledge and
    technology intensive industries in the world, representing 40 percent
    of our GDP.
        To foster a more innovative U.S. economy, the budget will support
    increased regional and national capacity for innovative manufacturing,
    continue to support research and development (R&D) that leads to
    transformative changes in technology, promote intellectual property
    policy that supports innovation, and continue to strengthen the
    Nation's digital economy.
        The budget provides $141 million, a $13 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2014 enacted level, for the Hollings Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership (MEP), with an increased focus on expanding
    technology and supply chain capabilities to support technology adoption
    by smaller manufacturers to improve their competitiveness.
        The budget also provides $15 million for the Advanced Manufacturing
    Technology Consortia (AMTech), a public-private partnership that will
    support industry-led consortia developing technologies to address major
    manufacturing challenges faced by American businesses. The
    administration has also launched four manufacturing institutes to date
    and is planning to launch at least four additional manufacturing
    institutes in 2014 utilizing existing Federal funding.
        The budget provides $680 million for the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories, an increase of $29
    million over fiscal year 2014, to accelerate advances in top research
    priorities, including advanced manufacturing, forensics, cybersecurity
    and disaster resilience, and improved scientific facilities. Included
    in this amount is $6 million for NIST to accelerate and expand
    technology transfer across the Federal Government, which will enhance
    the competitiveness of U.S. industry by sharing innovations and
    knowledge from Federal labs. NIST contributes to the success of
    businesses on issues ranging from cybersecurity to advanced
    manufacturing. This funding will enable NIST to continue to support
    economic growth in the future.
        To continue expanding broadband capacity and promoting policies to
    ensure a free and open Internet, the budget requests a total of $51
    million for the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA), an increase of $5 million over fiscal year 2014.
    This increase will support increasing wireless broadband access and
    critical telecommunications policy coordination.
        The budget includes $210 million for the Economic Development
    Administration (EDA) to support innovative economic development
    planning, regional capacity building, and capital projects. This
    includes $25 million for the Regional Innovation Strategies Program to
    promote economic development projects that spur entrepreneurship and
    innovation at the regional level. This investment will make our Nation
    and communities more competitive.
        The budget also includes $28.3 million for the Minority Business
    Development Agency (MBDA) that will enable the agency to continue
    supporting the national growth of minority-owned U.S. businesses, with
    additional focus on impacting regional economies and expanding into new
    markets. Minority owned firms make a significant and valuable
    contribution to our economy and export at a higher rate compared to all
    U.S. firms. This investment will promote further growth.
        Through implementation of the America Invents Act, the U.S. Patent
    and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to make it easier for American
    entrepreneurs and businesses to bring their inventions to the
    marketplace sooner, converting ideas into new products and new jobs.
    Last year alone, the USPTO received more than 35,000 design patent
    applications and recently commemorated its 700,000th design patent.
    PTO's estimated fee collections in fiscal year 2015 are $3.4 billion.
        The budget also proposes several legislative reforms designed to
    improve the transparency and efficiency of the American patent system,
    complementing a series of administrative actions the administration
    announced in June 2013, which will help protect innovators from
    frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our
    system.
                         fueling a data-driven economy
        Data powers the 21st century economy, and Commerce Department data
    touches every American and helps existing businesses make better
    decisions while also providing opportunities for more entrepreneurs to
    launch startups. The budget will support data-related efforts ranging
    from our preparations for the 2020 Census to unleashing more NOAA data
    through public-private partnerships. Each day, NOAA collects and
    produces 20 terabytes of environmental data--from weather forecasts to
    climate change to ocean currents. Yet, only a small percentage of this
    valuable data, roughly two terabytes, is made easily accessible to the
    public.
        The budget includes $754 million, an increase of $260 million over
    the 2014 enacted level, for the U.S. Census Bureau to research and test
    innovative design methods necessary to achieve an efficient and
    effective 2020 Decennial Census. The budget also requests $12 million
    to invest in the development of three Commerce statistical measures
    that will improve evidence-based decisionmaking across the Federal
    Government and the private sector. This includes $5 million for the
    Census Bureau to improve the supplemental poverty measure to allow for
    more fair and accurate indexing and analysis of poverty programs.
        The budget also includes $5 million for the Census Bureau to
    increase access to critical business datasets and create a new field of
    research into the conditions and outcomes of business investments in
    research, development, and innovation by expanding existing data
    projects. An additional $2 million within BEA will initiate ``Big Data
    for Small Business,'' a new data program that will collect a Small
    Business GDP measure to support decisionmaking by business owners and
    investors as well as small business analyses.
               gathering and acting on environmental intelligence
        The President's budget makes crucial investments in our
    environment, including efforts to protect our natural resources and to
    help businesses and communities adapt to a changing planet. Through our
    network of satellites, ships, and worldwide sensors, the Department
    generates models, assessments, forecasts, and tools that provide
    information to help communities and businesses prepare for and prosper
    in a changing environment. Importantly, the proposed budget will also
    keep our satellite programs on track by providing $2 billion to fully
    fund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's)
    next generation of weather satellites, which are critical to its
    ability to provide accurate information to decision-makers throughout
    the government and private sector, as well as time-sensitive weather
    forecasts and warnings that help protect lives and property. This
    includes $60 million to procure additional weather instruments for the
    polar program and helps address the robustness of the polar
    constellation.
        The budget requests $519 million for the National Ocean Service to
    make critical investments in products, services and capabilities that
    will improve the resilience of the Nation's coasts. The budget also
    requests $917 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service to
    conserve, protect, and manage living marine resources, including
    important increases for next-generation stock assessments, and
    electronic monitoring and coral reef protection.
                                   conclusion
        The smart investments proposed in President's fiscal year 2015
    budget will support a globally competitive economy by promoting trade
    and investment, spurring innovation, fueling a data-driven economy, and
    gathering and acting on environmental intelligence. I look forward to
    working with the subcommittee to achieve these important goals.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd J. Zinser, Inspector General
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee:
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today as you
    consider upcoming appropriations for the Department of Commerce. The
    President's fiscal year 2015 budget requests $12.2 billion for the
    Department, including $3.4 billion for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    (USPTO) user-fee financing. The Department plays a pivotal role in
    implementing the President's initiatives for economic recovery and job
    creation--and, like other Federal agencies, faces significant
    challenges in the upcoming year.
        We addressed these areas in our recent Top Management Challenges
    (TMC) report,\1\ which we prepare annually as required by the Reports
    Consolidation Act of 2000.\2\ Our TMC reports in depth what we
    consider, from our oversight perspective, to be the most significant
    management and performance challenges facing the Department:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General,
    November 25, 2013. Top Management Challenges Facing the Department of
    Commerce, OIG-14-002. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
        \2\ 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3516(d).

      --Challenge 1. Strengthen Commerce infrastructure to support the
            Nation's economic growth.
      --Challenge 2. Strengthen oversight of National Oceanic and
            Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs to mitigate
            potential satellite coverage gaps, address control weaknesses
            in accounting for satellites, and enhance fisheries management.
      --Challenge 3. Continue enhancing cybersecurity and management of
            information technology investments.
      --Challenge 4. Exercise strong project management controls over 2020
            Census planning to contain costs.
      --Challenge 5. Continue to foster a culture of management
            accountability to ensure responsible spending.

        Today I will summarize several challenges facing the Department,
    based on recent and ongoing audits, evaluations, and investigations.
    Recently, the Secretary and Departmental leadership published a
    strategic plan for fiscal years 2014-2018. We consider the plan a
    significant achievement in establishing a framework for the diverse
    missions of the Department and its organizational units. The plan
    established 5 strategic goals: trade and investment, innovation, data,
    environment, and operational excellence. Much of our work addresses the
    goal of ``operational excellence,'' which will be the focus of our
    testimony.
    addressing issues with national oceanic and atmospheric administration
                       (noaa) weather satellite programs
        The Department must actively manage risks associated with the
    acquisition and development of the next generation of NOAA
    environmental satellites, as they are its largest investments at more
    than 20 percent of its $8.8 billion budget request. The Joint Polar
    Satellite System (JPSS) program's challenge is to keep JPSS-1
    development on track to meet its second quarter fiscal year 2017 launch
    schedule--while taking steps to mitigate a potential data gap in the
    afternoon polar orbit, as well as implementing NOAA's Independent
    Review Team recommendations to make the constellation more robust. The
    Department must also ensure that the Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R) program continues to meet
    requirements within its long-standing cost and schedule baselines for a
    launch readiness date of October 2015 for the first satellite.
        Of note, NOAA has improved its communication with stakeholders, as
    well as the efficacy of satellite program leadership and staffing, and
    developed a comprehensive polar satellite data gap mitigation plan.
    Mitigating Potential JPSS Coverage Gaps
        In its fiscal year 2015 budget submission, NOAA requested $916.3
    million for its JPSS program, reporting that the $95 million increase
    from the prior year would not change the program's life-cycle cost of
    $11.3 billion through fiscal year 2025. The first JPSS-developed
    satellite (JPSS-1) is scheduled for launch no later than the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2017.
        The JPSS program must successfully execute to cost, schedule, and
    performance baselines established August 1, 2013. The program must also
    ensure that flight and ground schedules are fully integrated for the
    JPSS-1 mission. NOAA leadership must also ensure the program is able to
    effectively manage ongoing development while responding to concerns
    about the robustness of program development activities (e.g., the need
    for spare parts for JPSS-1 and JPSS-2 instruments and spacecraft) and
    the need for further gap mitigation.
        NOAA has begun to mitigate potential degradation to weather
    forecasting capabilities during polar-orbit data coverage gaps through
    the use of supplemental funding it received as part of the Disaster
    Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. NOAA should ensure that its gap
    mitigation plan is executed before the November 2016 design-life end of
    Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP), a risk-reduction
    satellite launched in October 2011.
        Consistent with our September 2012 JPSS audit report,\3\ we
    continue to project a potential 10-16-month gap between Suomi NPP's end
    of design life and when JPSS-1 satellite data become available for
    operational use. NOAA's medium-range weather forecasting (3-7 days)
    could be degraded during the period of time JPSS data are unavailable,
    but NOAA must do more research using past and current weather events to
    determine the extent to which forecasts may be affected.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ DOC OIG, September 27, 2012. Audit of the Joint Polar Satellite
    System: Continuing Progress in Establishing Capabilities, Schedules,
    and Costs Is Needed, OIG-12-038-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In March 2014, we learned that the JPSS program had revised its
    projections for a coverage gap between Suomi NPP and JPSS-1. During
    2013, the program analyzed the expected reliability of Suomi NPP and
    concluded that the potential gap had narrowed to 3 months or less. It
    also determined that, should Suomi NPP have an early failure, data or
    imagery loss would be partially mitigated by data provided by legacy
    satellites. Regardless of NOAA's revised gap projection, in the long
    term those legacy satellites can no longer be expected to function,
    leaving the JPSS constellation as the sole provider of key data from
    the afternoon polar orbit. This reinforces the need to make the
    constellation more robust, as recommended by NOAA's independent review
    team.
    Managing GOES-R Program Issues With Launch Readiness and System
            Development
        With four satellites (the -R, -S, -T, and -U series), the GOES-R
    program is estimated to cost $10.8 billion over the course of its life
    cycle. GOES-R, with scope and importance comparable to JPSS, has
    experienced development and budgetary challenges that could delay the
    launch readiness date of its first satellite from the first to the
    second quarter of fiscal year 2016.
        The GOES-R program must continue to manage its ground system,
    instrument, and spacecraft development to meet requirements within its
    long-standing cost and schedule baselines--and successfully complete
    the integration and test phase. In addition, the program must
    effectively manage activities between flight and ground projects in a
    compressed development schedule environment.
        In our 2013 GOES-R audit report,\4\ we found that schedule slips
    and a potential reduction in testing activities have raised concerns
    about the satellite's readiness to launch. Funding stability in fiscal
    year 2014 and beyond is the program's top risk; an appropriation amount
    below the fiscal year 2015 requested level may delay launch. For these
    reasons, one of our recommendations was that NOAA implement a
    comprehensive plan to mitigate the risk of potential launch delays and
    communicate to users (e.g., in the National Weather Service and
    Department of Defense) and other stakeholders (e.g., the
    Administration, Congress) the changes that may be necessary to maintain
    GOES-R's launch readiness date of 2015.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ DOC OIG, April 25, 2013. Audit of Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellite-R Series: Comprehensive Mitigation Approaches,
    Strong Systems Engineering, and Cost Controls Are Needed to Reduce
    Risks of Coverage Gaps, OIG-13-024-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In a March 2014 memorandum \5\ to the NOAA Administrator, we shared
    our initial audit observations on the GOES-R core ground system
    development and made critical observations about the performance of
    NOAA and its contractor. We observed (1) poor planning assumptions, (2)
    inability to execute the first re-plan, and (3) inadequate transparency
    about progress. Further, we found that NOAA oversight and GOES-R
    program management did not sufficiently address problems with the first
    re-plan that could now lead to increased costs--and NOAA may have to
    launch a satellite without all of the core ground system capabilities
    implemented. Based on previous performance we believe that, without
    leadership's attention, the core ground system may not meet minimum
    requirements for launch in October 2015. As a result, we believe that
    the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA
    Administrator should establish periodic discussions with both
    Departmental and contractor leadership to ensure the core ground system
    will meet the October 2015 launch readiness date.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ DOC OIG, March 6, 2014. Interim Memo re: Audit of NOAA's
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series Core Ground
    System, OIG-14-014-M. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ongoing OIG Investigation
        In mid-2013, OIG received an anonymous whistleblower tip about a
    team-building exercise conducted by the GOES-R ground segment project
    staff that was improperly billed to the Government. In our subsequent
    investigation, we found that 21 Government employees and consultants
    employed by private companies were invited to attend a group lunch at a
    local restaurant, followed by a daytime showing of Star Trek: Into
    Darkness. Twenty individuals working on the GOES-R ground project
    attended the lunch and 18 attended the movie; the vast majority of
    participants mischarged the Government for participating in these
    activities. As a result of our investigation, those participants worked
    with NOAA to amend their records to claim personal leave for time spent
    at the lunch and movie. As a result of our investigative activities,
    approximately $3,500 that was mischarged to the Government was
    returned. OIG suggested that clear written guidance on proper
    timekeeping be communicated to agency and contractor staff in advance
    of any similar work group outings. Commendably, one consultant made a
    self-disclosure that more time was spent at the offsite event than
    determined by the program office; OIG is currently looking into whether
    the amount returned is adequate.
        For further details, see Appendix A, ``Addressing Issues with NOAA
    Weather Satellite Programs.''
     managing the census bureau's 2020 decennial planning and other census
                                 bureau issues
        The 2020 decennial census, though years away, is a massive
    undertaking that requires extensive planning and testing. For 2020, the
    Census Bureau plans to design and conduct a high-quality decennial
    operation that will cost less per household on an inflation-adjusted
    basis than the 2010 Census. Research and testing for the 2020 Census
    must be completed early in the decade, to design a census that will
    meet congressionally-mandated deadlines and to succeed at the task of
    counting millions of people and housing units. Recent and ongoing OIG
    reports on the Census Bureau meeting these challenges concern decennial
    planning, design decisions, and integration of schedule and budget.
    2020 Census Planning
        During our December 2013 evaluation \6\ of 2020 Census planning
    efforts to design a 2020 decennial census that costs less per household
    than the 2010 Census, we noted significant schedule slippage in the
    Census Bureau's key research and testing programs. If continued, missed
    deadlines will translate into an untenable continuation of an already
    expensive design. According to the Bureau, the cost (in constant
    dollars) of counting each housing unit in 2010 was $94--and could reach
    an estimated $148 if the same design is repeated for 2020. Using the
    same 2010 design, and assuming no changes in the number of housing
    units over the next 10 years, the 2020 Census would cost more than $19
    billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ DOC OIG, December 3, 2013. 2020 Census Planning: Research
    Delays and Program Management Challenges Threaten Design Innovation,
    OIG-13-003-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2020 Census Design
        To reduce 2020 Census costs, the Bureau is conducting research that
    focuses on several design features, such as offering the Internet as a
    response option, conducting a targeted address canvassing operation,
    and using administrative records to follow up on cases of nonresponse.
        An ongoing challenge we have identified is the lack of an
    established schedule. The Census Bureau revises baselines (i.e., re-
    baselines), which can mask delays and give the appearance that
    schedules are met. For example, major decision points for the 2020
    Census have been re-baselined several times, with original deadlines
    pushed back from September 2014 to September 2015 (see figure 1).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    2020 Census Integrated Schedule and Budget
        Last decade, OIG recommended that the Census Bureau integrate cost
    and schedule activities to enable managers to better track the status
    of available funds, as well as forecast impending underruns and
    overruns, so that funds can be reallocated promptly. In response, the
    Bureau planned to incorporate earned value management, a process that
    combines measures of a project's schedule and cost to forecast
    performance problems. As of March 2014, the Bureau had not incorporated
    earned value management into its activity schedules, limiting its
    ability to make decisions based on objective data.
        To effectively manage a program of the size, complexity, and cost
    of the 2020 Census--and assess the return on investment of research
    efforts--managers require accurate accounting records. However, we
    recently found that many Census Bureau staff stated that they are
    charging their time to projects based on budgeted hours rather than
    actual hours worked. Inadequate accounting of employees' actual work,
    as well as inaccurate project costs, hinder the Bureau's ability to
    assess the return on investment of research efforts. Additionally,
    these issues affect the Bureau's ability to make informed decisions
    about how to accomplish budget reductions.
    Ongoing OIG Investigation
        OIG is currently reviewing allegations of survey data falsification
    within the Census Bureau's Philadelphia Regional Office. OIG received
    allegations of data falsification in 2010 related to activities in this
    region, which were investigated and subsequently returned to the Census
    Bureau in 2011 for appropriate action.
        In late 2013, a whistleblower contacted OIG and provided a related
    but new complaint, which was also covered in various media outlets. The
    most recent information we received also contained new allegations that
    the Philadelphia Regional Office, through the systemic falsification of
    survey data, attempted to manipulate the unemployment report in advance
    of the 2012 Presidential election. As a result, we opened a new
    investigation, which reviewed the allegations from 2010 and also
    significantly expanded the scope to include new information. We plan to
    release our public report in 2014.
        For further details, see Appendix B, ``Managing the Census Bureau's
    2020 Decennial Planning and Other Census Bureau Issues.''
                      enhancing departmental cybersecurity
        To deal successfully with cyber threats, the Department needs to
    establish a robust incident response capability, specifically within
    the Department of Commerce Computer Incident Response Team (DOC CIRT).
    In addition, the Department must deploy a sustainable implementation of
    its three enterprise-wide cybersecurity initiatives that are underway
    to continuously monitor its IT systems, provide cyber security
    situational awareness, and meet requirements to optimize and
    standardize its individual external network connections.
        While the Department is making progress in these areas, the
    challenge the Department faces--largely because of its highly
    fragmented operating environment--is to ensure productive collaboration
    among all bureaus to effectively improve the Department's cybersecurity
    posture.
    Enhancing the Department's Cyber Incident Detection and Response
        The Department needs to establish a robust cyber incident response
    capability, specifically within DOC CIRT. Furthermore--because DOC CIRT
    primarily provides incident response services only to bureaus located
    at the Department's Herbert C. Hoover Building headquarters--ensuring
    productive collaboration among all bureaus is critical for the
    Department to effectively respond to a cyber event.
        OIG recently conducted an audit of the incident detection and
    response capabilities of several bureaus within the Department. Our
    audit complemented work already done by the Department and identified
    further improvements needed in its incident detection and response
    practices. Specifically, we tested Department public-facing Web sites
    by simulating a cyber event consisting of prolonged suspicious network
    traffic that mimics real-world hacking techniques and cyber attacks. We
    found that bureaus' actions in response to our suspicious network
    activities may not stop cyber attacks in a timely manner--and are
    recommending that the Department ensure that bureaus follow NIST
    guidance to take timely action in response to a potential cyber attack.
    Implementing Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives
        We noted, in our fiscal year 2014 TMC report, that the Department
    has three enterprise cybersecurity initiatives underway to address
    mandates from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Enterprise
    Cybersecurity Monitoring and Operations (ECMO) and Enterprise Security
    Oversight Center (ESOC) initiatives support OMB's mandate \7\ to
    continuously monitor security-related information from across the
    enterprise. The Trusted Internet Connections (TIC) initiative supports
    the mandate \8\ that Federal agencies optimize and standardize their
    individual external network connections, including connections to the
    Internet. Collectively, these undertakings should significantly improve
    the Department's cybersecurity posture.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Executive Office of the President Office of Management and
    Budget, April 21, 2010. Fiscal year 2010 Reporting Instructions for the
    Federal Information Security Management Act and Agency Privacy
    Management, Memorandum M-10-15. Washington, DC: OMB, 1.
        \8\ OMB, November 20, 2007. Implementation of Trusted Internet
    Connections (TIC), Memorandum M-08-05. Washington, DC: OMB, page 1.
    Also, see OMB, September 17, 2009. Update on the Trusted Internet
    Connections Initiative, Memorandum M-09-32. Washington, DC: OMB, 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Timely implementation of these initiatives is crucial to the
    Department's cybersecurity program, particularly in light of the ever-
    increasing cyber threats facing government systems. The ECMO and ESOC
    initiatives are critical to maintaining cybersecurity best practices to
    protect network components, implementing continuous monitoring, and
    providing timely cyber situational awareness across the Department.
    Thus, the Department needs to ensure that current efforts for these
    initiatives move forward as planned and that operating units cooperate
    and participate to the fullest extent. The Department projects
    spending, from the fiscal year 2015 working capital fund, $4.2 million
    for each of the ECMO and ESOC initiatives (for a total of $8.4
    million).
        Our recent audit of the Department's incident detection and
    response practices included four bureaus that have complied with the
    TIC initiative through a Managed Trusted Internet Protocol Services
    (MTIPS) provider. We found that these bureaus are not realizing the
    full benefits of incident detection and response capabilities provided
    by MTIPS. The bureaus are not working with the MTIPS provider to more
    effectively use MTIPS services to supplement their security operations
    center capabilities to fill gaps in monitoring coverage during
    nonbusiness hours. Furthermore, only one bureau is exploring
    opportunities to leverage MTIPS security services to reduce or
    eliminate services that are currently handled by the bureau.
    Ongoing OIG Work
        As part of our annual Federal Information Security Management Act
    audit work, we are assessing the effectiveness of NOAA's IT security
    program by determining whether key security measures adequately protect
    its mission capabilities supported by the National Environmental
    Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) and the National
    Weather Service (NWS). The assessments focus on NESDIS' Polar-orbiting
    Operational Environmental Satellites (POES), Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellites (GOES), Joint Polar Satellites System (JPSS),
    Environmental Satellite Processing Center (ESPC), Search and Rescue
    Satellite Aided Tracking (SARSAT), and NWS' Aviation Weather Center
    (AWC), Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC), Storm Prediction Center
    (SPC), National Hurricane Center (NHC), and National Centers for
    Environmental Prediction (NCEP) Central Operations. We are currently
    making recommendations to address weaknesses we found during our
    assessments.
        For further details, see Appendix C, ``Enhancing Departmental
    Cybersecurity.''
                            reducing uspto backlogs
    Reducing Patent Backlogs
        USPTO, as the authority for reviewing and adjudicating all patent
    and trademark applications, must continue to focus on issues with the
    time applicants wait before their patent applications or appeals are
    reviewed. Its longstanding challenge has been to reduce backlogs of new
    patent applications, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ex parte
    appeals, and requests for continued examination (RCEs). As it works to
    reduce its patent backlog and pendency--while meeting the requirements
    of the 2011 American Invents Act (AIA)--USPTO must ensure that the
    quality of its patent examination process is not adversely affected and
    to avoid requiring applicants and the public to file unnecessary and
    costly challenges to examiners' decisions.
        Since we issued the fiscal year 2014 TMC report in November 2013,
    the new application backlog has increased to 604,700 (as of February
    2014). The patent appeals backlog--which we reported on in our 2012
    audit \9\--has begun to slowly decrease and, as of November 2013,
    stands at approximately 25,000, still almost twice the size of the
    backlog in October 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ DOC OIG, August 10, 2012. USPTO's Other Backlog: Past Problems
    and Risks Ahead for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, OIG-
    12-032-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, USPTO's backlog for requests for continued examination
    (RCE) has experienced the most variability, growing from 17,800
    applications in October 2009 to approximately 78,000 in September 2013,
    an increase of more than 340 percent. As a consequence, during the same
    period, the average waiting time between filing an RCE and receiving an
    initial decision has grown from 2.1 to 7.8 months. From the beginning
    of the fiscal year until February 2014, the RCE pendency has decreased
    to 6.9 months, but the RCE backlog still hovers near 80,000. (For
    further details on backlogs and pendency over the last 5 full fiscal
    years, see table 1. Pendency statistics as of February 2014 may reflect
    month-to-month variations; as a result, we cannot determine an overall
    trend for fiscal year 2014.)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The goal of AIA is to allow USPTO to process patent applications
    faster, reduce the patent backlog, increase patent quality through
    expedited patent challenges, and improve examiner recruitment and
    retention. AIA includes fundamental revisions to patent laws and USPTO
    practices, such as moving to a ``first inventor to file'' patent
    process to align the U.S. system with others worldwide, granting the
    agency authority to set and retain fees to ensure it has sufficient
    resources for its operations, and establishing satellite offices. The
    law also introduced new avenues for the public to challenge granted
    patents and replace previous options deemed inefficient. In September
    2013, OIG issued a report \10\ on the status of USPTO's efforts to
    implement the provisions of AIA and found that most were successfully
    implemented. As of March 26, 2014--more than 2 years since AIA's
    enactment--USPTO successfully implemented 29 of the 35 provisions they
    were responsible for on-time; 4 are not yet due, and 2 are overdue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ DOC OIG, September 30, 2013. USPTO Successfully Implemented
    Most Provisions of the America Invents Act, but Several Challenges
    Remain, OIG-13-032-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ongoing OIG Work
        Modernizing IT and managing high-risk contracts at USPTO. As part
    of our fiscal year 2014 work plan, we are auditing USPTO's IT
    modernization projects. Our audit objectives are to:
      --Assess the impact of IT contract termination decisions made as a
            result of the $110 million IT budget reduction, as well as the
            appropriateness of project funding in the reduced budget
            environment.
      --Review the progress USPTO has made in implementing the
            recommendations from OIG's fiscal year 2011 Patent End-to-End
            (PE2E) audit \11\--specifically, the technical progress it has
            achieved to date, its use of the Agile methodology, and its
            plans for future PE2E development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ DOC OIG, September 29, 2011. Patent End-to-End Planning and
    Oversight Need to Be Strengthened to Reduce Development Risk, OIG-11-
    033-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Assess the project management and technical progress USPTO has made
            in its development and implementation of the Trademark Next
            Generation project, including its use of the Agile methodology.
        Examining USPTO use of high-risk contracts. We have also initiated
    an audit of USPTO's management of T&M/LH contracts, which constitute
    high risk to the Government.\12\ In fiscal year 2013, USPTO obligated
    approximately $572 million on contracts for goods and services; our
    objective is to determine whether its T&M/LH contracts are properly
    awarded and administered.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ This audit is part of our risk-based oversight strategy
    developed to help the Department address management challenges in its
    acquisition function; for more on high-risk contracts, see ``Incurring
    risk from the use of high-risk contracts'' in the ``Managing the
    Department's Finances, Contracts, Grants, and Operations'' section of
    this testimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ongoing OIG Investigation
        We are looking into the work activities of paralegals in USPTO's
    Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB), many of whom were brought on
    board in anticipation of the hiring of additional administrative law
    judges. In 2008, USPTO had planned to significantly increase the number
    of judges in PTAB, in order to help reduce the backlog of appeals being
    reviewed by the Board. According to USPTO, due to budget reasons,
    judges were not hired according to plan; in 2013, OIG received a
    whistleblower complaint alleging that paralegals were not being
    assigned an adequate workload to occupy a full-time schedule. We
    referred this matter to USPTO management, which conducted an
    administrative inquiry and found that--over the 4.5 years from October
    2008 to May 2013--approximately $4 million dollars was billed to
    nonproduction time. After completion of USPTO's inquiry, we
    subsequently initiated a follow-up analysis and expect to release a
    public report this later in 2014.
        For further details, see Appendix D, ``Reducing USPTO Backlogs and
    Other USPTO Issues.''
     managing the department's finances, contracts, grants, and operations
    Department-Wide Oversight
        Challenges to the Department's operational excellence include
    controls over budgetary resources, procurement, and overall financial
    management. Departmental leadership is addressing a number of related
    issues, including (A) the management of appropriated funds, (B) the
    Department's and bureaus' unliquidated obligations, (C) funds spent on
    conferences, (D) funds spent on premium class travel, (E) modernizing
    the enterprise financial management system, (F) the Department's
    working capital fund, and (G) other obligations, including contracts
    and grants.
        A. Addressing the unauthorized reprogramming of funds. In response
    to hotline complaints about mismanagement of appropriated funds within
    NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) in 2010 and 2011, the Department
    conducted a review that highlighted mismanagement of budgetary
    resources throughout NWS. The Department found significant management,
    leadership, budget, and financial control problems at NWS. Following
    the release of the report on its review, the Department identified
    specific actions for correcting the conditions that led to the report's
    findings. The Department also reported related Antideficiency Act
    violations.
        In our September 2013 review \13\ of these actions, we found that
    the Department and NOAA have taken steps to address the findings
    identified in the Department's internal inquiry and completed many
    action items, but that additional work was needed to complete several
    key action plan items to ensure proper stewardship of funds and
    compliance with laws and regulations. Although several actions needed
    to be finalized or added, the Department has made progress in
    addressing most of the original action items related to these budget
    issues. In addition to its existing action plan items, we specifically
    recommended that the Department document an analysis of NOAA's
    financial management leadership that addresses improper past practices
    and how the current leadership team can provide effective financial
    management direction. Continued Departmental leadership attention is
    essential to ensuring a culture of transparency, accountability, and
    effective oversight.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ DOC OIG, September 13, 2013. Status of Departmental Actions to
    Correct National Weather Service Mismanagement of Funds, OIG-13-029-1.
    Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        B. Monitoring the Department's obligation balances. Our June 2013
    report \14\ on the Department's controls over the management and
    closeout of obligation balances as of December 31, 2011, found
    inconsistent policies and processes, as well as inadequate monitoring
    activities. Specifically, we found original obligation balances that
    could not be verified, accounting records that did not accurately
    reflect Department obligations, bureaus that did not know the status of
    its obligations, and improperly liquidated contract obligations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ DOC OIG, June 20, 2013. Monitoring of Department's Obligation
    Balances Needs Strengthening, OIG-13-026-A. Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a result of our work, we estimated that the amount of
    unliquidated obligation balances that the Department needed to
    deobligate was $159 million as of December 31, 2011. The Department did
    not have adequate internal controls, policies, and procedures to ensure
    that bureau obligations were adequately monitored and deobligated when
    appropriate. To address these challenges, the Department's financial
    management and acquisitions units agreed to (1) issue joint final
    guidance on monitoring open obligations to their respective communities
    and (2) include routine obligation monitoring as a discussion topic
    during annual finance and acquisition training sessions. The guidance
    has not yet been finalized.
        C. Overseeing conference spending. Since fiscal year 2012, the
    Department has developed and updated conference-related guidelines.
    These guidelines pertain to events that either require Office of the
    Secretary pre-approval or entail the Department or one of its bureaus
    to represent itself publicly as a host or co-host. The Department must
    continue to be transparent and responsive in its efforts to avoid
    conference mismanagement or missteps similar to those resulting in our
    recent audit report covering conferences hosted by NIST's Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
        In response to a congressional request, we audited NIST-MEP
    conference spending to develop a reasonable cost estimate of the 2012
    NIST-MEP annual conference held in Orlando and determine the legitimacy
    and reasonableness of travel costs for major conferences in fiscal
    years 2011 and 2012.\15\ OIG found that, for conferences held in fiscal
    years 2011 and 2012, NIST-MEP lacked adequate controls over much of its
    conference spending. We concluded that a NIST-MEP event planner
    retained concessions and benefits that could have been used to reduce
    the fiscal year 2012 conference's $1.1 million cost--$700,000 of which
    was spent by NIST-MEP. We recommended that NIST-MEP make a
    determination on the recovery of $148,000 that its event planner
    collected for sponsorship fees and more than $88,000 that the planner
    retained for both registration fees and a concession refund. Similarly,
    an evening reception, paid for with funds raised through the sale of
    sponsorships at the same conference, was held in lieu of reducing the
    overall cost. Further, NIST-MEP agreed to room rates for Government
    attendees that exceeded allowable maximum conference lodging rates in
    order to standardize rates for Government and nongovernment attendees,
    essentially subsidizing lodging costs to nongovernment attendees.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ DOC OIG, February 21, 2014. Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership Incurred Avoidable Conference Costs, OIG-14-013-A.
    Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        D. Overseeing premium travel spending. We recently examined fiscal
    year 2012 information on the Department's total premium-class travel
    approved for flight time in excess of 14 hours, as well as for medical
    disability, which totaled nearly $1.4 million. The difference in cost
    between premium and coach fares for travel due to flight time in excess
    of 14 hours was approximately $540,000, while the cost difference due
    to medical disability was approximately $475,000. With the serious
    fiscal challenges requiring Federal Departments to operate as
    efficiently as possible, we advised the Department to (1) collect,
    analyze, and report data on premium-class travel on a periodic basis to
    the Office of Commerce Services and (2) examine ways to reduce premium
    travel costs. Additional OIG work in this area of the Department's
    operations will focus on premium-class travel, specifically on the
    effectiveness of controls over approving exceptions to premium-class
    travel restrictions.
        E. Updating the enterprise financial management system. The
    financial control problems at NWS highlight the Department's need to
    implement stricter control over funds Department-wide. A lack of
    centralized data systems poses reporting and oversight challenges to
    the Department, such as effectively reporting financial data and
    monitoring financial activity across its bureaus.
        The Department and most of its bureaus use a financial system
    developed with aging technology and augmented with in-house software
    that is increasingly difficult to maintain. This system currently
    addresses core financial accounting, financial management, grants
    management, acquisition management, and property management. However,
    limitations such as high support costs and a lack of system integration
    and lack of centralized reporting capability impede the Department's
    ability to oversee and manage Department-wide financial activities.
        The Department plans to replace these legacy systems--collectively
    known as the Commerce Business System (CBS)--with Business Application
    Solutions (BAS), a commercially available system, by fiscal year 2018.
    The Department requested nearly $40 million to support BAS
    implementation activities in fiscal year 2015. While the Department has
    provided OIG with regular updates on the status of this modernization
    project, significant challenges remain because (1) the implementation
    schedule is aggressive; (2) the Census Bureau must be successfully
    converted prior to the 2020 decennial; (3) BAS will be hosted by a
    shared-service provider; (4) separate component systems will need to
    interface with BAS; and (5) adequate funding is needed.
        F. Managing the working capital fund. On March 28, 2014, we issued
    a draft report covering billing control issues related to the Office of
    the Secretary's working capital fund (WCF). This fund provides 62
    services throughout the Department valued at nearly $150 million
    annually. Our audit addressed issues on whether the Office of the
    Secretary's Financial Management Directorate charged customers using
    the correct billing rates and in accordance with Departmental
    guidelines. For 10 of the projects reviewed, we found that the Office
    of the Secretary Financial Management Directorate did not use current
    billing rates and/or the service providers did not have accurate
    supporting documentation for amounts charged to the customers. This
    problem was most noteworthy within the Office of General Counsel.
    Consequently, the customers receiving services from these projects were
    not billed correctly. We recommended that the Department require a
    process for all WCF service providers to capture and retain supporting
    documentation that accurately reflects the level of services provided
    to customers, and that the Office General Counsel develop an automated
    process to track attorney time, by customer and services provided. We
    provided the Department with our draft results and will issue our final
    report later in 2014.
        G. Administering high-risk contracts and grant awards. In fiscal
    year 2013, the Department obligated about $2.3 billion for goods and
    services that include satellite acquisitions, intellectual property
    protection, broadband technology opportunities, management of coastal
    and ocean resources, information technology, and construction and
    facilities management. Although the Department's spending requirements
    for goods and services have not diminished, available funding resources
    likely will remain uncertain. For this reason, the Department must
    maintain the workforce needed to carry out robust and thorough
    oversight of contracts to help program management achieve goals, avoid
    significant overcharges, and curb wasteful spending.\16\ Continuing to
    address high-risk contracts and maintaining a qualified acquisition
    workforce will enable better management of the Department's day-to-day
    spending.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ The President has acknowledged contract oversight as a Federal
    Government-wide priority; see The White House, Office of the Press
    Secretary, March 4, 2009, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
    Departments and Agencies: Government Contracting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        OIG also provides oversight of the Department's management of more
    than 70 programs authorized to award grants or cooperative agreements.
    Each program has its own rules, regulations, and eligibility
    requirements. In addition, OIG provides oversight to the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration's management of the
    Department's most significant grant-awarding initiative over the last 5
    years, the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). Of the
    Department's grants programs, BTOP entails the most challenging awardee
    spending issues.
        Incurring risk from the use of high-risk contracts. In July 2009,
    the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Federal
    Procurement Policy issued contracting guidance to chief acquisition
    officers and senior procurement executives. The guidance--stating that
    time and materials/labor hour (T&M/LH) contracts, cost-reimbursement
    contracts, and noncompetitive contracting pose special risks of
    overspending--directed agencies to reduce by at least 10 percent the
    use of high-risk contracting authorities for new contract actions. For
    fiscal year 2013, the Department reported that it exceeded its goals in
    reducing the dollar amount of high-risk contracts, and it continues to
    track its goal based on OMB's 2009 guidance. However, our audit results
    indicate that a critical challenge remains in the use of high-risk
    contracts.
        In a report issued in November 2013,\17\ we reported weaknesses in
    the awarding and administering of T&M/LH contracts. We found that
    Departmental contracting officers did not award T&M/LH contract actions
    in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Acquisition
    Regulation and the Commerce Acquisition Manual. T&M/LH contracts are
    considered high-risk because the contractor's profit is tied to the
    number of hours worked. We also noted that contract actions in our
    sample were incorrectly coded in the Federal Procurement Data System
    (FPDS).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ DOC OIG, November 8, 2013. The Department's Awarding and
    Administering of Time-and-Materials and Labor-Hours Contracts Needs
    Improvements, OIG-14-001-A. Washington, DC: OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Department's challenge is to better monitor and evaluate its
    T&M/LH contracts through the acquisition review board and investment
    review board processes, which are used to manage the Department's major
    acquisitions of goods and services. A further challenge it faces is to
    improve the processes for entering accurate and complete data in FPDS.
    Effective implementation of the Department's measures will be crucial
    to ensuring that the Department properly awards, administers, and
    reports high-risk T&M/LH contracts.
        Tightening controls over use of Federal funds by award recipients.
    Grant oversight requires that recipients of awards meeting certain
    dollar thresholds submit either a Circular A-133 single audit report or
    a program-specific audit report. For the period January 1, 2011--
    December 31, 2013, these programs issued approximately 4,166 awards
    amounting to $3.8 billion. We review an average of 350 finding reports
    a year; of those, about 8 percent will have significant procedural or
    internal control findings. These types of awards pose particular
    oversight challenges for the Department. OIG continues to review these
    audit reports to identify trends in findings across bureau programs, as
    well as to monitor whether findings are resolved in a timely manner.
    Twice annually, we provide the Department an analysis of our review's
    results and post it on our Web site.
        Table 2 presents averages of the single audit and program-specific
    audit reports that OIG reviewed during the period January I, 2011--
    December 31, 2013, the number of material findings, and amounts of
    questioned costs and funds to be put to better use reported. We have
    noted a problematic indicator in the Economic Development
    Administration's (EDA's) revolving loan fund program, NTIA's BTOP, and
    the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST's) Advanced
    Technology/Technology Innovation Program. It is important that all
    Departmental program and grants management offices review these
    findings and implement internal controls to address the root causes of
    the findings, which may require program or grant operations changes in
    order to improve grant recipients' compliance with laws and
    regulations.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        To improve controls over award recipients' use of Federal funds,
    bureaus need to review these single audit and program-specific audit
    reports and take action on the report findings.
        Ongoing OIG investigation into NOAA grants. As a result of a
    whistleblower's disclosures to OIG, we are currently looking into
    grants issued by NOAA to nine National Estuarine Research Reserve
    System (NERRS) facilities for approximately $1 million. In January
    2013, Congress appropriated $7 million to NOAA ``to repair and replace
    ocean observing and coastal monitoring assets damaged by Hurricane
    Sandy.'' The whistleblower, whose identity is being protected by OIG,
    alleged that a NERRS facility applied for and was awarded grant funds
    even though their equipment was not damaged by Hurricane Sandy, as
    required under the law. Our public report will be released in 2014.
    Agency Oversight
        Managing Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (STOP) award
    closeouts. With approximately $3.9 billion in grant awards, the
    Recovery Act-funded BTOP represents the Department's largest grant
    program over the last 5 years. Of the Department's grants programs,
    BTOP entails the most challenging awardee spending issues.
        As of March 17, 2014, about 15 percent of BTOP funds remain to be
    disbursed--and only 21 of 224 projects had been closed, with another
    174 in the closeout process and 29 (representing about $900 million in
    awards) remaining active. Some of these awards have been extended to
    September 30, 2015. Management must remain committed to monitoring BTOP
    recipient compliance with grant award terms and achievement of intended
    benefits as the program nears completion.
        Addressing concerns with BTOP grants' closeout process. The audit
    closeout process \18\ calls for particular attention. OIG's December
    20, 2013, report \19\ identified that BTOP's award closeout process (a)
    is taking longer than expected, particularly with infrastructure
    projects and (b) could be improved by strengthening closeout policies
    and procedures and ensuring the consistent implementation of those
    policies and procedures in place. NTIA and the grants offices (NOAA and
    NIST) supporting NTIA in the implementation of BTOP have taken or are
    in the process of taking to strengthen the closeout process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ This process entails the award recipient and the grants office
    ensuring that project activity is complete and the award recipient has
    met all the requirements under applicable laws, regulations, OMB
    circulars, and award terms and conditions.
        \19\ DOC OIG, December 20, 2013. Closeout Procedures for the
    Broadband Technology Opportunities Program Need Strengthening, OIG-14-
    010-A. Washington, DC: OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Answering congressional questions about a BTOP awardee. Recently
    completed and ongoing audit work has indicated the need for continued
    management attention to awards that remain open and significant issues
    that they entail. On May 9, 2013, we received a request from the House
    to review a $100.6 million grant that BTOP awarded to EAGLE-Net
    Alliance (ENA). In responding to questions relating to the grant in a
    January 23, 2014, letter, our review found that the revised project
    will involve additional miles of constructed and leased fiber, with
    some of the completed fiber being laid in proximity to existing fiber.
    In addition, we found that two-thirds of the grant funds had been spent
    before NTIA addressed problems that led to suspension of the award in
    December 2012. Further, ENA faces challenges that include the project's
    ability to fully achieve the award's intended results (e.g.,
    connections will be achieved with only 131 of 223 intended community
    institutions) and continued internal control issues.
        Examining issues with BTOP equipment acquisitions. Previous OIG
    oversight identified BTOP equipment (e.g., fiber, base tower stations,
    switches, microwave radio equipment) as a concern. As a result, we
    initiated a review with objectives to determine whether NTIA has the
    personnel and processes in place to monitor grantees' equipment
    acquisitions and assess whether grantees have appropriately acquired,
    tested and implemented the most effective equipment. As part of this
    review, we performed site visits of six recipients of BTOP awards for
    deploying broadband. On March 24, 2014, we issued a draft report to
    NTIA that credits the agency with establishing processes to monitor
    recipient's implementation of awards--but identifies weaknesses in
    grantee acquisition and implementation of equipment and recommends
    steps to improve NTIA's oversight controls.
        Supporting International Trade Administration (ITA) export programs
    under a new organizational structure. Promotion of U.S. exports is a
    critical mission of the Department. For fiscal year 2015, the
    Department has requested $497 million to support export promotion and
    regulation. ITA's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, within the
    Global Markets business unit, provides a broad range of services and
    counseling to U.S. exporters; other ITA business units--such as
    Enforcement and Compliance, as well as Industry and Analysis--enforce
    trade agreements and protect domestic industries such as manufacturing
    and textiles.
        ITA's challenge is to complete its internal reorganization.
    Effective October 1, 2013, the Department consolidated ITA's four
    existing business units into three to eliminate overlapping functions
    and streamline operations. ITA states that the functional realignment
    will consolidate regional expertise, strengthen industry expertise and
    strategic partnerships, and consolidate trade agreement compliance and
    trade law enforcement. In February 2014, we initiated an audit of ITA's
    consolidation to evaluate its progress, assess whether any cost savings
    have been realized, and identify any remaining challenges to this
    effort.
        Reforming Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) export control. The
    United States' export control system is distributed among several
    different licensing and enforcement agencies. Within the Department of
    Commerce, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) administers and
    enforces the Export Administration Regulations, which apply to
    controlled dual-use items and technology. These regulations serve to
    support and advance the national security, foreign policy,
    nonproliferation, and short supply interests of the United States. BIS'
    two primary functions, licensing and enforcement, are handled by Export
    Administration and Export Enforcement, respectively.
        The Export Control Reform (ECR) Initiative, launched in April 2010,
    is a three-phase effort to streamline the Nation's export control
    system by consolidating the export control efforts of multiple Federal
    agencies. As part of the export control reform, BIS has begun assuming
    increased licensing and enforcement responsibilities for former
    munitions items that have moved under Department of Commerce
    jurisdiction. The challenge for BIS will be to ensure that it has
    adequate licensing and enforcement resources to handle its new
    responsibilities.
        In May 2013 we initiated an audit in response to a congressional
    request and as part of our annual audit plan. Our objectives were to
    (1) review the adequacy of BIS' program plans and budget requests to
    address the increased workloads for licensing, outreach, and
    enforcement activities in fiscal years 2014 through 2016 and (2)
    evaluate existing BIS licensing, outreach, and enforcement activities
    and identify any areas for increased efficiencies. We focused our
    analysis on areas of BIS most affected by ECR--namely its licensing
    divisions, outreach office, and enforcement offices (excluding
    antiboycott compliance).
        On March 19, 2014, as a result of our fieldwork--and in response to
    a whistleblower complaint--we issued a memorandum to the BIS Under
    Secretary and the Department of Commerce's Chief Information Officer
    expressing our concerns with BIS' compliance with the Presidential
    directive to consolidate its export licensing system with the
    Department of Defense's U.S. Export Systems (USXPORTS) automation
    initiative. The Department of Commerce, in response to our memorandum,
    scheduled a May 1, 2014, Commerce IT Review Board meeting to discuss
    the status of BIS migration.
        Addressing issues with NOAA satellite accounting. Over the past 3
    fiscal years, the accounting firm KPMG noted several significant
    control weaknesses at NOAA related to accounting for satellites.
    Specifically, KPMG identified that NOAA in fiscal year 2013 incorrectly
    classified a satellite instrument not operational at year end as
    completed property. This error resulted in a $125 million adjustment to
    correct property values originally recorded by NOAA. In addition, NOAA
    capitalized all costs associated with JPSS without review to ensure
    that only capitalizable costs are included in construction work-in-
    progress. Further, KPMG identified that NOAA did not receive and review
    the supporting documentation for $182.6 million in costs included in
    intragovernmental payments.
        Managing NOAA real property leases. Senate Appropriations Committee
    Report 113-078, related to the fiscal year 2014 budget, stated that
    NOAA (a) has a large inventory of real property commercial leases being
    held over beyond their agreed occupancy and (b) had hundreds of real
    property leases expiring over the next 4 years that will likely go into
    holdover, unless NOAA took action. Regarding these issues, we collected
    information on over 2,500 real property leases from NOAA's inventory
    valued at over $166 million. As of February 2014, NOAA had 122
    properties with nearly $2 million in annual rent in holdover status.
    This represents a 31 percent reduction from the 177 lease holdovers
    NOAA reported in August 2012. NOAA must continue to address each of its
    existing holdover leases--and look ahead to those about to expire to
    ensure that these numbers do not rise.
     strengthening first responder network authority (firstnet) to support
                                economic growth
    Overseeing the First Responder Network Authority and the Implementation
            of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network
        The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act (The Act), signed
    by the President on February 22, 2012, included language that allocated
    some existing public safety radio frequency spectrum--along with the
    ``D-Block'' spectrum--and authorized $7 billion in funding for the
    establishment of an interoperable Nationwide Public Safety Broadband
    Network (NPSBN). To oversee the existing public-safety spectrum and
    deployment of the NPSBN, the law requires the establishment of an
    independent authority within NTIA called First Responder Network
    Authority (FirstNet).
        FirstNet faces several challenges as it works toward providing
    emergency responders with a high-speed network dedicated to public
    safety. The initial challenge to FirstNet is establishing an
    organizational structure with strong internal controls. Building an
    effective organization will be essential to meet the subsequent
    challenges it faces in establishing the NPSBN. Those include:
      --Fostering cooperation among various State and local public safety
            agencies. Committing iterative effort to effective outreach and
            forging cooperation will be essential to building the NPSBN and
            obtaining participation from the public safety personnel the
            network is designed to serve.
      --Integrating existing STOP grants into the NPSBN. FirstNet should
            use four previously funded BTOP public safety wireless projects
            \20\ as an opportunity to learn about telecommunications
            network equipment, best practices for NPSBN deployment, and
            other issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Before the creation of FirstNet, NTIA made approximately $382
    million in grant awards to seven public safety projects to deploy
    public safety wireless broadband networks. On May 11, 2012, NTIA
    partially suspended these seven public safety projects. Subsequent
    negotiations were held to determine whether they would be beneficial to
    FirstNet; as a result, FirstNet established spectrum lease agreements
    with four of the seven public safety BTOP projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Creating a nationwide long-term evolution network. The limited
            funds available to implement a nationwide network that meets
            public safety grade standards will make implementation of NPSBN
            a challenge, particularly in geographic areas that are not
            profitable for commercial provider operations. To ensure a
            cost-effective NPSBN implementation, FirstNet must identify
            existing assets through coordination efforts.
        FirstNet held its first meeting in September 2012 and has since
    made certain key hires; established a headquarters in the Washington,
    DC, area; and awarded three contracts for technical support and one
    contract for general program management and acquisition support.
    Ongoing FirstNet Oversight
        In October 2013, the FirstNet board requested that OIG take over
    the review of certain allegations concerning the board's procurements
    and potential conflicts of interest. We initiated an audit in November
    2013 with the objectives of assessing (1) the rationale used to support
    the decision for selecting time and material and sole-source contract
    types for the three contracts with a total ceiling price of
    $14,350,000; (2) whether those contracts were fairly awarded and
    appropriately administered; (3) whether the services purchased under
    those contracts met industry standards, and were consistent with the
    needs of the project; and (4) FirstNet's process of reviewing ethics-
    related matters as they pertain to the board, as well as any associated
    ethical determinations. We expect to issue our report later in 2014. We
    are also following up on any specific issues relating to our audit.
        The subcommittee should be aware that, since FirstNet is not funded
    through appropriations, the Department, responding to OIG's request,
    agreed that OIG would submit a request to FirstNet for oversight
    funding, which we did in September 2013. While we are yet to receive
    any funding--and the details of the transfer have not been finalized--
    we now understand that FirstNet intends to transfer funding sufficient
    for 3 full-time equivalents to OIG for the balance of fiscal year 2014.
    Without funding in First Net's authorizing legislation, OIG will be
    required to make annual requests for funding from FirstNet.
        resolving ethics and compliance issues raised by whistleblowers
        Over the past year, the Department has made progress in dealing
    with issues raised by whistleblowers over OIG's hotline. In addition to
    allegations of fraud and serious misconduct which we investigate, OIG
    often receives complaints from employees and members of the public
    raising ethics, compliance, or management issues; we provide these
    complaints to operating unit leadership to address and resolve. This
    program ensures that information about potential risks received over
    our hotline is communicated promptly to operating unit management, so
    that they may quickly address problems. In some cases, OIG asks that
    operating units respond and summarize their findings, to ensure that
    management has sufficiently addressed the matter.
        In fiscal year 2013, OIG received almost 1,300 contacts over our
    hotline, of which about 600 were whistleblower complaints related to
    the Department's programs and operations. Since the beginning of fiscal
    year 2013, operating units have worked effectively to resolve issues
    provided to them on OIG hotline complaints, reducing by more than half
    what had become a major backlog in early fiscal year 2013. As of the
    end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2014, the Department had only
    40 hotline complaints for which OIG was awaiting an initial findings
    report--compared to 98 pending only 1 year prior (see figure 2).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        As a result of the Department and operating units prioritizing and
    addressing OIG hotline referrals, several issues have been resolved,
    resulting in better management practices and administrative remedies.
    In fact, of the hotline referrals resolved in fiscal year 2013, the
    Department's leadership found about one in four contained issues that
    were substantiated in their management inquiries. Even in cases where
    inquiries did not find issues, the process of looking into issues often
    helps communicate to staff that compliance and ethics issues are taken
    seriously. Examples of successfully resolved issues from OIG hotline
    referrals include the following:
      --In early fiscal year 2013, OIG referred a whistleblower complaint
            to NTIA, which confirmed that a BTOP grantee had not paid
            employees appropriate wages as mandated by the Davis-Bacon Act.
            NTIA informed the grantee of the issue, and appropriate action
            was taken to remunerate employees as required by the law.
      --In late 2011, OIG received a whistleblower's hotline complaint
            alleging that a Census Bureau employee was publishing political
            opinions while on duty. Census looked into the issues and, with
            additional support from OIG, uncovered evidence demonstrating
            that the employee had used Twitter to publish political
            opinions while at work. In 2012, we referred our file to Office
            of Special Counsel (OSC), which has the authority to look into
            Hatch Act violations. In February 2014, OSC issued a press
            release announcing that it had confirmed the allegations, and
            was concluding its investigation. The employee resigned prior
            to OSC concluding its case.
      --In mid-2013, as the result of a whistleblower tip to OIG's hotline,
            USPTO confirmed that an employee had been improperly claiming
            work time and overtime while on vacation in a foreign country.
            During the course of its inquiry, USPTO discovered that the
            employee had provided username and password information to a
            second USPTO employee, who logged into his account and
            submitted previously-completed work while on leave. This gave
            management the impression that the employee was working while
            actually on vacation. Administrative action is pending against
            both.
        While the Office of the Secretary and most operating units have
    made progress handling OIG hotline complaints, NOAA still faces
    challenges in this area. Leadership needs to give more timely attention
    to resolving recommendations made at the conclusion of OIG
    investigations and its own management reviews. When OIG or management
    substantiates allegations, we frequently transmit to program management
    our concluding report--which may be accompanied by recommendations to
    take appropriate administrative, disciplinary, or other policy actions.
    Departmental policy requires operating units to respond to OIG within
    60 days of receiving our report to inform us of any actions that have
    been taken or that are planned. Improved coordination among the
    Department's Office of General Counsel, operating unit leadership, and
    human resources offices would help ensure that appropriate action is
    executed in a timely manner.
        NOAA, however, currently has five pending OIG investigations that
    it has yet to take adequate action on, including two cases where senior
    scientists used Government computers to view inappropriate online
    content. Four of these five investigations were transmitted to NOAA
    more than 180 days ago, including two that remain older than 1 year
    without any action. In order for NOAA to comply with Departmental
    policies and foster a culture of management accountability, leadership
    must more diligently resolve OIG's investigative recommendations.
       appendix a: addressing issues with noaa weather satellite programs
        Managing risks in the acquisition and development of the next
    generation of environmental satellites is a continuing challenge for
    the Department. In February 2013, GAO added ``Mitigating Gaps in
    Weather Satellite Data'' to its high-risk list.\21\ The two most
    prominent programs,\22\ the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R),
    together account for one-third of NOAA's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request. They are also the largest investments in the Department,
    accounting for more than 20 percent of the Department's $8.8 billion
    budget proposal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ U.S. General Accountability Office, February 2013. High-Risk
    Series: An Update, GAO-13-283. Washington, DC: GAO, 155-160.
        \22\ Other satellite acquisitions include Jason-3, which will
    measure sea surface height, and Deep Space Climate Observatory, which
    will provide advance warnings of solar storms affecting Earth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NOAA's JPSS and GOES-R satellites will provide data and imagery for
    weather forecasting--including severe-storm tracking and alerting--and
    the study of climate change--and help lead and sustain the Nation
    during severe weather events. However, because of cost overruns,
    schedule delays, and the aging of NOAA's current constellation of
    satellites, NOAA has had to take steps to mitigate potential coverage
    gaps for these critical assets.
        JPSS evolved from a predecessor program fraught with cost overruns
    and schedule delays. NOAA's JPSS program uses the National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA) as its acquisition agent, leveraging
    that agency's procurement and systems engineering expertise--an
    arrangement based on previous partnerships between the two agencies. In
    its fiscal year 2015 budget submission, NOAA requested $916.3 million
    and reported that the JPSS program, running through 2025, would cost
    $11.3 billion. The first JPSS-developed satellite (JPSS-1) is scheduled
    for launch no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. GOES-
    R, with scope and importance comparable to JPSS, experienced
    development and budgetary challenges that could delay the launch
    readiness date of its first satellite from the first to the second
    quarter of fiscal year 2016. NOAA requested $980.8 million for fiscal
    year 2015 for the GOES-R series of satellites that will provide
    uninterrupted short-range severe weather warning and ``now-casting''
    capabilities through 2036. With four satellites (the GOES-R, -S, -T,
    and -U), the program is estimated to cost $10.8 billion over the course
    of its life cycle.
    JPSS
        In November 2013, NOAA's independent review recommended that NOAA's
    polar satellite launch policy be changed so that two satellite failures
    must occur in order for a gap in data to be realized. It recommended
    that NOAA promptly start a ``gap filler'' mission--likely a smaller
    satellite with key instruments--to provide additional fault tolerance
    to the JPSS constellation. Further, it recommended that NOAA
    immediately procure additional satellites to extend the JPSS
    constellation beyond JPSS-2, which would protect against future gaps
    and make current development more robust and efficient by providing
    needed spare parts and flexibility in fabrication and testing.
        NOAA has begun to mitigate potential degradation to weather
    forecasting capabilities during polar-orbit data coverage gaps through
    the use of supplemental funding it received as part of the Disaster
    Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. NOAA should ensure that its gap
    mitigation plan is executed before the November 2016 design-life end of
    Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (NPP), a risk-reduction
    satellite launched in October 2011 that is flying the first versions of
    JPSS sensors.
        Consistent with our September 2012 JPSS audit report,\23\ we
    continue to project a potential 10-16-month gap between Suomi NPP's end
    of design life and when JPSS-1 satellite data become available for
    operational use (see figure A-1). NOAA's medium-range weather
    forecasting (3-7 days) could be degraded during the period of time JPSS
    data are unavailable.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General,
    September 27, 2012. Audit of the Joint Polar Satellite System:
    Continuing Progress in Establishing Capabilities, Schedules, and Costs
    Is Needed to Mitigate Data Gaps, OIG-12-038-A. Washington, DC:
    Department of Commerce OIG.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    GOES-R
        NOAA's policy for its geostationary satellites is to have three
    satellites in orbit--two operational satellites with overlapping
    coverage and one spare for backup. Currently, GOES-13, GOES-14, and
    GOES-15 are in orbit (see figure A-2). However, GOES-13 is due to be
    retired in fiscal year 2015, at which time GOES-14 is projected to
    become operational. GOES-15 is due to be retired in fiscal year 2017.
    GOES-R is scheduled to be launched in October 2015, but there is a risk
    of launch delay. NOAA may not be able to meet its policy of having an
    on-orbit spare, even without a GOES-R launch delay, based on current
    GOES satellites' projected retirement dates. Furthermore, a launch
    delay for GOES-R beyond October 2015 increases the risk that only one
    geostationary imager will be in orbit--which would severely limit
    NOAA's capability to visualize and track severe weather events.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        appendix b: managing the census bureau's 2020 decennial planning
    2020 Decennial
        Through our ongoing work on the Census Bureau's approach to and
    progress on planning for 2020 decennial census we have identified three
    time-sensitive Bureau management priorities:
      --Completing timely research for making evidence-based design
            decisions.
      --Integrating schedule and budget to provide valid, timely, accurate,
            and auditable performance information on which to base project
            management decisions.
      --Accurately recording costs in the accounting system.
        Completing timely research for making evidence-based design
    decisions. To reduce 2020 Census costs, the Bureau is conducting
    research that focuses on several design features. Conducting research
    and testing is necessary to implement the changes needed to save the
    Government hundreds of millions of dollars (see table B-1).

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Integrating schedule and budget to provide valid, timely, accurate,
    and auditable performance information on which to base project
    management decisions. Last decade, OIG recommended that the Census
    Bureau integrate cost and schedule. In response, the Bureau planned to
    incorporate earned value management (EVM), a process that combines
    measures of a project's schedule and cost to forecast performance
    problems. As of March 2014, the Bureau had not incorporated EVM into
    its activity schedules. Because of the Bureau's budget and time
    constraints, management must be able to recognize at-risk projects by
    adopting EVM to make sound project management decisions.
        Accurately recording costs in the accounting system. To effectively
    manage a program of the size, complexity, and cost of the 2020 Census--
    and assess the return on investment of research efforts--managers
    require accurate accounting records. However, we recently found that
    many Census Bureau staff stated that they are charging to projects
    based on budgeted hours rather than actual hours worked. Inadequate
    accounting for an employee's actual work and level of effort required
    in accomplishing project goals, as well as inaccurate project costs,
    hinder the Bureau's ability to assess the return on investment of
    research efforts. Additionally, these issues affect the Bureau's
    ability to make informed decisions about how to accomplish budget
    reductions.
                appendix c: enhancing departmental cybersecurity
    Cyber Incident Response
        During the past year, the Department has made improvements to
    incident detection and response capabilities at DOC CIRT. For example,
    the Department conducted an internal assessment of DOC CIRT policies,
    procedures, and capabilities. It focused on strengthening DOC CIRT's
    organizational structure; its roles and responsibilities; and operating
    unit procedures for incident identification, analysis, response, and
    reporting. The Department's chief information officer has also (a)
    taken steps to ensure that all DOC CIRT staff meet Department training
    and certification requirements and (b) implemented an incident tracking
    system. In addition, the Department arranged to have the Department of
    Homeland Security conduct an independent assessment, focusing on
    incident management capabilities within the Department of Commerce.
    Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives
        Table C-1, below, provides the goal, along with updated
    implementation status and issues, for each initiative since we issued
    the fiscal year 2014 TMC report:

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        NOAA continues to make progress toward becoming its own TIC
    provider and the Census Bureau and BIS have made notable progress
    toward acquiring TIC services. The TIC initiative should significantly
    reduce the risks associated with external network and Internet
    connections. Accordingly, the Department has encouraged NOAA to
    complete its TIC implementation quickly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \24\ Title 13 guarantees the confidentiality of information
    obtained by the Census Bureau and establishes penalties for disclosing
    this information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      appendix d: reducing uspto backlogs
    Reducing Patent Application Backlogs
        USPTO, as the authority for reviewing and adjudicating all patent
    and trademark applications, must continue to focus on the challenge of
    reducing the time applicants wait before their patent applications or
    appeals are reviewed. The agency's recent efforts to address its
    application and appeal backlogs and related pendency issues have
    yielded mixed results. Both the backlog and pendency for patent
    applications decreased in fiscal year 2013 (see figure D-1a). Between
    October 2009 and September 2013, the patent backlog decreased from
    approximately 720,000 unexamined new applications to approximately
    585,000. Since we issued the fiscal year 2014 TMC report in November
    2013, the new application backlog has increased to 604,700 (as of
    February 2014). The patent appeals backlog--which we reported on in our
    2012 audit \25\--has begun to slowly decrease and, as of November 2013,
    stands at approximately 25,000, still almost twice the size of the
    backlog in October 2010.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \25\ U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General,
    August 10, 2012. USPTO's Other Backlog: Past Problems and Risks Ahead
    for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, OIG-12-032-A.
    Washington, DC: DOC OIG.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, USPTO's backlog for requests for continued examination
    (RCE) has experienced the most variability, growing from 17,800
    applications in October 2009 to approximately 78,000 in September 2013
    (see figure D-1b), an increase of more than 340 percent. As a
    consequence, during the same period, the average waiting time between
    filing an RCE and receiving an initial decision has grown from 2.1 to
    7.8 months (see figure D-1b). From the beginning of the fiscal year
    until February 2014, the RCE pendency has decreased to 6.9 months, but
    the RCE backlog still hovers near 80,000. By law,\26\ USPTO must
    provide a patent term adjustment \27\ for an issued patent when it
    takes USPTO more than 4 months to issue a preliminary RCE
    determination.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ 35 U.S.C. Sec. 154(b)(1).
        \27\ A patent term adjustment legally requires USPTO to extend the
    20-year patent term because of agency delays, subject to limitations.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        To address the substantial increases in the RCE backlog and average
    waiting time, USPTO (a) initiated outreach efforts to identify why
    applicants file RCEs and (b) implemented policy changes in April 2013
    and October 2013. These policy changes affected the amount of credit
    examiners received for reviewing RCEs, as well as the docketing
    procedures. Our current audit, initiated in June 2013, examines the
    causes for this backlog and assesses USPTO's efforts to remedy it. We
    anticipate issuing a final report with our findings and recommendations
    in late spring 2014.
        As it works to reduce its patent backlog and pendency (see figure
    D-1a), USPTO's challenge is to ensure that the quality of its patent
    examination process is not adversely affected and to avoid requiring
    applicants and the public to file unnecessary and costly challenges to
    examiners' decisions.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, Madam Secretary, thank you for that
    testimony.

                               WEATHER SATELLITES

        I would bring everyone's attention to the Department of
    Commerce's strategic plan. We actually have one called ``Open
    for Business,'' how the Secretary is cutting across a variety
    of her agencies to generate jobs.
        But, Madam Secretary, 62 percent of the Department of
    Commerce budget lies in NOAA.
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes.

                                 NOAA SATELLITE

        Senator Mikulski. And that 62 percent in NOAA really goes
    primarily to satellites, and it also goes to Weather Service.
    Many of the questions here, however, will be related to
    fisheries management, which is one of the issues that
    frequently comes up from this coalition of coastal Senators.
        But my question will go exactly to the satellite questions
    raised by Senator Shelby and strongly felt by myself.
        As you know, there was an independent review about closing
    or eliminating the weather gap, also of great concern to
    Senator Murkowski because of the way the satellites work, what
    it does for Alaska, what it does for us in the world.
        When will we get your comprehensive plan, and how do you
    see that you want to continue to right the concerns that have
    been addressed in both the Inspector General's report and in
    that independent review commissioned by this commission, so we
    get a dollar's worth of value for our satellites?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, thank you all for your support of
    the satellite programs. They're extremely important; and, as
    you are aware, satellite procurement is a very complex process.
    It really involves procuring instruments, procuring a bus,
    procuring a launch vehicle, and procuring a ground station, and
    getting all of that to occur at the same time.
        So the NOAA satellites program have been recently, through
    the outside report that we received, well managed and are on
    time and on budget as we speak today, and these are obviously,
    as I said in my testimony, critical assets to provide accurate
    information to decision-makers.
        As we address the issue, the challenge of the gap that was
    discussed, first of all I want to thank you for taking the most
    important and first step of funding the instruments that can be
    used for a gap filler, because that is an essential step, a
    critical step in the procurement process, as I described. We
    need to make sure those are procured first.
        As we look at the gap right now, the potential for a gap is
    still too high. So our approach to addressing this is to first,
    as it relates to JPSS-1, is to make sure that it is on
    schedule, which it is. And what we're trying to do now is to
    move JPSS-2 so that there's greater overlap with the JPSS-1
    program.
        To do that, we need to have the procurement of, as I said,
    the instruments, the bus, the ground system, and the launch to
    all occur.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Madam Secretary, I'm going to jump
    in because we all each are going to follow the 5-minute rule.
        Secretary Pritzker. Sure.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to get in as many of my
    colleagues as I can.
        As I understand it, you are standing really sentry over
    this.
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. We expect also a further cost estimate
    later in April. Am I correct in that?
        Secretary Pritzker. I'm not sure of the exact timing, but
    we will get you that cost estimate----
        Senator Mikulski. We understand NOAA says they're actively
    working on a plan to be issued with the latest independent cost
    estimates as late as April 2014. We need that----
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes.
        [The information follows:]

        NOAA is currently examining options for what comes after JPSS 2. As
    we develop these options, we will work with the Committee on the best
    way forward.

        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. As we get ready to--and let
    me finish. The other thing is I want to just thank you in terms
    of your personal involvement, and also Dr. Kathy Sullivan, the
    new CEO of NOAA.
        First of all, I've heard from my other colleagues her
    availability to discuss issues, particularly these prickly
    fisheries issues. So we want to thank the fact that we feel
    communication has improved with NOAA. We feel that the
    oversight on satellites and some other programs have improved
    with NOAA. We want to keep that momentum going to get value for
    our dollar, and at the same time this communication, we resolve
    problems without trying to put it in report language.
        So I can't tell you how important it is. If you listen to
    our fishermen and our watermen, if they're cranky, then
    literally these fishermen put their hooks into us.
        And I don't want to be caught in a cranky waterman's net in
    Maryland. So I think we all get that.
        I could pursue my questions because I'm going to come back
    to the Weather Service.
        I want to also advise my colleagues that we will be having
    a separate hearing on NIST in May because of the crucial issues
    of manufacturing to cyber security, an innovative hearing.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                           PRIORITIZATION WITHIN NOAA

        Secretary Pritzker, the Department has invested billions of
    dollars in next-generation weather satellites to provide
    critical data for forecasting and storm monitoring. We think
    that's important. And while the importance of these satellites
    cannot be overstated, NOAA also conducts a host of other
    important activities critical to our Nation's fisheries and
    coastal shorelines.
        With existing satellite programs consuming more than a
    third of NOAA's budget proposal, I believe--and I mentioned it
    in my opening statement--that prioritization of mission-
    critical activities is very important. You've got so much
    money, you've got to decide where are the priorities. You did
    it in business, where you were very successful.
        Secretary Pritzker. Right.
        Senator Shelby. Are mission-critical activities, Madam
    Secretary, such as fisheries management or marine research
    deteriorating due to an insatiable appetite for new satellites
    that may not be critical to NOAA's core mission? Some of us
    believe that. Do you have any comment?
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes, I do, Senator. First of all, the
    way that we approach the NOAA budget is to really try and
    balance among a number of issues. We're trying to balance
    between the oceans and the atmosphere, between how much
    research we do internally, how much gets done externally, and
    between the short term, the medium term, and the long term, so
    that we can try and arrive at--for our dollar, that we're
    getting the most value trying to address all of the issues that
    NOAA is responsible for.
        So it is a balancing act that we undertake, as you pointed
    out, and one that we do our best to try and make sure that we
    have sufficient funds to do all the things that NOAA is asked
    to do.
        Senator Shelby. But the fisheries are not just in our
    individual States, but they're important to all of Americans,
    are they not?
        Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely. Our fisheries, as you're
    well aware, are both a source of commercial endeavor as well as
    recreational endeavor, and have significant economic impact--
    both do--on the country's GDP. And I've come as Secretary to
    really respect and appreciate the size and the complexity of
    that responsibility that NOAA has, and work very closely with
    Dr. Sullivan to make sure that we're trying to acquit our
    responsibility to the highest standard.

                   FISHING RED SNAPPER IN THE GULF OF MEXICO

        Senator Shelby. Madam Secretary, I'm going to reference the
    red snapper fish that's very prevalent in the Gulf of Mexico.
    In recent years, the Department has curtailed red snapper
    season in the Gulf of Mexico due to questionable stock
    assessments and poor management decisions. In fact, two weeks
    ago a Federal judge ruled that the Department mismanaged the
    red snapper fishery in the Gulf, and the result could be an 11-
    day red snapper season this year, down from 40 days last year.
    The red snapper population has really grown. It probably needed
    to grow at one time.
        I believe, Madam Secretary, that we must use sound science
    and accurate data to evaluate the health of the snapper stock,
    like anything else. If we continue with today's ad hoc
    approach, we will have little certainty about the true status--
    in other words, the truth--of the red snapper, and there will
    be negative economic outcomes for both commercial and, you
    mentioned, recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.
        What is the Department, in light of all this, doing to
    ensure that it can obtain more timely data to better understand
    and to manage the fisheries, including the red snapper?
        Secretary Pritzker. Senator, first of all, let me talk a
    little bit about the red snapper, then talk more about what
    we're doing in terms of stock assessment.
        So in terms of the red snapper, last summer's stock
    assessment showed additional catch could be allowed, which we
    did.
        Senator Shelby. We did.
        Secretary Pritzker. And we worked hard to update the catch
    limits. And as I understand, the 40 days was something that we
    felt we were making progress. The challenge, of course, is the
    fish, as I understand, have gotten bigger. This is good because
    this is a step toward a continuing growing of the fish
    population. And I'm well aware that recreational fishing
    spending in this country is about $4.6 billion. This is a
    significant industry, and the multiplier effect is quite large.
        Senator Shelby. What about the commercial fishing? What's
    that worth?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, it's even larger.
        Senator Shelby. Larger.
        Secretary Pritzker. Right. So the point being this is
    extremely important, the red snapper, and the court finding is
    disappointing in the sense of it questions the science.
        So one of the things that we've asked for in our fiscal
    year 2015 budget; our stock assessments are critical data that
    obviously are affecting the decisionmaking around catch limits.
    So we've asked for a modest increase, up to $72 million, for
    next-generation stock assessment research so that we can
    continue to improve the quality of the stock assessment.
        I clearly understand the importance that this work has and
    the implications it has on both the commercial as well as the
    recreational fishing all across our coastlines. So this is
    important that we get this right and something that we
    undertake very seriously, and Undersecretary Sullivan is very
    focused on this.
        Senator Shelby. Do you agree with me, you can't just do
    things in an ad hoc way, you need real data?
        Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely, and the data needs to be
    something that we all have confidence in.

                 INVESTMENT IN MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

        Senator Shelby. Madam Chairman, I've got one quick
    question, and I will be quick on it, if you'll allow me, and I
    mentioned this earlier, the Investing in Manufacturing
    Community Program. That seems like to a lot of people central
    planning. You're choosing 25 communities out of the whole
    Nation as favoritism, so to speak, and that's very dangerous, I
    think, and sounds like central planning to me. I'll talk with
    you about that again, but my time is short now.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And thank you, Madam Secretary. I want to raise an issue
    which is important to NOAA and particularly important to my
    home State of Rhode Island.

                         RELOCATION OF THE NOAA VESSEL

        The fishing survey vessel Henry Bigelow has been stationed,
    home-ported in Newport, Rhode Island since 2009. But because of
    the changes with respect to the Coast Guard and Navy there,
    they might not be able to stay there past roughly 2016, and
    there's some talk of moving it to Woods Hole, which would be
    about a $20 million investment, dredging and improvements;
    when, in fact, about a 5-minute cruise across the bay there is
    former Quonset Naval Station but now Quonset Point, which is
    already the home to the NOAA vessel Okeanos Explorer, which has
    a shore-side facility there, NOAA facility. It's already been
    developed. The money has been invested.
        I would just ask you to seriously consider the option of
    not taking the ship out of Narragansett Bay and spending $20
    million for it elsewhere but spending very little and simply
    transferring it across.
        And I would add another point. The Narragansett Bay complex
    is the home to URI School of Oceanography, to a laboratory of
    the Marine Fishery Service, to the Naval on the Water Warfare
    Center, to all of the facilities that are available at the
    Newport Naval Base. So for those reasons also, to me this is a
    very simple choice, which would be Narragansett Bay. Could you
    look at that option?
        Secretary Pritzker. Absolutely, we are, and Vice Admiral
    Devany is working on this issue as we speak. We have the idea
    of spending the $15 million at Woods Hole as one that is a
    challenge. So he is really working on this issue.
        In terms of the science and the laboratories that are
    there, those are very important and ones that we're rebuilding
    after they took a bit of a hit during the sequestration period.
    But we're very committed to those.
        Senator Reed. Given the tightness of your budget, and
    that's being mild, the idea of generating $20 million to do
    something that, frankly, could be done as well, and I would
    argue better, by simply moving the ship across the bay would
    make sense to me.

                              FISHERY SERVICE LABS

        A similar issue with respect to Narragansett Bay, but it
    also has a larger impact, and that's the National Marine
    Fishery Service's labs in the Northeast have taken cuts because
    of sequestration, because of other aspects. They are truly
    important as to not only the research they do but connecting
    our local fishermen into the process, getting their feedback
    and their assessment. And frankly, my fishermen feel that when
    they go to the Science Center, they get rebuffed. They're told,
    ``You're not a scientist; go away.'' When, in fact, every day
    they're on the water, they have an understanding of the stocks
    and everything else that is not associated with that.
        And once again, this is so close to the School of
    Oceanography, URI, there is a reinforcement there, too.
        So I would ask you to avoid cuts in the future, but also to
    look at ways that we can invest in a partnership through the
    labs with the fishing men and women and the fishing industry,
    not just in Rhode Island but all through the Northeast.
        Secretary Pritzker. As I said, the labs are very important,
    and the rebuilding of our capacity at those labs is something
    that we're focused on, and working with the local fishing
    industry is something that we're absolutely open to and happy
    to work with you on.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

                               OCEAN EXPLORATION

        A final point is that you have a significant cut, 27
    percent, $7 million, in ocean exploration, and it becomes more
    and more important. We are all spellbound by the fact that we
    know so little about the Indian Ocean as we search desperately
    for the remains of that aircraft, and it just shows the gaps we
    have in our knowledge. And as we cut back on ocean research
    which is valuable to understand particularly climate change,
    the opening up of the Arctic, changes globally, I would ask
    that you look closely at this item.
        Our vessel, the Okeanos Explorer, can only go to sea if the
    resources are there for exploration, and I ask you to look at
    that.
        Secretary Pritzker. I appreciate it. I mean, our fiscal
    year 2015 budget does propose $19 million for ocean exploration
    and research. While we know this is a cut, we think that's
    robust funding for us. But I'll take a look at it.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to suggest this. We're all
    Senators and we need to trust each other. So what I mean by
    that is ordinarily they would recess the committee and come
    back for the vote. I'm going to say that Senator Kirk wants to
    ask a question and Senator Merkley wants to stay to answer a
    question, I'm going to dash to the vote and dash back, but I'm
    going to keep the committee in session and let the Senators
    ask, or let's go back and forth. Let's presume we can all trust
    each other and act according to old-school rules and Senate
    rules.
        The committee will continue to operate, and I turn to
    Senator Kirk.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you, Chairwoman.

                            NTIA, INTERNET CONTRACT

        Senator Kirk. Penny, I just wanted to ask you a question
    about this rolling story in the Internet media that somehow the
    Obama administration is going to give up control of the
    Internet to the U.N. or something like that. I think the guts
    of that story is the ending of a contract between NTIA and
    ICANN I think it's called. I want to make sure the essence of
    accountability to American values for an institution that we
    have built continues with First Amendment values surging
    through the Internet to make sure that those countries like
    China, which would totally interrupt those values.
        Secretary Pritzker. Senator, let me talk a little bit about
    that for a minute. First of all, I want to be absolutely clear,
    the Department of Commerce and the NTIA, which oversees this
    contract, we are committed to a free and open Internet. The
    stated policy since 1998 was--what we oversee at NTIA is a
    contract, as you said, between ICANN and the various
    organizations--there are three--that get the benefit of this
    contract, the International Engineering Task Force, the
    Regional Internet Registry, and the companies who run the
    domains. We simply monitor whether that contract is being
    implemented effectively.
        The proposal that we are suggesting is as follows. We're
    not going to proceed with anything unless we are satisfied with
    the following, which is that ICANN can continue to move forward
    as a multi-stakeholder model of governance. Two is that we
    maintain the security, the stability, and the resilience of the
    Internet's domain name system. Three, we have to meet the needs
    and the desires of our global customers, and we've got to have
    the openness of the Internet.
        But there's a final criteria that everyone needs to keep in
    mind. We will not accept a proposal where ICANN is replaced
    with a government or intergovernmental organization like the
    U.N.
        So this is not a handing over of the Internet to some other
    government. This is an evolution that was anticipated at the
    beginning that eventually NTIA would step back from this
    oversight role of a contract that actually exists between two
    parties.
        We as the United States remain a very important voice,
    would remain a very important voice in the multi-stakeholder
    process. So it's not like we're going away from this at all.
    And the thing that is important to keep in mind is we're doing
    this at a time when there's plenty of time to see if our
    criteria can be satisfied. We have a year left on the existing
    contract, our oversight contract, and then we have two 2-year
    extensions at our unilateral right. So we have a long runway to
    make sure that we're going to be confident that ICANN can
    undertake this without our continued oversight of this
    contract.
        Senator Kirk. I'm not done. Let me close by saying that the
    First Amendment, which kind of runs through your blood, and
    American involvement in ICANN to make sure that left-wing
    dictators around the world who would like to shut off the
    Internet. We need to make sure that it can't be shut off.
        Secretary Pritzker. I completely agree, and I want you to
    be reassured that the Department of Commerce and NTIA, we are
    committed to a free and open Internet.
        Senator Kirk. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby [presiding]. Senator Merkley.

                      ANTI-DUMPING AND SUBSIDY ENFORCEMENT

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, thank you for the work that your Department does
    facilitating exports which are so important to nurturing
    manufacturing, the jobs that are associated with it here in the
    United States.
        I wanted to ask about one part of this puzzle, and that is
    how the International Trade Administration handles anti-dumping
    and subsidy enforcement issues, which is a central function to
    trying to create something close to a level playing field. We
    face a variety of foreign subsidies that are unannounced.
        I find it very interesting when the WTO calls for nations
    as part of their responsibility to lay out the subsidies they
    provide, and when they don't do so, another nation has a choice
    of posting such known subsidies. And when I proposed an
    amendment to this, with two weeks a list of 200 Chinese
    subsidies was produced. It was very helpful in trying to
    understand many of the things that happen behind the scenes.
        We had testimony in my Economic Policy Subcommittee earlier
    this year about many of the things that we face, and I'm
    referring specifically to China in this case, but may well
    apply to some other countries where local officials make it
    their normal business to take land from farmers without
    adequate compensation, friends at local banks finance the
    construction of a trade development zone, they give away land,
    factories and utilities to foreign investors, which certainly
    is attractive to moving your factory to a place where these
    types of subsidies exist, and that doesn't even count the
    State-owned enterprises and the State-backed banks that not
    only control companies in China but begin to acquire companies
    here in the United States.
        I found it quite interesting that China had its first-ever
    corporate bond default. That tells you something about how
    subsidized the system is, that folks who have companies that go
    down the wrong path always seem to get bailed out.
        This process is a challenge for us to sustain jobs here in
    manufacturing in the United States, and I just wanted to ask
    about your thoughts on this. These types of subsidies are hard
    to capture, they're hard to bring cases on, and in general I
    don't think we have many in that category. But I thought I
    would ask you about that, whether the Department has been able
    to bring cases addressing the types of subsidies that I'm
    talking about, whether there is a deliberate effort to evaluate
    these strategies that are certainly not consistent with the
    structure of the WTO and their impact on our U.S. economy.
        Secretary Pritzker. Senator, first of all, let me start by
    saying both the President and I are absolutely committed to
    trade enforcement, and the Department works on this. It is a
    major focus as part of our ITA work. And I have a lot of
    confidence in the leadership team that we have that do our
    trade enforcement work. They're very, very dedicated to trying
    to address these issues.
        The question of whether we would self-initiate anti-dumping
    in countervailing duty cases, it's very rare to do that, to
    self-initiate, because a case requires the involvement of the
    industry, but we're happy to arrange consultation for any
    industry with our experts if they feel there's an area that
    needs relief. We work very closely to make sure that that
    process is very transparent.
        In terms of strengthening our trade remedy laws,
    particularly with China, I co-chair with the U.S. trade reps
    something called the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce
    and Trade (JCCT), which is our annual dialogue with the Chinese
    on trade issues, and this is a constant thing that we are
    focusing on. It's a very challenging process. I won't say that
    it's easy, but it's something where our goal is really to
    prevent U.S. businesses and workers from being subject to
    unfair trade practices around the country, around the world. So
    it's something that we're very, very focused on.
        Senator Merkley. Another type of subsidy is the lack of
    enforcement of environmental standards and extremely predatory
    labor conditions in some cases, and a proposal or an idea is to
    allow companies to use the anti-dumping strategies to bring
    cases when their competitors are subsidized by the failure of
    enforcement, basically the failure to abide by the basic, core
    principles of the WTO. Have you given any thought to that
    particular approach?
        Secretary Pritzker. I have not focused myself on that, but
    it's something I'd be happy to discuss with my team.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.

                       ELECTRONIC MONITORING FOR TRAWLERS

        Senator Merkley. Can I have one sentence?
        Electronic monitoring for trawlers in the Pacific.
        Secretary Pritzker. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. They're very concerned that they're not
    getting the intention or the speed, and for these small
    trawlers to get observers flown in from other cities, San
    Francisco or Seattle, extremely inconvenient, extremely
    expensive. We need a lot of cooperation in trying to pursue the
    electronic monitoring. Thank you. I'll follow up with that.
        Secretary Pritzker. Please do, and we're very focused on
    that. Thank you.

                               MARKET COMPETITION

        Senator Shelby. Madam Secretary, I'm going to pick up on
    the mission of Commerce, and this comes out of your bulletin. I
    like the stated mission, ``to create the conditions for
    economic growth and opportunity.'' That's what we want to do in
    America, starting with education, good infrastructure, and so
    forth. All States, from Maine to California, from Florida to
    Michigan. And I like the slogan, ``America is Open for
    Business.'' The more we talk about that and the more we, in
    reality, do that, the better off we are, and that includes the
    domestic market and the foreign market, everything.

                 INVESTMENT IN MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY PROGRAM

        You know this. You come out of the business community.
        But it's troubling, really troubling to a lot of us, not
    just me, where you would select, try to select 25 communities
    for special treatment in the U.S. and exclude thousands of
    communities. That's picking winners and losers, in a sense, in
    the marketplace, which is what we don't do. We let the market
    decide that.
        So this is a deviation, basically, from the principles that
    built this country and sustained this country, and that's why
    Congress has not supported this. This is something in your
    proposal that you're wanting to do that I think will run into
    trouble again in the Senate and in the House. It's something
    that maybe we ought to talk about again.
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, I would be happy to talk about
    it, and I appreciate the concern. There's no intention to pick
    winners and losers but rather to allow regions to coordinate
    their planning and to tell the Federal Government how they
    intend to address multiple areas of investment that are
    required in order for those communities to be able to support
    growth in manufacturing.
        The goal is really more to see that there are communities
    and encourage communities to create an integrated plan. It's
    not meant to pick winners or losers.
        So I would be happy to work with you to make sure that we
    address the concern.
        Senator Shelby. Well, I'd like to meet with you further.
    We'll call you and see where we go from here. But the idea of
    picking winners and losers in the marketplace, that's the tenet
    of communism, socialism, and so forth.
        Secretary Pritzker. That's not our intent.
        Senator Shelby. And it's something I think is abhorrent to
    that we're open for business.
        Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. Well, that's not our intent.
        Senator Shelby. Ultimately the market will decide winners
    and losers in the marketplace, and the government should not do
    that, should it?
        Secretary Pritzker. Senator, you and I agree on that.
        Senator Shelby. We're hoping somebody comes back.
        She's on the subway. I'll wait just a few minutes, try to
    keep this hearing going.
        We'll recess just for a few minutes until the chairperson
    comes.
        Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        [Recess.]

                                  JOB CREATION

        Senator Mikulski [presiding]. Madam Secretary, while we
    expect Senator Collins and some other Senators to return, I'm
    going to go back to the job issue. One priority is to create
    more jobs. The other is to retain the jobs we have, and even
    the possibility of bringing jobs back home from overseas.
        But here goes to my question about trade and trade
    missions. The job of the Secretary of Commerce has been, as I
    said, the President's ambassador to business, and the
    ambassador of business to the President. And often, they have
    led trade missions around the world. So it's been both an
    executive position and a sales position.

          DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE'S ROLE IN CREATING AND RETAINING JOBS

        You have 11 different agencies, from NIST to NOAA to Trade.
    So we're talking about everything from red snapper quotas to
    import quotas and export quotas, and so on.
        So here goes to my question. Often, the traditional role is
    assumed by the Secretary of Commerce. Tell us what you're
    doing. Are you leading trade missions? How do you see your role
    in generating jobs, retaining jobs, and even trying to bring
    jobs back home?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, Senator, first of all, thank you
    for the question. Since day 1 when I took this job, I brought
    with me a sign to my office, and it says ``Open for Business.''
    To me, this is my area of focus. Why is this my area of focus?
    It's my area of focus because I know that if we create the
    conditions for the private sector to thrive, they will create
    jobs.
        So one of the first things I've done is spend a lot of time
    with business leaders to understand what do they need in order
    to be successful. I've met with probably over 1,000 CEOs and
    private sector business leaders since I've been in this
    position. And what have they said to me that they need in order
    to grow their businesses?
        For example, in terms of trade and investment, I'm very
    focused on the fact that 95 percent of customers live outside
    our borders. So while American businesses are growing within
    the United States, our job with both our U.S. Export Assistance
    Center and our Foreign Commercial Service is to help those
    businesses continue to export. Why? Because 11.3 million
    Americans today, their jobs depend upon exports, and that's up
    1.6 million jobs since 2009. That's why funding of our Foreign
    Commercial Service is so important.
        At the same time, we're also trying to attract foreign
    direct investment; 5.6 million American jobs today are
    supported by American subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.
    That's why funding of Select USA is so important, that we build
    upon these good jobs. We know they're good jobs because the
    jobs from foreign direct investment companies pay over $77,000
    a year.
        I recently as well returned from several trade missions.
    First I was in Mexico, and then I was in the Middle East. I
    will tell you that on our trip to Mexico I took a company from
    Los Angeles called Louroe Electronics. They came back and said
    that because of the five different potential business
    opportunities that they found, they're increasing their
    workforce by 10 percent.
        So we know that all of these efforts are helping to grow
    jobs in this country.
        I'm also very focused on innovation, competitiveness, and
    entrepreneurship. Why? Because I know that I think it's 40
    percent of our GDP--and I'll confirm that statistic--depends
    upon new innovation, growth in our GDP, 40 percent depends upon
    new innovation. What are we doing specifically? I made skills
    and workforce development a priority of the Department for the
    very first time in history, working with the Department of
    Labor to say how does the Department of Labor and Commerce
    affect something that I think is very important, which is
    workforce training needs to be business-led. We can no longer,
    as the Secretary of Labor would say, train and pray. We have
    got to offer people the kind of nationally recognized stackable
    credentials that they know, when they go and get that training,
    that there are jobs at the end of that endeavor.
        So, to me, that's a very important part of helping to grow
    and fill the 4 million open jobs that we have today in this
    country by helping the long-term unemployed be prepared for
    those jobs.
        Another thing that we at the Department are focused on in
    job creation is we're working across the agencies to promote
    the passage of the NNMI bill and develop these regional
    manufacturing hubs. Building a bridge between R&D and getting
    to market is something that requires some catalyst from the
    Federal Government, and those will also lead to good jobs. The
    institutes, I think, are a brilliant conception by both
    Congress and the President because of the Federal money. Why is
    the Federal money important?
        I've talked to the people who have put together these
    institutes, and they said without the catalyst of the Federal
    dollars, they would not have come together, the universities,
    the private sector, the community colleges, and the workforce
    training system, as well as the supply chains, in order to
    address this need for pre-competitive research in our country.
    And we are doing so much less of this than other countries
    around the world, and I think this is something that is very,
    very important to job creation.
        Senator Mikulski. Madam Secretary, I think I've got the
    picture there. We want to work with you.
        I want to make sure that Senator Collins has a chance to
    ask her questions.
        Secretary Pritzker. Terrific. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. She's on about three other subcommittees.
    So we'll come back to pick up----
        Secretary Pritzker. Sorry.
        Senator Mikulski. No, no. That was excellent. We could
    spend all day just on that, as well as the need for interagency
    cooperation. My smaller manufacturers say they need the Import
    Export Bank, they need the Foreign Commercial Service Office,
    and they need to be able to know how to use the resources of
    their own government.
        Senator Collins.

                         FISHERIES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

        Senator Collins. Thank you very much.
        First let me thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your work,
    and that of the Vice Chairman, for your support in
    appropriating fisheries disaster assistance in last year's
    omnibus funding bill. This was no easy task but a very
    important development.

                        FISHERY DISASTER RELIEF FUNDING

        I also want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for exercising
    your authority to waive the 25 percent State matching
    requirement for fishery disaster funding. Waiving that match
    was absolutely critical given the constraints that the States
    have and to ensuring that the funding will be used in ways that
    have both immediate impacts and constructive long-term effects.
        We've been working closely with the Regional Administrator,
    John Bullard. He is making quite an effort to try to achieve a
    consensus among the affected States regarding the allocation of
    the funding, which is no easy task, I will tell you.
        Secretary Pritzker. It's not easy.
        Senator Collins. Although consensus among the affected
    States has not yet been achieved, one thing is clear to me, and
    that is that our Maine fishermen are struggling now, and
    they're very worried about what the future is going to bring.
        So there's a delicate balance between what needs to be
    addressed for the very real and immediate needs of our
    fishermen and making those targeted investments for the long
    term that will allow the fleet to survive and become more
    sustainable, and there are a lot of creative ideas out there,
    as I've learned when I attended the Fishermen's Forum this
    year.
        We're concerned about not only the short-term survival of
    our fishing communities but their long-term success also. We
    really don't want to find ourselves going from crisis to crisis
    year after year. How will you encourage NOAA to ensure that the
    $32.8 million in disaster relief is used in ways that will have
    positive, lasting effects on New England's historic ground
    fishery industry?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, Senator, first of all, I want to
    assure you that I am very sensitive to the fact that fishing is
    a lifeblood to so many New England communities, and I
    appreciate the challenges that are created for both individual
    businesses, families, et cetera, that are affected by the
    stocks and the level at which the stocks exist.
        We are very focused on making sure that--two things: first
    of all, stock assessment is improved, which is why in our
    budget we've called for $72 million to continue improving the
    quality of our stock assessment so that we have better and more
    transparent information. So first of all, to not go from crisis
    to crisis, we need good information.
        The second is to work--you know, John Bullard, I think, as
    you said, he does not have an easy task ahead of him, but
    making a priority that we also make wise investments is one
    that I know is part of his criteria. I will make sure that
    Undersecretary Sullivan and John work closely so that we're not
    making short-sighted, if you will, investments with the scarce
    resources that we have to invest.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Madam Chairwoman, could I ask a second question?
        Senator Mikulski. You absolutely can.
        Senator Collins. Thank you so much.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, your questions about these
    disasters and these data and so on affect all of us. Prior to
    your arrival, Senator, I was saying that there are so many
    members on this subcommittee, coastal Senators who have such
    common interests. Please proceed and take whatever time you
    need.

                        TRADE AND FOOTWEAR MANUFACTURING

        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Madam Secretary, I want to switch now to a trade issue,
    especially given the emphasis that you are putting on
    increasing exports and trying to get more American
    manufacturing, which are goals that I wholeheartedly support.
        Just a few decades ago, there were more than 50,000
    footwear manufacturing jobs in this country, and many of them
    were in my State and throughout New England.
        Senator Mikulski. The famous Dexter loafers.
        Senator Collins. Exactly. That is one of them.
        Today there are fewer than 5,000, which is just incredible.
    A thousand of those jobs are in the State of Maine at three New
    Balance factories, and we have some other specialty shops in my
    State. Those jobs support many other small businesses and local
    economies, particularly in our smaller towns--Norridgewock,
    Skowhegan, Norway, Maine, for example.
        With the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) discussions well
    under way, I, along with Senator King, have repeatedly met with
    the trade rep and have asked for assurances from this
    administration that any agreement is crafted in a way that
    allows those companies that continue to make shoes here and
    want to grow here have the opportunity to do so. To me, we
    ought to be rewarding those manufacturers who did stay and keep
    some of their manufacturing here in America rather than moving
    overseas.
        If done improperly, I am very concerned that TPP could have
    a disastrous effect on the remaining athletic footwear workers
    in my State.
        What update could you provide on the negotiations regarding
    these extraordinarily important issues that directly affect
    jobs?
        Secretary Pritzker. Senator, first let me start by saying I
    know how important this issue is, and it's one of great
    importance not just to you and your constituents but as a New
    Balance wearer I appreciate my Made in America running shoes,
    if you will, that I wore this morning.
        Senator Collins. Good taste.
        Secretary Pritzker. The Commerce Department works with the
    U.S. Trade Representative on negotiating these deals, and we
    have been in constant consultation with you, with the various
    stakeholders on the views regarding this and TPP.
        The latest state of negotiation, I would have to get back
    to you as to where it is, but I want you to know that we
    recognize and are well aware of how significant this issue is,
    and it has been foremost as the negotiations have--it's been
    front of mind as the negotiations have been proceeding. But I
    will have to get back to you as to what the current state of
    play is.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. That would be very helpful.
        Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

                           athletic footwear and tpp
        Commerce and USTR are engaging with all of our TPP partners,
    including Vietnam, on a continual basis to discuss market access
    issues, including apparel and footwear. In these discussions, we
    continue to represent the concerns of our domestic athletic footwear
    manufactures. The next set of face-to-face meetings with all TPP
    partners is scheduled for mid-May. We will continue to ensure that the
    discussions regarding market access for footwear take into account the
    interests of domestic stakeholders.

                                FISHERY DISASTER

        Senator Mikulski. Before, Senator Collins, we go to Senator
    Coons, on this whole fishery disaster, one of the first issues
    we had was our very own colleagues didn't understand how
    fisheries disaster certification worked. They thought it was
    FEMA that designated it, as compared to you, Madam Secretary.
    So one of the areas we really need to do is educate our own
    colleagues, and we need to look forward to doing that
    communication.
        Fisheries disasters have affected pretty much every area of
    the coast. As we worked on the New England fisheries disaster,
    we note that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the
    Pacific Northwest--Merkley, Murray, Murkowski--regardless of
    the zip code they lived in, were facing that.
        And we see that it's three things, environmental
    consequences, but mostly over-fishing, and it's not over-
    fishing by us and how we enforce those laws. And then also the
    ability to collect better data. And then if over-fishing is
    caused by poachers, why punish the American fishermen as
    they're trying to make their comeback?
        And we need clear guidelines, too, on how we do help with
    fishery disasters. We want to avoid them. We saw the near
    collapse of Georgia's bank. We heard what was happening in the
    Pacific Northwest. The decline in crabs in Maryland was due to
    the decline in the Chesapeake Bay. That was environmental. So
    we've got a lot to do.
        But this is big business, and it's also, I might add, a
    part of our identity. When you think of Maine and you think of
    Maryland and you think of the great Pacific Northwest, yes, you
    might think of Microsoft, and when you have Senator Shelby
    talking about the red snapper, I've heard Senator Shelby speak
    about many things, but this shows the concern we have. So,
    let's work together on it.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Coons.

                                 MANUFACTURING

        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chair Mikulski.
        Thank you, Secretary Pritzker. Great to be with you again.
    And I'll ask a few questions, if I might, and I'll try to keep
    them focused, first about manufacturing, which we've spoken
    about before.
        American manufacturing has been making a comeback over the
    last 4 years. We lost nearly 6 million manufacturing jobs in
    the first decade of the century, but we've regained about
    600,000 in the last 4 years, and I'm eager to continue to work
    with you on initiatives that can strengthen manufacturing.
        First, I was pleased that your budget suggested an
    increased investment in the Manufacturing Extension
    Partnership, which I've seen very effectively work with small,
    local manufacturers to allow them to access the latest thinking
    and skills in terms of lean manufacturing. I'd love to hear a
    little bit about your plans for the MEP.
        And second, the National Network for Manufacturing
    Innovation is something the President is moving forward with
    existing budget authority in DOD and DOE, and I'll mention that
    the University of Maryland, the University of Maine, and the
    University of Delaware are actually collaborating on the next
    application to be a composite Center of Excellence.
        What are your plans in terms of moving forward with support
    for the authorizing bill that Senator Brown and Senator Blunt
    currently have, and how would you see the benefits of that
    network moving from something that is purely an administration
    initiative to something that is authorized legislatively and
    could then be sustained over a longer, broader range?
        Secretary Pritzker. Well, thank you, Senator. First of all,
    manufacturing is near and dear to my heart. It's something that
    I've been involved with literally all my life.
        I'll start with the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships.
    When I came into this job, I had spent 27 years in business,
    but I really did not understand what the Manufacturing
    Extension Partnerships were, and I went out to actually see and
    talk to manufacturers about is this really valuable, how could
    the Federal Government really be providing that kind of value
    added, and I was, frankly, blown away, and I had my head turned
    by the impact of the MEP. Hence, the reason we believe we
    should expand the MEP.
        Obviously, they are partnerships, they're local, and they
    work with local manufacturers to help them adopt processes
    that, frankly, large companies have easy access but it's very
    hard for a small company to do on their own. And to me, this is
    one of the great services that we provide at the Department of
    Commerce. Frankly, it's not understood well enough.
        One of the things I hope is that, along with our Foreign
    Commercial Service and our U.S. Export Assistance Centers
    (USEACs), that I could try and raise the profile of these great
    services that we offer.
        As it relates to NNMI, I'm passionate, as you know, about
    this bill. I believe that it's absolutely essential that the
    Federal Government plays a role in helping to be a catalyst for
    the development of these institutes. The gap that needs to be
    filled between R&D and deployment to market is one that very
    often a single company cannot do by themselves. And so I've
    talked to a number of the folks who have competed for the
    existing NNMI programs, and they all tell me we would not have
    come together but for the Federal catalyst of dollars.
        So I think this is really important. I have offered to
    Senator Blunt and Senator Brown--in fact, Senator Graham
    reached out to me about 10 days ago and asked me to work with
    the group to try and help get this legislation passed.
        I think one of the important parts of the legislation is
    the fact that the Commerce Department will play a role in terms
    of taking the best practices of the institutes and sharing them
    among the institutes. I think there's an enormously important
    role that today is not provided for. So I'm all in on both of
    these.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. As a co-sponsor, I'd welcome your
    assistance as an advocate for the collaboration between our
    three States and many, many others in the existing
    collaborations.
        Secretary Pritzker. Whatever I can do.
        Senator Coons. We would be grateful.

                          FOREIGN COMMERCIAL SERVICES

        Let me briefly touch on three things. The Foreign
    Commercial Service has been brought up before. I believe in
    their value. I want to work with you to strengthen their
    efficacy and reach. I'm pleased to see you've updated the model
    that's more forward-looking, and it is my hope that the African
    continent will be considered as a place where we are really in
    competition and where I think we need more of the FCS.
        The program I've mentioned to you before. This is very
    small in scale but means a lot to our coastal States, where
    providing some of the support for the operation and maintenance
    of the program helps particularly those of us who have rivers
    where there is navigational challenge. We had put report
    language in or suggested report language last year. I was
    disappointed the operations and maintenance wasn't in this
    year's budget, and I'd love to work with you on that.

               IMPROVING THE FUNCTION OF PATENT AND TRADE OFFICE

        Last, any comments you've got for me on the Patent and
    Trademark Office. Ending fee diversion was something that was a
    key piece of the American Invents Act. Making sure the Patent
    and Trademark Office is strong and that patents are high
    quality, and that they are being issued in a timely and
    appropriate manner is a real concern to me. I just, in closing,
    would love to hear your thoughts on how we can ensure an
    appropriately funded, fully functioning, strong Patent and
    Trademark Office.

                             PATENT FEE COLLECTION

        Secretary Pritzker. Well, let me comment on the Patent and
    Trademark Office. Our expectation is that we'll receive about
    $3.4 billion worth of fees this coming year, and that will
    allow us to do a number of things.
        First of all, really address the IT system, which needs
    investment--that was something that was a casualty in the
    fiscal year 2013 situation--so that more easily our examiners
    can access prior art and better understand that, as well as
    streamline the relationship with the patent applicants. One.
        Two, we are planning to expand by 1,000 patent examiners.
    We need to do that. We have a backlog which is not at the place
    we want it to be. We currently have a backlog of about 600,000
    patent applications. We'd like to run with a backlog of about
    450,000. We think that's the right balance of inventory to keep
    our workforce fully deployed, if you will, and that's something
    that we're very, very focused on, the IT system. The additional
    examiners will help us bring that down significantly over the
    next several years.
        And then the other thing that we're doing is we have
    developed an operating reserve, which is something that we
    think is very important, so that as the economy fluctuates up
    and down--a patent examiner is someone that receives, when we
    hire someone, an enormous amount of training. And what we don't
    want to do is if the economy goes up and down, we don't want to
    let go of our very valued human capital because of a
    fluctuation in the economy one year.
        So the reserve is something that we believe in this year's
    fees will allow us to be able to have a good cushion as the
    economy fluctuates.
        So the Patent and Trademark Office is making great
    progress. There is work to be done, but I have a lot of
    confidence in the leadership we have there.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good luck on
    your upcoming trip to Ghana and Nigeria. I very much look
    forward to hearing about it.
        Secretary Pritzker. I am very excited about it, and thank
    you for all the advice and help you've given us.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Before Senator Coons goes, I want to
    raise this issue about the Patent Office and its fees. You said
    the fiscal year 2013 situation. Didn't you mean sequester?

                               PATENT OFFICE FEES

        Secretary Pritzker. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Didn't the Patent Office have access to
    the fees that were being paid in sequester, or were they denied
    access to fees?
        Secretary Pritzker. There was an amount that was set aside
    that we did not have access to. We feel that the fiscal year
    2015 or the $3.4 billion in fees that we expect this year will
    help address the issues that we experienced back then.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm going to raise the fee issue.
    There are two important agencies that are crucial to
    innovation, in taking products to market and protecting
    intellectual property and the safety of people, the FDA and the
    Patent Office. My biotech community, which is a very thriving
    community, feels they stand in two lines to get approved, FDA
    and the Patent Office.
        So we struggle with backlogs. Both are funded by user fees.
    FDA, under sequester, did not have access to the user fees. The
    biotech, the pharma, the medical device community was
    ballistic. They're paying fees. They think they were going to
    get value--the reason they're paying fees was to get the
    trained workforce that they needed with the new innovative
    technology. They didn't have access.
        Right now, Dr. Hamburg's got $225 million worth of fees she
    thinks she's going to have for this year and maybe into 2016.
    Remember, we have not canceled sequester.
        So then we go to your Patent Office, which is really our
    Patent Office. It is crucial to every new idea, every new
    product, every new thing that could come out of Maine,
    Delaware, Maryland, our great universities, all the things you
    just talked about.
        So here is my question. I worry about this, and I really
    think OMB has to worry about this. And I think they have to
    come to grips with what we would hope--many of us want to work
    on a bipartisan basis to permanently cancel sequester. That
    would be my goal, so that every year talented managers that we
    ask to come into government, like yourself, are not worried
    about sequester, you're worried about fulfilling the mission.
        But if we go to the private sector, we're asking them to
    pay fees so they can have the capacity to fulfill the mission,
    which is patents, food safety, and the safety of
    pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices. They should be
    able to get what they're paying for.
        So I would encourage you to join with Dr. Mary Hamburg at
    FDA and go to OMB and say--not for this year--thanks to the
    Murray-Ryan budget, again, a bipartisan effort, we're able to
    move ahead with this bill, but I'm looking ahead also to 2016
    so that we keep the momentum going in our economy.
        We've come a long way since the economic collapse. We know
    unemployment is going down. We know the deficit is going down.
    We know that the debt is going down. We want to keep that
    momentum going.
        One of the ways to keep it going is to make sure where some
    of the greatest innovation is occurring in our economy is able
    to have access to the government agencies they need to either
    get approval or protect their intellectual property, and
    they're paying for it, not only with their taxes but with an
    additional thing, a fee.
        So if we could get--and I'm going to be raising this with
    Director Burwell herself, that we need to make sure that if
    sequester continues, which I hope it does not, and we'll work
    hard for it not to, that those where fees are paid are not
    disadvantaged, because the private sector says we work with you
    to create a fee structure that is reasonable, rational and
    achievable, and then we put the money in the pot and they can't
    access it.
        So, we can't have this. It's counter-intuitive to what we
    want to do. So I really encourage that to my colleagues to be
    able to raise this because there are also other fees. But these
    are really the two very important ones that I think have a
    direct impact on jobs and also the direct impact on our
    economy, and we look forward to working with you and the
    administration on solving this.
        Well, I think we've covered a lot of ground here today. The
    Department of Commerce has 11 different agencies in it, from
    taking the Census to minority business development. It's a lot
    to keep an eye on. Did you feel like this was a pop quiz?
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we wish you well in your trade
    missions----
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. And really working
    throughout these agencies to really, again, create the kind of
    jobs that we need to create.
        I thank you very much for participating.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions, Senators may submit
    additional questions to the subcommittee for the official
    record. We request that the Department of Commerce respond to
    our colleagues within 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Penny Pritzker
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                          financial management system
        Question. The switch to a new accounting software system, the
    Business Application Solutions project (BAS), aims to consolidate the
    12 different systems that the Department of Commerce currently uses for
    managing finances, acquisitions, grants, and properties.
        What is the Department doing to manage the risks and ensure the
    system is not a techno-boondoggle?
        Answer. The project has a robust risk management plan that
    documents the processes, tools and procedures that are being used to
    manage and control project risks. The Department of Commerce utilizes a
    risk register which: evaluates enterprise and project risk impact,
    likelihood, and severity; identifies alternatives to achieve cost,
    schedule, and performance goals; supports informed decisionmaking on
    budget and funding priorities; provides risk information for project
    reviews and milestone decisions; and, establishes continuous monitoring
    of the health of the project over time.
        The BAS project risk is monitored routinely during extensive
    recurring executive review board sessions where risks are transparently
    discussed and mitigation strategies are reviewed and updated as
    warranted.
        In addition, the Project Manager is a Certified Project Management
    Professional (PMP) and both the Program Manager and Project Manager are
    certified as Senior Experts in the Federal Acquisition Certification
    for Program and Project Managers (FAC-P/PM).
        Question. What contingencies are being put in place to address
    delays and unexpected expenses?
        Answer. In accordance with industry standard project management
    methodology, the BAS project scope, cost, and schedule include
    contingencies commensurate with other similar-sized Federal agency
    financial management system implementations identified during market
    research interviews with other Federal agencies. There is planned
    contingency within the BAS project's schedule that would allow Census
    to be delayed until the end of fiscal year 2017 without impact to the
    2020 Decennial. The BAS project implementation approach includes
    multiple planned activities to validate deployment readiness, including
    mock conversions, significant system and user acceptance testing and
    comprehensive end user training. Any issues identified during these
    activities will be documented, actively tracked and remediation
    solutions enacted. As part of our risk assessment activities, we
    maintain a list of alternative options that is updated throughout the
    project to use if remediation activities are deemed necessary. (Note:
    BAS inserted a 5 percent management cost reserve).
                                truck scrapping
        Question. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement has helped to
    broaden our trade relationship with Colombia, and the Colombian heavy
    duty truck market is very important for America's manufacturers.
    However, following the trade agreement, American truck manufacturers
    have been harmed by Colombia's adoption of a restrictive series of
    decrees regarding the scrapping and registration of commercial
    vehicles. These regulations appear to violate both the spirit and
    letter of Colombia's obligations under the bilateral Trade Promotion
    Agreement and its commitments to international obligations under the
    World Trade Organization.
        What steps has the Commerce Department taken to restore American
    truck exports to Colombia?
        Answer. The Department has been working to address the changes in
    Colombia's truck scrapping program since April of 2013. We have worked
    with other U.S. Federal agencies, including the Department of State and
    the Office of the United States Trade Representative, to analyze the
    scrapping requirements, including their legal basis, their impact on
    U.S. trade, and the political situation in Colombia leading to the
    increasingly restrictive decrees.
        The Department is working with other U.S. Government agencies and
    industry to address the problems with the new scrapping regime. These
    efforts have also included coordinating with the European Union, Japan
    and Mexico, as well as engaging in outreach to the Organization for
    Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which is considering
    Colombia for membership. The Department raised the issue at the
    Ministerial level during President Santo's trip to the United States in
    December. Most recently, the Department worked to arrange and
    participate in a March meeting between members of U.S. industry and
    Colombian High Counselor Jaime Bueno, Vice Minister of Trade Claudia
    Candela, and Vice Minister of Transportation Nicols Estupian. This
    March meeting has led to follow-up meetings between industry and senior
    Colombian officials.
        Question. Is the Department satisfied with the Colombian response
    to date?
        Answer. No. However, industry recently reported that follow up
    talks to the March meeting have been constructive and offer hope for a
    positive outcome. The Department will continue to explore ways to
    effectively engage the Colombian authorities on this issue.
        Question. Does the Department plan to undertake additional steps to
    resolve this dispute?
        Answer. The Department is continuing to engage the Colombian
    Government on this issue on behalf of U.S. industry. Actions are being
    considered as needed to help reopen this important market.
                         nist cyber-security framework
        Question. NIST issued the Framework for Improving Critical
    Infrastructure Cybersecurity in February 2014.
        How are you encouraging ``critical'' U.S. infrastructure to adopt
    the Framework?
        Answer. NIST plans to work with industry, the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS), and other Government agencies to support and
    improve the Framework. The Framework is a living document that will
    evolve based on industry feedback, and best practices, including
    changes in the threat environment, as well as changes in information
    technology and cybersecurity capabilities.
        Question. NIST also issues standards and guidelines for Government
    systems. How are those standards being aligned with the Framework?
        Answer. As noted in our companion publication, ``NIST Roadmap for
    Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity,'' NIST will continue
    to serve as a convener and coordinator to work with industry, DHS, and
    other Government agencies to help organizations understand, use and
    improve the Framework. In addition, Executive Order 13636 called for
    the Framework to ``identify areas for improvement that should be
    addressed through future collaboration with particular sectors and
    standards-developing organizations.'' Based on stakeholder input, NIST
    continues to work with stakeholders on high-priority areas for
    development, alignment, and collaboration that will inform future
    revisions of the Framework.
        As the Framework evolves, NIST will lead discussions of models for
    future governance of the Framework, such as potential transfer of the
    convener role to a non-government organization, while maintaining NIST
    involvement.
        Question. What does the Department of Commerce need to do to secure
    its IT systems so it can become the role model for protecting dot-gov?
        Answer. The Department is the principal defender and champion of
    the digital economy in the Federal Government. It plays a critical role
    in working with industry and other government stakeholders on the
    development of cybersecurity standards to help protect the Nation's
    critical infrastructure assets. Within the Department of Commerce, the
    Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has developed a cyber
    security strategic plan that establishes the mission, vision, goals and
    objectives as an effort to establish itself as a role model for
    protecting dot-gov.
        In doing so, the Department has embraced the President's Cyber
    Security Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) initiatives, in collaboration with
    the Department of Homeland Security, in information security continuous
    monitoring, trusted Internet connection capabilities and traffic
    consolidation, and strong logical access authentication using Homeland
    Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-12) Personal Identify
    Verification (PIV) cards. Strengthening these key areas, as well as
    maintaining best-practices in cyber security policy, workforce
    training, and compliance, will ensure the Department continues to
    protect the Department's information and information systems, and
    remains a role model for protecting dot-gov.
        Last but not least, as an effort to achieve operational excellence
    set forth by the Department's Cyber Security Strategic Plan, the
    Department's Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council is recommending
    an enterprise security shared-service portfolio approach delivering
    efficient and effective solutions.
                                trade promotion
        Question. The fiscal year 2015 request for the International Trade
    Administration is 8 percent above the fiscal year 2014 level of $470
    million, including a $7 million increase the Interagency Trade
    Enforcement Center and a $13 million increase for SelectUSA. However,
    the President's fiscal year 2015 request has only a 1 percent increase
    for expanding trade promotion through the U.S. and Foreign Commercial
    Service, and the request does not propose opening any new overseas
    offices.
        If the trade promotion budget stays flat, how will the
    International Trade Administration (ITA) reevaluate its Overseas
    Resource Allocation Model (ORAM) to ensure that Commercial Service
    Officers are posted in the most promising export markets?
        Answer. ITA uses the Overseas Resource Allocation Model (ORAM) and
    the Gap and Opportunity (GO) Analysis to inform staffing decisions.
    Whether or not the trade promotion budget stays flat, then Global
    Markets will continue to utilize both quantitative and qualitative data
    gathered from these resource allocation tools to make informed staffing
    decisions that ensure the proper allocation of existing resources,
    including the movement of resources, especially Foreign Commercial
    Service Officers. ITA updates the ORAM on an annual basis to ensure
    that the most up-to-date data, including growth projections, are
    included in the model. The model uses economic data to rank countries
    on two indices--market size and market structure. These two indices are
    then weighted and combined to generate a composite index that allows
    the model to group countries into three tiers based on overall
    rankings. The results generated by the model are intended to be used as
    a starting point for identifying countries with the highest potential
    as a destination for U.S. exports. The model does not attempt to
    estimate an absolute level of ``appropriate'' staffing for each market
    or take into consideration the budgetary climate. Rather, the focus is
    on providing objective economic data in a consistent and rigorous
    analytical structure for allocating available resources.
        In addition to the ORAM, Global Markets utilizes the GO Analysis to
    gather qualitative data to assist senior leadership with staffing
    decisions. The GO Analysis is designed to gather primary data from the
    overseas field, providing insight to challenges and opportunities at
    each post. The GO survey allows for a formal, standardized channel for
    overseas offices to request additional support.
        The qualitative data from the GO Survey and the quantitative ORAM
    data is combined to develop country summaries, which are further
    reviewed by senior leadership, including regional leadership, before
    any resource allocation recommendations are made.
        Final staffing decisions are made by senior leaders, who after
    evaluating both the ORAM and GO survey take budgetary and any other
    factors into consideration.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                           fisheries--western region
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) plays a significant role in California. NMFS is tasked with
    managing and protecting endangered salmon species, and thus it
    participates in every major decision involving the State and Federal
    water projects in California to balance water needs for fish, the
    environment, farms, and communities.
        As I understand it, NMFS is involved in the Bay Delta Conservation
    Plan, revision of the remanded salmon biological opinion, emergency
    water operations for the current drought, and a variety of salmon
    restoration and management programs.
        In your view, is the current budget allocated to the Western Region
    of NMFS adequate to keep pace with the demands of the various
    California water initiatives?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries' work in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
    watersheds occurs in three main program areas:

      --Regulatory and Administrative functions for the Central Valley/
            State water project;
      --Endangered Species Act (ESA) administration for the broader suite
            of actions across the entire Central Valley/San Joaquin
            geography; and
      --Monitoring and technical support associated with these two areas.

        NOAA Fisheries has a long history of working with its partners to
    fulfill its goals in the Sacramento and San Joaquin watersheds. These
    partners include the State of California and the Bureau of Reclamation.
    While the recent drought has increased short-term stress on completing
    regulatory requirements and highlighted the need for a more
    comprehensive management of the system focused on the long-term
    protection and recovery of salmonids, NOAA Fisheries has been able to
    keep pace with the demands of the various California water initiatives
    through its partnership efforts.
        Question. Can you please provide me with a detailed breakdown of
    your activities, the resources required, and the funding gaps to meet
    your obligations?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries focuses resources on highest priority
    actions in the California Central Valley. Activities are supported by
    the ESA Pacific Salmon budget line. The fiscal year 2014 budget
    includes approximately $6.6 million from the line for activities in the
    California Central Valley. Actions are focused on three primary
    activity areas: (1) Endangered Species Act (ESA) review and permitting,
    (2) ESA administration, and (3) monitoring and science. See below for a
    breakdown of current activities.

      --Approximately $180,000 to assist in the immediate drought response
            effort.
      --Approximately $400,000 per year supports biological opinion remand
            effort, now due in February 2018.
      --Approximately $5.0 million supports ESA administration across the
            Central Valley.
      --Approximately $1.0 million in funds are being used to support
            monitoring and science.
      --Current work on the life cycle model is being funded through an
            interagency agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for
            $1.4 million.
      --NOAA Fisheries is also conducting 3-year predation experiment
            funded by the by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
            for $2.0 million.

        The fiscal year 2015 budget includes level funding for these
    activities.

        Question. Besides operation of the State and Federal water
    projects, what other factors have you identified as the major
    influences and drivers of the health and abundance of salmon?
        Answer. In addition to the impacts associated with the construction
    and operation of the Central Valley Project/State Water Project
    facilities, other main factors limiting the health and abundance of
    salmon in the Central Valley include:

      --the loss of the majority of spawning and rearing habitat by dams;
      --the loss of floodplain and riparian habitat availability along the
            main rivers and tributaries resulting from levee construction
            and maintenance;
      --the loss of wetland habitat in the Delta;
      --predation by non-native species;
      --hatchery production causing reduced fitness of wild fish;
      --the commercial and recreational ocean salmon fisheries;
      --poor water quality resulting from agricultural and urban land use;
            and
      --changing river and ocean conditions due to climate change.

        Question. What has your Department done to address non-water
    project factors?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries is the Federal agency responsible for
    managing, conserving, and protecting living marine resources in inland,
    coastal, and offshore waters of the United States. NOAA Fisheries is
    contributing to the recovery of salmon and rebuilding of the Central
    Valley aquatic systems through its West Coast Region's California
    Central Valley Area Office. We work in the Central Valley river basins
    to protect species listed under the Endangered Species Act by
    evaluating the impact of proposed Federal actions, developing recovery
    plans, seeking conservation partnerships with local governments and
    landowners, and ensuring safe fish passage.
        Pacific salmon have a unique life cycle that includes time in both
    inland and ocean habitats. They have particular needs at each stage of
    this cycle. Young salmon need clean, cool water and safe passage to the
    ocean, where they spend 3 to 6 years feeding and growing. They then
    need healthy habitat when they return to freshwater as adults to spawn.
    The work of NOAA Fisheries reflects the uniqueness of the salmon life
    cycle with biologists and engineers who:

      --restore and protect important freshwater habitat for healthy
            rearing and spawning of salmon, such as riparian areas and
            floodplains;
      --design safe fish passage solutions at hydropower facilities, such
            as Federal and non-Federal dams requiring Federal licenses, and
            at water diversions throughout California;
      --manage hatcheries to minimize impacts on wild salmon populations;
            and
      --work with States and tribes to ensure sustainable commercial,
            recreational, and tribal fisheries.
                        fisheries--real-time monitoring
        Question. It is my understanding that real-time monitoring of
    salmon throughout its life cycle can be extremely beneficial not only
    for managing the fish, but also for enabling more precise water
    operations. However, I have been told that NMFS's real-time monitoring
    capabilities are very limited right now.
        What are the obstacles to developing and deploying the real-time
    monitoring tools?
        Answer. Obstacles to real time monitoring of salmon include access
    limitations on private lands and labor intensive efforts and equipment
    needed over the long-term to collect the data. To take advantage of the
    best available real-time monitoring tools, an extensive fish tagging
    program is needed. Program needs include development of protocols,
    equipment (e.g., tags), adequate numbers of fish and a release strategy
    for tagged fish. In addition, receivers to detect fish movement would
    need to be installed in key locations. The receivers must be monitored
    frequently to ensure data transmission and operation is correct and the
    data must be carefully scrutinized to properly identify fish
    detections.
        Real-time monitoring requires either direct biologist reporting
    and/or remote reporting (e.g., fish tags and receiving stations in the
    river to monitor fish movements) of information on a daily (or more
    frequent) basis to inform decisionmaking needed by agency managers at
    NOAA Fisheries, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other
    Federal and State agencies. Frequently, other information (e.g., flow
    gauge information and water release data) related to understanding the
    impacts of water operations on salmon does not require daily reporting,
    but is needed in a timely fashion to inform the real-time management
    cycle. Currently, NOAA Fisheries partners with State and other Federal
    agencies who are already collecting the information.
        For salmon in coastal watersheds of California, NOAA Fisheries is
    engaged in technical, management, and policy discussions with the State
    of California regarding the State's Coastal Monitoring Plan. This Plan
    aims to document in real-time the status and trends of coastal
    California salmonids throughout their life cycles, and the condition of
    freshwater and estuarine habitats. However, the Plan currently lacks
    long-term State funding, dedicated staff, and able stakeholders to
    participate in monitoring.
        Question. What is needed to overcome these obstacles, and by when
    do you think you can achieve these capabilities?
        Answer. The first thing that is needed is a long term monitoring
    and science plan. As identified in the Bureau of Reclamation
    (Reclamation) and the California Department of Water Resources' Drought
    Operations Plan for April through November 2014, due to the necessity
    of rapid management decisions to achieve potential benefits to water
    storage or the conservation of species, agencies (including NOAA
    Fisheries) are interested in greater real-time operational
    decisionmaking, which the current monitoring system does not adequately
    address. To meet these real-time information needs, State and Federal
    agencies have committed to developing a robust multi-objective
    emergency fisheries monitoring and science plan, which includes
    improvements to current technology, to significantly improve the
    ability to make real-time operational decisions. NOAA Fisheries is
    developing additional temperature monitoring capabilities in the
    upstream Sacramento River area this summer. In addition, tools and
    research are also needed to improve understanding of biological effects
    associated with water operations regardless of hydrologic conditions.
    This overall plan will be developed by October 1, 2014, through a
    collaborative process led by NOAA Fisheries and the California
    Department of Water Resources in coordination with the other agencies.
    Once the plan is developed, NOAA can best determine what is needed on
    its part to move forward to monitor salmon in real time, in partnership
    with State and other Federal agencies.
                         fisheries--california drought
        Question. In the meantime, NMFS has been involved in discussions
    about emergency water operations to address California's drought
    conditions.
        Besides the operational plan released jointly by State and Federal
    agencies last week, what other actions do you plan to take to assist
    California during this historic drought?
        Answer. NOAA Fisheries, along with our Federal and State
    colleagues, are working diligently to balance all water needs while
    ensuring protections for threatened and endangered species, including
    Central Valley winter and spring-run Chinook salmon, Coastal California
    coho salmon, southern California steelhead, and the southern population
    of North American green sturgeon. Key concerns for these species
    include providing adequate cold water for salmon spawning and rearing
    and maintaining sufficient carryover storage in the event that drought
    conditions persist. Working with partners, NOAA is applying flexible
    management measures to meet multiple demands. For example, we recently
    worked with Sacramento River Settlement Contractors on options to shift
    a significant portion of their diversions this year out of the April
    and May period and into the timeframe where Keswick releases are higher
    to achieve temperature objectives on the upper Sacramento River. This
    will have benefits for both fish species and agriculture.
        In addition to the current Drought Operations Plan, the
    Administration released a white paper entitled, ``Federal Program
    Support For the California Bay-Delta Region'', which describes the wide
    array of Federal activities and programs across several agencies, that
    complement the California Water Action Plan and goals for the Bay-Delta
    and the rest of the State. The white paper is available at: http://
    www.doi.gov/news/upload/Federal-Investments-for-the-California-Bay-
    Delta-
    Region.pdf.
        Question. Do I have your personal commitment that you will do
    everything within your authority to exercise maximum flexibility under
    the law so that more water supplies can be made available to California
    such that our farms and communities will not bear a disparate burden in
    the regulation of California's water resources?
        Answer. Droughts are hard on everyone, and we concur with the basic
    tenet that everyone ``share the pain'' in a drought farmers, urban
    residents, commercial fisherman, and the species that we work so hard
    to protect. In this extraordinarily dry year, all water users,
    including agricultural, municipal, and fish and wildlife uses will
    suffer hardship. Since December 2013, NOAA Fisheries has worked daily
    with other State and Federal agencies that supply water, protect fish
    and wildlife, and regulate water quality to cope with this serious
    drought in California. Together, along with our State and Federal
    colleagues, we have maximized regulatory flexibility to adjust quickly
    to changes in the weather and environment and bolster water supplies
    when possible while minimizing impacts to fish and wildlife.
    Importantly, this rapid intra- and inter-agency coordination has sought
    to make real-time decisions within the existing regulatory framework
    rather than waive or overrun applicable law. We share common goals with
    our Federal and State partners and seek to ensure the best possible use
    of limited water supplies.
        We are currently exploring ways in which we can work directly with
    water users and apply regulatory flexibilities to help reduce the
    negative effects of the drought on species listed under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA) while also supporting California's agricultural
    activities. During the drought, water withdrawals from salmon and
    steelhead-bearing streams and rivers could result in a take under the
    ESA, and we are looking to work in partnership with individual water
    users to help them identify steps they can take to avoid the risk of
    takes. You have our commitment that collectively, with our partners in
    State and Federal agencies, as well as with other organizations and
    individuals, we will continue to work to meet health and human safety
    needs, legal requirements, and conservation objectives.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Mark L. Pryor
                          unfair steel trade practices
        Question. The U.S. Department of Commerce is responsible for
    conducting antidumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD)
    investigations as well as 5-year sunset reviews under Title VII of the
    Tariff Act of 1930. These investigations are triggered when U.S.
    companies bring cases against foreign competitors when they dump their
    products in our market by selling at less than fair value or when they
    receive government subsidies to undercut U.S. competitors in violation
    of U.S. trade law. Moreover, these laws are an integral part of ``the
    rules-based international trading system,'' and they are the last vital
    defense for U.S. manufacturing against foreign unfair trade.
        The first case involves sophisticated, high end steel pipe (Oil
    Country Tubular Goods) used in drilling for oil and natural gas which
    was brought against exports from a number of different countries
    including Korea. Exports from Korea have surged after 2009 when U.S.
    companies successfully brought a similar case against Chinese
    manufacturers over dumping the same product. As Chinese exports fell to
    almost nothing, exports from Korea have surged over the last 4 years.
    Korea is effectively targeting our market since it does not sell this
    product domestically or (in substantial volumes) to other nations.
    Ninety-eight percent of what is produced in Korea is exported directly
    to the United States.
        Currently there are two countervailing duty and antidumping
    investigations being conducted by the United States Department of
    Commerce on imports of steel reinforcing bar (rebar) from Turkey and
    Mexico. Imports from Turkey and Mexico of rebar have nearly doubled
    from 2011 to 2013. The International Trade Commission recently found
    that Mexican and Turkish rebar producers are consistently underselling
    U.S. producers which has resulted in substantial lost sales and
    depressed prices. In addition, the Department of Commerce made a
    preliminary finding that the Government of Turkey gives energy
    subsidies to its rebar industry, but that such subsidies are only de
    minimus in value. You led a letter on this issue that went out this
    week.
        I have been closely following three separate steel dumping cases,
    one involving high end pipe for drilling and two involving rebar. Both
    of these cases are now pending before the Department and are critically
    important to companies and workers in my State. I know you can't
    comment specifically on any of these cases but I have to tell you that
    domestic producers in my State are raising a lot of red flags. It is
    important to me that we get this right since the industry collectively
    employs over 1,800 people and another 500 contract workers in my State
    alone.
        These investigations are a huge responsibility for the Department
    and I understand that these cases are extremely resource-intensive. I
    know domestic companies prosecuting these cases have had difficulty
    getting complete and accurate information from foreign producers, have
    complained about repeated extensions of time given to foreign producers
    to supply information, and about the difficulty U.S. companies then
    have in litigating dumping cases when they only have access to partial
    and untimely data.
        Question. How many investigators do you have on staff and how many
    investigators would be assigned to a typical case?
        Answer. The Department is fully committed to enforcing our trade
    remedy laws so that American industries and workers have the
    opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their foreign
    competitors. The enforcement of the antidumping duty (AD) and
    countervailing duty (CVD) trade remedy laws is one of the Department's
    top priorities. The Department has received numerous steel-related
    petitions in the past months and it is currently conducting 39
    investigations involving steel products from a number of countries. The
    Department has devoted significant resources to these cases to ensure
    that unfair trade practices are identified and remedied at the border.
    Each investigation has unique facts. As such, the number of experts
    that may be assigned to a proceeding will vary from case to case.
    Typically, however, a case team will be staffed by 6 to 8 experts.
        With respect to the ongoing cases on steel products, including
    those on oil country tubular goods and rebar, the Department's
    Enforcement and Compliance Unit, whose primary mission is conducting
    these trade cases, is focused on these matters and is diligently
    scrutinizing the information on the record of this proceeding in order
    to identify the extent of any unfair dumping or subsidization.
        Question. Do you have adequate resources to conduct investigations
    on these matters?
        Answer. With respect to the question of whether the Department has
    adequate resources to conduct these investigations, Enforcement and
    Compliance currently has approximately 115 international trade
    compliance analysts, 23 policy analysts, 20 accountants, and 27 legal
    experts who are tasked with investigating allegations of dumping and
    unfair subsidization. The Department supports the request of the
    President as reflected in his budget proposal and will ensure that the
    vigorous enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws remains a top priority.
    The Department will continue to conduct all antidumping and
    countervailing duty investigations in a thorough transparent manner, in
    accordance with U.S. law and our international obligations.
        Question. In a case like the Korea Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)
    matter, how many Department of Commerce investigators would travel to
    Korea to conduct the investigation and how long would they be on site?
        Answer. A large portion of the Department's work in an
    investigation or administrative review takes place in the United
    States, with the Department analyzing information that foreign
    producers or exporters provide in response to questionnaires issued by
    the Department. In addition, in accordance with U.S. law, the
    Department verifies information relied upon in making a final
    determination in AD and CVD investigations or the final results of an
    administrative review if certain requirements are met. Typically, two
    analysts and two accountants conduct on-site verifications of each
    responding company's sales and cost of production information. The
    verification process, which may take one week or more, is designed to
    focus on a prioritized, cross section of information, and to check the
    validity of the factual information submitted by the respondent in the
    questionnaire response and confirm whether the Department can rely on
    the factual information to make its final determination.
        Question. As Secretary of Commerce, will you commit to making
    enforcement of our trade laws a top priority of the Department?
        Answer. Yes. The Department takes seriously the enforcement of our
    trade laws which provide U.S. manufacturers a means to remedy the
    market-distorting effects of unfair dumping and subsidization. The
    Department is fully committed to vigorously enforcing our trade laws
    and to addressing unfair trade practices in accordance with our
    statutes, regulations, and international obligations in order to help
    ensure that U.S. firms and workers have the opportunity to compete on a
    level playing field.
        Question. Will you take the lead--in multilateral and bilateral
    negotiations in defending, preserving and enhancing U.S. laws against
    unfair trade, and in opposing any efforts to weaken these laws?
        Answer. The Department strongly supports the goal of defending,
    preserving and enhancing U.S. trade laws. The Department works closely,
    and will continue to work closely, with the Office of the U.S. Trade
    Representative to ensure that any bilateral, multilateral or regional
    trade negotiations pursued by the United States do not undermine the
    strength and effectiveness of the U.S. unfair trade remedies, so that
    U.S. manufacturers, exporters, agricultural interests and workers all
    share the benefits that such trade agreements bring.
                     regional innovation strategies program
        Question. I am pleased to see that the Department's fiscal year
    2015 budget requests $25 million for the Regional Innovation Strategies
    Program. This funding is to be used for both grants and the science
    park loan guarantees authorized in Section 603 of the America COMPETES
    Reauthorization Act of 2010. I am also pleased to learn that the
    Economic Development Administration (EDA) is standing up a loan
    guarantee program for the science park and advanced manufacturing loan
    guarantees.
        How will this funding be apportioned between the grants and the
    loan guarantees?
        Answer. EDA is currently working to stand up the loan guarantee
    program, which is a substantial process that includes the development
    of regulations that will govern program administration. This process is
    expected to take until late 2015, at which time EDA expects to be able
    to provide its first loan guarantees. In the meantime, EDA plans to
    provide competitive grant funding through the Regional Innovation
    Strategies (RIS) program throughout fiscal year 2015 in order to
    accelerate the economic impact of the program. Fund apportionment
    between the grants and loan guarantees will be based on demand for each
    from potential applicants. At this point, it is clear that there will
    be a strong demand for grant funding, while demand for loan guarantees
    will become clearer as EDA moves further along in the program
    development process throughout 2014 and 2015. EDA will have an outreach
    campaign to industry and lenders by January of 2015. EDA would be
    pleased to provide updates on levels of demand for loan guarantees,
    which will inform the process for funding apportionments between grants
    and loan guarantees.
        Question. What results have been realized from the previous rounds
    of the I6 and Jobs & Accelerator grants?
        Answer. EDA has made a number of planning and implementation
    investments in science park projects in recent years across the
    country. For example, last year, EDA awarded a grant to the University
    of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, to support the development and
    implementation of a regional economic development analysis and
    determination of opportunities associated with the 2015 opening of the
    University of Connecticut's Technology Park, which will promote
    economic growth opportunities statewide. EDA also provided funding last
    year to Prairie View A&M University, Prairie View, Texas, to support
    the development and implementation of the Prairie View Comprehensive
    Economic Development Strategy through a collaboration of the various
    academic departments, city officials, and business stakeholders to help
    establish a science and technology research park as an innovative way
    to enhance the area's economy.
        Question. What is the status of the loan guarantee program? When
    will it be operational? When will the Department issue a Federal
    funding opportunity?
        Answer. Planning for these programs is well underway, and EDA has
    consulted with other Federal agencies on best practices for how to
    implement a successful program. EDA is moving forward with standing up
    the science park loan guarantee program and the loan guarantee program
    for innovative manufacturing. A contractor has been hired to help set
    up the program including identifying staffing needs and providing a
    detailed timeline of deliverables.
        The timeline for standing up the loan program is still in
    development, so milestone dates are still tentative. EDA expects to
    have a staff hired and begin outreach to industry and lenders by
    January of 2015. Outreach will be done through the distribution of
    marketing materials and outreach to trade associations and lenders. The
    first loan Commitment is expected to happen by the end of calendar year
    2015.
                                rural broadband
        Question. As Chairman of the Communications, Technology,
    Innovation, and the Internet (CTI) Subcommittee, I have jurisdiction
    over the National Telecommunications & Information Administration
    (NTIA), which is housed under the Department of Commerce. Bringing
    high-speed broadband to all rural consumers is vital to the future of
    the Nation. Broadband is the gateway to the worldwide digital economy,
    and offer access to world-class education, healthcare, entertainment,
    and civic engagement.
        Under your leadership, how would the NTIA continue to support
    broadband deployment and adoption as the Recovery Act grant programs
    wind down?
        Answer. The $4 billion in Broadband Technology Opportunities
    Program (BTOP) grants in which NTIA has invested are helping to ensure
    that Americans have the resources and skills needed to benefit from the
    economic, educational, and civic opportunities the Internet makes
    possible. Our broadband grant projects have created or saved thousands
    of jobs while making an immediate economic impact in some of the
    country's hardest hit communities. BTOP projects have already delivered
    approximately 112,000 miles of broadband networks; connected more than
    21,000 schools, libraries, and healthcare facilities to broadband; and
    deployed more than 46,000 computer workstations across the Nation.
    These projects are making a positive difference in the communities they
    serve and laying a foundation for long-term economic growth.
        The President's 2015 budget request builds upon this success by
    repurposing funds saved from the ramping down of the BTOP grant
    program. NTIA will continue oversight of existing grants and will
    utilize our team's expertise to build coalitions and provide needed
    technical expertise to promote expansion of broadband into communities.
    For example, our team will continue to collaborate with and provide
    technical assistance to the network of State broadband leaders and
    offices like Connect Arkansas, even though our grant funding for the
    State Broadband Initiative has ended. Our strategy utilizes a public/
    private partnership concept and builds on the strong working
    relationships developed with broadband providers, municipal
    organizations, innovation economy firms, non-profit organizations,
    foundations, and other Federal stakeholders. By leveraging these
    partnerships, we will develop national strategies that will encourage
    communities to elevate their broadband preparedness and innovation
    readiness, making significant strides toward meeting the
    Administration's broadband and economic development goals. It also
    enables better identification of opportunities to empower community
    leaders and provide them with tools to advance projects which attract
    new business investments and spur economic growth.
        Question. What do you think are the biggest challenges in bringing
    next generation Internet and communications networks to rural America?
        Answer. Geography, population density, cost, and lagging adoption
    are all significant challenges to bringing broadband to rural
    communities. The Department is committed to expanding broadband across
    America as an engine of economic and social growth. The President's
    2015 budget request includes repurposing funds for the purpose of
    working strategically with communities to enable them to fulfill their
    broadband needs.
                                  buy america
        Question. Buy America and Buy American are separate legislation and
    regulation requirements. Buy America applies solely to grants issued by
    the Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration.
    Buy American may be applied to all direct U.S. Federal procurement.
        The Buy American Act of 1933 generally requires Federal agencies to
    purchase ``domestic end products'' and use ``domestic construction
    materials'' on contracts performed in the United States exceeding a
    purchase threshold.
        The Buy America Act which is the popular name for a group of
    domestic content restrictions that have been attached to grant funds
    administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT) generally
    requires that steel, iron, and manufactured products made primarily of
    steel or iron and used in infrastructure projects be produced or
    manufactured in the United States.
        One of the great ways to put Americans back to work is to invest in
    U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure. Buy American laws are a proven
    job creation tool that are broadly supported by the American people and
    State and local governments.
        For too long, too many companies have shipped U.S. jobs overseas.
    Meanwhile, companies that used to make things and hire people and pay
    taxes here in the United States continue to lose out on their share of
    Government contracts.
        In the past few years, more than 3 million manufacturing workers
    have lost their jobs. The Nation's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers has given U.S. infrastructure a
    grade of D. Requiring companies to use Federal money to purchase
    domestic materials and manufactured goods will not harm American
    workers. Quite the contrary, it will provide much-needed jobs to
    millions of Americans and will help restore our Nation's economy.
        What can the Department of Commerce do to promote Buy American
    laws?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce works closely with the Office of
    the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to use U.S. domestic
    content laws to the advantage of U.S. exporters when trying to open
    government procurement markets abroad. The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
    generally prohibits the U.S. Federal Government from procuring goods or
    services from countries with which the United States does not have a
    reciprocal government procurement trade agreement. If our trading
    partners guarantee non-discriminatory treatment in their government
    procurement market for U.S. goods and services, the United States
    reciprocates by waiving the Buy American Act for certain procurements
    in our market.
        Question. Why is the Department not demanding more domestic content
    in the products it buys and the grants it issues?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce follows the United States
    Federal Acquisition Regulations in terms of complying with the Buy
    American Act and the domestic content requirements prescribed in the
    Act.
        Question. How can Congress strengthen Buy American?
        Answer. Whatever action Congress decides to take to strengthen Buy
    American laws should be consistent with our international trade
    obligations, as was done when Congress passed the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009. By having measures consistent with our
    international trade obligations, the United States avoids trade
    disputes with our trading partners that would ultimately punish U.S.
    exporters and workers.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
                                 steel dumping
        Question. Steel producers in my State have alerted me that low
    priced steel products are surging into the U.S. market, leading to
    significant declines in production and sales, and ultimately forcing
    companies to close facilities, lay off workers and cut worker hours.
    They believe these imports are unfairly traded and have filed trade
    cases under our dumping and subsidy laws.
        However, I am concerned that budget constraints at the Department
    threaten to undermine the vigorous application and enforcement of our
    trade laws. For example, over the past several years, the Department
    has been forced to significantly reduce its efforts to verify the
    accuracy of information submitted by foreign producers in trade remedy
    proceedings.
        Can you assure me that the Department will vigorously apply and
    enforce the U.S. trade remedy laws? And do you believe that you have
    adequate resources to do so?
        Answer. The Department is fully committed to enforcing our trade
    remedy laws so that American industries and workers have the
    opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their foreign
    competitors. The enforcement of the antidumping duty and countervailing
    duty trade remedy laws is one of the Department's top priorities. The
    Department has received numerous steel-related petitions in the past
    months and it is currently conducting 39 investigations involving steel
    products from a number of countries. This figure represents roughly 75
    percent of the Department's ongoing investigations and it has devoted
    significant resources to these cases to ensure that unfair trade
    practices are identified and remedied at the border. With respect to
    the ongoing cases on steel products, the Department's Enforcement and
    Compliance Unit, whose primary mission is conducting these trade cases,
    is focused on these matters and is diligently scrutinizing the
    information on the record of these proceedings to identify the extent
    of any unfair dumping or subsidization.
        With respect to whether the Department has the adequate resources
    to enforce U.S. trade remedy laws, the Department supports the request
    of the President as reflected in his budget proposal and will ensure
    that the vigorous enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws remains a top
    priority. The Department will continue to conduct all antidumping and
    countervailing duty investigations in a thorough and transparent
    manner, in accordance with U.S. law and our international obligations.
        Question. Given budgetary constraints, do you agree that the
    Department should prioritize resources for those offices that have a
    primary role in investigating dumped and subsidized imports (for
    example, the office of enforcement and the office of accounting, as
    opposed to the office of AD/CVD policy)? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Department conducts all trade remedy proceedings in a
    thorough manner, in accordance with U.S. law and our international
    obligations. Enforcement and Compliance's Office of Policy and
    Negotiations is an integral part of the Department of Commerce team
    responsible for investigating allegations of unfair dumping and
    subsidization, and also provides valuable counseling and guidance to
    U.S. companies, including small and medium-sized enterprises, that are
    being harmed by foreign unfair trade practices.
                                     ______

              Question Submitted by Senator Senator Jeanne Shaheen
       international trade administration-trans-pacific partnership (tpp)
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, I'm curious to learn more about the
    role of the Department of Commerce in trade negotiations, specifically
    the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). As you know, I am very interested
    in ensuring that manufacturers in New Hampshire and across the country
    are able to compete on a level playing field globally, especially in
    the areas of textile manufacturing and footwear. As the TPP is
    negotiated, we must ensure that we maintain the competitiveness of
    these industries in New Hampshire and the United States.
        As I'm sure you are aware, Vietnam is pressing for a ``relaxed rule
    of origin'' for textiles. This would run counter to the long-held U.S.
    Government position of supporting a Yarn Forward Rule of Origin, which
    would require all textile and apparel manufacturing to be completed in
    countries that are part of TPP. In fact, my colleagues and I in the New
    Hampshire Congressional delegation feel so strongly that we, as you may
    recall, sent a letter in February to you and Ambassador Michael Froman
    about this issue.
        Can you explain the Commerce Department's role in ensuring strong
    textile rules in the TPP, and how your agency interacts with the U.S.
    Trade Representative to support a TPP outcome that will be beneficial
    to textile producers in New Hampshire and across the country?
        Answer. The Department appreciated hearing from you and your
    colleagues in the New Hampshire Congressional delegation on this
    important trade matter. The Department of Commerce's Deputy Assistant
    Secretary for Textiles, Consumer Goods, and Materials has been
    intimately involved in each round of these negotiations, working with
    the Assistant United States Trade Representative (USTR) for Textiles to
    ensure that the concerns of our domestic industry stakeholders are
    addressed. The Administration strongly supports the ``yarn-forward''
    rules of origin and is committed to reaching an agreement in the TPP
    that benefits the textile and apparel industries in all of the partner
    countries, including our own. The U.S. textile negotiating team
    includes textile experts from Customs and Border Protection to make
    sure that the agreements have strong enforcement provisions. The team
    also works in close consultation with U.S. industry and other
    stakeholders to develop a responsible approach to tariff elimination
    that ensures our textile industry will not be competitively
    disadvantaged. The Department will continue to consult with industry
    and other stakeholders on matters of concern.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                                   fisheries
        Question. The Department plays a primary role in the management of
    our Nation's marine fisheries. I am especially interested in this
    because of Alabama's connection to the Gulf of Mexico. Recent reports
    have suggested there may be lasting impacts on the health of different
    fisheries following the 2010 oil spill.
        What is the Department proposing in 2015 to ensure we understand
    the long-term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill and how best to
    address them?
        Answer. The Department is involved in several major initiatives
    that support the environmental and economic recovery of the gulf
    following the Deepwater Horizon spill.
        For the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process conducted
    under the Oil Pollution Act, the Department, through the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), will be working with our
    State and Federal co-trustees to finalize the analysis of data gathered
    as part of the NRDA injury assessment and developing appropriate
    restoration to address oil spill injuries. This process will result in
    a Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan for which a draft will be
    presented to the public for review and a final version presented to the
    Responsible Party as a requirement under Oil Pollution Act.
        Regarding how best to address impacts, NOAA, on behalf of the
    Department, will also be working with the National Fish and Wildlife
    Foundation and our State partners to fulfill our established role under
    the Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund. In this role, the National Fish
    and Wildlife Foundation consults with NOAA for advice in restoration
    project identification and in maximizing environmental benefits of
    those projects. NOAA views this advisory role as a key opportunity to
    support the States to promote a coordinated and successful approach for
    restoring the gulf.
        NOAA is also deeply involved with the RESTORE program. Under
    section 1604 of the RESTORE Act, NOAA is authorized, in consultation
    with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish and administer a
    ``Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Science, Observation, Monitoring,
    and Technology Program'' (informally, the NOAA RESTORE Act Science
    Program). The mission of the RESTORE Act Science Program is to initiate
    and sustain an integrative, holistic understanding of the Gulf of
    Mexico ecosystem and support, to the maximum extent practicable,
    restoration efforts and the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem,
    including its fish stocks, fishing industries, habitat, and wildlife
    through ecosystem research, observation, monitoring, and technology
    development.
        Question. With regards to red snapper fishery in the gulf, will the
    Department take advantage of current technology such as electronic
    monitoring and reporting to increase the amount of real-time data it
    receives to inform management practices for recreational fishermen?
        Answer. The Department has made progress on employing electronic
    reporting for recreational reporting for Gulf of Mexico red snapper, as
    explained below.
    Electronic Reporting on Headboats
        On March 5, 2014, the final rule became effective that requires
    federally permitted headboats in the Gulf of Mexico to submit their
    logbook data to NOAA Fisheries electronically on a weekly basis. The
    purpose for shifting from paper logbooks, which were submitted monthly,
    to weekly electronic reporting was to ensure effort, landings, and
    discard information of federally managed fish are recorded accurately
    and in a timely manner. The intent of the rule is to ensure annual
    catch limits are not exceeded.
        Additionally, in August 2013 NOAA Fisheries approved an exempted
    fishing permit. The exempted fishing permit, which was developed by the
    Gulf Headboat Collaborative, became effective January 1, 2014. The
    intent of the exempted fishing permit is to evaluate a new electronic
    data collection system and test whether an allocation-based management
    system can more effectively achieve conservation and management goals
    than the existing management system. A total of 17 for-hire headboats
    are currently participating in the exempted fishing permit. Vessels are
    required to have a vessel monitoring system, submit an electronic hail
    out before every trip via their vessel monitoring system, submit an
    electronic hail in via their vessel monitoring system before returning
    to report, and submit an electronic logbook to the SE Headboat Survey
    on the day of the trip. These electronic reporting requirements are
    intended to ensure landings are reported in an accurate and timely
    manner and law enforcement and port samplers have opportunities to
    inspect and validate reported landings.
    Electronic Reporting on Charter Boats
        The South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils
    have established a joint technical committee to develop recommendations
    on how to best achieve an electronic reporting system for charter
    vessels. The committee will hold its first meeting in late May and its
    recommendations will be provided for the Councils' consideration by
    December 1, 2014. Meantime, Federal scientists and managers have
    collaborated to prepare a white paper that outlines a range of program
    objectives and alternatives for meeting those objectives to serve as a
    starting point for the committee's deliberations. Decisions by the
    Councils and the Department on the use of electronic reporting in the
    charter fleet for red snapper and other recreationally important
    species will be informed by these recommendations.
    Pilot Studies Using Electronic Reporting for Pulse Fisheries
        The baseline Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) surveys
    conducted by NOAA Fisheries and its partners are designed primarily to
    obtain reliable estimates of annual catch and effort for unit stocks of
    our most important recreational fisheries. Fisheries such as gulf red
    snapper that are intensively prosecuted for short time periods
    (``pulse'' fisheries), or those that are infrequently encountered in
    our sampling (``rare event'' fisheries), are sampled by the MRIP
    baseline surveys, but the results are not usually available until the
    season is well under way or even ended. Moreover, the catch estimates
    for small geographic areas or short time intervals may not be
    sufficiently precise to meet the needs of managers. Recognizing this,
    the NOAA Fisheries MRIP program is conducting a series of workshops
    with Gulf of Mexico management partners to develop and test a number of
    methods, including modification of the current MRIP survey design,
    which may enable collection of supplemental red snapper catch data that
    better fits the needs of the region's managers.
        MRIP has agreed to fund three pilot projects this year two in
    Alabama and one in Texas that will use electronic reporting technology
    to obtain in-season data on red snapper catch. We believe that testing
    these three designs, and others in Florida and Louisiana that were
    reviewed in the workshops, will result in identification of workable
    approaches to supplemental data collection that are more timely and
    better suited to the challenges of red snapper and similarly managed
    fisheries in the future.
                                     trade
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, the Administration is pursuing an
    aggressive trade agenda. This requires resources to ensure we maintain
    a strong position during negotiations, but also tremendous resources in
    the future to enforce and oversee the agreements reached.
        How will closing out a major trade deal such as the Trans-Pacific
    Partnership impact the Department's future budget proposals?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce's International Trade
    Administration (ITA) plays a critical role in supporting the
    negotiation, implementation, and successful operation of trade
    agreements. Specifically, ITA works to:

      --represent the interests of exporters and investors during
            negotiations;
      --engage our trading partners on implementing the agreement's
            guarantees of market access and fair treatment;
      --monitor an agreement's operation to ensure those guarantees are
            being upheld; and
      --conduct outreach on the agreement to promote exports and
            investment.

        The Department is therefore constantly assessing its resource needs
    so that ITA will be able to fulfill its mission in these respects, and
    to ensure that U.S. industry is receiving the full benefit of the
    United States' trade agreements.

        Question. Does the Department consider the future resource needs
    required by new trade deals before entering into new trade
    negotiations?
        Answer. The Department continually endeavors to ensure that it is
    able to carry out its mission with respect to trade agreements,
    including planning for both new trade negotiations and the
    implementation and monitoring of those agreements already in place.
                   trade--economic development administration
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, the Administration is pursuing an
    aggressive trade agenda. This requires resources to ensure we maintain
    a strong position during negotiations, but also tremendous resources in
    the future to enforce and oversee the agreements reached.
        With such an ambitious trade agenda, why has the Department
    proposed cutting support for programs that help American businesses
    deal with the impacts of trade agreements, such as the Economic
    Development Administration's (EDA's) Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
    program?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce is committed to ensuring that we
    provide assistance to American trade impacted communities and firms.
    The lowered funding is a result of working to achieve the best and most
    balanced allocation of fixed dollars in EDA's budget across all of its
    program areas to achieve the best return on investment and greatest
    impact for the communities we serve. To improve the TAA program, EDA is
    establishing a process where the Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers
    (TAACs) will be required to compete on merit for TAA funding. EDA is
    also working with TAACs to achieve greater efficiency and cost savings.
    In addition, EDA is able to help trade-impacted communities and firms
    through its Economic Adjustment Assistance Program, thereby potentially
    reducing the need for TAA funds. Economic Adjustment Assistance is
    EDA's most flexible program and is critical to the agency maintaining
    its ability to effectively and efficiently respond in real time to
    economic dislocations as they occur, including trade impacts.
                       polar satellite program robustness
        Question. There exists a real risk for catastrophe should JPSS-1
    fail. I find it unacceptable that a program so critical to the safety
    of our Nation should be one failure away from catastrophe.
        Secretary Pritzker, what is the Department proposing in its 2015
    budget to increase the robustness of the JPSS program to ensure that
    NOAA can fulfill its weather forecasting mission in the event of a
    failure?
        Answer. The Administration remains focused on increasing the
    robustness of our polar orbiting weather satellite program and
    mitigating the potential impacts to NOAA's National Weather Service
    (NWS) forecasts, services and products in the event a gap materializes.
    The fiscal year 2015 President's budget allows NOAA to do three things
    to increase the robustness of the polar program. First, the budget
    provides sufficient funds to ensure the primary satellite providing
    operational weather data in the afternoon polar orbit, Suomi NPP, is
    operated and managed to maximize the length of its mission life.
    Second, the budget keeps the JPSS-1 spacecraft on track to launch no
    later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2017. Finally, the budget
    allows the JPSS program to purchase additional, critical long lead sub-
    assemblies and parts to support the build of spare ATMS (Advanced
    Technology Microwave Sounder) and CrIS (Cross-track Infrared Sounder)
    instruments, while also protecting the accelerated JPSS-2 schedules.
    These two instruments ATMS and CrIS are the most critical to the NWS.
        The Department recognizes the need to build robustness into the
    JPSS program to maintain observations in the event of a loss of a
    satellite in the afternoon polar orbit. The formulation and
    acceleration of follow-on missions is a critical component of NOAA's
    strategy to reduce the likelihood of a gap in satellite data through a
    more robust JPSS architecture. NOAA is looking at recommendations made
    by the NESDIS Enterprise Independent Review Team's (IRT) for a robust
    polar follow-on program and a Gap Filler mission to guard against a gap
    in polar data beyond JPSS-1. The Administration acknowledges that the
    first step in any decision is the procurement of long lead parts for
    ATMS and CrIS as quickly as possible.
                            satellite gap mitigation
        Question. The Commerce IG and GAO anticipate a gap in critical data
    from polar orbiting satellites. This would be detrimental to the safety
    of millions of Americans. This is an issue we discussed with your
    predecessor last year and unfortunately, I have not seen any movement
    by the Department that indicates steps have been taken to address the
    potential gap. Great focus has been placed on redundancy but the same
    cannot be said for closing or eliminating the gap.
        Would you describe how the Department's 2015 budget proposal would
    mitigate the impacts of a gap in polar satellite data?
        Answer. The most important way to mitigate a gap in polar satellite
    data is to increase the robustness of the Nation's polar orbiting
    weather satellite program. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget
    allows NOAA to do three things to increase the robustness of the polar
    program. First, the budget provides sufficient funds to ensure the
    primary satellite providing operational weather data in the afternoon
    polar orbit, Suomi NPP, is operated and managed to maximize the length
    of its mission life. Second, the budget keeps the JPSS-1 spacecraft on
    track to launch no later than the second quarter of fiscal year 2017.
    Finally, the budget allows the JPSS program to purchase additional,
    critical long lead sub-assemblies and parts to support the build of
    spare ATMS (Advanced Technology Microwave Sounder) and CrIS (Cross-
    track Infrared Sounder) instruments, while also protecting the
    accelerated JPSS-2 schedules. These two instruments ATMS and CrIS are
    the most critical to the NWS.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget supports NOAA's contribution to the
    Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation (GNSSRO) program,
    an important step to mitigate the impacts of a potential gap in polar
    satellite data on the NWS forecasts, products and services. GNSSRO, a
    partnership among NOAA, NASA, U.S. Air Force, Brazil and Taiwan, will
    provide high quality radio occultation data globally. Radio occultation
    data improves the NWS's models and helps to calibrate all other
    available sources of polar data. High quality radio occultation data
    was found to be an extremely important mitigator to the effects of a
    gap in polar data in the 2013 Riverside report on the subject.
        In fiscal year 2015 NOAA continues to execute and leverage Gap
    Mitigation projects funded through the Sandy Supplemental appropriation
    (Public Law 113-2). These projects are essential in NOAA's efforts to
    mitigate the impact from the potential loss of JPSS-1 data from several
    standpoints: Observations, Modeling and Supercomputing. They expand
    NOAA's Weather and Climate Operational Supercomputing System (WCOSS)
    capacity to fully exploit observational and model improvements and
    support the use of satellite Atmospheric Motion Vectors, cloud-impacted
    satellite sounding data, the Department of Defense Special Sensor
    Microwave Imager (SSM/I) instruments, advanced imagery from
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R
    Series), and an increased amount of aircraft data to enhance NOAA's
    Global Forecast System (GFS), to name a few. These Gap Mitigation
    projects ensure that the NWS has the ability to support improved GFS
    products in event of a JPSS-1 failure.
        These projects would only provide limited substitute for the type
    and quality of data that the JPSS satellites provide for NWS numerical
    weather prediction. The fiscal year 2015 President's budget request for
    NOAA's satellite acquisition programs ensures that they remain on
    schedule, within cost, and are launched on time to provide support to
    the Nation's weather enterprise.
        Question. Is there an actual plan to fill a gap or are you simply
    analyzing options to mitigate the gap?
        Answer. NOAA is actively planning to reduce the risk of a gap;
    however, there is no viable option for accelerating the launch of JPSS-
    1 at this time. However, Suomi NPP now serves as the primary
    operational polar-orbiting spacecraft for NOAA's operational weather
    forecasting mission and is being operated and managed to maximize the
    length of its mission life. Additionally, there are legacy NASA and
    NOAA satellites that are operating beyond their design lives that are
    still returning quality observations, and which we expect to provide
    mitigation in the event of an unexpected premature failure of Suomi NPP
    or on launch failure or early failure soon after launch of JPSS-1. The
    improved use of existing satellite observations and development of
    advanced data assimilation techniques should lessen, but not eliminate,
    a gap's impact on NWS product quality.
        The Department of Commerce agrees with the November 2013 IRT report
    that the current polar satellite program is not robust. NOAA and NASA
    are currently analyzing options to minimize the length of time in which
    the polar program is ``one failure away from a gap'' and to mitigate a
    gap, should one occur. The intent of this analysis is to determine the
    most viable options for bringing the program to a more robust posture
    as soon as possible.
        This budget invests the resources needed to take the first critical
    steps to building robustness into the polar satellite program by
    beginning the purchase of copies of additional, critical long lead sub-
    assemblies and parts to support the build of spare ATMS and CrIS
    instruments.
        Question. Is the Department still considering obtaining satellite
    data from other countries if there is a gap? If so, does that mean that
    the United States would be dependent on countries such as China or
    Russia for data?
        Answer. The Department already obtains critical polar-orbiting
    weather satellite data from our international partners including the
    European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites
    (EUMETSAT) and the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and Japan
    Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
        The Department is not planning to obtain data from Chinese or
    Russian weather satellite programs to mitigate the gap. NOAA's reliance
    on certain international partners for weather satellite data, critical
    to the protection of life and property in the United States, is an
    Administration decision.
                                     census
        Question. The budget request includes an increase in funding for
    the 2020 Census. Most of this increase is tied to investments that, it
    is argued, will produce substantial savings over the entire 2020 Census
    effort. However, the Department had a similar plan for the 2010 Census
    that resulted in lost investments worth hundreds of millions of dollars
    and an increase to the overall cost of the Census by more than a
    billion dollars as the 2010 Census returned to a paper-based non-
    response follow up.
        How confident are you that the proposed investments for the 2020
    Census will actually save money?
        Answer. We are confident that we can save money in 2020 Census
    compared to the 2010 cycle provided we receive the resources required
    in fiscal year 2015 for the research, testing and development program.
        This Administration is committed to conducting the 2020 Census at a
    lower cost per household than the 2010 Census while maintaining high-
    quality results. The Census Bureau updated the lifecycle estimate to
    accompany the fiscal year 2015 request. The preliminary estimate shows
    we could realize a savings of at least $5 billion from the cost of
    repeating the 2010 Census design. However, we must prove that these
    design changes will realize cost-savings through our research and
    testing program.

        The potential design-change activities include:
      --targeting our address canvassing operations to areas experiencing
            change not already reflected in our address list;
      --optimizing self-response to include the use of the Internet and
            other communications innovations;
      --re-engineering field operations using automation, case routing, and
            other techniques; and
      --using administrative records to reduce workload.

        Savings ranges associated with these design options are shown in
    the updated lifecycle estimate presented in the fiscal year 2015 budget
    request. While the research we've done so far shows such savings are
    possible, there is still uncertainty. We need to complete the research
    planned for fiscal year 2015 to demonstrate that this redesigned census
    will work and that savings can be achieved.
        Our research program is not strictly focused on how to save money;
    there are other benefits to this program. Innovation will allow us to
    contain costs while maintaining the high quality census that the
    country demands. Obtaining a complete and accurate census every 10
    years becomes more complex and difficult with each successive cycle.
    For the 2020 Census, a larger, more diverse population will be more
    difficult and expensive to count. While we can reduce costs per
    household considerably by utilizing advances in technology and
    innovations in the design of the decennial census, there is a point at
    which reducing costs could lead to a significant reduction in the
    quality of census data. The 2020 research and testing program will help
    us gain a better understanding of this trade off, so we can contain
    costs without sacrificing coverage and data quality, and so we can
    share this information with the Congress and other stakeholders.
        IT projects and acquisition strategies are regularly reviewed by
    governance bodies like the Department of Commerce's Information
    Technology Review Board and Acquisition Review Board respectively.
        Question. What controls have you put in place to ensure that
    taxpayers will not be presented with another billion dollar bill at the
    last minute?
        Answer. From the standpoint of the 2020 Census program as a whole,
    to ensure that we stay on track with these cost-saving design-change
    efforts, we have completed the high-level baseline 2020 Census Schedule
    and detailed baseline schedules for the research and testing program
    including those for the 2014 Census test and will continue to mature
    the integrated master schedule. The 2020 Census Risk Review Board,
    which has representation from across the Census Bureau monitors
    program-level risks and develops mitigation plans for those risks.
    Additionally, the Economics and Statistics Administration and the
    Department of Commerce provide oversight to ensure the Census Bureau is
    on track with the research and testing activities that will drive the
    major design decisions.
        Regarding our approaches to information technology management, in
    order to avoid a repeat of the issues that the program experienced in
    the 2010 Census, which led to late decade census design changes and
    cost increases, the Census Bureau has been taking a more rigorous
    approach to information technology management, program management, and
    risk management. This approach is informed by the lessons we learned in
    the 2010 Census but also anticipates the environment of the 2020
    Census.
        With respect to technology management, the Bureau has implemented
    IT portfolio management and a strong partnership between the Chief
    Information Officer and the Associate Director for Decennial Census
    Programs. In this collaboration, leaders are making decisions about
    information technology to reduce both cost and risk compared to the
    2010 Census.
        The Bureau believes using off the shelf technology greatly reduces
    risks of failure. We also believe use of agile development approach to
    systems development (currently employed by the Census Bureau and our
    contractors) will ensure requirements are being met.
        The Department of Commerce is working with the Census Bureau to
    implement an open and transparent acquisitions process that starts in
    the planning phase of the project lifecycle, is consistent and
    repeatable, and applies to solutions regardless of whether they
    leverage in-house resources or major contracts. In addition, adapting
    program management and system engineering disciplines and best
    practices including risk, scope and cost management will help avoid the
    problems associated with the purchase of handhelds for the 2010 Census.
    These practices were put in place for the 2010 data capture system,
    which was cited by GAO as an exemplary IT investment.
        As part of the efforts to improve the 2020 Census, the Census
    Bureau is taking advantage of technology and operations research
    methods to re-engineer the field data collection operations reducing
    both the infrastructure required to support these operations and the
    actual hours that enumerators spend collecting the data.
        The Census Bureau is field testing automation throughout the
    research period in order to identify and mitigate risks associated with
    technology issues. The enumeration instrument prototype will be used in
    2014 and 2015 Census testing. The Census Bureau has instituted a mobile
    computing strategy for all current surveys and the 2020 Census.
        In addition to these efforts within the 2020 Census itself, the
    fiscal year 2015 budget proposes an initiative to bring an enterprise
    approach to data collection and processing. This Census Enterprise Data
    Collection and Processing (or, CEDCaP) initiative will change the past
    practice of building new and unique data collection processing systems
    for each survey or census including the decennial census. Instead, the
    Census Bureau will build a ``system of systems'' that offers shared
    data collection and processing services across the enterprise. This
    system will both precede and outlast the 2020 Census and will provide a
    solution that is mature and proven for the 2020 Census at an estimated
    cost lower than the cost of the 2010 Census.
        The program management discipline is not limited to the information
    technology aspects of the program. The entire 2020 Census program
    applies industry best practices for program management including the
    preparation and progressive elaboration of detailed cost estimates for
    the lifecycle of the census, and a well-established risk management
    process. As part of the risk management process, the program creates
    and executes risk mitigation plans to reduce the likelihood of these
    risks including those with large budget impacts. As the design
    decisions mature the risk management will mature to include assigning
    costs to any potential contingencies. These risk management practices
    will help us identify the sources of potential cost increases, so we
    can address these issues at the source and keep the budget impacts to a
    minimum should they occur.
        Another best practice is to conduct regular program management
    reviews open to stakeholders to increase the transparency of the
    program. This commitment to transparency will raise issues earlier in
    the program when they are easier and less costly to solve. Since
    December of 2012, the 2020 Census program has conducted quarterly day-
    long Program Management Review meetings with key internal and external
    stakeholders, including representatives from the Economics and
    Statistics Administration, the Department of Commerce, GAO, OIG, OMB,
    both House and Senate oversight and appropriations committees, and the
    National Academy of Sciences. IT projects and acquisition strategies
    are regularly reviewed by governance bodies like the Department of
    Commerce's Information Technology Review Board and Acquisition Review
    Board. These meetings provide an opportunity to keep these stakeholders
    informed and to gain their input and suggestions about plans, issues,
    and research results. Towards the same ends, the 2020 Census program
    also has been actively engaged with the Census Bureau's Scientific
    Advisory Committee, its National Advisory Committee (including its
    working groups focused on key issues such as use of administrative
    records, privacy, and improvements to the Census questions on race and
    ethnicity), and a panel of experts at the National Academy of Sciences.
        All of these efforts are aimed at improving the quality of our
    programs and their results, and reducing the risks of those things that
    can lead to cost over-runs or bad outcomes, e.g., poor requirements
    definition, inaccurate cost estimates, or insufficient engagement with
    stakeholders (and thus poor understanding of their needs and goals).
           national telecommunications and information administration
        Question. NTIA serves a primary role as the representative of the
    United States on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
    Numbers (ICANN) Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
        Over the past year, how has NTIA represented the interests of our
    Nation in protecting American companies, consumers, and intellectual
    property?
        Answer. Within ICANN's multi-stakeholder structure, the
    Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) provides governments a meaningful
    opportunity to participate in the development of policies related to
    Internet domain name system (DNS) issues. NTIA represents the U.S. in
    the GAC, and has actively engaged with its counterparts in the GAC to
    develop consensus advice to ICANN. ICANN improved the new generic top-
    level domain (gTLD) program by incorporating a significant number of
    proposals from the GAC, such as providing law enforcement and consumer
    protection authorities with significantly more tools to address
    malicious conduct, as well as enhanced mechanisms to protect
    intellectual property rights in new gTLDs.
        Over the course of three ICANN meetings in 2013, NTIA coordinated
    U.S. proposals covering a broad range of safeguards intended to
    mitigate against consumer harm and criminal abuse of the DNS, a
    majority of which were adopted and submitted as consensus GAC advice to
    ICANN (also known as the April 2013 GAC Beijing Communique). In this
    context, NTIA has actively engaged in consultations with a broad range
    of commercial interests. Ensuring the protection of the rights of
    trademark owners and ensuring appropriate consumer protections as the
    new gTLD process moves forward has been a priority over the course of
    NTIA's advocacy efforts to develop appropriate safeguards for new
    gTLDs. NTIA also contributed to the development of GAC consensus advice
    in the June 2013 Durban and November 2013 Buenos Aires Communiques that
    provided additional specificity to protect consumers and businesses in
    the new gTLD program. As a result of these efforts, ICANN updated the
    new gTLD Registry Agreements to address government concerns.
        Finally, over the last year NTIA Assistant Secretary Strickling
    personally participated in ICANN's Accountability and Transparency
    Review Team (ATRT) with a broad array of international stakeholders
    from industry, civil society, the Internet technical community, and
    other governments. This team serves as a key accountability tool for
    ICANN by evaluating progress and recommending improvements to ICANN's
    accountability, transparency, and technical competence. ICANN is
    currently implementing the 12 recommendations the ATRT made last
    December.
        Question. In what ways has NTIA altered its activities in dealing
    with ICANN via the Governmental Advisory Committee to be a stronger
    advocate for U.S. business?
        Answer. As described above, NTIA has constantly been a strong
    advocate for U.S. interests serving as the United States GAC
    representative. Specific activities over the past year are detailed in
    the response to the previous questions. NTIA has strengthened its
    outreach to U.S. businesses as new gTLDs are vetted and introduced to
    ensure a more complete understanding of business issues and stronger
    advocacy for U.S. businesses.
                             internet policy center
        Question. Can you explain how the Internet Policy Center (IPC)
    differs from the current activities NTIA performs for the Federal
    Government?
        Answer. The open Internet is a key driver for U.S. innovation and
    economic growth. It is therefore imperative that U.S. Internet policy
    remain forward-looking in its ability to balance innovation,
    resilience, privacy, rights protection, and security. Much is at stake:
    billions in trade, innovation, privacy, free expression, child
    protection, and the integrity of the Internet. NTIA currently
    undertakes significant coordination activities among Federal agencies
    as well as other Internet stakeholders in order to develop
    Administration policy; however, NTIA's capacity has not scaled to match
    the current pace and complexity of policy issues that have the
    potential to impact the Internet and its ability to function as a
    platform for economic growth and the future digital economy. The
    Internet Policy Center (IPC) will provide NTIA with the resources to
    build capacity to face the challenges of today's digital policy
    environment and to convert ad-hoc functions into institutionalized
    mission areas. Among the functions of the IPC will be policy analysis,
    policy development, global outreach, interagency coordination, and
    stakeholder engagement.
        NTIA is unique among Federal agencies in that part of its mission
    is to support, enhance, and protect the Internet as an engine of
    economic growth, innovation, and job creation. In that capacity, the
    IPC will focus on the Internet as a client. The IPC will provide the
    organizational capacity, structure, and means to protect U.S. Internet
    policy principles and equities across a range of fast-moving issue
    areas including privacy, cybersecurity, the free flow of information,
    Internet governance, network evolution, intellectual property,
    broadband and infrastructure development, and law enforcement. Through
    the IPC, the Administration will be better positioned to present a
    unified focus on Internet policy and provide the capacity and
    leadership to address a multitude of Internet policy concerns
    domestically and internationally in a more proactive, proficient manner
    than is currently possible.
        Question. Do any of the activities planned for the IPC currently
    reside in different locations within the Federal Government and if so,
    how will they transition to NTIA?
        Answer. The IPC would not displace or replace any activities or
    authorities of other Federal agencies, but would serve to complement
    and coordinate these activities more effectively to ensure a unified
    and strategic Administration voice. The need for focused policy
    attention to protect and promote innovation, stability, and economic
    growth on the Internet is critical. Without it, there is a much greater
    risk that U.S. policy will perhaps unintentionally harm the ability of
    companies to innovate and thrive and citizens to take full advantage of
    the Internet and other communication and information services. In a
    broad array of policy areas including cybersecurity, intellectual
    property, trade policy, and others, well-staffed agencies of the U.S
    Government pursue their discrete policy objectives, but those agencies
    are sometimes not well equipped to evaluate the full impact of their
    initiatives on Internet innovation, the digital economy, fundamental
    rights, and on the global, multistakeholder approach to Internet
    governance and policymaking. The IPC will advocate strongly within
    interagency discussions for the Internet as a platform to be protected
    and promoted.
        Question. Do any of these activities require a change in statute or
    authorization legislation in order to become a part of the IPC?
        Answer. No.
                          profit for constructed value
        Question. The Department has traditionally used a high profit
    benchmark to measure the fair value of merchandise in dumping cases.
    This better reflects the true value of merchandise in question.
    However, in the case of South Korean merchandise, a low measure of
    profit, based in large part on non-Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)
    pipe sales was used. In addition, the measure was based largely in the
    depressed construction market instead of the more profitable energy
    sector, or an average of the two.
        Why did the Department alter its traditional measure in reaching a
    conclusion in this case?
        Answer. With respect to this very technical issue, the Department
    carefully applied the statute and its regulations to the record
    evidence presented at the time of the preliminary determination. In
    this case, because neither Korean exporter had what the Department's
    regulations refer to as a viable home- or third-country market in OCTG,
    the Department was unable to use the preferred methodology for
    calculating profit, i.e., these companies' own experience in the OCTG
    sector. U.S. law sets forth three alternative approaches to calculating
    profit in such cases, and the Department selected what it believes to
    be the most reasonable alternative based on the available record
    evidence. The Department continues to analyze this issue and will
    consider all evidence and arguments in issuing its final determination.
        Question. What was the Department's basis for choosing the
    construction market as opposed to the energy sector or an average of
    the two sectors?
        Answer. As noted above, because the facts in this investigation did
    not allow the application of the Department's preferred methodology,
    all alternative options available under the statute were considered.
    Since the Department does not have useable profit data for these
    companies' OCTG sales, one alternative specified in the statute is to
    use the profit figures for ``the same general category of products.''
    In this case, that would entail a broad range of tubular products,
    including those sold to the construction segment. If that is not
    appropriate, the statute also provides for the Department to use ``any
    reasonable method'' to value profit. The Department continues to
    evaluate the suitability of these profit figures for the final
    determination.
                           oil country tubular goods
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, the International Trade Commission
    (ITC) recently made a preliminary determination that the American steel
    industry was materially injured by certain Oil Country Tubular Goods
    (OCTG) imports from South Korea.
        What actions are being undertaken by the Department to assist in
    reaching a final determination on this matter?
        Answer. The Department's Enforcement and Compliance Unit, which has
    as its primary mission the conduct of antidumping and countervailing
    duty cases, is focused on this matter. Our analysts recently traveled
    to South Korea to verify the information that the respondents in this
    case placed on the record of the proceeding. Please be assured that the
    Department will carefully analyze all the record evidence, and consider
    the legal arguments of the parties, before issuing a final
    determination in this matter, which will be announced no later than
    July 11, 2014.
        Question. What resources are being utilized to support the final
    investigatory phase?
        Answer. Our Enforcement and Compliance Unit's accountants,
    analysts, and lawyers are diligently scrutinizing the information on
    the record and considering the legal arguments from all parties.
    Further, in accordance with U.S. law, analysts and accountants in our
    Enforcement and Compliance Unit recently traveled to South Korea to
    verify the accuracy of the factual information submitted by the Korean
    exporters.
                                  affiliations
        Question. The issue of affiliations is critical in this dumping
    investigation. The Department acknowledged concerns with a number of
    affiliations and uncertainty in whether the correct sales and cost
    databases were used for its preliminary determination.
        Can you assure the Committee these issues will be completely and
    fully investigated prior to a final determination?
        Answer. Yes. All information submitted by the two Korean exporters
    in this matter has been subject to rigorous verification by the
    Department analysts and accountants to ensure they have reliable sales
    and cost-of-production data. The Department's findings will be included
    in reports it will place on the record, and parties will have an
    opportunity to comment upon those findings prior to the issuance of the
    final determination.
                           south korean manufacturers
        Question. Additional concerns have been raised suggesting South
    Korean manufacturers are misrepresenting facts in this case on a
    variety of issues. This includes information regarding grades and costs
    of hot rolled coil used, sales made from inventory, the presence of
    affiliated warehouses, warehousing costs, as well as overhead.
        Madame Secretary, I understand that while preliminary
    investigations rely heavily on the responses of the parties involved,
    the final phase allows for the Department to deploy much greater
    resources to determine whether concerns raised in the preliminary phase
    could significantly change the findings.
        Can you assure me that the Department will dedicate sufficient
    resources needed to ensure a fair and equitable resolution to this
    case?
        Answer. Yes. The Department conducts all trade remedy proceedings
    in a thorough manner, in accordance with its statute, regulations, and
    international obligations. The Department is fully committed to
    vigorously enforcing its trade remedy laws so that American industries
    and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field
    with their foreign competitors.
        Question. Further, can you assure me that concerns raised during
    the preliminary phase will be properly considered?
        Answer. Yes. The Department's Enforcement and Compliance Unit will
    diligently scrutinize all information on the record and consider the
    legal arguments from all parties before issuing its final
    determination.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
                                   fisheries
        Question. First, I would like to thank the Department and NOAA for
    the support it has provided to the Penobscot River Restoration project
    (over $20 million). It is my understanding that this project has raised
    more private dollars than any other river restoration project in the
    country. Through the work of the State, the Penobscot Trust, and NOAA,
    and other Federal agencies, we are on the cusp of completing what could
    be one of the largest and most successful fisheries restoration efforts
    in history.
        Across the Gulf of Maine, the restoration of sea-run migratory fish
    species is essential to rebuilding a thriving ocean fishery and healthy
    river communities. NOAA's investments in projects like the Penobscot
    River Restoration are essential to that goal.
        Completing restoration projects such as this is possible when NOAA
    ensures that funds allocated within the Fisheries Habitat Restoration
    and Species Recovery lines go to projects on the ground (and in
    water!).
        The Penobscot River Restoration Agreement has three main
    components: the removal of the Great Works Dam, the removal of the
    Veazie Dam, and the construction of a bypass of the Howland Dam. The
    first two components are complete; the third is pending. It is
    important to me and to my constituents that NOAA remain committed to
    seeing through the full implementation of the Penobscot River
    Agreement. If NOAA is not able to commit to the agreement, which
    includes the building of a fish bypass, then the work that was
    celebrated at the removal of the Great Works and Veazie dams will be
    incomplete, and the fisheries benefits will not be maximized.
        Will you ensure that NOAA will work with the State of Maine, the
    communities along the Penobscot River, including the Town of Howland,
    and the Penobscot Trust to ensure that the Agreement is fully
    implemented by fiscal year 2015?
        Answer. The Department recognizes the importance of the Penobscot
    River Watershed Restoration project, which will ultimately improve
    access to nearly 1,000 miles of river habitat to eleven species of sea-
    run fish and create new community and economic benefits throughout the
    watershed. NOAA remains committed to seeing through the full
    implementation of this important restoration initiative. NOAA is
    currently working with the State of Maine, Town of Holland, the
    Penobscot Trust, the Penobscot Indian Nation and our Federal, local and
    non-profit partners to develop final plans for the Howland Dam
    restoration project, and anticipates moving towards implementation
    soon.
                international trade administration--u.s./canada
        Question. The 2006 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement was set to
    expire in 2013, but was extended to October 12, 2015. Some of my
    constituents have expressed concern about another extension of this
    agreement. They would much prefer to see an updated long-term agreement
    executed.
        The world timber and lumber markets have evolved since 2006. As you
    are well aware, the U.S. housing market collapse has taken a toll on
    workers in the timber industry. The Maine Forest Products Council
    estimates that we have lost more than 4,000 forestry jobs in my State
    from 2007 to 2011, for a number of reasons. As the housing industry
    recovers, and domestic demand for wood products starts to rise, we must
    ensure an unbalanced playing field between U.S. and Canadian producers
    does not cause more jobs to be lost. That is why we need to secure an
    updated long-term Softwood Lumber Agreement.
        Will you commit to develop an agreement between the United States
    and Canada, with the active involvement of the Maine and U.S. forestry
    stakeholders, with an aim to bring about a new, long-term durable U.S.-
    Canada trade agreement on softwood lumber?
        Answer. The 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) is the most
    successful of several agreements reached over the past three decades to
    address U.S. concerns about Canadian softwood lumber imports. The
    recent extension until mid-October 2015 was made with the support of
    domestic lumber producers, and the SLA continues to provide
    predictability and stability in this very important sector in the U.S.
    economy.
        Over the years, Commerce has worked closely with several other
    agencies on the negotiation and administration of the SLA. The Office
    of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) leads an interagency
    team of experts from Commerce, State, Justice, and Customs and Border
    Protection (CBP) that devote significant time and resources to the
    enforcement and implementation of this agreement. Because Commerce's
    members of this team are very knowledgeable about provincial forest
    practices and subsidy programs that benefit Canadian lumber producers,
    their technical expertise is relied upon heavily as part of the
    interagency team in dealing with our Canadian counterparts, consulting
    stakeholders, and defending U.S. interests in arbitrations under the
    Agreement. We will continue to provide our support as USTR consults
    with Members of Congress and seeks input from all interested
    stakeholders for the evaluation of what is in the best interest of the
    United States.
        In the meantime, I assure you that Commerce will continue to press
    for and work to ensure the full enforcement and implementation of the
    current agreement.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                            manufacturing initiative
        Question. The budget provides $141 million, a $13 million increase
    over the fiscal year 2014 enacted level, for the Hollings Manufacturing
    Extension Partnership (MEP), with an increased focus on expanding
    technology and supply chain capabilities to support technology adoption
    by smaller manufacturers to improve their competitiveness.
        The budget also provides $15 million for the Advanced Manufacturing
    Technology Consortia (AMTech), a public-private partnership that will
    support industry-led consortia developing technologies to address major
    manufacturing challenges faced by American businesses. The
    Administration has also launched four manufacturing institutes to date
    and is planning to launch at least four additional manufacturing
    institutes in 2014 utilizing existing Federal funding.
        Your overall manufacturing initiative will create winners and
    losers across the country. Twelve communities will be selected this
    year and they will have the full force of the administration behind
    them. You will use existing authority to fund the program activities.
    Alaska will not fare well. This is on the back of significant cuts over
    the last few years in the EDA budget.
        When small communities are doing good work and developing
    innovative ideas to move their economy forward, grant and low interest
    loan programs should support such initiative. So for Kotzebue, Alaska
    looking to lower the cost of food to outlying villages or Wrangell,
    Alaska completing a remarkable marine park for fishing and other boat
    fleets, I am at a loss for where to send them when looking to complete
    a financial package.
        Secretary, outside of these 12 communities this year, how will you
    provide support to rural, isolated communities doing good work and
    striving to create integrated economic development plans on a small
    scale?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce has not wavered in its
    commitment to rural America. In fiscal year 2013, as part of the
    Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) effort, EDA
    provided $1.8M (of approximately $4 million total) in assistance to 12
    rural communities (of 26 total communities) to develop implementation
    strategies, which will initiate public-private partnerships tailored to
    local expertise and assets, identifying targeted industries and
    specific public investments that will enhance the attractiveness of
    regions to private investment.
        EDA also provides ongoing planning support to rural communities as
    part of its Partnership Planning program. These grants facilitate the
    development and implementation of Comprehensive Economic Development
    Strategies (CEDS), which articulate and prioritize the strategic
    economic goals of recipients' respective regions. Partnership Planning
    grants are made to the designated planning organization (e.g., District
    Organization) serving EDA-designated Economic Development Districts
    (EDDs)--of which there are currently 383 across the country--to enable
    these organizations to develop and implement relevant CEDS. Almost all
    of these Districts include, and most are primarily comprised of, rural
    areas. In addition, EDA provides Partnership Planning grants to Indian
    Tribes to help develop and implement CEDS and associated economic
    development activities. The Planning program also helps support
    planning organizations, including District Organizations, Indian
    Tribes, and other eligible recipients, with focused short-term planning
    grants designed to guide the eventual creation and retention of higher-
    skill, higher-wage jobs, particularly for the unemployed and
    underemployed in the Nation's most economically distressed regions
    including many rural areas (EDA's Local Technical Assistance program
    supports these efforts as well).
        In addition, EDA-funded University Centers (approximately 60 across
    the country) provide business solutions and technical assistance to
    public- and private-sector organizations, and conduct other activities
    with the goal of enhancing regional economic development. University
    Center business solutions include basic and applied research, market
    research, feasibility studies, product development, strategic and
    financial planning, seminars and training, and management
    consultations. The University Centers are particularly attractive to
    rural communities and regions that often lack the capacity and
    resources to collect and analyze information and data on the economic
    conditions of their respective areas.
        EDA construction investments in rural America since fiscal year
    2009 are expected to save or create 37,000 jobs. EDA, in conjunction
    with other Federal agencies, devoted $9 million in total Federal funds
    for the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Initiative which invested
    in 13 best-in-class economic development projects in rural regions.
    Making sure more rural businesses of all types and sizes can compete in
    the global economy is an important step toward integrating trade into
    the DNA of our economy and creating opportunity for all Americans.
        Ensuring that more rural companies can capitalize on international
    opportunities to grow their business is key to advancing economic
    growth in rural areas and a strong rural economy is essential to our
    Nation's overall economic health. Through the International Trade
    Administration, we are working with the White House Rural Council, U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA), other agencies, and partners to:

      --Host five regional forums to provide rural leaders and businesses
            with local connections and information about resources to help
            expand exports. (The Council will announce forum locations in
            the coming weeks.)
      --Provide enhanced export counseling for rural businesses from trade
            specialists in over 100 domestic locations, using the convening
            power of USDA field staff.
      --Train USDA Rural Development staff in all 50 States plus
            territories to expand the network of business counselors able
            to identify export-ready rural businesses and connect them with
            assistance.
      --Coordinate across the Administration to promote rural-produced
            goods and services at trade events.
      --Build understanding among local leaders across the country on the
            economic importance of exports in partnership with the National
            Association of Counties (NACo).
      --Use BusinessUSA to better connect rural businesses with government-
            wide export resources.
                               denali commission
        Question. Secretary Pritzker, in 2013 I asked the Government
    Accountability Office to take a top to bottom look at the Denali
    Commission. This work is expected to conclude in the early summer
    months. It wasn't that I think the Denali Commission is a waste of
    taxpayers funds or that it lacks a mission. The Denali Commission's
    mission is to upgrade the third world living conditions that threaten
    the health and welfare of our Native people in rural Alaska. I abhor
    the notion that people who are desperately in need of aid the newborn
    and the Elder so often have to pay the price for bureaucratic
    infighting. Too often programs are not improved as a result of
    scrutiny. They are simply canned. The reason that I asked GAO to look
    at the work of the Denali Commission was that the ongoing wars
    involving the Commissioners, the Federal Co-Chair and the Inspector
    General fundamentally distracted the Denali Commission from its mission
    and I'm looking for strong reforms.
        My question goes to supervision of the Denali Commission. I think
    the adult supervision of the Commerce Department is very much in need.
    It's not at all evident that the work of the Federal Co-Chair has been
    evaluated, even though that person reports to you. You recently
    reappointed the Federal Co-Chair. I have to tell you that I no longer
    have confidence in that individual and made that known to your staff
    and the White House prior to the reappointment. Assistance from the
    Commerce Department's Office of the General Counsel is lacking. And I
    would submit that the Denali Commission would benefit from the depth
    and breadth of the Commerce Department's Inspector General as an
    improvement over the recently departed ``one man band'' Inspector
    General who spent most, if not all, of his working time (if one can
    call it that) in Arizona rather than Alaska. I am looking for your
    reaction to these ideas.
        I would like to play a role and an active one in the reform of the
    Denali Commission. And I would like a partner in the Commerce
    Department that I can work with.
        Would you designate someone who will work with me to see this
    project through?
        Answer. The Department and the Administration are fully committed
    to improving the livelihood of Alaskans by encouraging long-term public
    and private investments in key sectors, establishing a business
    environment that will help to create high-quality jobs and promoting
    long-term economic development in economically distressed areas of the
    State. For example, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has
    invested over $3 million with the Alaska Works Partnership to help
    develop the Pipeline Training Center, which is training the next
    generation of pipeline workers in Alaska. EDA has also invested $1.9
    million to expand the Cold Climate Housing Research Center , which is making strides in finding more efficient and
    environmentally friendly means to deal with Alaska's harsh winters.
        EDA maintains the delegated responsibility for reviewing the Denali
    Commission's Annual Work Plan, and in conjunction with the Department
    have provided invaluable programmatic guidance and support to the
    Commission. In certain discrete areas the Department has a statutory
    relationship with the Commission, however, the Department generally
    defers to the Commission as an independent entity in its day-to-day
    decisionmaking, operations and policy-making; including its choice of
    selecting an Inspector General. It remains important for the Department
    to maintain that clear, distinct separation.
        Specifically addressing the Inspector General issue, the Department
    is pleased to inform you that the Denali Commission has entered into a
    memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Commerce's
    Office of Inspector General (OIG). Pursuant to this agreement, the OIG
    will provide comprehensive, independent audit and oversight services to
    the Commission on a reimbursable basis and will effectively serve as
    the interim Inspector General for the Denali Commission pending a
    permanent selection by the Commission.
        EDA is available as an advisory resource to the Commission and
    communicates with the Commission's Federal Co-Chair and Counsel on a
    regular basis.
                             electronic monitoring
        Question. NOAA acknowledges in its fiscal year 2015 budget request:
    ``The goal is to deliver cost-effective and sustainable electronic data
    collection solutions that enhance monitoring of catch and by catch in
    all U.S. fisheries.'' In general, I am seeing that NOAA supports these
    goals at the Headquarters level, but efforts to make progress on the
    water in Alaska are hampered at the Regional level. The problem appears
    to be Science Center staff who seem more dedicated to designing long
    term research programs than making progress toward practical solutions.
    I am concerned that Science Center staff in the Alaska region are not
    working effectively with fishermen to move forward with the cooperative
    research program required in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus
    Appropriations bill.
        The goal here is to validate the functionality of cameras,
    facilitate the collection of data, and improve the logistics of
    deploying electronic monitoring equipment on small fishing boats in
    Alaska. When I met with you last year you expressed an understanding of
    the importance of this issue in Alaska, and the potential for it to
    benefit fisheries around the Nation.
        Secretary Pritzker, can you commit to working with me to ensure
    that NOAA is dedicating the resources necessary to make progress toward
    the deployment of viable electronic monitoring technologies on these
    boats in 2014?
        Answer. Yes, NOAA Fisheries is committed to advancing the
    capability to use electronic monitoring (EM) technology in Alaska
    fisheries in situations where EM can provide the data needed to manage
    and conserve these fisheries. We have used EM (video) to monitor
    compliance with retention and fish handling requirements on catcher/
    processors for many years. We have participated in and funded several
    past EM research projects. We are committing funding toward EM research
    in fiscal year 2014 and plan to continue to do so in the future. We are
    actively working with industry representatives and the Pacific States
    Marine Fisheries Commission (Pacific States) to develop and implement a
    cooperative EM research plan to test and compare different EM
    technologies with observers, to work out logistical issues, and to
    estimate implementation costs.

        We are conducting this cooperative research on four tracks. These
    are:

      --Track 1.--deployment of 5 to 10 current EM units from Saltwater,
            Inc., and Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. to evaluate the
            respective system performance, logistics and costs of
            deployment;
      --Track 2.--deployment of 3 to 5 current EM units with observers to
            allow analytic comparisons of data quality and data quality
            trade-offs;
      --Track 3.--deployment of 5 to 10 new stereo camera systems with
            observers to allow similar analysis as in #2; and
      --Track 4.--testing of current electronic logbooks in the fleet and
            further refinement to integrate them with vessel sensor data.

        Working in collaboration with industry and Pacific States, we are
    developing study plans for each track of research and deploying EM onto
    boats in 2014. The fishing industry and Pacific States are taking the
    lead on Track 1, and NOAA Fisheries, Pacific States, and industry are
    taking the lead on Tracks 2 through 4. Work on Track 1 is already
    underway with cameras deployed on several boats in the fishery. Tracks
    2 and 3 will be underway by early summer and it will include components
    of Track 4. We look forward to evaluating the results of this work.
        This collaboration between NOAA Fisheries and industry has been ad
    hoc to date; however, in April 2014 the North Pacific Fishery
    Management Council (Council) took action to appoint membership to an EM
    sub-committee dedicated to EM testing and development. This committee
    will bring in additional industry representation ensuring balanced
    participation across the industry. The Council's EM committee is
    scheduled to meet on May 15 and 16 in Anchorage to review progress on
    cooperative research and mapping the processes forward toward
    integration of EM as a tool in Alaskan fisheries management. Several of
    the Council appointed committee members were already participating in
    our ad hoc collaboration.
        NOAA Fisheries has recently sent a letter to the participants in
    the small boat hook and line fleet soliciting their interest in
    participating in cooperative research with us on EM, and we noted that
    selected volunteers will be provided a release from observer coverage
    for the duration of the research. This provides an incentive for
    participation. Several industry members have already installed EM
    equipment and requested retroactive releases from coverage. We have not
    granted these releases because we need a coordinated effort and a
    process that ensures that all in industry are afforded the opportunity
    to participate. We asked for responses from industry for EM
    participation by May 30 and received 17 requests to participate in
    cooperative research. For any of these vessels that are selected to
    participate in the research, NOAA expects to implement EM releases
    based on criteria we develop with our newly formed EM committee.
        NOAA Fisheries is now in the second year of implementing the
    restructured Alaskan observer program, which expanded observer coverage
    to the Pacific halibut fishery, and to vessels between 40 and 60 feet
    in length in the groundfish and halibut fisheries. In implementing the
    program, we provided a mechanism to release vessels from coverage in
    cases where there was insufficient life raft or bunk capacity. This
    avoids displacing fishermen in order to accommodate an observer. The
    Council supported this initial approach to the newly observed fleet,
    and NOAA Fisheries has implemented a consistent release process, with
    verification of industry requests via follow up phone calls and site
    visits. The addition of EM will expand that release process in the near
    term in order to enable EM testing to inform subsequent Council
    decisionmaking on the use of this technology in catch estimation.
        We also are working on cooperative research with a group of trawl
    catcher/processors (``the Amendment 80 sector'') to solve a specific
    halibut bycatch problem. This research will examine the use of video to
    allow halibut to be sorted and counted on the deck of the vessel in
    order to maximize survival of the fish during handling, and to allow
    accurate accounting of the bycatch before it is returned to the sea.
    This industry sector is highly motivated to test and adopt the
    technology we have developed as it has potential to solve a significant
    bycatch issue. This research is currently underway.
                                 marine debris
        Question. The 2011 devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck
    Japan resulted in a large amount of marine debris which in 2012 began
    to reach Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. In 2013,
    Alaska experienced significant debris impacts in multiple coastal
    areas, and the volume of Japan-origin debris is predicted to increase
    in 2014. The Commerce Department's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request is
    for $6,000,000, the same as enacted for fiscal year 2014. The fiscal
    year 2014 funding represented a $1 million increase over fiscal year
    2013, and this increase is expected to be used for Japan-origin debris
    activities. I am, however, concerned that this level of funding is
    insufficient to address the volume of debris still hitting Alaskan
    shores, as well as the other Pacific States. I am further concerned
    that your agency does not fully appreciate the magnitude of this
    problem, including the fact that much of the Alaskan coast is Federal
    lands which means clean-up of this marine debris is a Federal
    responsibility.
        Secretary Pritzker, are you willing to work with me to ensure that
    funds in NOAA's Marine Debris Program are allocated on a priority basis
    for grants to support clean-up marine debris clean-up and disposal
    activities in the five affected Pacific States, with priority given to
    clean-up activities on Federal land?
        Answer. I am always happy to work with you, Senator Murkowski. As
    you are aware, the Government of Japan provided $5 million to NOAA's
    Marine Debris Program to support marine debris response efforts, such
    as removal of debris, disposal fees, cleanup supplies, detection and
    monitoring. Of this amount, we provided an initial sum of $250,000 to
    each of the affected States (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California and
    Hawaii) and the State of Alaska has requested and received an
    additional $750,000. The funding was also used to remove a large dock
    in Olympic National Park. NOAA is holding the balance of roughly $2.5
    million in reserve to distribute as new needs arise. NOAA's agreement
    process for these funds requires NOAA to approve the States' proposed
    work plans for any funding, as well as perform necessary environmental
    compliance reviews.
                             hydrographic charting
        Question. Modern, accurate geospatial information is critical to
    navigation, public safety, infrastructure planning, and resource
    management. This is particularly important in Northwest Alaska where
    increased maritime traffic in the Bering Straits region and in the
    Arctic underscore the need for current hydrographic information. In
    some areas the state-of-the-art mapping information is the result of
    lead-line survey work conducted before the United States purchased
    Alaska from Russia. There is an urgent need for updated charts, yet
    NOAA has indicated that it has an 85 year backlog for hydrographic
    surveys in Alaska.
        Secretary Pritzker, your agency plays a critical role in supporting
    hydrographic charting, including in the Arctic and Bering Straits
    Region. Can you commit to dedicating the necessary resources to conduct
    hydrographic surveys and prepare navigational charts adequate to
    address the increasing maritime traffic in these regions?
        Answer. NOAA must balance the requirements of a particular area
    with requirements of all other areas within available resources. NOAA
    has developed 5-year hydrographic survey plan to identify about 40,000
    square nautical miles of critical area and address the most critical
    survey needs in Alaska. In recent years NOAA has surveyed approximately
    500 square nautical miles annually in Arctic waters. NOAA is also
    planning to build 12 new charts for the Arctic over the next 10-15
    years.
        NOAA plans to resume full Arctic operations in 2015 under the
    President's budget request.
                           national data buoy system
        Question. I am strongly concerned with problems associated with
    NOAA's maintenance of data buoys off the coast of Alaska. These data
    buoys provide important information to mariners, including commercial
    and recreational fishermen. The longstanding outages are resulting in
    critical gaps in weather and sea condition information and contributing
    to less safe operations at sea.
        Secretary Pritzker, will you please provide documentation on how
    NOAA intends to address the maintenance backlog for the National Data
    Buoy System, including specific information on current outages in
    Alaska? I would appreciate information on NOAA's plan to schedule and
    effect repairs to restore existing data buoy operability, as well as
    the strategy to minimize outages in the future.
        Answer. The Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) share your concern with long outages
    for data buoys off the coast of Alaska and around the rest of the
    United States.
        NOAA is conducting maintenance, with ship support from the U.S.
    Coast Guard, for much of the National Data Buoy System from now through
    the end of September 2014. Plans are in place to restore nearly half of
    the current 27 buoy outages, including 4 of the 9 Alaska buoy outages
    that had been backlogged since 2013. Maintenance for the buoys in the
    Bering Sea and Western Aleutians is scheduled for July 2014 to restore
    long outages in that region. Schedules for maintenance for most of the
    remaining outages are being developed between the National Data Buoy
    Center and the NOAA-leveraged U.S. Coast Guard ship resources.
        NOAA will continue aggressive maintenance of the National Data Buoy
    System to improve buoy operability to 73 percent by the end of fiscal
    year 2014.
                             seafood certification
        Question. I am concerned that third party vendors are requiring
    adherence to criteria and labeling of seafood that has not been
    thoroughly vetted and approved through a public process. One of the
    more troubling aspects of this process is the failure of executive
    branch agencies to consult with NOAA on the issue of whether U.S.
    fisheries are being managed sustainably. Specifically, I am referring
    to Seafood Sustainability Guidelines developed by the Department of
    Health and Human Services, General Services Administration, and
    National Park Service that were applied to all Federal agency vendor
    and concession operations. These Guidelines were developed and
    implemented without any consultation no meetings, not even a call with
    anyone at NOAA to ask for their expertise on this issue.
        Secretary Pritzker, can you please articulate the policies and
    procedures have been put in place at NOAA to ensure that this will not
    happen again?
        Answer. Since the National Park Service published its vendor
    guidelines in June 2013 and we were made aware of the General Services
    Administration/Health and Human Service's guidelines published in 2011,
    NOAA Fisheries has worked directly with the entities involved (National
    Park Service, General Services Administration, the Department of Health
    and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers
    for Disease Control) to introduce their program staffs to NOAA
    Fisheries, its stewardship mission, the reputation of U.S. fisheries as
    a global model of success in sustainable fisheries, and to offer our
    expertise to guide them in any further discussions regarding
    sustainable fisheries and seafood. Based on these interactions, the
    General Services Administration revised and republished its guidelines
    in September 2013 (see below for relevant provision), to take into
    account U.S. managed fisheries as sustainable and to refer to
    FishWatch.gov.
        ``Where seafood options are offered, provide those procured from
    responsibly managed, sustainable, healthy fisheries.44*
        44* The NOAA FishWatch Program defines sustainable seafood as
    ``catching or farming seafood responsibly, with consideration for the
    long-term health of the environment and the livelihoods of the people
    that depend upon the environment.'' Verifying the health and
    sustainability of U.S. and international fisheries is not always
    simple. Domestic fisheries are managed by State and Federal agencies
    under legally established fisheries management plans. International
    fisheries are managed under sovereign laws and international treaties.
    Guidance on how to make sustainable seafood choices is found on the
    NOAA FishWatch site at www.fishwatch.gov/buying_seafood/
    choosing_sustainable.htm.
        The General Services Administration's guidelines are available on
    the General Services Administration's Web site at: http://www.gsa.gov/
    portal/mediaId/170091/
    fileName/Guidelines_for_Federal_Concessions_and_Vending_Operations and
    at the Centers for Disease Control Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/
    chronicdisease/pdf/
    guidelines_for_Federal_concessions_and_vending_operations.pdf.
        With regard to longer-term procedures and policies to ensure other
    Federal agencies coordinate with NOAA Fisheries on matters of
    sustainable fisheries and seafood, the agency is coordinating with
    stakeholders to help keep apprised of various activities as well as
    proactively introducing itself to inform them of U.S. standards for
    sustainable fisheries and offer its science expertise. It may be
    helpful to note that the issues of sustainability are an ever-
    increasing matter of global interest in the market place and as such,
    the issue of sustainable seafood emerging as a topic of interest in
    other Federal agencies whose missions and expertise do not include
    sustainable fisheries is new. As NOAA Fisheries becomes aware of such
    activities, the agency directly engages one-on-one to formally
    introduce its mission and offer its expertise to advise and guide any
    sustainable seafood matter under consideration by another agency. We
    anticipate these engagements will translate into better awareness of
    NOAA Fisheries as the Federal authority on such matters.
        The most recent examples of these Federal engagements have been
    with the Department of Health and Human Services and its Federal
    advisory committee--Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee. The
    Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee is preparing to revise
    nutritional guidelines by 2017 and has decided to include the
    sustainability of seafood within its guidelines. NOAA Fisheries is now
    in formal discussions with the Department of Health and Human Services
    and the support staff assigned to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
    Committee. In similar fashion, NOAA has recently reached out to the
    Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency, which is also
    exploring the matter of sustainable seafood as part of its food
    services mission for Defense personnel.
        Question. Also, can you please explain what steps NOAA is taking
    through FishWatch and any other program to acknowledge the successes of
    sustainable fisheries management in the U.S.?
        Answer. Beginning in 2010, NOAA Fisheries has enhanced its
    strategic communications efforts to build public familiarity and
    recognition of U.S. Federal fisheries as a global model of success in
    responsible fisheries management, and support our fishing and seafood
    industries. Key among the agency's communications assets for delivering
    this message is FishWatch. Over the last 3 years, the agency has
    expanded its proactive, strategic communications to the broader
    spectrum of the seafood supply chain, including one-on-one meetings
    with distributors, retailers, food service and culinary industries, and
    expanding participation in professional meetings, trade forums and
    various national and international initiatives addressing sustainable
    seafood in the market place (e.g. Global Sustainable Seafood
    Initiative, and The Sustainability Consortium). Based on these
    engagements and growing relationships, NOAA Fisheries has received
    extensive input on FishWatch and suggestions for improving FishWatch as
    a useful tool to industry and consumers. In response, NOAA Fisheries
    has drafted a next generation investment strategy for FishWatch
    including mobile access for the broader seafood consuming public, and
    potential capacity to serve as a public interface to acknowledge
    partnerships with the agency, possibly including U.S. fishermen and
    seafood harvested under a U.S. fisheries management plan, a
    recommendation made by NOAA Fisheries' Marine Fisheries Advisory
    Committee (MAFAC), a Federal Advisory Committee Act-compliant body that
    advises the Secretary of Commerce on all living marine resource matters
    that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce.
        In addition, based on increased interest from the fishing industry,
    in October 2012, the agency asked MAFAC to examine whether NOAA
    Fisheries could or even should have a role in eco-labeling of U.S.
    federally managed seafood. Although MAFAC did not come to any
    consensus, in December 2013, it submitted recommendations which are
    available for public review and comment through the end of May 2014.
    The agency anticipates comments received by the public and seafood
    industries will be helpful for any next steps the agency may take. A
    summary of these recommendations follows:

      --MAFAC recommends that NOAA Fisheries improve awareness of the
            Magnuson-Stevens FisheryConservation and Management Act (MSA)
            and other laws and regulations governing U.S. fisheries and
            domestic aquaculture, particularly in the domestic business-to-
            business environment.
      --MAFAC commends the educational efforts undertaken by NOAA Fisheries
            thus far on FishWatch.gov and encourages more work in this
            direction.
      --MAFAC recommends that NOAA Fisheries utilize the standards and
            requirements of the MSA as the reference points to create a
            business-to-business based approach, recognizing the
            sustainability of wild harvest seafood products from U.S.
            Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) fisheries in compliance with the
            MSA.
      --MAFAC recommends adoption of traceability measures, implemented by
            buyers to enable subsequent purchasers to track sustainable
            fishery products in the marketplace.

        Full MAFAC recommendations available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
    op/
    Sustainability/Sustainable_Seafood_Certification.html.
                           fisheries finance program
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes
    proposed language to authorize $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2015 in
    direct loan authority for NOAA's Fisheries Finance Program (FFP)
    Account as authorized by the Merchant Marine Act. FFP loans have a
    negative subsidy rate and no appropriated funds are required. I have
    supporting the proposed language which I believe will increase
    opportunities for vessel owners to build and refinance new vessels and
    make major modifications to existing vessels to improve fishing vessel
    safety. These loans will help the fleet modernize and provide
    significant economic benefits to shipyards and support industries.
        Secretary Pritzker, will you please provide a written update on the
    status of new regulations to support this enhanced authority within the
    Fisheries Finance Program?
        Answer. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) is
    currently being developed to seek industry input on the potential form
    of a new vessel and vessel reconstruction loan authority. The ANPR will
    help the Department publish regulations that facilitate fleet
    modernization while supporting ongoing efforts to maintain sustainable
    fisheries. Once industry input has been received, the Department will
    publish draft regulations addressing vessel replacement, project cost,
    risk, and other matters related to effective program management. It is
    anticipated that the rulemaking process will be completed by December
    2015.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
                        trans-pacific partnership (tpp)
        Question. I'd like to first acknowledge the Administration's
    commitment to the Yarn Forward Rule of Origin for textiles and apparel
    in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). As you know this rule is of
    critical importance to the U.S. textile industry and has created
    invaluable supply chains globally but in the Western Hemisphere in
    particularly. Western Hemisphere textile and apparel trade is worth $25
    billion in value and 2 million manufacturing jobs.
        With that in mind, I'd like to ask you about the Trans-Pacific
    Partnership and the status of the Market Access negotiations for the
    most sensitive textile products manufactured here in the U.S. What
    assurances can you give the committee that the Government is seeking
    the longest market access phase outs as possible in the TPP?
        Answer. The U.S. textile negotiating team has worked in close
    consultation with U.S. industry and other stakeholders to develop a
    responsible approach to tariff elimination that ensures our textile
    industry will not be competitively disadvantaged. The Department of
    Commerce's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Textiles, Consumer Goods, and
    Materials has been intimately involved in each round of these
    negotiations, working with the Assistant U.S.Trade Representative for
    Textiles to ensure that the concerns of our domestic industry
    stakeholders are addressed. In the market access talks, the Department
    has proposed a new, unique concept that provides the longest tariff
    phase-outs on the most sensitive textile and apparel products.
        Question. And how are negotiators counterbalancing this position in
    light of Vietnam's insistence on immediate access?
        Answer. The initial duty reduction provides an incentive for
    importers and retailers to source goods in TPP countries to take
    advantage of the agreement while the long phase-outs for full duty-free
    benefits on sensitive products provide domestic stakeholders and
    existing free trade agreement (FTA) and trade preference partners time
    to adjust. In addition, there are additional market access schedules
    for less sensitive textiles and apparel that provide immediate duty-
    free treatment.
                                     steel
        Question. The United States is currently facing a steel import
    crisis, with dumped and subsidized steel imports from a number of
    countries and across various product lines flooding our market. These
    imports are causing injury to our steel industry and its workers.
        In response, the domestic industry has brought new trade cases in
    the past year against unfairly traded imports of rebar and oil country
    tubular goods (``OCTG''). Both of these industries desperately need
    relief. Despite the initiation of these cases, I understand that
    imports continue to flood the market, causing additional injury to the
    domestic industry. For example, U.S. imports of rebar from Turkey have
    continued to rise this year, with the U.S. market becoming the single
    largest destination for Turkish rebar.
        Despite rising imports and the desperate need for relief, the
    Department has made preliminary determinations in both cases that cause
    concern from the domestic industry.
        Can you assure the subcommittee that the Commerce Department will
    vigorously apply and enforce the U.S. trade remedy laws, including with
    respect to the above-noted cases?
        Answer. The Department is fully committed to enforcing our trade
    remedy laws so that American industries and workers have the
    opportunity to compete on a level playing field with their foreign
    competitors. The enforcement of the antidumping duty (AD) and
    countervailing duty (CVD) trade remedy laws is one of the Department's
    top priorities. The Department has received numerous steel-related
    petitions in the past months and it is currently conducting 39
    investigations involving steel products from a number of countries.
    This represents roughly 75 percent of the Department's ongoing
    investigations, and it has devoted significant resources to these cases
    to ensure that unfair trade practices are identified and remedied at
    the border. With respect to the ongoing cases on steel products,
    including those on oil country tubular goods and rebar, the
    Department's Enforcement and Compliance Unit, whose primary mission is
    conducting these trade cases, is focused on these matters and is
    diligently scrutinizing the information on the record of these
    proceedings in order to identify the extent of any unfair dumping or
    subsidization.
        Question. What is the Department doing, and what additional
    resources does the Department need, to address this import crisis on a
    comprehensive and systematic basis?
        Answer. The Department is currently conducting 39 steel-related AD
    and CVD investigations covering such products as grain-oriented
    electrical steel from China, the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, South
    Korea, Poland, and Russia; non-oriented electrical steel from China,
    Germany, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan, and oil country
    tubular goods from India, South Korea, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia,
    Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, and Vietnam. Numerous analysts,
    accountants, and legal advisors are assigned to these cases to identify
    the extent of any dumping or unfair subsidization that may be
    occurring. The Department of Commerce team is also working closely with
    colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in an effort to ensure that
    the Department's antidumping and countervailing duty orders are
    implemented properly and that importers are paying all amounts owed.
        In addition to its AD and CVD measures, the Department works
    closely with the Office of the United States Trade Representative in
    bilateral, trilateral and multilateral forums, such as the Organization
    for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Steel Committee, to
    raise concerns with our trading partners about government-funded steel
    capacity and other government policies that cause distortions in the
    steel market both globally and domestically.
        With respect to resources, the Department supports the request of
    the President as reflected in his budget proposal. The vigorous
    enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws is a top priority and the
    Department will continue to conduct all antidumping and countervailing
    duty investigations in a thorough and transparent manner, in accordance
    with U.S. law and our international obligations.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator John Boozman
                       international trade administration
        Question. Over the past decade, 7 of the 10 fastest growing
    economies in the world have been in sub-Saharan Africa. Demographic
    trends suggest that by 2050 one in four workers in the world will be
    African, and the continent's population will top one billion. I believe
    that it is time for the United States to open new avenues to help
    American companies go head to head with their competitors in Africa.
    Over the last 10 years, trade with Africa from China, India, and Brazil
    has increased eight-fold. Over the same period, U.S. trade with Africa
    has increased by a multiple of only three. That is why I have joined
    with Senators Durbin to introduce legislation to create American jobs
    by increasing exports of U.S. goods and services to Africa by at least
    200 percent in real dollar value over the next 10 years. The eagerness
    and willingness to be good trade partners on the part of African
    nations is there. They want our goods and services because Africans
    know they are high quality. The desire for American products, and along
    with our ideals, is strong. The only thing missing is a cohesive
    strategy on our end. Two years ago President Obama rolled out his
    strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa and a large part of his strategy
    was to encourage U.S. businesses to trade with and invest in Africa.
        Can you discuss how the Department is implementing this pillar of
    the strategy?
        Answer. The Administration agrees that there is a need for a
    cohesive and comprehensive approach that the U.S. Government should be
    taking towards developing and increasing our commercial relationship in
    Africa. As noted, 2 years ago President Obama rolled out the Doing
    Business in Africa campaign (DBIA) to encourage U.S. companies to trade
    with and do business in Africa and to take advantage of the tremendous
    opportunities the region has to offer. The Department of Commerce has
    coordinated the efforts of U.S. Government agencies to work through one
    common DBIA strategic plan to:

      --increase trade promotion focused on the region;
      --expand trade financing and risk management programs available to
            American companies; and
      --increase targeted communication activities to engage key
            stakeholders and promote Africa as a strategic trade and
            investment market.

        Consistent with this strategic plan, the Commerce Department wants
    to ensure that American businesses, especially small businesses, are
    equipped with the tools they need to do business in Africa and thereby
    create jobs at home. Several key activities that Commerce is doing this
    year to support the DBIA strategy and U.S. companies include:

      --Leading trade mission: The Department led 20 American companies on
            an Energy Business Development trade mission to West Africa,
            which visited Ghana and Nigeria from May 18-23 of this year.
            This mission promoted U.S. exports and expanded U.S. companies'
            presence in Africa by helping American firms launch or increase
            their business in the energy sector.
      --Doubling staffing presence in sub-Saharan Africa: The Department
            will hire an additional 6 new Foreign Service Officers, 19
            locally engaged staff, and 2 headquarters positions that
            directly work in or on sub-Saharan Africa issues. This
            expansion will add additional staff to existing operations in
            Kenya and Ghana and will open four new posts among Africa's
            fastest growing economies--Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia and
            Tanzania. These four markets offer considerable opportunities
            to American companies in sectors where we have a proven
            successful track record.
      --Hosting an Africa Business Forum: As part of the upcoming U.S.-
            Africa Leaders' Summit, which will be held August 5-6, 2014, in
            Washington, DC, the Commerce Department will lead a Business
            Forum. The event will bring together hundreds of U.S. and
            African CEOs, as well as African leaders, to explore practical
            ways to increase trade and investment between our respective
            markets. In connection with this Forum, Commerce is also
            exploring ways to encourage African leaders to travel to
            various parts of the United States and engage with local
            business communities both directly before and immediately after
            the Summit. Whether it is through commercial activities such as
            trade missions, promotional outreach activities, or trade
            policy encouraging African nations to strengthen democratic and
            transparent institutions and improve their investment climate,
            Commerce continues to actively support the United States'
            increasing commercial engagement with the African continent.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to Hon. Todd J. Zinser
                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                         polar satellite gap mitigation
        Question. Mr. Zinser, your office and the GAO agree that there is
    still a significant risk for a gap in critical satellite data before
    the JPSS-1 satellite becomes fully operational. This data is essential
    for the protection of life and property across our country.
        In your opinion, does the Department's fiscal year 2015 budget
    proposal do enough to address the potential gap in polar satellite
    data?
        Answer. NOAA's options to reduce the likelihood of a gap are
    limited. The JPSS program determined that it could not accelerate JPSS-
    1's launch date without excessive risk. The fiscal year 2015 budget
    continues activities to protect against a JPSS-1 launch delay. However,
    the budget does not specify activities intended to mitigate the
    consequences of a polar satellite data gap (i.e., forecast
    degradation), but some work in this regard was initiated with funds
    received under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013.
        Question. Should the Department prioritize filling, or at least
    mitigating, the gap in polar satellite data over other satellite
    projects or activities that are included in the fiscal year 2015
    request?
        Answer. The extent to which the Department should prioritize
    filling or mitigating a potential gap depends, in part, on how
    successfully it can provide congressional stakeholders with a cost and
    benefit rationale of performing that activity compared with performing
    other satellite projects or activities identified in the fiscal year
    2015 budget.
                            program robustness--jpss
        Question. In addition to the potential gap in satellite data, I
    have serious concerns for the robustness of the JPSS program. The
    NESDIS Independent Review Team emphasized the danger of being just one
    failure away from catastrophe--meaning if JPSS-1 fails there is no
    backup to take its place.
        Is the Department taking sufficient steps currently, and within its
    fiscal year 2015 proposal, to ensure JPSS is a robust program that
    includes backup options in case JPSS-1 were to fail?
        Answer. The Department has begun to take steps towards creating a
    robust JPSS program. It began planning additional missions for a
    longer-term JPSS program in response to the independent review team's
    November 2013 report. NOAA's response included initiating a number of
    trade studies to identify longer-term gap filler and mitigation
    options, as well as conducting a gap filler mission concept review at
    the end of March 2014. Also in March, NOAA indicated its intent to
    procure copies of the JPSS instrument suite for JPSS-3 and JPSS-4
    missions, as well as additional spares of Advanced Technology Microwave
    Sounder (ATMS) and Cross-track Infrared Sounder (CrIS), potentially for
    a gap filler mission. The fiscal year 2015 proposal indicates that the
    requested increase in JPSS funds would support additional instrument
    procurements. While these are positive steps, NOAA needs to complete an
    acquisition strategy and other program plans (e.g., cost, schedule, and
    performance baselines) to ensure that it can meet the independent
    review team's criteria for a robust program.
                              working capital fund
        Question. The Department's funding request for Working Capital Fund
    (WCF) continues to increase year-after-year. In its fiscal year 2015
    request, the Department proposes a $25.5 million increase over fiscal
    year 2014 enacted. While requests for WCF continue to rise, along with
    the assessments made on Commerce bureaus, transparency of billing rates
    and services provided has decreased. Transparency and accountability is
    particularly lacking in WCF services provided by the Commerce Office of
    General Counsel.
        Mr. Zinser what is the latest status of your investigation into the
    operation and lack of transparency in the Department's Working Capital
    Fund?
        Answer. We have completed our audit of the Department's WCF and, on
    May 15, 2014, we issued our final report, Office of the Secretary's
    Working Capital Fund Billing Control Issues Resulted in Incorrect
    Charges.
        Question. In your opinion, does the Department take any steps to
    improve transparency and accountability within the operation and
    billing activities of the WCF?
        Answer. We believe that, once the Department implements our final
    report recommendations, it will have taken important steps toward
    improving WCF transparency and accountability.
        The audit found that the Office of the Secretary Financial
    Management directorate (OSFM) and WCF service providers did not comply
    with billing requirements established in the Department's fiscal year
    2013 WCF handbook. The noncompliance occurred because OSFM relied on
    incorrect bases of charge, inaccurate supporting documentation, and/or
    incorrect billing information for 10 of the 34 projects reviewed. As a
    result, customers were either over- or undercharged for services
    provided in fiscal year 2013, compared with the amount that should have
    been billed. (Please see Appendix C attachment at the end of my
    responses to Senator Shelby's questions for a list of fiscal year 2013
    overcharges and undercharges by WCF project that we identified in our
    audit.) The Office of General Counsel (OGC) is the service provider for
    4 of the 10 projects that did not comply with the requirements of the
    WCF handbook.
        To improve the Office of the Secretary's oversight of the WCF, we
    recommended that it:

      --update processes for calculating the correct bases of charge, and
            obtain the most current documentation from the service
            providers;
      --require a validation and certification process for WCF service
            providers to capture and retain supporting documentation that
            accurately reflects the level of services provided to
            customers; and
      --make a determination on whether fiscal year 2013 charges should be
            reviewed and recalculated accordingly, and whether adjustments
            should be considered in calculating charges for fiscal year
            2014.
                                  2020 census
        Question. I continue to be concerned about the Department's ramp-up
    to the 2020 Census. This effort will cause increased budget pressures
    on the Department for the next several fiscal years. It is imperative
    that the Census Bureau carry out activities leading up to the 2020
    Census efficiently and with future budget constraints in mind.
        Mr. Zinser, does the Department take the necessary steps in its
    fiscal year 2015 proposal to ensure proper controls are in place to
    keep costs down and schedule on time leading up to the 2020 Census?
        Answer. My office actively monitors the Census Bureau's development
    of the 2020 Census and makes recommendations in areas where internal
    control weaknesses are identified. Specifically, we have addressed (a)
    the Bureau's research and testing (R&T) progress, in a report issued on
    December 3, 2013, and (b) concerns with the Bureau's formulation of
    budget estimates, in a report that we will issue as final in May 2014.
        Our December 2013 report 2020 Census Planning: Research Delays and
    Program Management Challenges Threaten Design Innovation examined the
    adequacy of the R&T program's governance and internal controls to
    manage the design effort. This audit determined that the current
    schedule suffered from research delays and lacked adequate budget
    integration. The Census Bureau concurred with our findings and
    recommendations and developed the following corrective actions (see
    Table 1) that, if implemented, should ensure that proper controls are
    in place to manage costs and the 2020 Census R&T schedule:

              TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF CENSUS BUREAU CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Summary of Corresponding
    Selected December 2013 OIG Recommendations    Census Bureau Corrective
                to the R&T Program                         Actions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Determine when 2020 Census design           Complete a fully integrated
     decisions must be made, adhere to an        schedule, with established
     activity schedule that aligns with those    critical paths (including
     decision points, and develop a critical     end of fiscal year 2015
     path for the 2020 Census R&T schedule.      deadline for design
                                                 decisions) for meeting the
                                                 goals of the 2020 Census
                                                 R&T program.\a\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Define and adhere to a final testing        Analyze the testing schedule
     schedule, and determine how iterative       to ensure that the American
     testing and the American Community Survey   Community Survey is
     can be used for the operational testing     leveraged to the greatest
     phase.                                      extent possible.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incorporate earned value management and     Develop earned value
     budgets at the project level to             management guidelines,
     prioritize projects, as well as assess      including a resource-based
     and quantify 2020 Census research program   schedule at the project
     results.                                    level.\b\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: OIG
    \a\ A resource-based schedule pilot project for 2020 decennial R&T will
      occur in the summer of 2014.
    \b\ The Census Bureau's full implementation of the EVM process will
      occur in fiscal year 2015.

        Our upcoming May 2014 audit report will identify significant
    internal control weaknesses in the Census Bureau's budget formulation
    and execution process, as well as the method used to record project
    salary costs. Specifically, the 2020 Census R&T program--and likely
    other Census Bureau programs--charge salary costs to projects based on
    budget estimates, instead of actual hours worked on a project. In
    addition, the R&T program was unable to provide support for fiscal
    years 2013 and 2014 budget requests. Finally, the practice of
    transferring budget between projects circumvents spending controls,
    thereby increasing the risk that incorrect or even fraudulent charges
    could be recorded without detection.
        Due to these internal control weaknesses, we were unable to assess
    the impact of recent budget reductions on the 2020 Census R&T program--
    and its goal of reducing the 2020 Census per-household cost--because
    the amount of resources expended cannot be used to analyze whether
    projects are yielding desired results and should continue to be funded.
        Question. In your opinion, what activities should the Committee pay
    most attention to during this process to best ensure its success?
        Answer. In addition to monitoring the Census Bureau's research and
    testing schedule early in the decade--and the implementation schedule
    as 2020 nears--the Committee should monitor the advantages,
    limitations, and risks of:

      --the use of administrative records for decennial census activities;
      --a targeted address canvassing operation (as opposed to canvassing
            every block in the United States) that ensures a quality list;
            and
      --implementing an Internet response option.

        The Census Bureau successfully incorporating these decennial design
    changes could save the Government billions of dollars.
        Finally, conducting regularly scheduled congressional hearings
    provides an ideal forum for the Census Bureau to provide updates and
    respond to oversight concerns.

     ATTACHMENT: APPENDIX C, ``DETAILED OVERCHARGES AND (UNDERCHARGES) BY WCF PROJECTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2013,\1\'' OF OIG FINAL REPORT NUMBERPOIG-14-020-A, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY'S WORKING CAPITAL
                                                             FUND BILLING CONTROL ISSUES RESULTED IN INCORRECT CHARGES, ISSUED MAY 13, 2014
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Service Providers             Office of Human Resource            Office of         Office of         Office of                   Office of General Counsel
    ------------------------------             Management                   Financial          Security      Administrative  ------------------------------------------------------
                                  ------------------------------------     Management     -----------------      Service                                                                  Total
                                                                      --------------------  Investigation  ------------------                                                        Overcharges or
             WCF Projects          Office of Policy   Human Resource        Business             and                           Legislation and     Finance and     Administration    (Undercharges)
                                     and Programs       Management         Application       Intelligence      Electronic        Regulations       Litigation
                                                          System            Solutions          Programs      Travel Systems
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Customers:
      OS.........................             (390)           (1,490)             81,231            18,632            2,058             2,298           156,563          (166,712)           92,190
      ITA........................              877            (4,972)              1,801               227              165             1,186           (68,079)          (90,723)         (159,518)
      EDA........................              378            (1,325)                 79                 0              739            (1,441)           11,608            19,105            29,143
      NTIA.......................              958            (2,083)              2,254               227            1,584           (11,448)         (288,937)            2,947          (294,498)
      NTIS.......................              296              (757)                  0                 0              (13)            1,771           109,511            10,150           120,958
      CEN........................            8,819           (90,891)             40,796               227           (3,977)            3,075           326,940           249,345           534,334
      ESA........................              143            (3,598)                110                 0             (117)            7,513            (1,631)           (2,358)               62
      NOAA.......................           (2,542)          129,341             (35,016)              227           (6,649)            3,077          (694,208)         (147,819)         (753,589)
      NIST.......................           (7,087)          (20,198)            (12,741)              227            4,423           (12,146)          (94,772)          140,004            (2,290)
      MBDA.......................             (102)             (505)                224               227              523             2,806           137,334            (5,991)          134,516
      BIS........................               82            (2,544)             (1,687)              227            1,319             6,268             5,039           (53,109)          (44,405)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Calculated by OIG based on documentation provided by OSFM and the service providers.
    \1\ OGC's Legal Information Retrieval and OFM's Oklahoma Enterprise Application Systems were not included in this table because we did not have fiscal year 2013 data to determine the over- or
      undercharges.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee will now stand in
    recess to May 1st at 10 a.m., when we take the testimony of the
    NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden.
        I also wish to announce that there will be a full committee
    hearing on two things in which we hope to create jobs, one of
    which on April 29th we will be holding a full committee
    hearing, all hands on deck, on innovation, particularly in
    terms of life science and others, where we'll listen to
    everyone from NIH to DARPA to the Department of Energy.
        Also, later on in the spring--the date will be announced
    shortly--we will be having a full committee hearing on physical
    infrastructure, how we have to look across the committees on
    our physical infrastructure needs, whether it's in
    transportation, water and sewer, and our ports.
        Senator Coons. And rail.
        Senator Mikulski. Excuse me?
        Senator Coons. And rail.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. But that's transportation. But our
    ports themselves. There are big ships coming through the Panama
    Canal. Maryland is ready, but we looked ahead and got ourselves
    ready. But we need viable ports. We want those imports and
    exports, and Japan is one of our great trading partners with
    Toyotas and motorcycles.
        Anyway, we will be holding a full committee hearing on kind
    of an infrastructure appropriation so we know that every
    subcommittee is looking at our physical infrastructure using
    this year's appropriations, how we can have a horizontal view
    on what this means to creating jobs and yet getting value for
    our dollar, solving important problems in transportation, the
    environment through public works, getting our ports ready for
    the new ships in the new century.
        So these are the kinds of things we'll be doing, and
    therefore the committee, for now, stands in recess until the
    full committee hearing on April 29th, and this subcommittee,
    May 1st, for NASA.
        Secretary Pritzker. Thank you very much. Thank you,
    Senator.
        [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday,
    May 1.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski and Shelby.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

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

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Administrator Bolden, as one of the most publicly
    recognized agencies in the Federal Government, NASA serves as
    an inspiration to many across the globe. For more than 50
    years, NASA has pushed the boundaries of human knowledge
    through exploration and scientific discovery.
        The cutting-edge missions and projects historically
    undertaken by NASA are technologically challenging and risky. A
    true commitment of resources, coupled with strong oversight, is
    required for these efforts to stay on schedule and on budget.
        In spite of this, NASA's 2015 budget proposal is $186
    million below the current enacted level and contains drastic
    inequities with respect to program oversight.
        This calls into question the administration's level of
    commitment to a forward-thinking, inspirational space program,
    I believe. For example, while the Space Launch System, SLS, is
    subject to strict and necessary oversight, severe budget cuts
    will ensure delays and unnecessary cost growth.
        At the same time, NASA has taken a hands-off approach with
    the commercial crew and cargo programs, choosing instead to
    commit seemingly unlimited Federal resources with little to no
    transparency or accountability. Neither of these approaches, in
    my view, is acceptable.
        And while your statement depicts SLS as critical to NASA's
    exploration goals, the requested budget does not reflect that
    commitment. Instead, the budget request maintains a resource
    level that underfunds SLS and inserts unnecessary budgetary and
    schedule risks into the future of human exploration.
        For the first time in recent memory, NASA has a strategic
    plan for space exploration that will utilize one platform to
    meet the needs of multiple exploration missions well into the
    future. That platform is SLS.
        Historically, NASA has planned a single mission and set out
    to build a program around that mission. Not so with SLS. Once
    SLS is operational, NASA will be able to provide critical
    heavy-lift capabilities to short-, medium-, and long-range
    missions. In short, SLS will provide NASA a versatile platform
    to conduct a variety of missions.
        SLS will allow NASA to break free from its decades-long
    tether to low-Earth orbit. It will enable NASA to go to an
    asteroid and achieve the ultimate goal of sending humans to
    Mars.
        In addition, SLS will create significant opportunities for
    planetary robotic science missions and space-based astronomy.
    It is the vehicle that will make NASA's goals for exploration
    possible.
        None of this will be possible if we shortchange this
    effort.
        My concerns about the budget are not focused solely on SLS.
    They also extend to NASA's commercial launch program. And while
    the commercial cargo program eventually succeeded in delivering
    cargo to the International Space Station, it came at a
    significant cost. SpaceX has flown three successful missions to
    the International Space Station, and Orbital has flown one.
    These accomplishments should be celebrated.
        Yet it is worth noting that these missions could not have
    been achieved without the investment of nearly $800 million
    taxpayer dollars. NASA paid these companies in spite of delayed
    milestones, shifting completion dates, and a final delivery
    schedule that was 2.5 years behind. All the while, NASA has
    little insight regarding the delays and even less about the
    investments made by the companies.
        Today, NASA is using the same flawed model to advance the
    commercial crew program. Once again, NASA is spending billions
    to help private companies develop a launch vehicle, but has
    little to no access to the books and records associated with
    this investment. None of these companies will publicly disclose
    investment in the so-called public-private partnership.
        The question is, is the Federal Government a majority
    investor or a minority investor? The fact is, there is no
    transparency into the true total investment in these vehicles.
        Notwithstanding the total Federal investment, I am most
    troubled that these programs lack an oversight component. Much
    like the cargo program, we are beginning to see similar issues
    surface with the crew program.
        These issues are not grounded in funding shortfalls, but
    rather in the capability of these companies to meet their own
    proposed milestones and deadlines.
        Moreover, NASA ceded its authority to investigate these
    problems when it signed the Space Act Agreements that fund
    these companies.
        I fully recognize that these are not simple efforts. They
    are technically difficult and extremely risky. That said, the
    lack of transparency, coupled with the continued demand for
    additional taxpayer resources to fund ``a commercial venture,''
    is difficult to rationalize.
        While new and innovative ideas often require significant
    investment and involve significant risk, I believe they cannot
    come at the expense of other priority programs. They should
    never be guaranteed funding with little or no oversight.
        I plan to work with Senator Mikulski to make NASA's budget
    reflect its priorities and to address the inequities in
    accountability that are emblematic of this request.
        General, we welcome you today. We are always glad to hear
    from you and look forward to the area of questioning. Thank
    you.

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

        Mr. Bolden. Senator, thank you very much. I want to thank
    you and Madam Chairperson, Chairwoman Senator Mikulski, and all
    the members of this subcommittee for the final fiscal year 2014
    appropriations. We are greatly indebted to the hard work that
    you and Senator Mikulski put into leading the team to come up
    with the final number.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

        That budget is allowing us to make substantial progress on
    our shared priorities, and our fiscal year 2015 request builds
    on that appropriation. The President's $17.5 billion budget
    request affirms the bipartisan strategic exploration plan
    agreed to with Congress back in 2010, and it keeps NASA on the
    steady path we have been following, a stepping stone approach
    to meet the President's challenge of sending humans to Mars in
    the 2030s, and you referred to that in your opening statement.
        You should have a copy of this in front of you, but I am
    going to refer to this chart off and on over the course of my
    testimony today. But for the benefit of others who are here,
    this is essentially a pictorial of the roadmap when I refer to
    the stepping stone approach that we are using to get to Mars.
    You have already commented on the critical importance of SLS on
    that, and we can talk about that as I go.
        The International Space Station remains our springboard to
    the exploration of deep space and Mars. Our commitment to
    extend the ISS until at least 2024 ensures we will have this
    unique orbiting outpost for at least another decade. This means
    an expanded market for private space companies; more
    groundbreaking research and science discovery in microgravity;
    and opportunities to live, work, and learn in space over longer
    periods of time.
        Later this year, we will see Exploration Flight Test 1, or
    EFT-1, as we call it, of Orion. NASA is pressing forward with
    the development of the Space Launch System, or SLS, and Orion,
    preparing for an uncrewed mission of the two together in fiscal
    year 2018.
        The budget also supports the administration's commitment
    that NASA be a catalyst for the growth of a vibrant American
    commercial space industry. Already, as you pointed out, two
    companies, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, are making regular
    cargo deliveries to the International Space Station.
        Later this year, we will move beyond commercial cargo and
    award contracts to American companies to send astronauts to the
    station from American soil and end our sole reliance on Russia.
        If Congress fully funds our fiscal year 2015 request, we
    believe we can do this by the end of 2017.
        Unfortunately, due to funding levels provided for
    commercial crew for the past few years, NASA has had to extend
    our current contract with the Russians and purchase more seats
    on the Soyuz spacecraft. Instead of investing millions of
    dollars into the U.S. economy to support American jobs, we will
    be spending that money in Russia.
        While I appreciate all of the funding this subcommittee has
    provided in recent years, I ask that you fully fund our 2015
    request for this critical priority. Budgets really are about
    choices, and the choice here is between fully funding the
    request to bring space launches back to American soil or
    continuing to send millions to the Russians. It is really that
    simple.
        In addition to continuing ISS research, strengthening
    partnerships with commercial and international partners and
    building the next-generation heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule
    to take our astronauts farther into space than ever before, our
    steppingstone approach includes a plan to robotically capture a
    small near-Earth asteroid and redirect it safely to a stable
    orbit in the Earth-Moon system, which we refer to as the
    proving ground on this chart, where astronauts can visit and
    explore it.
        Our asteroid redirect mission will help us deliver
    technologies, including Solar Electric Propulsion needed for
    future deep space missions to Mars. We also enhance detection
    and characterization of Near Earth Objects (NEO) and improve
    our understanding of asteroid threats to planet Earth.
        NASA's 2015 request continues support for science missions,
    heading toward destinations such as Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto.
    It enables NASA to continue making critical observations of
    Earth and developing applications to directly benefit our
    Nation and the world. It maintains steady progress on the James
    Webb Space Telescope toward its 2018 launch.
        The budget request also supports missions currently in
    formulation, such as Europa, and the mission to achieve the
    science objectives of WFIRST, as laid out in the Astrophysics
    decadal survey. Our aeronautics program will continue to focus
    on substantially reducing fuel consumption, emissions, and
    noise to help make the Next Generation Air Transportation
    System, or NextGen, a reality.
        All of NASA's investments help drive technology and
    innovation, spur economic activity, and create jobs. That is
    why the President's Opportunity, Growth, and Security
    Initiative, with congressional approval, will provide NASA
    nearly $900 million in additional funding in fiscal year 2015
    to focus on specific areas where we can advance our priorities.
        In summary, the fiscal year 2015 budget request advances
    NASA's strategic plan for the future, will continue building
    U.S. preeminence in science and technology, improve life on
    Earth, and protect our home planet while creating good jobs and
    strengthening the American economy.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        Senator Shelby, I really want to thank you again, you and
    Senator Mikulski, for the leadership you have displayed with
    this subcommittee and for the very good funding that we
    received in the fiscal year 2014 appropriations. I look forward
    to continuing to work with you and being able to be as happy
    about funding in the future. So I will be happy to respond to
    any questions you may have now.
        [The statements follow:]
               Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    have this opportunity to discuss NASA's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request. The requested budget of $17.46 billion provides the resources
    NASA needs to pursue the goals and priorities that the Congress and the
    Administration have established for the Agency and will ensure that
    NASA will remain the world's leader in space. A summary of the fiscal
    year 2015 budget request is appended to this statement.
        The President's fiscal year 2015 request supports NASA's continuing
    quest to extend human presence into deep space and on to Mars. NASA
    will continue to perform research aboard the International Space
    Station (ISS), partner with American industry for crew and cargo
    delivery to low Earth orbit (LEO), develop the Space Launch System
    (SLS) and Orion crew vehicle, and test our new capabilities in the
    proving ground of cis-lunar space before sending a human mission to the
    Red Planet. NASA will also continue to develop a rich array of
    commercial and international partnerships as part of its overall
    exploration framework. As we speak, American astronauts aboard the ISS
    are learning the fundamental lessons necessary to safely execute
    extended missions deeper into space. Later this year we will see the
    Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) of Orion atop a Delta IV Heavy launch
    vehicle. NASA is pressing forward with development of SLS and Orion,
    preparing for a first, uncrewed mission in fiscal year 2018.
        As a critical element in this long-term exploration strategy, as
    well as a source of continuing scientific and material benefits to life
    on Earth, operations in LEO remain among NASA's highest priorities.
    With the Administration's commitment to the extension of ISS operations
    through 2024, NASA looks forward to expanded research opportunities
    with continuing support from our commercial partners for both crew and
    cargo. Two American companies are launching supplies to the ISS from
    U.S. soil. NASA will complete a commercial crew competition this
    summer, and if Congress fully funds our fiscal year 2015 budget
    request, we believe we can stay on track to launch astronauts to the
    ISS from American soil by the end of 2017. This capability is
    critically important to safe/sustained operations, and will end our
    sole reliance on our Russian partners for this service. The requested
    funding is required to meet this critical near-term need.
        Consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
    267) and the National Space Policy, NASA continues to make solid
    progress on the development of SLS and Orion for a series of test
    flights including a compelling mission in the proving ground of cis-
    lunar space to redirect a small asteroid into orbit around the Moon,
    and to send U.S. astronauts to rendezvous with and explore this target.
    The proving ground of cis-lunar space also puts the Nation in a
    position from which we may help our commercial and international
    partners robotically explore other destinations on that pathway, such
    as the Moon.
        The Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) will enable NASA to test
    powerful Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) and integrated human/robotic
    vehicle operations in deep-space trajectories. Like the invaluable ISS,
    this mission will provide NASA with critical knowledge, experience and
    technologies for future human exploration missions deeper into space.
    Drawing on our long-term investments across three Mission Directorates,
    the fiscal year 2015 request supports continued core capability
    development and formulation of the integrated mission concept. The
    overall asteroid initiative also includes enhanced Near Earth Object
    (NEO) detection and characterization, which will extend our
    understanding of the NEO threat while providing additional
    opportunities for investigations of asteroids and demonstrations of
    technologies and capabilities.
        NASA's fiscal year 2015 request for Science supports operation of
    the world's premier constellation of spacecraft dedicated to exploring
    Earth, the solar system, and the universe beyond, while we continue to
    develop the next generation of missions in pursuit of our Nation's
    highest priority space and Earth science. The James Webb Space
    Telescope (JWST), NASA's next-generation successor to the Hubble Space
    Telescope (HST), continues on schedule for its 2018 launch. In recent
    months, NASA has completed rigorous testing of the spine of the massive
    telescope and completed the primary mirrors for integration. As we
    announced last year, we have begun work on a large Curiosity-scale
    rover for a 2020 mission to Mars, and the fiscal year 2015 request
    includes funding to continue pre-formulation activities of a potential
    mission to Europa, one of Jupiter's moons believed to harbor a vast
    subsurface ocean. NASA will launch five Earth science missions in
    calendar year 2014, taking advantage of the unique vantage point of
    space to secure new insights into our home planet. The Earth science
    budget will support airborne campaigns to the poles and hurricanes,
    development of advanced sensor technologies, and use of satellite
    observations and data analysis tools to improve natural hazard and
    climate change preparedness.
        With NASA's fiscal year 2015 request, our pioneering Aeronautics
    research program will continue to focus on substantially reducing
    aircraft fuel consumption, emissions, and noise--and help make the Next
    Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, a reality. NASA's
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) will continue to
    implement the strategic vision for aeronautics that NASA launched last
    year, with a focus on addressing the challenges facing the U.S.
    aviation community--civil and military--in the coming decades.
        In essential support of the Agency's broader mission, the fiscal
    year 2015 request supports an active Space Technology Program to
    advance cutting-edge technologies, providing an on-ramp for new space
    technologies, creating a pipeline that matures them from early-stage
    through flight, and delivering innovative solutions that dramatically
    improve technology capabilities for NASA, the aerospace sector, and the
    Nation. The request supports the sustained investments that NASA must
    make to mature the capabilities we need to achieve the challenging
    goals that the Congress has set for us. By the end of fiscal year 2014,
    NASA will test and deliver two candidate designs for high-power solar
    electric systems for SEP with critical applications for deep-space
    exploration as well as for Earth-orbital activities. By the end of
    calendar year 2015, NASA will have completed seven Space Technology
    missions in 24 months, including demonstration of a deep-space atomic
    clock for advanced navigation, the green propellant demonstration (an
    alternative to highly toxic hydrazine), a solar sail to demonstrate
    propellant-free propulsion, and four small spacecraft missions
    pioneering new technologies. The Space Technology Program is also
    developing high performance systems for decelerating spacecraft at
    Mars, high bandwidth laser communications with the potential to
    transform communication systems for both space exploration and
    commercial use, advanced life support technology, advanced robotics,
    and lightweight composite propellant tanks.
        The program laid out in detail in NASA's fiscal year 2015 request
    continues NASA's implementation of the priorities established for it in
    the bipartisan NASA Authorization Act of 2010. In the current
    constrained budget environment, we have designed a balanced program
    that pursues the Nation's highest priorities in science, exploration,
    and aeronautics; with a critical technology development program to
    develop essential capabilities. The fiscal year 2015 request supports
    the next steps on the way to Mars in a sustainable way. It enables NASA
    to restore an American capability for sending humans to orbit while
    continuing development of a deep-space capability for human space
    flight. This is not an either-or scenario. Each is critically dependent
    on the other. The request supports the Nation's highest priority
    science and technology goals for space. NASA appreciates the strong
    budget support the Agency has received despite a difficult budget
    environment, and we are fully committed to delivering the world's
    leading space program on behalf of the American people.
        NASA is pleased to be included in the President's Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative (OGSI). Under this initiative, NASA
    would receive nearly $885.5 million in additional funding in fiscal
    year 2015 to focus on specific priorities. This initiative recognizes
    NASA as a critical source of innovation and technology that creates
    opportunity, economic growth, and ultimately security and prosperity.
    NASA's funding under OGSI would focus on priority investment
    opportunities such as an expanded Space Technology Program, reducing
    risk and enhancing competition in the Commercial Crew Program,
    continuing currently operating science missions and accelerating work
    on potential future missions. NASA's portion of OGSI would also enable
    further development work on SLS and Orion, more fully utilize the ISS,
    and support additional Earth science mission development, advanced
    computational fluid dynamics research and increased investment in
    composite materials.
                                    science
        With 95 missions in development and actively observing Earth, the
    Sun, the planets, and the universe beyond, NASA remains the world's
    premier space science organization and the critical source of
    information on the home planet. The President's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request for the Science program includes $4,972.0 million, with
    $1,770.3 million for Earth science, $1,280.3 million for Planetary
    Science, $607.3 million for Astrophysics, $645.4 million for the James
    Webb Telescope, and $668.9 million for Heliophysics.
                                 earth science
        The President's fiscal year 2015 budget request enables NASA to
    continue to make critical spaceborne measurements of Earth, our home;
    to conduct and fund a comprehensive, competed scientific research
    program to turn those measurements into an understanding of our complex
    planet; and to use the measurements and understanding to develop and
    demonstrate applications that will provide direct benefit to our
    Nation, and indeed all of humanity. Today, there are 17 NASA-developed
    research satellites on orbit, making measurements of more than 60 key
    aspects of our planet's environment. This past February, in
    collaboration with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the
    Global Precipitation Measurement mission (GPM) was launched to provide
    the first-ever, accurate, global maps of rain- and snowfall over the
    globe. During the rest of 2014, NASA will be launching four more Earth
    observing research missions: Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) to
    measure global carbon dioxide concentrations with unprecedented
    coverage and accuracy; RapidScat to the ISS, to make measurements of
    ocean wind speed and direction; Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS),
    also to the Space Station, to measure atmospheric aerosols; and, in
    November, the Soil Moisture/Active Passive (SMAP) mission to make
    accurate measurements of soil moisture and freeze-thaw cycling. These
    2014 missions will be followed in 2015-2017 by the SAGE-III
    (Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III) instrument to the ISS
    for atmospheric trace gas profile data, including ozone measurements;
    the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)-Follow On gravity
    mission with our German partners to measure changes in the Earth's
    gravity field and water storage, such as aquifer level changes; a
    constellation of eight smallsats, called Cyclone Global Navigation
    Satellite System (CYGNSS), to use reflected Global Positioning System
    (GPS) signals to measure conditions in cyclones and hurricanes; an
    instrument called Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution
    (TEMPO) to fly on a commercial geostationary communications satellite,
    to measure air quality over greater North America; and Ice, Cloud, and
    land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESAT-2), to make precise measurements of
    our planet's rapidly changing ice caps and glaciers.
        NASA is now developing the Pre-Aerosol, Clouds and ocean Ecosystem
    (PACE) ocean color and aerosol continuity mission, and the NASA-Indian
    Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Synthetic Aperture Radar (NI-SAR)
    mission in collaboration with the Indian space agency to measure solid
    earth processes, ice flows, global vegetation, and response to
    disasters and geohazards. The fiscal year 2015 budget request also
    supports NASA to develop missions that will continue key climate data
    series, including a set of solar irradiance, ozone profile, and Earth
    radiation budget instruments, and follow-on capabilities in support of
    U.S. Geological Survey for sustained land imaging following our
    successful launch of Landsat-8 just 1 year ago.
                  astrophysics and james webb space telescope
        NASA is making strong progress on JWST, the most powerful space
    telescope in history, and remains on cost and schedule for launch in
    2018. The Webb telescope is the next in a series of astrophysics
    missions, including the venerable, yet still unrivaled, HST and the
    incredibly productive Kepler exoplanet mission, which are
    revolutionizing our understanding of the universe. After launching in
    2018, the Webb telescope will travel one million miles from Earth,
    unfold its sunshield to the size of a tennis court, and keep its
    instruments cooled to a temperature of 370-387 degrees below zero
    Fahrenheit (40-50 Kelvin). The Webb telescope will allow us to observe
    objects even fainter than HST can see, which will allow us to study
    every phase in the history of our universe, ranging from the first
    luminous glow after the Big Bang, to the formation of solar systems
    capable of supporting life on planets like Earth, to the evolution of
    our own solar system. The fiscal year 2015 request will support work to
    continue testing the integrated science instrument module for JWST,
    continue the construction of the spacecraft that will carry the science
    instruments and the telescope, and begin the assembly of the delivered
    mirror segments into the telescope backplane.
        NASA's Astrophysics Program operating missions include the Hubble,
    Chandra, Spitzer, and Kepler telescopes; and other missions that
    together comprise an unrivaled, and in many ways unprecedented resource
    for the study of our universe. NASA is currently working with our
    German partner to identify a path forward for the Stratospheric
    Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a mission with high annual
    operating costs that cannot be accommodated within the fiscal year 2015
    budget request. In fiscal year 2015, NASA's next two astrophysics
    Explorer missions will continue their development. The Neutron Star
    Interior Composition Explorer (NICER) will probe the interiors of
    neutron stars and determine the laws of physics that govern atomic
    nuclei. NICER will be launched to the ISS in 2016. The Transiting
    Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) will extend the pioneering work of
    the Kepler Space Telescope, which showed us that virtually every star
    in the sky has a planetary system. TESS launches in 2017 and will
    discover rocky exoplanets orbiting the nearest and brightest stars in
    the sky in time for the JWST to conduct follow-up observations that
    will characterize their atmospheres and other properties.
                               planetary science
        Planetary Science missions continue to explore the solar system in
    unrivaled scope and depth. This past November, the Lunar Atmosphere and
    Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) was successfully lowered into its
    optimal position in lunar orbit to enable science data collection, and
    following the mission's final low-altitude science phase impacted the
    surface of the Moon, as planned, on April 17. Using its ion engines,
    the Dawn spacecraft is nearing its next target, Ceres, the largest
    asteroid in the asteroid belt, with an expected arrival in April 2015.
    Other upcoming outer planet encounters include the New Horizons mission
    flyby of Pluto in July 2015 and the Juno mission orbit insertion around
    Jupiter in August 2016. The fiscal year 2015 budget request also
    includes funding for continuing pre-formulation activities and studies
    for a potential mission to Jupiter's icy moon, Europa; with compelling
    evidence of a liquid water ocean beneath its crust, exploration of
    Europa is vital to our understanding of the habitability of other
    planets.
        Building on the success of NASA's Curiosity rover on Mars, the
    fiscal year 2015 request supports plans for a robust multi-year Mars
    program. In a little more than a year on the Red Planet, Curiosity has
    landed in an ancient river bed, determined the age of the surrounding
    Martian rocks, found evidence the planet could have sustained microbial
    life, taken the first readings of radiation on the surface, and shown
    how natural erosion could be used to reveal the building blocks of life
    protected just under the surface. Curiosity is providing vital insight
    about Mars' past and current environments that will aid plans for
    future robotic and human missions. The current Mars portfolio includes
    the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter,
    the Mars Odyssey orbiter, and our collaboration on the European Space
    Agency's Mars Express orbiter. It also includes the new Mars Atmosphere
    and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) orbiter, launched in 2013 to study the
    Martian upper atmosphere, which will arrive at the Red Planet in mid-
    September 2014. Future missions include the 2016 Interior Exploration
    using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport (InSight)
    mission, which will take the first look into the deep interior of Mars;
    participation in the European Space Agency's 2016 and 2018 ExoMars
    missions; and the new Mars rover planned for launch in 2020.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request includes enhanced funding for
    NASA's Near Earth Object survey and characterization activities in
    support of the ARM effort, as well as to protect our planet. Just last
    year, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer spacecraft was
    reactivated, renamed NEOWISE and given a renewed mission to assist
    NASA's efforts to identify the population of potentially hazardous
    near-Earth objects (NEOs). NEOWISE's first discovery of its renewed
    mission came on December 29, 2013--a large near-Earth asteroid
    designated 2013 YP139, which was about 27 million miles from Earth with
    an estimated diameter of roughly 0.4 miles. NEOWISE can also assist in
    characterizing previously detected asteroids that could be considered
    potential targets for future exploration missions.
                                  heliophysics
        NASA's Heliophysics Program is composed of 29 spacecraft and the
    associated research to understand the universal physical phenomena of
    magnetized plasmas and their interactions. These include the influence
    of the Sun in our local region of the galaxy, the origins of solar
    variability, and the coupling among various regions at the Earth and
    other planetary systems. Last year, NASA successfully launched the
    Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS), a Small Explorer mission.
    Within a few months, IRIS provided a new understanding of how the outer
    solar atmosphere is heated to over a million degrees. The fiscal year
    2015 budget request will support completion of development of the
    Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission, which will launch in 2015 to
    investigate how magnetic fields connect and disconnect, often releasing
    tremendous amounts of energy in the process. NASA will continue to
    develop the Solar Probe Plus (SPP) mission for a planned launch in
    fiscal year 2018, together with our instrument contributions to the
    European Space Agency's Solar Orbiter mission; Solar Probe Plus will
    repeatedly pass through the hot outer atmosphere of the Sun, to within
    five times the Sun's diameter, which is much closer than any man-made
    object ever has flown before. Finally, the Explorer missions selected
    in 2013 to study Earth's outer atmosphere--Ionospheric Connection
    (ICON) and Global-scale Observations of the Limb and Disk (GOLD)--are
    in their preliminary design phases for planned launches in 2017.
                              aeronautics research
        NASA's Aeronautics research is making air travel cleaner, safer,
    and more efficient. NASA's fiscal year 2015 budget request provides
    $551.1 million to fulfill the Agency's strategic research agenda. This
    innovative research is aimed at transforming the aviation industry
    through game-changing advances in the safety, capacity, and efficiency
    of the air transportation system, while minimizing negative impacts on
    the environment. NASA's fiscal year 2015 research portfolio is aligned
    with six strategic research thrusts to directly address the growing
    global demand for mobility, severe challenges to sustainability of
    energy and the environment, and technology advances in information,
    communications, and automation technologies. This portfolio includes
    those activities in our current portfolio deemed to be the most
    relevant and critical, as well as new activities focused on high-risk,
    forward thinking ideas to address aviation's big problems. The Agency
    will clearly define the most compelling technical challenges facing the
    aviation industry, and retire these challenges in a timeframe that is
    supported by stakeholders and required by NASA's customers. Over the
    next 2 years, NASA will continue to develop, demonstrate, and
    transition to industry and the Federal Aviation Administration new
    vehicle and airspace management concepts and technologies to help
    realize the promise of NextGen, as well as provide technical data,
    analysis and recommendations to support the integration of unmanned
    aerial systems (UAS) into the National Air Space. We will strengthen
    our external partnerships through joint flight experiments using
    alternative aviation fuels and advanced flight deck and vehicle
    technologies, and through demonstrations of advanced sensors to improve
    safety and identify emerging faults before damage occurs. By the end of
    fiscal year 2015, NASA will close out the 6-year Environmentally
    Responsible Aviation project with a series of integrated technology
    demonstrations to demonstrate the feasibility of a suite of
    technologies to meet our aggressive environmental goals. Through the
    alignment of our research portfolio to address the most critical
    challenges facing the aviation sector, NASA will be best positioned to
    continue supporting the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation
    industry that contributes to a $47 billion positive balance of trade,
    infuses $1.3 trillion annually into the U.S. economy and supports more
    than 10 million direct and indirect jobs.\1,2\ NASA is truly with you
    when you fly.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``Global Aerospace Industry Takes Off for the World's Largest
    Aerospace Trade Exhibition in 2012,'' July 6, 2012, International Trade
    Administration.
        \2\ ``The Economic Impact of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy,''
    August 2011, FAA, Page 24, Table 5 and Page 27, Table 8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                space technology
        NASA's fiscal year 2015 request includes $705.5 million for Space
    Technology, to enable our future in space, drawing on talent from the
    NASA workforce, academia, small businesses, and the broader national
    space enterprise, by delivering innovative solutions that dramatically
    lower costs and improve technological capabilities for NASA and the
    Nation.
        By the end of fiscal year 2014, NASA will test and deliver two
    candidate designs for large deployable solar array systems, power
    processing units, and advanced thrusters to support a flight
    demonstration of SEP. In addition to being important to the future of
    human spaceflight and the ARM effort, high-power SEP can enable orbit
    transfer capability for satellites, and addresses the rapid power
    demand increases facing today's communications satellites. Having
    successfully demonstrated a 2.4-meter propellant tank in 2013, NASA
    will complete testing of a 5.5-meter diameter composite tank to enable
    lower-mass rocket propellant tanks for future systems, including the
    SLS. By the end of 2015, NASA will have completed seven Space
    Technology missions in 24 months, including demonstration of a deep-
    space atomic clock for advanced navigation that has commercial
    application for improving GPS systems, the green propellant
    demonstration (a higher-performing, less toxic alternative to
    hydrazine), a solar sail to demonstrate propellant-free propulsion, and
    four small spacecraft missions pioneering new technologies. Building on
    recent successes with its Low Density Supersonic Decelerator, NASA
    plans to conduct high-speed tests--at an altitude of 170,000 feet--of
    the largest planetary parachute ever developed to enable precise
    landing of higher-mass payloads to the surface of other planets, with
    particular focus on infusing advanced capabilities into the Mars 2020
    mission and future human exploration missions.
        NASA's Space Technology investments are aligned with NASA's Human
    Exploration and Operations and Science Programs to reduce technological
    barriers and mission risk, and to foster affordable missions. The Space
    Technology Game Changing Development effort is delivering advanced
    life-support, advanced robotics, and battery technologies for system
    demonstrations planned by Human Exploration and Operations. For
    Science, Space Technology is improving navigational accuracy,
    developing advanced computing and avionics, and developing advanced
    Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) solutions, observatory technology,
    and optical communication technology to transmit large amounts of
    science data from deep space. Space Technology is partnering with Human
    Exploration and Operations and Science on many activities, including
    demonstration of in-situ resource utilization, optical communications,
    and advanced measurements on Mars. These precursor activities will pave
    the way and reduce risk for future Mars exploration.
                        exploration and space operations
        NASA is building the capabilities and knowledge to send humans
    farther from the home planet than we have ever been before. The fiscal
    year 2015 budget request for Exploration is $3,976.0 million with
    $2,784.4 million for Exploration Systems Development, $848.3 million
    for Commercial Space Flight, and $343.4 million for Exploration
    Research and Development. Space Operations, including the ISS and Space
    Flight Support, form a critical component of the Agency's exploration
    plans by enabling us to develop the knowledge, experience, and
    technology necessary for safely living and working in space. The fiscal
    year 2015 request for Space Operations is $3,905.4 million, with
    $3050.8 for ISS and $854.6 for Space Flight Support (SFS).
                              exploration systems
        The fiscal year 2015 request will enable NASA to continue to meet
    its milestones in the development of the Space Launch System (SLS), a
    rocket system ultimately capable of bringing an unprecedented 130
    metric tons of payload to Earth orbit. The Orion program continues on
    track for an uncrewed test flight later this year. This test flight,
    Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1), will see Orion conduct two orbits of
    Earth and reenter the atmosphere at approximately 85 percent of lunar
    reentry speed of a returning deep-space exploration mission. The test
    will provide valuable data about the spacecraft's systems--most
    importantly its heat shield and structure. The flight test article for
    this mission is already in place at the Kennedy Space Center and being
    readied for this test. The fiscal year 2015 budget request supports
    progress toward a first uncrewed test of the Orion and the SLS
    together, known as Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) in fiscal year 2018,
    with the first crewed mission of the two vehicles slated for fiscal
    year 2021-2022. Orion, SLS, and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) are
    using the latest in systems and manufacturing technology to develop the
    safe and sustainable systems this country needs to extend human
    presence to Mars. Examples include Orion's use of time-triggered
    gigabit Ethernet, SLS' use of friction-stir welding on large structures
    to build the Core Stage, and EGS' replacement of cables from Pad 39B
    with the latest in fiber optics. In developing the Orion, SLS, and EGS,
    NASA is building a national capability for the long-term human
    exploration of space.
                          international space station
        The fiscal year 2015 request supports the ISS with its
    international crew of six orbiting Earth every 90 minutes. The Station
    is making deep-space exploration possible, as we build on the knowledge
    and experience we are gaining from the astronauts living, working, and
    conducting research on the ISS. On January 8, 2014, the Administration
    announced it is committing the United States to the extension of ISS
    operations through at least 2024. This will allow NASA to complete many
    of the research and technology development activities aboard the ISS
    necessary to enable planned long-duration human missions beyond LEO;
    extend the broader flow of societal benefits from research on the
    Station, which has already resulted in a discoveries that could have
    significant medical and industrial implications; provide NASA and its
    private-sector partners time to more fully transition to the commercial
    space industry the transportation of cargo and crew to LEO; instill
    confidence in the science community that the ISS platform will be
    available for important, long-term research endeavors; and help cement
    continuing U.S. leadership in human spaceflight going forward. NASA's
    plans for the coming year include preparing for an extended duration,
    year-long human-crewed mission--slated to launch in March 2015--to
    explore human adaptation to space; and continuing to utilize the ISS to
    improve our ability to live and work in space, including conducting
    technology demonstrations enabling future exploration. The Center for
    the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) continues to manage the
    National Laboratory research being conducted in the U.S. segment of the
    ISS by an array of organizations, including commercial researchers
    interested in taking advantage of this unique, microgravity facility.
    One company, NanoRacks, uses standardized hardware to provide a
    microgravity research option for scientists working in venues ranging
    from grade school to academia to industry. During its first 3 years of
    business, NanoRacks sent 91 investigations to ISS, returned 10 to
    Earth, and deployed one CubeSat--a new area of focus using satellites
    that measure about four inches on all sides.
                           commercial crew and cargo
        A top priority for NASA and the Nation is to affordably and safely
    launch American astronauts and their supplies from U.S. soil, ending
    our sole reliance on foreign providers and bringing that work back
    home. Under NASA's Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts, Space
    Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) was awarded 12 cargo flights to the
    ISS, and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) was awarded 8 flights.
    Counting demonstration flights and CRS resupply flights, SpaceX has now
    completed three cargo missions to the ISS, successfully delivering
    cargo and returning scientific samples to Earth, with the fourth
    mission successfully launched to ISS on April 18. Orbital Sciences
    Corporation has completed their demonstration mission to the ISS and
    their first contract mission under CRS to deliver crew supplies,
    research and other cargo onboard the Cygnus spacecraft; the Orb 2
    mission is currently targeted for June 10. NASA continues to work with
    its commercial partners to develop a U.S. commercial capability for
    human spaceflight and plans to launch American astronauts from U.S.
    soil by the end of 2017. 2014 will be a pivotal year for NASA's
    Commercial Crew Program (CCP) as the Agency intends to award
    development and certification contract by September for the Commercial
    Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase that would lead to
    operational crewed flights to the ISS. Competition is a key to
    controlling costs over the long term, and NASA's Aerospace Safety
    Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until
    safety confidence is achieved. Through the successful execution of this
    partnership, we will return to the United States the vital capability
    to launch astronauts to the ISS from U.S. soil and return them to
    Earth.
                                   education
        The Administration is proposing increased interagency coordination
    of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education
    investments, aligned with the 5-Year Strategic Plan released last year
    by the Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM). The fiscal year 2015
    budget request for Education will enhance the impact of the Federal
    investment in STEM Education through greater interagency coordination
    and cooperation in support of a cohesive national STEM strategy focused
    on five priority areas: K-12 instruction, undergraduate education,
    graduate education, and broadening participation in STEM education and
    careers by women and minorities traditionally underrepresented in these
    fields, and education activities that typically take place outside the
    classroom. The Office of Education will continue its intra-agency
    consolidation of certain educational programs to eliminate duplication
    of efforts and achieve maximum leverage of resources.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request of $88.9 million consolidates
    education activities in the Office of Education, including several
    elements that may be transferred from NASA's mission directorates under
    a competitive process. The fiscal year 2015 budget request for the
    Education account includes funding for the National Space Grant College
    and Fellowship Program, the Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research (EPSCoR), and the Minority University Research and
    Education Project (MUREP), and STEM Education and Accountability
    Projects. These education investments link to NASA's research,
    engineering, and technology missions. Each of these investments
    provides unique NASA experiences and resources to students and faculty.
    The budget also provides $15 million to the Science Mission Directorate
    to competitively fund the best application of NASA Science assets to
    meet the Nation's STEM education goals.
                                   conclusion
        Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today to provide you with our progress and status over the past
    year. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other
    members of the subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Paul K. Martin
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee:
        The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is committed to providing
    independent, aggressive, and objective oversight of the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and we welcome this
    opportunity to discuss the major challenges facing the Agency.
        Over past 12 months, NASA has achieved a number of milestones that
    advanced its space exploration and scientific discovery goals,
    including a third commercial resupply mission to the International
    Space Station (ISS or Station) by Space Exploration Technologies
    Corporation (SpaceX) and the first such mission by Orbital Sciences
    Corporation, delivery of the final three primary mirrors for the James
    Webb Space Telescope, and deployment of an Earth-observing weather
    satellite developed jointly with the Japan Aerospace Exploration
    Agency.
        While acknowledging these and other achievements, we believe that
    NASA will continue to be challenged to effectively manage its varied
    programs in the current budget and political environment. We agree with
    the observation made by the National Research Council in its 2012
    report examining NASA's strategic direction and management that, in
    effect, too many programs are chasing too few dollars at NASA.
    Accordingly, we continue to view declining budgets and fiscal
    uncertainties as the most significant external challenges to NASA's
    ability to successfully move forward on its many projects and programs.
        For example, the Administration's proposal to extend operation of
    the ISS to 2024 comes with a price tag of at least $3 billion per year.
    Some space policy experts have expressed concern that NASA will not
    have enough money to operate the Station while concurrently developing
    the Space Launch System, the Orion capsule, and other components of its
    human exploration program. Similarly, following 18 years of development
    at a cost of more than $1 billion--a 300 percent increase over initial
    estimates--the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)
    Project achieved full operational capability in Febuary of this year.
    However, the Administration--citing operational costs of approximately
    $80 million per year--has proposed placing the observatory in storage
    during fiscal year 2015 unless NASA identifies partners willing to
    assume those costs. We are currently conducting audits examining both
    NASA's plans to extend the life of the ISS and its management of the
    SOFIA Program.
        In our most recent report on the Top Management and Performance
    Challenges facing NASA, we identified nine issues:

      --Considering Whether to Further Extend the Life of the International
            Space Station (ISS)
      --Developing the Space Launch System and its Component Programs
      --Securing Commercial Crew Transportation Services
      --Maintaining Cost and Schedule for the James Webb Space Telescope
      --Ensuring Continued Efficacy of the Space Communications Networks
      --Overhauling NASA's Information Technology Governance Structure
      --Ensuring the Security of NASA's Information Technology Systems
      --Managing NASA's Infrastructure and Facilities
      --Ensuring the Integrity of the Contracting and Grants Processes

        The report appended to this statement provides a detailed
    description of these challenges and the work conducted by our office in
    each area. In this statement, I will highlight three issues: (1)
    securing commercial crew transportation services, (2) ensuring
    continued efficacy of the space communications networks, and (3)
    overhauling NASA's information technology governance structure.
                    commercial crew transportation services
        In November 2013, NASA celebrated the 15th anniversary of the ISS.
    Since retirement of the Space Shuttle Program in July 2011, the United
    States has lacked the domestic capability to transport crew to and from
    the Station. Consequently, NASA has relied on the Russian Federal Space
    Agency (Roscosmos) for crew transportation. Between 2012 and 2017, NASA
    will pay Roscosmos $1.7 billion to ferry 30 NASA astronauts and
    international partners to and from the ISS at prices ranging from $47
    million to more than $70 million each trip. In addition, the recent
    dispute in the Ukraine and the resulting U.S. sanctions against Russia
    has intensified calls for NASA to end its reliance on the Russians for
    crew transportation.
        Currently, NASA is working with three companies--The Boeing Company
    (Boeing), SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada Corporation (Sierra Nevada)--using
    a combination of funded Space Act Agreements and more traditional
    contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation to develop
    commercial crew transportation capabilities. As of August 2013, the
    Agency had spent $1.1 billion on its commercial crew development
    efforts. NASA's goal is to secure commercial transportation for its
    astronauts to the ISS by 2017.
        As we noted in a 2013 report, NASA's Commercial Crew Program faces
    multiple challenges, including (1) unstable funding, (2) integration of
    cost estimates with Program schedule, (3) challenges in providing
    timely requirement and certification guidance, and (4) coordination
    issues with other Federal agencies.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NASA OIG, ``NASA's Management of its Commercial Crew Program''
    (IG-14-001, November 13, 2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With respect to funding, NASA's Commercial Crew Program has
    received significantly less funding than requested over the past
    several years, resulting in a 2-year delay of the expected completion
    of the development phase of the Program. Moreover, NASA has yet to
    project the total amount of funding required by year, which makes it
    difficult for the Agency to manage its wider portfolio of spaceflight
    programs and reduces the transparency of the Commercial Crew Program's
    budget submissions.
        Further, we found that the process for providing timely guidance to
    partners for satisfying NASA's human rating and certification
    requirements needs to be improved. If NASA is unable to confirm design
    requirements and provide certification guidance in a timely manner,
    NASA's partners companies could face costly and time-consuming redesign
    work late in system development. Finally, coordination of important
    safety issues with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the
    U.S. Air Force is progressing but has yet to be fully resolved.
    Resolution of issues such as approval processes for in-flight changes
    and reentry and emergency diversions require formal agreement between
    NASA, FAA, and the Air Force.
        Failure to resolve the challenges facing NASA's Commercial Crew
    Program could significantly delay the availability of commercial
    transportation services and further extend U.S. reliance on the
    Russians for crew transportation to the ISS.
                       the space communications networks
        NASA's Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program is
    responsible for providing communications, navigation, and delivery of
    scientific data to space flight missions. SCaN is comprised of three
    networks: (1) the Near Earth Network, which covers low Earth orbit and
    portions of geosynchronous orbit; (2) the Space Network, which controls
    the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) through a network of
    geographically diverse ground systems; and (3) the Deep Space Network,
    which covers NASA mission needs beyond geosynchronous orbit. Without
    SCaN services, NASA could not receive data transmission from its
    satellites and robotic missions or control such missions from Earth,
    and space hardware worth tens of billions of dollars would be little
    more than orbital debris. While NASA has provided these services for
    over 30 years, many of its current satellite communications systems are
    aging and increasingly difficult to repair.
        The OIG is examining the SCaN Program in a series of audits. In the
    first of these reviews released earlier this week, we assessed NASA's
    efforts to maintain, replenish, and modernize the Space Network.\2\ The
    Network, which currently consists of a constellation of nine
    geosynchronous tracking and data relay satellites and three ground
    stations, plans to perform more than 175,000 hours of tracking to
    support 25 to 30 missions in fiscal year 2014. We found that key
    components of NASA's satellite and ground system projects are not
    meeting planned cost, schedule, and performance goals. Taken together,
    these delays and cost growth increase the risk that the Space Network
    will be unable to continue to provide adequate communication services
    to NASA and the other Government agencies and private entities that
    rely on Network services. Further, because of budget reductions and the
    loss of other expected revenue, the Space Network has a projected $63
    million budget shortfall in fiscal year 2016 and even larger estimated
    shortfalls in subsequent years that will make it difficult for the
    Network to meet all planned service commitments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ NASA OIG, ``Space Communications and Navigation: NASA's
    Management of the Space Network'' (IG-14-018, April 29, 2014).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We recommended that NASA (1) require a revised cost estimate for
    its ground system project and, based on those results, make necessary
    adjustments to its baseline commitment; (2) make the appropriate
    reports to Congress regarding the ground system project; (3) ensure the
    ground system project passes a termination review before re-baselining;
    and (4) examine options to increase funding for the Space Network.
               nasa's information technology governance structure
        Information technology (IT) plays an integral role in every facet
    of NASA's operations. The Agency spends more than $1.4 billion annually
    on a portfolio of IT assets that includes approximately 500 information
    systems used to control spacecraft, collect and process scientific
    data, and enable NASA personnel to collaborate with colleagues around
    the world. Hundreds of thousands of individuals, including NASA
    personnel, contractors, members of academia, and the public, rely on
    these IT systems every day.
        For more than 2 decades, NASA has struggled to implement an
    effective IT governance approach that appropriately aligns authority
    and responsibility commensurate with the Agency's overall mission.
    Since at least 1990, the OIG and the Government Accountability Office
    have highlighted a series of challenges stemming from the limited
    authority of NASA's Chief Information Officer (CIO), decentralization
    of Agency IT operations, ineffective IT governance, and shortcomings in
    the Agency's IT security. Because IT is intrinsic and pervasive
    throughout NASA, the Agency's IT governance structure directly affects
    its ability to attain its strategic goals. For this reason, effective
    IT governance must balance compliance, cost, risk, security, and
    mission success to meet the needs of internal and external
    stakeholders.
        In June 2013, the OIG reported that the decentralized nature of
    NASA's operations and its longstanding culture of autonomy hinder its
    ability to implement effective IT governance.\3\ Specifically, we found
    that the NASA CIO has limited visibility and control over a majority of
    the Agency's IT investments, operates in an organizational structure
    that marginalizes the authority of the position, and cannot enforce
    security measures across NASA's computer networks. Moreover, the
    current IT governance structure is overly complex and does not function
    effectively. As a result, Agency managers tend to rely on informal
    relationships rather than formalized business processes when making IT-
    related decisions. While other Federal agencies are moving toward a
    centralized IT structure under which a senior manager has ultimate
    decision authority over IT budgets and resources, NASA continues to
    operate under a decentralized model that relegates decisionmaking about
    critical IT issues to numerous individuals across the Agency, leaving
    such decisions outside the purview of the CIO.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NASA OIG, ``NASA's Information Technology Governance'' (IG-13-
    015, June 5, 2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With mission critical assets at stake and in an era of shrinking
    budgets, NASA must take a holistic approach to managing its portfolio
    of IT systems. To overcome the barriers that have resulted in the
    inefficient and ineffective management of the Agency's IT assets, we
    made a series of recommendations to NASA to overhaul its IT governance
    structure to centralize IT functions and establish the Agency CIO as
    the top management official responsible for its entire IT portfolio,
    including empowering the Agency CIO to approve all IT procurements over
    a monetary threshold that captures the majority of IT expenditures. We
    also recommended that the Administrator reevaluate the relevancy,
    composition, and purpose of NASA's primary IT governance boards in
    light of the changes made to the governance structure and require the
    use of reconstituted governance boards for all major IT decisions and
    investments. Finally, we suggested that the NASA Administrator
    reevaluate the resources of the OCIO to ensure that the Office has the
    appropriate number of personnel with the appropriate capabilities and
    skill sets.
        Effective implementation of our recommendations requires a cultural
    shift and significant changes to the Agency's IT management
    decisionmaking regime, including the realignment of authority and
    responsibilities. NASA management has acknowledged a need for such
    change and, in our view, is taking a measured approach to address our
    recommendations. NASA has requested and we have granted extensions for
    all of the report recommendations, and NASA anticipates implementing
    corrective actions by the end of 2014.
        In conclusion, the OIG looks forward to continuing our cooperative
    working relationship with NASA, this subcommittee, and other
    congressional committees as we conduct audits and investigations that
    focus on the Agency's top management and performance challenges.

                   SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM JOINT CONFIDENCE LEVEL

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Administrator Bolden.
        NASA's internal guidance requires that all major projects
    have a Joint Confidence Level of 70 percent. I am concerned
    that the budget request for SLS is a sign that NASA intends to
    advance a funding profile that supports a Joint Confidence
    Level well below the 70 percent threshold.
        In fact, if SLS passed KDPC using $1.3 billion as the base
    funding level, which is the budget request, I believe it will
    result in a Joint Confidence Level close to 50 percent,
    essentially a coin toss.
        Is there any justification, General Bolden, for advancing
    SLS with a funding profile that provides the taxpayers a 50-50
    chance that it will succeed on schedule and on budget?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, we have used the Joint Confidence
    Level as an indicator. It is sort of like probabilistic risk
    assessment. You called it a 50-50 chance. I am comfortable with
    having SLS come in at less than a 70 percent Joint Confidence
    Level because of the maturity of the system itself.
        We are using shuttle main engines. We are getting ready to
    do main propulsion tests, so we will have the four engines that
    will go through testing at Stennis that will demonstrate that
    that system, as we designed it, is----
        Senator Shelby. Do you like where they are at this point in
    time?
        Mr. Bolden. I love where we are at this point. I am very
    confident--I would not approve moving--and I have to admit, I
    am jumping ahead of myself because it has not come to me yet.
        Senator Shelby. Sure. I understand.
        Mr. Bolden. We have not done that. But I have been
    following this pretty closely, and I am comfortable that
    because of the mature systems that we are utilizing for SLS,
    compared to some other system, a Joint Confidence Level of 70
    percent, which would be great if we had it, is not required to
    make me feel confident that we are going to be able to deliver.
        Senator Shelby. General Bolden, could you assure the
    subcommittee that the funding for SLS will be consistent with
    Joint Confidence Levels required for all other major NASA
    projects?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, as I just said, if I understand your
    question correctly----
        Senator Shelby. Let me ask it again.
        Mr. Bolden. Well, I think I understood, but you can't fund
    enough to get SLS to a 70 percent JCL, and I don't want you to
    do that. I am not asking for that. That would be unrealistic.
        Senator Shelby. My question, could you assure the
    subcommittee that the funding level for SLS will be
    consistent----
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. Consistent with the Joint
    Confidence Level required for other major NASA projects?
        Mr. Bolden. I can guarantee that I will have the same
    assurance at a lower Joint Confidence Level for SLS that I have
    for other projects that are much less mature at a Joint
    Confidence Level of 70 percent.
        A 70 percent Joint Confidence Level doesn't guarantee
    success, but it has demonstrated, mainly for science missions
    because we have been religious, if you want to call it that,
    about adhering to the 70 percent Joint Confidence Level. And it
    has caused us to bring in projects on time and on cost.
        Senator Shelby. But it is very important that we keep
    funding SLS at a confidence level, a level that they can finish
    their job, on time and on budget. Does that make sense to you?
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. The amounts that we have been
    submitting in the President's budget each year have been
    sufficient for my team to assure me that we will be able to
    make a launch date with SLS and Orion for our----
        Senator Shelby. 2017?
        Mr. Bolden. 2018 is what we are saying, fiscal year 2018
    right now.
        And I would caution, until we bring you----
        Senator Shelby. I thought the SLS would support a 2017
    launch date, which is the current plan. Is that wrong?
        Mr. Bolden. As I said, I will be able to tell you within a
    month for sure what the launch date is to which we are going to
    commit and what the cost for the program will be. That is what
    is going to come out of KDP-C, and we haven't crossed that
    milestone yet.
        Senator Shelby. But the costs have been pretty consistent.
        Mr. Bolden. Consistent. Yes, sir. I agree.
        The amount of money that we have requested and the amount
    of money we have spent year to year on SLS and Orion has been
    consistent. And that is what I promise we will continue to do.

                             ROCKET ENGINE PURCHASE

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. I want to shift gears, just a
    little bit.
        Late yesterday, as you well know, a U.S. Federal claims
    judge issued an injunction prohibiting the United Launch
    Alliance, the ULA, from proceeding with plans to buy Russian-
    made rocket engines. This injunction, if kept in place, would
    impact, ultimately, the Department of Defense, NASA, and so
    forth.
        Is there a possibility that this injunction could impact
    NASA's missions?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator Shelby, I would prefer not to add
    conjecture on that. That is a matter in litigation right now,
    and my general counsel has been looking into this since last
    night. I am not an attorney, so I would not dare----
        Senator Shelby. So you wouldn't know whether this order
    would impact NASA's ability to pay Russia for rides to the
    space station?
        Mr. Bolden. I can only tell you that we have already paid
    Russia through 2017, so we are not impacted.
        Senator Shelby. So you are ahead?
        Mr. Bolden. So we are ahead of the game. But that is the
    way we have to be. We have told our partners that the President
    of the United States suggests that we extend the life of the
    International Space Station to 2024. We have told our
    international partners that we are committed to being able to
    carry their crew and ours to the International Space Station on
    American spacecraft by 2017. And so we are committed to that.
        However, to ensure that we can get the crews there through
    2017, we have already made the payment. We made it several
    months ago. So we are okay through 2017.
        Senator Shelby. It is also my understanding, if you can
    confirm this or to reject it, that it would take a couple
    years, that we have a backlog of engines from Russia, so there
    is not going to be an immediate impact.
        Mr. Bolden. I would defer to our partners, Orbital Sciences
    and ULA, because I go on what they tell me, and they tell me
    they have a backlog of engines to cover X number of flights.
        So for us, our missions are covered.

                           ALTERING MISSION PAYLOADS

        Senator Shelby. Sure. What changes would be required to
    alter mission payloads in the event, down the road, that the
    launch vehicle could not be used? What is the estimated cost of
    those changes? Have you gotten that far yet?
        Mr. Bolden. I will take that for the record.
        [The information follows:]
                                launch vehicles
        The changes would depend on when the launch vehicle change occurs
    in the development and ground testing cycle of the spacecraft. The
    closer to the launch date the launch vehicle change occurs, the greater
    the potential impacts. A spacecraft needs to be tested to ensure it can
    handle the launch vibration, g-force, and acoustic environment it
    expects to experience during the ascent to space. Changing launch
    vehicles would require some combination of new testing and analysis to
    assess the new launch environment impacts to the spacecraft. The
    impacts and changes could be minor or they could be large depending on
    the particular spacecraft design and its interaction with the new
    launch vehicle.
        The cost impacts resulting from changing the launch vehicle are
    time- and circumstance-dependent, but could include: spacecraft
    retesting and new analysis efforts, potential changes to spacecraft
    structure, potential requirement to procure a new payload attach
    fitting that attaches the spacecraft to the rocket and softens the
    ride, as well as any spacecraft delivery delays caused by this new
    activity. These costs could be significant, and if a planetary launch
    opportunity were missed, then likely the costs could run into hundreds
    of millions of dollars in delay costs. These spacecraft impact costs
    would be in addition to any costs required to procure a new launch
    vehicle. NASA has not made a specific assessment of cost impacts due to
    the scenario-dependent nature noted above.

        Senator Shelby. We hope we won't get that far.
        Mr. Bolden. Somebody down in the bowels of my ship may be
    doing that, but I have not asked anybody to do that.
        We are optimistic because of our partnership with
    Roscosmos. It has been steady. It has been firm. And it remains
    that way. And I remain in contact with my counterpart, who is
    equally concerned that we maintain that partnership, so I am
    comfortable.

                  U.S. RELIANCE ON RUSSIA FOR LAUNCH VEHICLES

        Senator Shelby. Let me get into another area, the same
    basic area.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Since retiring the space shuttle, we have
    relied solely from the Russians to get our astronauts to and
    from the International Space Station. The crisis in Ukraine and
    the current tensions with Russia have caused many people to
    question the longstanding relationship. We are all hopeful for
    a thaw there.
        In the light of recent decisions regarding sanctions, we
    are left to wonder what would happen if Russia no longer
    provided the transportation for our astronauts. And to address
    these concerns, some have advocated simply investing more
    heavily in the commercial crew program.
        General, is there any company participating in the
    commercial crew program today that could be ready to take our
    astronauts to and from the space station within a year? And
    would additional resources make that possible? And how much
    would be required? That is a big question, I know.
        Mr. Bolden. No, no. That is a good question, Senator.
        And although at least two of our--in fact, all three of the
    competitors that I know about, because we are in blackout right
    now with the contract negotiations or selection--all of them
    have flights scheduled in 2015 of one type or another, whether
    they are crewed or uncrewed, and that is normal in a
    development program.
        But just because they fly does not mean that they are ready
    to be human rated. So, with additional funds, we can accelerate
    that schedule of their flying, but they have some technical
    challenges that we should not overlook. So I am comfortable.
        We are sticking with the 2017 date that we will have
    commercial crew available.
        Senator Shelby. And we hope that things work out between us
    and Russia and the rest of the world, but if Russia were to cut
    ties with the U.S. or we were to cut ties with them, and they
    would no longer be able to provide our astronauts
    transportation to and from the space station, what are our
    options?
        If we had astronauts at the space station, would they get
    home? Or do you think that is down the road?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, a point I think everybody should bear
    in mind is the partnership that runs the International Space
    Station is now a 15-year partnership that is pretty well-oiled.
    It depends not just on Russia and the U.S., but the other three
    partners.
        The way that we have set up the International Space
    Station, I don't want to say there is an indispensable team
    member, but the loss of any team member has an impact on the
    ability to operate the International Space Station. Should we
    or the Russians choose to pull out, the International Space
    Station as we know it no longer exists.
        The dominant member of the International Space Station team
    for day-to-day operations, navigation, crew activities, the
    science on board, is the United States. So if we were to decide
    to pull out, one of the reasons that we request cooler heads
    prevail, if we were to pull out, then there is no more of the
    type of operations that go on, on the International Space
    Station today.
        Senator Shelby. But the fact remains, does it not--correct
    me if I am wrong--that we are dependent on the Russians for the
    transportation?
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. Today, we are dependent on the
    Russians. And if for some reason----
        Senator Shelby. And in the near future, too, right?
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir. But if something were to happen that
    caused us to have to evacuate the International Space Station,
    the contingency plan, is we have two vehicles that are there,
    two Soyuz spacecraft.
        Senator Shelby. You think it would work, don't you?
        Mr. Bolden. We get the crews into the Soyuz spacecraft, and
    we would come home. Everybody talks about the Russians
    stranding us. The Soyuz is a three-person crew, a three-person
    spacecraft. At least two of those people are essential, and
    usually one of those two essential people is a flight engineer
    who is an American astronaut.
        Senator Shelby. Okay. You think that would be the escape?
        Mr. Bolden. That is the escape right now. That is the
    emergency return vehicle. It is the nominal return vehicle. It
    is the only vehicle we have. That is why commercial crew
    support is critical for this Nation.
        Where we are today is history, and I don't even dwell on
    how we got here or anything else. I am looking to the future,
    and we are really focused on trying to make sure that we have
    American companies that are ready to fly our astronauts to the
    International Space Station and other low-Earth orbit
    destinations that I think are coming by 2017.
        And if the Congress funds to the President's requested
    level in 2015, we are on a good trajectory to get there.

                            COMMERCIAL CREW PROGRAM

        Senator Shelby. You mentioned the commercial crew
    investment. And while the commercial cargo program has finally
    experienced successes, the process is littered with technical
    challenges, missed milestones, schedule delays, and even
    requests for additional resources.
        That is not unusual now.
        Mr. Bolden. I am glad you said that, Senator. As you know
    very well.
        Senator Shelby. Program participants continue to face
    challenges in meeting the number of contracted space station
    resupply missions. NASA has chosen to use the same process and
    methodology to execute the commercial crew program.
        My questions are these. Given that the commercial cargo
    program was 2.5 years behind schedule and $200 million over
    budget, what assurance or what can you tell us here at the
    subcommittee that the commercial crew program will not suffer
    the same fate?
        In other words, how are they doing? Are they going to be
    basically on time and on the money?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I would like to correct one piece of
    information about funding. The total NASA investment in the
    COTS program, the commercial cargo program, was $684 million.
    So I don't think that was over any normal expectation.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Bolden. Granted, it was delayed, but I would remind
    everybody of the space shuttle program. I got to Houston in
    1980 to become a member of the astronaut corps, and the space
    shuttle was to have launched in 1978. So when I got there, we
    were already 2 years behind.
        We finally launched in 1981. You will remember very well,
    being from Alabama, one of the critical delays was loss of a
    main engine on the test stand at Stennis.
        Senator Shelby. That is right.
        Mr. Bolden. Those kinds of things happen, and we are trying
    to make sure that we don't have that happen in the commercial
    crew development program. There is a difference in the way that
    we are doing the commercial crew program from a safety
    oversight perspective.
        If you were to talk to Ralph Roe, who is now my chief
    engineer, and Terry Wilcutt, the head of safety and mission
    assurance, they are intimately involved in every respect with
    the safety requirements and the human rating specifications for
    commercial crew vehicles.
        We have been working that for 2 years. We have been under
    contract with three providers, Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra
    Nevada, to make sure that we understand how they are going to
    develop hazard reports, how they are going to track. So that is
    much more like the space shuttle program, than say people are
    familiar with COTS.
        We are now entering into a contract phase, where it is much
    more like it is traditionally done under FAR-based contracts.
        Senator Shelby. General, I will work with you and Senator
    Mikulski. Senator Mikulski and I have worked together for NASA,
    working to make sure, to the best of our ability, that NASA is
    well-funded. We have our job to do on oversight and funding.
        I wish we could find more money for all of our programs. We
    are in tough budget times, as you well know. But we are going
    to do everything we can to fund NASA.

                                ROADMAP TO MARS

        Could you take just a few minutes again--there is a little
    glare for me on that chart there--and go over that chart again?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I don't know, do you have a copy of it
    there on your desk? It will probably be easier----
        Senator Shelby. Just follow it.
        Mr. Bolden. I will make it really quick.
        Senator Shelby. Don't make it too quick. It is very
    involved.
        Mr. Bolden. We intended for it to be simple. Let me
    stipulate at the outset----
        Senator Shelby. A lot of work went into this.
        Mr. Bolden. A lot of work went into this.
        But you have some purists behind you there on the staff,
    who are going to be critical of my artwork.
        Senator Shelby. No, they would think you were a master. Go
    ahead.
        Mr. Bolden. Although I show four SLS vehicles orbiting
    Mars, I am taking artistic license. The SLS only goes to low-
    Earth orbit, and then it falls back to Earth, so bear with me
    on that. It is trying to show the approximate number of SLS
    missions that we think it would take for a Mars mission to the
    surface of Mars.
        So other than that artwork, forgive me.
        But essentially, it shows where we are today. We are Earth-
    reliant. We generally spend 6 months in low-Earth orbit. We are
    getting ready to put up a crew next year. Scott Kelly and his
    Russian counterpart, they will be there for 12 months, so that
    will expand the amount of time that we spend in low-Earth
    orbit.
        We still use the space station as our primary staging point
    to learn about human survival in a microgravity environment.
        Where we are moving is to the proving ground. This is what
    is new, and what people sometimes have a difficult time with.
    We need to get away from low-Earth orbit, so that we can learn
    how to operate our spacecraft. We don't know how to fly out
    there.
        Senator Shelby. What will take you out of low-Earth orbit?
    SLS?
        Mr. Bolden. SLS. Now, you see SLS here quite a bit. And I
    will tell you what is critical, because I want to try to
    present a complete picture. We are not leaving the Earth-
    reliant arena ever. We will have to stage there.
        So what will happen for us to be successful with deep space
    exploration, is that we have a firm infrastructure that is in
    place around low-Earth orbit, multiple facilities like the
    International Space Station.
        So my hope is, within the next 5 to 10 years, you will
    start to see commercial providers putting other vehicles into
    low-Earth orbit that will be laboratories, habitation
    facilities, and the like. That infrastructure will have to be
    serviced, and that is why we need commercial crew and cargo.
        So NASA does not provide transportation to low-Earth orbit
    anymore. We are out of the access business. So it is really
    important for everyone to remember we have no exploration
    program without this low-Earth orbit infrastructure that we are
    trying to help industry put in place. We are trying to help
    American industry provide the low-Earth orbit infrastructure.
        Senator Shelby. General, at the end of the day, and, of
    course, you never know what you find out there, this is a very
    ambitious project, the Mars mission, and so forth, but so many
    missions have brought forth so many more things than you
    imagined at the beginning.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.

                            MARS MISSION POTENTIALS

        Senator Shelby. What would you expect to get out of this?
    This is an important question.
        Mr. Bolden. This is a very, very, very ambitious strategy.
    There are a number of reasons that we believe humans should be
    on Mars. One of them is to make us a multi-planet species, and
    that is a kind of funky term, but what it means is that we will
    demonstrate that humanity can live on more places than just
    Earth.
        The other thing is that it will help us learn a lot about
    Earth, because Mars, asteroids, and other places in our solar
    system sort of came from the same origin as our own planet
    Earth. So looking at Mars and the way it is today, it will help
    us understand--we need to understand how it got there, because
    we think it used to be like Earth. What did the Martians not do
    that got it to be in the bad shape that it is in right now? So
    that is another reason to go there.
        The other reason is because we are an exploring species. We
    have always done that. My and your ancestors moved away from
    the East Coast of the United States to the Mississippi. And
    they got there and they weren't satisfied, and they wanted to
    know what was on the other side of the river, and so they
    continued to go out and to pioneer.
        I use the term ``pioneer'' instead of ``explore.''
    Exploring implies we are going to go out and come back, like
    Lewis and Clark. We are intending to pioneer Mars, which means
    we are going to put people on that planet to be there
    permanently.

                             HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

        Senator Shelby. I remember in this subcommittee years back
    when people were naysayers about the Hubble telescope. They
    said, ``Oh, gosh, that is a waste of money.'' But it hasn't
    been a waste of money. It has been on the cutting edge of
    exploration.
        Mr. Bolden. It has been absolutely incredible.
        Senator Mikulski, I want to thank you. You weren't here
    when I thanked you the first time, but I am going to thank you
    again for all you have done in leading this subcommittee and
    providing appropriations for NASA.
        Senator Mikulski knows very well. It was because of her
    that we were able to fly the final Hubble servicing mission,
    STS-125, when the decision had been made at my level that we
    should try to do a robotic mission. That was demonstrated to be
    ``not'' the right way to do it. Hubble today is an absolutely
    incredible facility that is fully functioning.
        Senator Shelby. A great success.
        Mr. Bolden. We intend to have the James Webb Space
    Telescope (JWST) that we launch in 2018 that will be the
    successor of Hubble. We are in formulation right now to build a
    mission that some people refer to as WFIRST, but it will
    satisfy the science requirements of WFIRST, as laid out by the
    decadal survey.
        So it is a progressive understanding of our universe.
        Senator Shelby. I think so, too.
        I yield to the chairman.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
    Shelby. And thank you for opening this hearing. It is part of
    this very bipartisan trust that we have in each other, and I
    appreciate it.
        Because of the terrible storms in the capital region, it
    took me 2.5 hours to come from Baltimore today. We have had
    accidents, mudslides, et cetera. Trains are down.
        And I appreciate that we want to show that we can live on
    Mars. I am kind of dedicated to showing that we can live on
    Earth right this particular minute.
        Again, so I want to thank you. Administrator Bolden, I have
    already read your testimony, and I want to acknowledge the
    written testimony of NASA's Inspector General Paul Martin. We
    had hoped today to have his actual oral testimony, but because
    of the pending votes, we wanted to move as expeditiously as
    possible.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Inspector General Martin has identified nine top management
    performances and challenges facing NASA, all of which this
    sucommittee strongly believes that it needs to address.
        In the interest of time, I am going to ask unanimous
    consent that my full opening statement be included in the
    record, and I am going to move right to my points and my
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
        We are here today to review the 2015 budget request for NASA, an
    agency that all of us care deeply about. We have just one witness here
    today: NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who will testify about NASA's
    budget priorities. NASA Inspector General Paul Martin has also provided
    written testimony regarding NASA's top management challenges.
        This hearing is part of the Senate Appropriation Committee's
    mission to hold more than 60 hearings in a span of 6 weeks. We are
    working diligently and intend to have all our appropriations work done
    by October 1. If successful, it will be the first time that has been
    accomplished since 1996, and it is an important part of our return to
    regular order.
        Let me start by saying that I am unhappy with NASA's budget. I
    worry about what it means for the Goddard Space Flight Center, for
    space science, for Earth science and for NASA's balanced space program.
        The President's budget request for NASA this year is $17.5 billion,
    which is actually $186 million below the fiscal year 2014 level of
    $17.7 billion.
        What I want to hear from Administrator Bolden is an explanation on
    how a cut like this impacts NASA's ability to carry out its mission.
    Frankly, my colleagues and I do not agree with how NASA's proposed
    budget balances these cuts.
        The budget before us proposes to cut science funding by $179
    million--or three percent--below fiscal year 2014. The Space Launch
    System (SLS) and Orion are cut by $365 million--or 13 percent--below
    2014.
        NASA needs this funding to support a balanced space program that
    funds human space flight, reliable and affordable transportation
    systems and space science. I want to see NASA continue its Space
    Station operations.
        It is also important to me that the agency support reliable and
    affordable transportation systems, such as a 2014 test launch for
    Orion, a 2017 launch for SLS and robust funding for a commercial crew
    to get to the International Space Station lab facilities without
    relying on the Russians.
        Finally, I want a space program that keeps NASA's near term science
    launches on schedule and on-going missions on track. I am very
    concerned that the 2015 budget does not invest adequately in future
    science missions.
        For example, the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget reduces Earth
    science by $56 million, cuts astrophysics by $61 million, inadequately
    funds a future Dark energy mission and cuts the on-going Hubble mission
    by 23 percent. That's too much, too soon. We must keep making progress
    on the scientific missions recommended by National Academies' decadal
    surveys now and in the future.
        I am pleased that NASA is extending the life of the International
    Space Station through 2020. Thank you. The Space Station is so much
    more than what everyone saw in the movie ``Gravity''. It is our
    national lab in space, and I am so proud of the astronauts there.
        As of now, there are six people aboard the ISS--two NASA
    Astronauts, three Russian Cosmonauts and one Japanese Astronaut. They
    all arrived there on the Russian Soyuz. That's because when the Space
    Shuttle retired in July 2011, the United States lost its capability to
    fly astronauts into space. The ongoing events in Ukraine have me
    worried about the uncertainty created by that reliance on Russia. Is
    NASA doing all it can to quickly taper our space program's reliance on
    Russia?
        The Members of this Committee have a space coalition that supports
    NASA's balanced missions. But to keep that support during frugal times,
    we need to be able to count on NASA to focus on improved oversight and
    accountability.
        At the request of this Committee, the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) has been assessing NASA large projects since 2009. GAO's
    most recent assessment shows that NASA's cost and schedule performance
    is improving and that cost growth and schedule slips continue to
    decrease. That's good.
        The average cost overrun is down from 4 percent to 3 percent, while
    average launch delays are down from 4 months to under 3 months. And I'm
    especially grateful for NASA's efforts to keep the James Webb Space
    Telescope on schedule and on budget.
        Many challenges remain. NASA needs to remain vigilant. More than 80
    percent of the agency's funding is awarded by contract--that's more
    than $14 billion of their 2015 request.
        Their Inspector General has identified ongoing agency challenges,
    ranging from project and contract management to cybersecurity. We
    appreciate Inspector General Martin's written testimony on how NASA has
    implemented his recommendations.
        I want to wrap up by thanking the men and women of NASA. From the
    machinists grinding precision parts for spacecraft exploring the
    galaxy, to computer operators compiling data used for forecasting or
    understanding the Big Bang--they all do great work.
        NASA is where scientists are rewriting textbooks and winning Nobel
    prizes. But it's also where astronauts risk their lives to make
    discoveries in space. Their work is vital for understanding the
    boundaries of our universe, expanding the boundaries of science and
    keeping our tech economy moving forward.
        We need to make sure NASA's budget is adequate to meet that
    mission.

        Senator Mikulski. First of all, we want to say good morning
    to you, Administrator Bolden.
        Mr. Bolden. Good morning.
        Senator Mikulski. I am sorry I couldn't be here earlier,
    that we couldn't have had coffee together and so on. We
    appreciate your continual service to our country, and we also,
    as I said, want to thank the inspector general.
        Also, I know Senator Shelby and I really want to thank the
    men and women who work at NASA, and the men and women who are
    the civil servants at NASA, and we want to thank also the
    contractors who do so much of the important work. They have
    been under so many stresses.
        Doing space and aeronautics in and of itself is
    challenging, challenging technology, challenging environments.
    It is not just like the movie Gravity, which was mesmerizing,
    where it had a happy ending, because they faced everything from
    sequester to slam down, shut down. It has been a rough road.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And so we really want to thank them for
    their continual dedication.
        There are many issues to discuss, one of which is the aging
    workforce at NASA, impending retirements, the recruitment and
    retention of others. But let's get right to the appropriations.

                               FUNDING REDUCTIONS

        First of all, I was deeply troubled to receive the
    President's budget. I was deeply troubled in the area of NASA
    because there was a reduction of $186 million from fiscal 2014,
    which we already knew was tight.
        I can't thank Senator Shelby enough for the way he helped
    move that omnibus. It didn't happen because of Barbara
    Mikulski. Behind me there was a whole lot of we, including my
    vice chairman. We worked together.
        So when we saw this $186 million, it was deeply troubling.
        Now, I am committed to a balanced space program, human
    spaceflight, reliable transportation system to both the space
    station and areas beyond, the space science, and, of course,
    aeronautics.
        So we saw $186 million cut, and then to rub raw the sores
    of discontent, we also saw that Goddard Space Agency was cut by
    $200 million--$200 million in very important science programs.
        Senator Shelby has also raised the cuts in SLS and Orion,
    which are the kind of hallmark for going out there.

                      MAINTAINING A BALANCED SPACE PROGRAM

        So I am going to go right to my question about how to
    maintain a balanced space program when the two major programs--
    I know Senator Shelby has looked at those things related to a
    heavy-lift capacity. Are we really funding a lot of things at
    the expense of space science? Why did you take $200 million out
    of Goddard?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, as you said, and I appreciate your
    enthusiasm for a balanced portfolio, we have sought to put in
    place a balanced portfolio for the agency.
        There are a number of projects that are in formulation, in
    which Goddard will play a critical role. The funding for those
    projects have not yet been designated and distributed. We look
    at the long-range viability of each of our centers, and I
    firmly believe that Goddard will continue to be an integral
    part of all the programs that we have going forward.
        I mention the formulation of a mission to seek out to
    satisfy the objectives of WFIRST as laid out by the decadal
    survey. None of that is reflected yet in the NASA budget in the
    out-years, or in the Goddard budget. So those will be areas
    that will be plussed-up.
        We look at all of the centers. I sit down with the center
    directors and Robert Lightfoot, and we look at what they see
    for the out-years, because stability is what the center
    directors seek. Stability in funding is something that you have
    said is a goal of yours, and I applaud you for that, because
    nothing will be as critical as stability in funding in the out-
    years for our planning and for centers to feel that they know
    where the future is. The instability in funding has been the
    thing that has us where we are right now.

                                 SCIENCE BUDGET

        Senator Mikulski. I understand the stability and funding
    issue. It is not only me, but it is Senator Shelby and, I must
    say, our mutual leadership. So that is why we worked with
    Senator Murray and Senator Sessions to pass a budget that
    canceled sequester. It was a tough swallow. I would have wanted
    to do more in some areas, less than others, my colleague. But
    that is to be debated.
        So you want to talk about future missions and decadal and
    is Goddard going to have a future. But it has a future now in
    its bread-and-butter issues. The two bread-and-butter issues in
    telescopes are keeping Hubble on track to continue be the
    greatest telescope since the Galileo and the James Webb.
        So with James Webb, we know that there has been a decrease
    of $13 million. I don't dispute that, but the margins are very
    thin and they are at the high-risk area. I have been out there.
    We have been there together. We have seen some of this. It is
    very exciting.
        Hubble in the meantime continues to fly and continues to
    dazzle and continues to write the science books and continues
    to make Nobel Prize winners. So at the same time, Hubble has
    been cut $23 million.
        Now I know some might say that is an accounting adjustment,
    and we are going to fix it in 2016. I don't know what 2016 is
    going to be. I know what 2015 is going to be.
        So this is what we need to do. I don't want to talk about
    future missions. I want to talk about now. I am going to talk
    about Earth science, heliophysics, planetary science. I don't
    want science to be a bank account for other projects that might
    or might not happen in the future.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I promised when I became the NASA
    administrator that we were not going to use science as a bank
    for any of the programs in the agency, and I think we have done
    that. We have not moved, and I refuse to move any funds out of
    science into another program area.
        What we are looking for is a balanced portfolio in the
    science, inside the Science Mission Directorate. And as I said,
    the missions in formulation--when Chris Scolese talks about the
    future, which is exactly what he is saying, when he looks at
    the out-years, he doesn't see funds for WFIRST, he doesn't see
    funds for----

                              EARTH SCIENCE BUDGET

        Senator Mikulski. I don't want to be beating a dead
    satellite here, but Earth science is $56 million below fiscal
    year 2014. And fiscal year 2014 was already tough.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, we are finding that we have
    efficiencies in the way that we fly Earth science missions. For
    the first time ever, we have two Earth science missions that
    are going to the International Space Station this year. They
    are significantly less cost to the taxpayer.
        And we are trying to find more and more ways to get
    efficiencies in our programs.
        So I think in the long run, when I sit down with Chris
    Scolese at Goddard and Charles Elachi out at JPL and Steve
    Jurczyk down at Langley, the people who spend most of their
    time thinking about Earth science and planetary science, we
    will find that there is a balanced distribution of the funds in
    the out-years, once we get a lot of the formulation----

                            SPACE STATION EXTENSION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, you and I really strongly disagree
    on this, Administrator Bolden. We really do strongly disagree
    on this.
        But I want to go to something we do agree on, and that goes
    to the extension of the life of the space station.
        That was a bold decision on your part. But both Senator
    Shelby and I, along with our colleagues, want to make sure that
    we get research value for that. And what has been so, I think,
    strong has been the bipartisan support of both the
    appropriators, and when we look at our authorizers--and back in
    the day, it was Senator Nelson and Senator Kay Bailey
    Hutchison--the whole idea of what could be done on the space
    station was exciting. So let me get to my question about that.
        In order for the space station extension to be viable, we
    need to be able to get there.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.

                            NASA-RUSSIAN COOPERATION

        Senator Mikulski. We are all deeply troubled about what is
    going on in Ukraine, and the behavior of Russia and Mr. Putin's
    words and so on. We leave that to our President and our
    Secretary of State.
        But what we are worried about is the reliability. As I
    understand it, there are two ways that the space station, we
    have to be able to get there. So one, we have to keep
    commercial crew on track, and the other is, as we impose
    sanctions with the Russians, will this jeopardize their
    cooperation on Soyuz? So let's put Soyuz here.
        Let's go to commercial. One, how do you see the commercial
    cargo staying on track, particularly with the Orbital-ATK
    merger?

                            RELATIONSHIP WITH RUSSIA

        And then second, could you bring us up-to-date on the
    relations with the Russians. And no matter what happens, do you
    think that will be strong, or is that in jeopardy? Can you
    answer both those?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, as I mentioned to Senator Shelby
    earlier, I could not state more strongly that the relationship
    between Roscosmos and NASA is solid. I communicate with my
    counterpart on a regular basis. Bill Gerstenmaier, who runs
    human exploration, was just there for a Soyuz launch, about a
    month ago, and he continues to work.
        I think that you know that Sergei Krikalev, who was a
    former crew member of mine, is in the leadership there.
        Senator Mikulski. So you are all okay and doing Kumbaya
    now, but it is a delicate situation internationally. We are
    going to be escalating our sanctions, and I am not talking
    about your current relations. I am talking about, are the
    future relations, in general, in jeopardy?
        And do you think that our aggressive pursuit of sanctions--
    and I am supporting the President in his sanctions. We have to
    take a strong stand, and we are proud of our NATO alliance.
        So you see where I am heading?
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. Senator, as much as I would love to
    delve into diplomacy and things, because I do think I have a
    worthwhile opinion, but I am going to resist the temptation to
    do that. I am going to say that what I am striving to do is
    continue the relationship I have with Mr. Ostapenko, who heads
    Roscosmos, to make sure that he does get everything that he can
    across in Russia to calm down the diplomats and the politicians
    there, as we are trying to do here in the U.S., to help people
    understand the importance of this partnership.
        We are trying to accelerate as rapidly as we can the
    availability of commercial crew, so that we can launch our
    astronauts from----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let's move on to that. But I think,
    really, Senator Shelby and I would like to be able to stay in
    touch and also to keep an eye on it. I think it is a very
    delicate situation.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.

                                COMMERCIAL CARGO

        Senator Mikulski. So let's go to commercial vehicles. So
    what do you think? How are we doing on commercial cargo? And
    then let's go to commercial crew, both from a budgetary
    standpoint, and when do you think, what are the targets for
    commercial crew?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, we are in relatively good shape. We
    are in great shape with our commercial cargo right now, because
    Orbital Sciences, that does use a Russian engine, we are told,
    has enough engines in their stockpile to get through this
    contract.
        We are in the process now of getting ready to negotiate a
    new contract for commercial cargo after 2016. Orbital, like
    most other companies, is working with the engine manufacturers
    to see if there is not a U.S. option for engines.
        So those are things that they have been doing long before
    this recent crisis took place, because they would like to get
    newer engines. The NK-33, which is now the AJ26, is an old
    Russian rocket engine. Senator Shelby knows we have been trying
    to get away from that and get to new technology as quickly as
    we can, and that work is underway. SpaceX has an American-
    generated, American-manufactured, engine, so that part of the
    commercial cargo is stable, and should not be affected at all.

                                COMMERCIAL CREW

        Senator Mikulski. Now let's go to commercial crew.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. What are your target timetables? Do you
    have the resources to meet those timetables? Could you
    elaborate?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, again, I have to thank you for
    fighting the good fight with commercial crew and trying to keep
    our funding as high as possible. Because of your efforts and
    that of Senator Shelby, the 2014 mark, while not what we would
    have wanted, was enough that, if matched with the President's
    request for $848 million in 2015, will keep us on target for
    2017 availability of American capability to launch our crews to
    space safely and reliably through competition, which we feel is
    absolutely necessary.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, as I understand it, commercial crew
    is funded at $848 million. It is $156 million above fiscal year
    2014, and your goal was to send astronauts to the space station
    on U.S. rockets by 2017. Is that right?
        Mr. Bolden. That is correct. That is the present goal.
        Senator Mikulski. So you envision American astronauts to be
    on a vehicle that can go to the space station by 2017?
        Mr. Bolden. That is correct. In an American vehicle.
        Senator Mikulski. Excuse me, that is exactly right.
        And do you feel that you have the resources to be able to
    accomplish that? We are obsessed with the safety--and I know
    you are. Boy, we are committed to the safety of our astronauts.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Exploration is great. We love extending
    the life of the space station. But we are for the safety of
    those men and women who are so daring to do this.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. So whatever we do, we know that there is
    always risk. We know that.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I cannot overemphasize this. As long
    as you continue to fight as you have been doing, you and
    Senator Shelby, on the importance of commercial crew, if we can
    get the President's request funded at $848 million, based on
    having the $696 million that we have this year in 2014, we
    should be on target for an American capability in 2017.
        Senator Shelby and I were talking earlier, is it possible
    to accelerate that? With more funds, it is possible to
    accelerate that, but we are sticking with a 2017 crew launch
    availability.
        Senator Mikulski. Including all the human ratings?
        Mr. Bolden. That is all the human ratings.
        Senator Mikulski. But if we fund it at fiscal year 2015,
    this will mean competition of two providers? Do you intend to
    shrink that? I mean, right now, there are more than two
    providers.
        Mr. Bolden. If you allow me, I will stay away from saying
    how many there are going to be because I don't know how many we
    are going to select. But what I want to assure you is, no
    matter how many providers we select, the vehicle will be safe.
    It will meet our requirements in every regard. And it will be
    available in 2017.
        So that is what I can promise this subcommittee, and that
    is what is important to us right now.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. I didn't have any other questions. I just
    have some observations.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, before you do, I know you have been
    very interested in this commercial----
        Senator Shelby. We got into it a little earlier, and I
    appreciate you continuing in that vein of questioning.

                             CYBERSECURITY AT NASA

        Senator Mikulski. Well, we could talk about our telescopes,
    but I understand they are on track, but for the James Webb,
    this is a very difficult one.
        I want to go to another issue that is of keen interest,
    again, on both sides of the aisle, which is cybersecurity at
    NASA.
        As I understand it, NASA has some pretty big challenges.
    This has been identified by you. It has also been identified by
    the inspector general.
        The inspector general talks about inadequate tools for
    real-time monitoring, a high amount of unprotected network
    access points, uncoordinated adoption of cloud computing,
    failure to use best practices in managing IT vulnerabilities.
        Do you want to comment on the I.G.'s rather stern
    assessment of the cybersecurity?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I will say as they did with
    Congressman Wolf in an earlier hearing. We recognized long
    before anyone else, I recognized the first day I became the
    NASA Administrator, that we had a big hill to climb in terms of
    IT security, how we run our IT cybersecurity program, because
    we are among the largest areas threatened in the Federal
    Government.
        We have taken a number of actions. Now we have worked with
    NAPA to do a study of our foreign national access management.
    That study also included cybersecurity, IT security. It
    identified 27 actions, recommendations that they gave to us. I
    accepted every single one of those 27 actions. We have
    prioritized them in coordination with NAPA, in what we think
    are critical areas of importance.
        So we go down the list on a risk basis. We are already
    working on the top six. They are funded with internal NASA
    funds that we already have available.
        When we get ready to submit the 2016 budget request, we
    will have a pretty good idea how much additional funds we need
    to put into IT security and cybersecurity. We are going to have
    to put additional people on it. We are advertising right now
    for a manager for a foreign national access management program.
        Senator Mikulski. Who is in charge of this?
        Mr. Bolden. I am. I am ultimately in charge, but my chief
    information officer----
        Senator Mikulski. But you are in charge of a lot.
        Mr. Bolden. My chief information officer is Larry Sweet. I
    brought him up from the Johnson Space Center. He was the chief
    information officer there. He was competitively selected.
        Senator Mikulski. So is Mr. Sweet--in other words, have you
    put into place a management structure to oversee the
    cyberstructure, because it is very uneven.
        Mr. Bolden. We have.
        Senator Mikulski. We are worried about protecting ``dot
    mil,'' okay? I think ``dot gov'' is very nifty. And then, of
    course, there are the challenges to ``dot com'' that we see in
    the marketplace every day.
        I can't control ``dot com,'' but we can do something about
    ``dot gov.'' So we really need kind of the edge of the chair on
    this.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, when you talk about leadership, there
    are three people, three buttons that I push. Joe Mahaley heads
    our operational security branch. Robert Lightfoot, who is the
    associate administrator, has overall oversight for this.
    Senator Shelby knows him very well from his time at the
    Marshall Space Flight Center, and then Larry Sweet.
        So between the three of them, those are the three who I go
    to who can answer any questions that may come up about our
    approach and our plan in the out-years for shoring up our
    cybersecurity, our IT infrastructure.
        One of the basic problems we had was governance. There was
    no centralized governance for IT. The chief information officer
    for the agency didn't control anybody except people at NASA
    headquarters. That is unsatisfactory.
        Senator Mikulski. You have been the administrator for 5
    years.
        Mr. Bolden. And we now have, just as public relations, or
    public communications, legislative affairs, information, IT,
    that all comes to headquarters for coordination. We don't order
    people what to do. We don't control the funds at the center
    level, but we coordinate it such that funds are spent in----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I appreciate the progress you have
    made. You have had a job for 5 years.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. This is not a new problem.
        Mr. Bolden. No, ma'am. Not by any means.
        Senator Mikulski. Cyber has been an ongoing problem. And we
    hope that there continues to be a sense of urgency.
        Senator Shelby.

                                NASA PRIORITIES

        Senator Shelby. I have no other questions, other than to
    tell General Bolden, our administrator, that we do have
    challenges. You have challenges, and both of us believe that we
    want to fund these missions.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, sir.
        If I go back to cybersecurity, we have now, because of
    Larry Sweet, Robert Lightfoot, and Joe Mahaley, we now have
    dates assigned when we expect that we will answer the mail,
    when we will have actions complete. Some of those dates,
    unfortunately, because of budget limitations, are not next
    year. They may be 2016 or 2017. But we have a plan to get
    there. As I said, it is a risk-based plan. The things that
    leave us most vulnerable we are trying to take care of right
    now, so that we are shoring up. We are sticking our finger in
    the dike while we have somebody behind us building another
    better dike. But we are using a risk-based method for putting
    money against the problems that we have.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we agree, I think, all of us, on
    the goals of NASA. We are troubled over these continually
    shrinking resources. Remember, we are given a cap on
    discretionary spending.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And there are also firewalls.
        We note that NASA's highest funding level was in 2010 when
    it was $18.7 billion. That is roughly about $1 billion less
    now. So we are not on an upswing here. There is not new money
    on the horizon, so I think we have to be candid about that.
        We are looking at this in a very strong way. We are
    committed on a bipartisan basis to a balanced space program.
    And we have big challenges ahead, and we need to cooperate with
    you. And we do appreciate your longstanding service, both in
    other capacities serving the Nation and now.
        But though we agree on the goals, I am not so sure we agree
    on some of these priorities in here.
        So we have taken your testimony, and we found it very
    informative.
        Again, I really apologize for being late. I had hoped to be
    here earlier.
        And thank you, Senator Shelby.
        And so we need to have ongoing conversations. We hope that
    within the next week, between now and next Thursday, that we
    have our allocations ready and that we will begin to do our
    markups. And it would be our goal to have CJS through the full
    committee before the Fourth of July break.
        So that is our goal. That is our timetable.
        And because of the strong bipartisan support, and strong
    tell-it-like-it-is from Senator Shelby, I think we will get it.
        So thank you very much, and we will be in touch with you
    and your staff.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
               Questions Submitted to Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                    science
        Question. I have long supported the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's (NASA) Mars exploration program, which has really
    become a crown jewel of the agency after the successful Curiosity rover
    landing.
        However, I am concerned that continued underfunding of this program
    could lead to an inability to meet the long-scheduled goal of another
    rover launch in 2020.
        This is a real concern. Under the proposed schedule, any slip in
    component delivery will threaten the viability of the entire program,
    because scientists tell me that after 2020, the orbits of Earth and
    Mars will be millions of miles further apart. So further delay would
    only make the program more complicated and more expensive.
        Does the Administration remain committed to a 2020 launch of the
    next Mars rover, and will the requested funding level allow the program
    to remain on schedule?
        Answer. NASA's Mars Exploration Program has been, and will continue
    to be, a major success story for NASA in science, engineering, and
    technology development. The Administration's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request supports plans for a robust multi-year Mars program, which
    includes a budget profile for Mars 2020 that will allow the project to
    proceed as planned with a launch readiness date in 2020. NASA remains
    committed to finding the most cost-effective way to accomplish the Mars
    2020 mission, and has implemented proven processes and procedures to
    reduce the likelihood of cost or schedule overruns. Given these
    factors, we are confident that the requested funding level will allow
    the program to remain on schedule.
        Question. Since the mid-1990s, NASA has invested more than $1.1
    billion in the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy
    (SOFIA), a project that has been jointly funded with the German space
    agency (DLR). SOFIA recently achieved full operational capability in
    February 2014, just 11 days before the fiscal year 2015 budget proposed
    to cancel the program.
        Administrator Bolden, experts and scientists working on this
    project in California have indicated that they were shocked by the
    abrupt nature of this proposed cancellation.
        What was the process for reaching this assessment that SOFIA is now
    a ``lower priority program''?
        Answer. The decision to propose, as part of the fiscal year 2015
    NASA budget request, to put SOFIA into storage was primarily a
    budgetary decision driven by the tight budget caps in the Bipartisan
    Budget Act of 2013. SOFIA's scientific priority relative to other
    missions within NASA's Astrophysics portfolio was a secondary
    consideration to accommodating the level of NASA's fiscal year 2015
    Astrophysics budget request ($607 million) compared with the fiscal
    year 2014 appropriated level ($668 million). Hence, NASA has to make
    tough budget decisions in order to maximize the scientific return of
    the public investments in the astronomical sciences. Further, among the
    Astrophysics projects considered for budget reduction, SOFIA was
    identified for two reasons. First, it is the only strategic
    Astrophysics project that was not a first priority of a Decadal Survey.
    Second, while it was a priority in the 1990 Decadal Survey as a medium-
    class mission, its operations costs are the second largest of all NASA
    science missions, with only Hubble Space Telescope costing more.
        Question. Could you explain why NASA did not follow its usual
    process of conducting a ``Senior Review,'' which engages experts in the
    community to set priorities and make tough decisions on whether to end
    a mission?
        Answer. Senior Reviews are reviews of the science productivity of
    operating missions to support an assessment, based on demonstrated
    science accomplishments, of the anticipated science value of an
    extended mission. At the time of the 2012 Astrophysics senior review,
    SOFIA had not entered operations and therefore had not established a
    baseline of science accomplishments appropriate for a Senior Review.
    With the successful commissioning of its fourth science instrument in
    February 2014, SOFIA entered its operations phase in May 2014.
        Question. How will you explain to the U.S. taxpayers that the
    Administration has simply changed its mind and wasted the $1 billion it
    spent building SOFIA?
        Answer. Given today's severely constrained budgets, NASA has to
    make tough budget decisions in order to maximize the scientific return
    of the public investments in the astronomical sciences. SOFIA's high
    operating cost was a primary factor in the fiscal year 2015 budget
    proposal to put SOFIA in storage, unless alternative funding sources
    are found. Any alternative accommodation of the proposed reduction in
    the NASA Astrophysics budget would similarly impact other Astrophysics
    missions. While significant funding has been spent to develop SOFIA,
    this funding is less than half of the estimated $3 billion life-cycle
    cost of the program.
        Question. As you know, SOFIA is a joint project between the United
    States and Germany. Germany has contributed 20 percent of the cost to
    develop SOFIA. Germany also built the telescope and contributed the
    engines and other components. Moreover, Germany has agreed to
    contribute 20 percent of the operating costs.
        Why would NASA choose this moment to pull out of its commitment?
        Answer. The decision to propose, as part of the fiscal year 2015
    NASA budget request, to put SOFIA into storage was primarily a
    budgetary decision driven by the tight budget caps in the Bipartisan
    Budget Act of 2013. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Germany
    recognizes that our ability to carry through on our agreement is
    dependent on the availability of adequate appropriated funding. Some
    examples of the rich and robust NASA-DLR cooperation at the forefront
    of discovery include the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
    (GRACE), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, the Dawn mission now on
    its way to the asteroid Ceres, and the Mars Science Laboratory/
    Curiosity. Our long history of mutually beneficial collaboration will
    continue well in the future, bilaterally through missions like InSight,
    and multilaterally through the European Space Agency (ESA) where our
    work in development expands to such projects such as James Webb Space
    Telescope (JWST) and Exobiology on Mars (ExoMars)/Mars Organic Molecule
    Analyzer (MOMA).
        Question. Are you concerned that this decision will erode trust not
    only between the U.S. and Germany, but also between the U.S. and other
    international partners on projects in the future?
        Answer. No. Even the most robust space partnerships, such as those
    among the International Space Station partners, have weathered such
    developments. Our partners are very aware that in all instances our
    cooperation is based on the availability of appropriated funds, just as
    we are aware that their participation has similar funding constraints.
    NASA has a long history of very successful cooperation with nations
    around the world, and a part of that history has from time to time
    included some decisions by NASA and some by our international partners
    to re-phase, redesign, or even terminate planned cooperative
    activities.
        Some examples of the rich and robust NASA-DLR cooperation at the
    forefront of discovery include the Gravity Recovery and Climate
    Experiment (GRACE), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, the Dawn
    mission now on its way to the asteroid Ceres, and the Mars Science
    Laboratory/Curiosity. Our long history of mutually beneficial
    collaboration will continue well in the future, bilaterally through
    missions like InSight, and multilaterally through ESA where our work in
    development expands to such projects such as James Webb Space Telescope
    (JWST) and ExoMars/MOMA.
        Other countries continue to work with NASA on a wide variety of
    international partnerships, and we have not observed any change in
    their willingness to work with us. Currently, NASA has over 600 active
    agreements with over 120 countries and anticipates that international
    cooperation will remain a cornerstone of all of its future activities.
        Question. The budget notes that SOFIA will be placed in storage
    ``by fiscal year 2015'' unless other ``partners are developed to
    support the U.S. portion of SOFIA costs.'' As you know, Congress fully
    funded SOFIA operations for fiscal year 2014.
        Does NASA intend to mothball this fiscal year despite it being
    fully funded by Congress?
        Answer. NASA will not take any unilateral action without an
    appropriate reprogramming notification to the Committees on
    Appropriations. NASA has not submitted a fiscal year 2014 modified
    Operating Plan to begin the shutdown process for SOFIA.
        We can also confirm that the German Aerospace Center (DLR) and NASA
    have decided to proceed with the scheduled Heavy Maintenance Visit for
    SOFIA in Germany as planned; SOFIA arrived in Germany at the end of
    June, 2014, and the Heavy Maintenance Visit is underway.
        Question. If this occurs, how feasible do you think it would be for
    NASA to reassemble the team, should SOFIA be restarted in the future?
        Answer. It is very difficult to predict the long-term impacts on
    the team of mothballing SOFIA; however, NASA acknowledges that trying
    to reassemble the team after a period of mothballing would be difficult
    and could require substantial effort.
                                space technology
        Question. There are several significant projects and technologies
    NASA identified and funded in the budget that are important for
    providing communications and deep space navigation technology for human
    and robotic exploration. For example, the Lasercom Relay Demonstration
    (LCRD) will provide space-based optical data relays. The use of Human
    Exploration Telerobotics/Human-Robotic Systems will cooperatively
    enhance and speed up human space exploration missions to new
    destinations. Another project in the Space Technology account, Solar
    Electric Propulsion, would leverage capabilities developed and deployed
    by the commercial satellite industry and expand them with NASA funded
    developments to meet long endurance space missions.
        Do you believe the funding requested in the President's fiscal year
    2015 budget is sufficient to ensure these activities continue to
    advance human and robotic exploration as well as science missions?
        Answer. Yes. We hope that the final fiscal year 2015 appropriation
    for NASA will fund the entire Space Technology request of $706 million.
    NASA believes this funding level requested for Space Technology will
    enable the technical investments needed for NASA's future science and
    human exploration missions. The requested funding level would allow
    NASA to invest in key technology development efforts including: Solar
    Electrical Propulsion (SEP), Laser Communications Relay Demonstration
    (LCRD), Deep Space Atomic Clock (DSAC), Low Density Supersonic
    Decelerators (LDSD), Green Propellant Infusion Mission (GPIM),
    Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer (eCryo), Revolutionary
    Robotics and Autonomous Systems, and other critical technologies needed
    for human and robotic exploration deeper into our solar system, leading
    to human missions to Mars. In addition, fully funding the fiscal year
    2015 Space Technology appropriations request brings new crosscutting
    technologies and capabilities that lower the cost for other Government
    agencies and the Nation's aerospace industry.
        Question. What would the impact be on these innovative technologies
    if funding did not remain at NASA's fiscal year 2015 requested level?
        Answer. A number of impacts to important efforts within Space
    Technology will occur should the appropriated funding level reduce
    below the President's budget request. The extent of the impact will
    depend on the funding scenario. If reductions are made from the
    requested levels, Space Technology will likely prioritize existing
    content by scaling back planned competitive awards for most Space
    Technology programs and slowing the start of new technology
    demonstrations. Reducing new competitive awards provides stability for
    existing efforts--especially for those near their launch readiness
    date, but severely impacts the technology pipeline for the Agency,
    resulting in a loss of capabilities and efficiencies for future
    missions.
        At the proposed House Appropriations funding level for Space
    Technology, NASA will scale back competitive awards as noted above. In
    addition, the following Technology Demonstration Missions (TDM) would
    likely continue, but with increased execution risk due to the
    elimination of most of the program's contingency funding: Laser
    Communications Relay Demonstration, Deep Space Atomic Clock, Low
    Density Supersonic Decelerators, eCryo and Green Propellant Infusion
    Mission. Development of the high-priority Solar Electric Propulsion
    would continue, as planned. Such reductions are particularly
    challenging for projects planned for launch in 2015 including: Deep
    Space Atomic Clock, Low Density Supersonic Decelerator, and the Green
    Propellant Infusion Mission.
        In addition, the fiscal year 2015 funding levels proposed in the
    House bill for Space Technology would likely result in significant de-
    scoping of content or potential cancellation for the following:
    revolutionary robotics, autonomous systems, hypersonic deployable
    technologies, modeling for entry, decent and landing technologies,
    nuclear system development, Center Innovation Fund (CIF) activities,
    and new awards in the Small Spacecraft Technologies (SST) program and
    the Space Technology Research Grants (STRG) program. Reduced funding
    levels may also impact risk reduction efforts for technologies being
    developed in preparation for the Discovery 14 opportunity including
    deep-space optical communication and advanced thermal protection
    systems.
        Space Technology will prioritize technologies based on thrust areas
    identified as critical to increasing the Nation's capabilities in
    space, including those meeting the Agency's exploration and science
    goals. This includes advancement of Solar Electric Propulsion required
    for the Asteroid Redirect Mission as well as future human missions to
    the surface of Mars. These thrust areas also emphasize Space
    Technology's support of continued Mars robotic science exploration,
    expanding the capabilities of future outer planetary science missions,
    and developing the large observatory capabilities to understand the
    Universe. The thrust areas support Space Technology's investment
    strategy to enable future NASA missions while offering crosscutting
    support for the missions and capabilities of commercial and other
    government space sectors. Nevertheless, at a significantly reduced
    fiscal year 2015 funding level, as proposed by the Congress, critical
    content even within these key thrust areas will either run at risk or
    face elimination.
                        human exploration and operations
        Question. As you know, the development of a reliable means of
    repairing and refueling satellites already in orbit could allow the
    U.S. to realize significant cost-savings and ensure the continued
    operation of these satellites for the benefit of civilian and national
    security assets. It is my understanding that the Goddard Space Flight
    Center is proposing to expand their work in this important area. I also
    understand that Goddard is building off of prior investments and
    leveraging industry capabilities.
        Do you believe that in orbit refueling and servicing of satellites
    is an important research effort for NASA to undertake as a stepping-
    stone to support human exploration?
        Answer. NASA is refocusing its In-Space Robotic Servicing activity
    to multi-use technology development efforts that could enable multiple
    NASA missions, including servicing potential science satellites,
    servicing government missions in low-Earth orbit, and non-NASA users,
    and provide robotic tools for an Asteroid Redirect Mission, as well
    other applications for use and/or testing on the International Space
    Station (ISS).
        Robotic Refueling Mission phase 2 hardware will be flown to ISS in
    fiscal year 2014. This hardware includes a new tool and task board,
    which will be used to demonstrate additional refueling tasks, including
    robotic operations associated with cryogenic fluid transfer. In-Space
    Servicing is also developing a tool to detect external ammonia leaks on
    ISS. This device will be critical in monitoring and determining leak
    locations on ISS, and serve as generic tool to assist in satellite
    repair.
        Question. Do you believe that NASA's relationships with commercial
    partners could be strengthened through such a program?
        Answer. NASA continues to engage private industry and other
    government agencies to determine their interest in these capabilities.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
                        human exploration and operations
        Question. Administrator Bolden, you suggested that NASA's ``total
    investment in the COTS program'' was only $684 million. However, by my
    accounting, the number is closer to $800 million. I have attached a
    copy of the schedule of payments provided by your staff, which supports
    this number. Could you please explain why your ``total investment''
    number is different than that which is reflected in the attachment?
        Answer. While the original planned amount for the entire Commercial
    Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) effort was $800 million, the
    actual available appropriations were $782 million. The $684 million
    represents the funding paid to the two remaining partners, SpaceX and
    Orbital Sciences, under COTS Space Act Agreements. The total COTS
    program funding paid to date is $781 million, broken out as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SpaceX...............................................                396
    Orbital..............................................                288
                                                          ------------------
          Total COTS Investment in current partner Space                 684
           Act Agreements................................

    COTS Investment in Terminated Space Act Agreement                     32
     with Rocketplane Kistler (RPK)......................
    Total COTS Investment through Commercial Resupply                     18
     Services (CRS)......................................
    Total COTS Other Management and Support..............                 47
                                                          ------------------
          Total COTS Program Payments through April 30,                  781
           2014..........................................
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. It is my understanding that at least one of the providers
    participating in Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) has flown different
    variants of their launch vehicle for each mission--some variants being
    more significant than others. Please provide the subcommittee a
    detailed accounting of each vehicle flown by mission and the changes
    made to that vehicle relative to the original qualifying launch
    vehicle. Additionally, the subcommittee requests a detailed description
    of the changes made, if any, from one launch vehicle to the next.
        Answer. Under the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, a
    total of four flights have flown to the International Space Station
    (ISS) to date. All four flights have successfully berthed with the
    Space Station and delivered all planned cargo. Additionally, all three
    SpaceX CRS flights have successfully returned all planned cargo to
    Earth. The table below outlines the vendor, CRS flight, launch vehicle
    versions, and launch dates.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Vendor                          Flight               Launch Vehicle            Launch Date
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    SpaceX...............................  CRS SpaceX-1...........  Falcon 9 v1.0..........  10/07/2012
    SpaceX...............................  CRS SpaceX-2...........  Falcon 9 v1.0..........  03/01/2013
    SpaceX...............................  CRS SpaceX-3...........  Falcon 9 v1.1..........  04/18/2014
    Orbital..............................  CRS Orbital-1..........  Antares 120............  01/19/2014
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        For the CRS program, there is not a NASA ``qualification'' of the
    commercial partner launch vehicle in the traditional definition. Each
    company is responsible for all prelaunch qualifications and
    verifications of their launch vehicle and is also responsible for
    determining what launch vehicle is appropriate for the specified
    mission parameters, including expected cargo upmass/downmass (as
    applicable), launch window and rendezvous phasing. The cargo spacecraft
    that berths to the ISS is required to meet a set of interface and
    verification requirements for each mission, which NASA reviews and
    dispositions for each flight. Launch vehicle performance and capability
    were previously demonstrated under the COTS program prior to the CRS
    contract vehicle launches. In addition, the Federal Aviation
    Administration reviews safety and performance data of the launch
    vehicles prior to each flight to ensure public safety and is
    responsible for issuing a license of each vehicle's launch and reentry.
    As NASA does not contractually qualify or verify the commercial partner
    launch vehicles, additional information on these vehicles and their
    version history should be requested from the relevant company.
        Question. I am aware that a number of significant anomalies have
    occurred with CRS launch vehicles, including seawater intrusion, engine
    loss on ascent, and the insertion of a secondary payload in the
    improper orbit just to name a few. What is the probability that such
    significant anomalies will occur with CRS launch vehicles and what
    insight does NASA have in that regard? What risk mitigation efforts are
    underway to ensure that these anomalies are not repeated? What is
    NASA's recourse when such significant anomalies occur; for instance
    what can be done about the loss of or damage to payloads returning from
    the ISS?
        Answer. Launch vehicle development and operation is a technically
    challenging undertaking. Efforts to reduce risks through design
    reviews, testing at component and system levels, and early
    identification of any risks are utilized to preclude anomalies.
        NASA participates in various production and operations contract
    milestones with the vendors to gain insight on both launch vehicle and
    spacecraft, as part of the CRS contract. NASA insight is defined as
    gaining an understanding necessary to knowledgeably assess the risk of
    contractor actions or lack thereof through observation of manufacturing
    or tests, review of documentation, and attendance at meetings and
    reviews.
        The CRS contractor has the lead for anomaly resolution for phases
    of the mission during which they have responsibility. In the event of
    an anomaly during a mission, a contractor-chaired team will determine
    the cause of the anomaly or failure to evaluate all available data in
    order to determine if the mission failure was attributable to the
    vehicle or conditions for which the contractor is expected to control
    or avoid. The appropriate corrective actions necessary to address any
    issues will be determined and coordinated with NASA. NASA is able to
    fully participate in these investigation and proposed mitigation
    implementation. In addition, NASA participates as necessary in any
    issues/anomalies that are identified during production as well.
        As part of determining mission success or failure after each return
    mission, NASA conducts a post-flight assessment of the condition of the
    payloads to determine if their condition meets the agreed to
    requirements. If the return payloads do not meet the requirements or
    are lost, and the mission therefore is only a partial success or a
    failure, NASA withholds a portion, or the entire, final payment for
    that mission.
        Question. Administrator during the Committee's NASA hearing on the
    fiscal year 2014 budget last year, you stated: `` . . . we don't know
    the precise amount, because we don't get, you know, fiscal accounting
    the way that would be required if we were working under a FAR-based
    contract, but they are now working under FAR-based contracts in the
    CCiCap program . . .  We have total insight into everything that
    they're doing, so when we get to ready to roll out the request for
    proposals here this summer, we'll be confident that we know what
    they're doing.'' These comments led me to believe that FAR-based
    contracts would provide greater transparency and oversight than the
    existing Space Act Agreements. However, NASA has stated that it will
    waive significant portions of the FAR contracting requirements under
    the proposed CctCap RFP, including those related to certified cost and
    pricing data. Could you explain how a waiver of these requirements is
    consistent with your previous statements encouraging transparency and
    accountability?
        Answer. NASA did not waive ``significant'' portions of the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracting requirements under the
    Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) Request for Proposal
    (RFP). NASA modified several standard FAR provisions to better align
    with the contract requirements, which is part of the procurement
    process for any solicitation. NASA approved waivers/deviations for
    several RFP clauses, as permitted by the FAR, because the resultant
    clauses were appropriate and justified for the CCtCap procurement. NASA
    was fully transparent with industry regarding the waivers and
    deviations under CCtCap RFP.
        NASA did not waive any certification requirements for the initial
    award of proposals under CCtCap. FAR 15.403-1 does not allow the
    Government to require Certified Cost or Pricing Data for procurements
    when there is expected to be adequate price competition through
    multiple proposals and price is a significant factor in the evaluation,
    as is the case for CCtCap. As part of the competitive price evaluation,
    the RFP required all offerors to submit data other than cost or pricing
    data to assist the Government in determining price reasonableness. NASA
    did waive FAR 15.403-4(a) and (b)--relating to certified cost or
    pricing data after contract award. This waiver only applies to
    potential contract modifications and task orders in excess of $700,000
    during contract performance (i.e., after the award of the base
    contract). This was done in order to reduce administrative costs
    associated with the certification of cost accounting systems and to
    increase competition. Like the initial contract award process, NASA
    will require contractors to provide data other than certified cost or
    pricing data to assist in price reasonableness determinations for
    future modifications and task orders under the contract.
        In addition, NASA will have significantly greater oversight under
    the CCtCap contract than it had under Space Act agreements, through
    certification of compliance with NASA requirements, inspections,
    anomaly investigation and safety review of hazardous flight operations.
    NASA will have full technical insight into commercial vehicle design
    and performance, and has achieved a head start on this through the
    recently completed first phase of this procurement, the Certification
    Products Contracts.
        Question. How is NASA weighing individual company investment in the
    current round of awards to ensure that this is a public-private
    partnership and not a taxpayer funded development program?
        Answer. CCtCap is a firm fixed price contract and, as such, NASA is
    concerned with the price to the Government and the contractor's ability
    to perform the work at that price. As part of ensuring lifecycle cost
    management, NASA is evaluating the financial resources proposed to meet
    the milestones throughout the contract and how the total investment
    affects performance risk. NASA is not evaluating the magnitude of
    company investment.
        Question. What is the current investment level for each participant
    in Commercial Crew thus far?
        Answer. By the time the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability
    (CCiCap) is completed, NASA's investment in the three rounds of
    Commercial Crew Space Act Agreements (CCDev, CCDev2, and CCiCap) will
    be $1.533 billion. Based on representations by the companies, our
    industry partners will have made an aggregate investment of
    approximately 20 percent of the total investment through the completion
    of the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) phase. The actual
    aggregate investment of the partners may be higher to the extent that
    industry has absorbed cost growth associated with hardware development
    challenges and schedule delays. A further level of definition regarding
    any company's investment in the Commercial Crew Program would be
    proprietary to that company and is Sensitive But Unclassified
    information.
        NASA has also provided an aggregate $29 million to industry for the
    Certification Products Contracts. The corresponding partner investment
    is unknown, but the partners are believed to have contributed to this
    activity, as the generation of these products has proven to be even
    more significant than we or they anticipated.
        Question. I am concerned about the lack of transparency inherent in
    Space Act Agreements and, in particular, the lack of information NASA
    has regarding the private investment in both the commercial cargo and
    crew program. Does NASA know how much each participant has invested in
    the cargo program or the crew program? Are the companies required to
    disclose their investments as a condition of their contract with NASA?
        Answer. By the time the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability
    (CCiCap) is completed, NASA's investment in the three rounds of
    Commercial Crew Space Act Agreements (CCDev, CCDev2, and CCiCap) will
    be $1.533 billion. Based on representations by the companies, our
    industry partners will have made an aggregate investment of
    approximately 20 percent of the total investment through the completion
    of the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) phase. The actual
    aggregate investment of the partners may be higher to the extent that
    industry has absorbed cost growth associated with hardware development
    challenges and schedule delays. A further level of definition regarding
    any company's investment in the Commercial Crew Program would be
    proprietary to that company and is Sensitive But Unclassified
    information.
        NASA has also provided an aggregate $29 million to industry for the
    Certification Products Contracts. The corresponding partner investment
    is unknown, but the partners are believed to have contributed to this
    activity, as the generation of these products has proven to be even
    more significant than we or they anticipated.
        The industry partner investment under the COTS development program
    was a higher percentage than the percentage for crew development. For
    the ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, NASA is purchasing
    services under fixed-price contracts. NASA has no insight into any
    partner investments made in delivering that service. Companies have not
    been required to disclose their investments as a condition of award of
    a crew or cargo contract. The CRS, CPC, and pending CCtCap contracts
    are all fixed-price contracts, which do not require the contractor to
    disclose its expenses or investments.
        Question. Is it reasonable that to speculate that these companies
    have invested less than 5 percent of their own money in these ventures?
    If they are not required to disclose their investments, how do you know
    whether they have invested $5 or $5 million?
        Answer. By the time the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability
    (CCiCap) is completed, NASA's investment in the three rounds of
    Commercial Crew Space Act Agreements (CCDev, CCDev2, and CCiCap) will
    be $1.533 billion. Based on representations by the companies, our
    industry partners will have made an aggregate investment of
    approximately 20 percent of the total investment through the completion
    of the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) phase. The actual
    aggregate investment of the partners may be higher to the extent that
    industry has absorbed cost growth associated with hardware development
    challenges and schedule delays. A further level of definition regarding
    any company's investment in the Commercial Crew Program would be
    proprietary to that company and is Sensitive But Unclassified
    information.
        NASA has also provided an aggregate $29 million to industry for the
    Certification Products Contracts. The corresponding partner investment
    is unknown, but the partners are believed to have contributed to this
    activity, as the generation of these products has proven to be even
    more significant than we or they anticipated.
        The industry partner investment under the COTS development program
    was a higher percentage than the percentage for crew development. For
    the ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, NASA is purchasing
    services under fixed-price contracts. NASA has no insight into any
    partner investments made in delivering that service. Companies have not
    been required to disclose their investments as a condition of award of
    a crew or cargo contract. The CRS, CPC, and pending CCtCap contracts
    are all fixed-price contracts, which do not require the contractor to
    disclose its expenses or investments.
        Question. NASA has a significant number of launches that it intends
    to launch on board Space X rockets over the next several years. In 2014
    alone, NASA ISS resupply missions account for 4 of the 13 missions
    listed on their manifest. However, we are now in May and only 2 of the
    13 missions listed have launched. With only 8 months remaining, they
    will have to launch every 22 days for the rest of the year. This would
    be more launches in 8 months of a Falcon 9 than have been completed
    over the past 3 years. Given the critical nature of resupplying the
    ISS, how is NASA preparing for the possibility that the scheduled
    launches to the ISS by Space X will not occur as scheduled?
        Answer. The remaining two flights planned for fiscal year 2014 are
    planned for July 2014 (Orb-2) and August 2014 (SpX-4). In addition, the
    European Space Agency plans to launch its Automated Transfer Vehicle-5
    this summer. The commercial strategy does not rely on a single flight
    or provider, but if CRS cargo delivery flights fall behind schedule,
    NASA will prioritize the cargo carried on those flights on the basis of
    payload criticality to the maintenance and operation of ISS. Beyond
    meeting these requirements, NASA will first satisfy additional
    requirements associated with NASA utilization missions including NASA-
    sponsored Biological and Physical Research, the Human Research Program
    and Technology Development and Demonstration projects necessary to
    NASA's exploration mission. Finally, NASA would work together with the
    Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), which manages
    the National Laboratory aspects of the ISS to determine the priority of
    utilization-related cargo, including equipment and samples supporting
    research objectives by organizations other than NASA.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                science missions
        Question. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    is identified as a supporting Federal agency for 9 elements of the
    Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region,
    including:

      --Enhance Arctic Domain Awareness;
      --Develop a framework of observations and modeling to support
            forecasting and prediction of sea ice;
      --Implement the Pilot Distributed Biological Observatory in the
            Pacific Arctic;
      --Develop Integrated Ecosystem Research in the Beaufort and Chukchi
            Seas;
      --Improve Understanding of Glacial Dynamics;
      --Understand Terrestrial Ecosystem Processes;
      --Understand Atmospheric Processes to Improve Climate Predictions;
      --Support a Circumpolar Arctic Observing System; and
      --Integrate Arctic Regional Models.

        Despite this long list of action items, NASA references only two
    Arctic-oriented projects in its fiscal year 2015 Budget Estimates
    document:

      --Operation IceBridge--which consists of 26 science flights from
            Fairbanks and Greenland to collect data on sea ice, ice sheets
            and glaciers; and
      --ICESat-2--which will continue assessments of polar ice changes once
            launched in 2017.

        These are important projects, and I am not going to criticize NASA
    for pursuing good work related to the Arctic. However, as I have been
    with many other Federal agencies I am concerned that the statements
    made in the Administration's Arctic Implementation Plan are not matched
    with resources to support actual work when it comes to NASA.
    Administrator Bolden, could you please provide me with information
    regarding your agency's fiscal year 2015 budget support for the 9
    action items where NASA is identified as a supporting agency?
        Answer. NASA's fiscal year 2015 budget estimates document does not
    cover all of the agency's activities because it was focused on major
    items listed as specific milestones in the strategy. The strategy and
    milestones were derived from the Arctic Research Plan fiscal year 2013-
    2017 developed by the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
    (IARPC), in which NASA regularly participates. Apart from our major
    investments in IceBridge and ICESat 2, NASA spends an additional
    approximately $20 million on Arctic research across a range of NASA
    science-based programs, as follows:

      --Cryospheric Sciences: Supporting a diverse suite of studies of
            Arctic sea and land ice. The sea ice studies are especially
            focused on the connections of changes in sea ice cover to
            climate drivers. The land ice studies are especially relevant
            to estimates of present and future sea level rise.
      --Interdisciplinary Sciences: Supporting studies of the impacts of
            Arctic change on the global system, and ice-ocean interaction.
      --Making Earth System data records for Use in Research Environments
            (MEaSUREs): Supporting various studies compiling information on
            Arctic sea ice, Greenland ice sheet, and North American snow
            cover.
      --Modeling and Assimilation: Supporting model development for sea ice
            components of global climate models and ice sheet models
            relevant to sea level rise.
      --Carbon Cycle: Supporting development of the Arctic Boreal
            Vulnerability Experiment (ABOVE) campaign, a major study
            planned for 2015 and beyond to assess the changes occurring in
            Arctic vegetation.
      --Earth Ventures: Supporting aircraft studies to assess the release
            of greenhouse gases from the thawing permafrost.

        These funded activities contribute to all of the elements listed
    above, and detail can be provided as desired.
        Question. As Arctic ice continues to diminish and more and more
    nations engage in that region, I have encouraged this Administration to
    lead in the Arctic and dedicate the resources necessary to back up our
    claims of Arctic engagement.
        Administrator Bolden, I am aware that the Canadian Government is
    looking at a new satellite mission that would help maintain satellite
    communications and weather observations in the Arctic region for years
    to come. This comes at a time when our own civil weather satellite
    capability faces an ``unacceptably high'' probability of a gap in
    observations by 2017. The U.S. Navy in its Arctic Roadmap has
    highlighted the importance working with Canada on Arctic communications
    and weather. In addition, a recent GAO report cited that weather
    forecasts over the Arctic needed to be improved.
        While I understand that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) is the lead agency for weather satellite
    programs, I would like to know your views on satellite observations
    needed in an increasingly ice-diminished Arctic. Also, could you please
    describe how NASA is engaged with NOAA and the Department of State
    (DOS) to evaluate the benefits that a Canadian communications and
    weather satellite mission would have to the U.S. and our monitoring
    capabilities?
        Answer. Satellite observations of the Arctic region have already
    proven to be important for advancing our understanding of the ongoing
    changes there, as well as enabling the U.S. to plan for the large
    effects that can be expected in the future.
        NASA's current and planned satellite observations provide extensive
    coverage of the Arctic. Most of NASA's satellites are in polar orbits,
    which fly over each pole approximately 15 times per day, gathering data
    routinely during these overpasses and transmitting and processing data
    back on the ground for use by the research and applications
    communities. Planned satellite data such as the ICESat 2 mission
    (launch in 2018) and GRACE Follow On (launch in 2017) will provide
    particularly important measurements of ice sheet topography and mass,
    respectively. NASA coordinates with the Canadian Space Agency and that
    nation's Environment Canada agency, both bilaterally and through
    international coordinating entities such as the Committee on Earth
    Observation Satellites (CEOS) and the Coordinating Group on
    Meteorological Satellites (CGMS); NOAA participates along with NASA in
    both CEOS and CGMS. NASA Earth Science Division and NOAA/National
    Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS)
    regularly exchange information on international interactions and
    potential future opportunities in the context of the NASA-NOAA Joint
    Working Group mandated by Section 306 the NASA Authorization Act of
    2005. NASA also regularly participates with the Department of State on
    Arctic-related issues, including those associated with the Arctic
    Council, and in interagency activities such as IARPC and the
    development of the National Arctic Strategy and the associated
    Implementation Plan.
        Although we are aware through CEOS of Canada's interest in
    developing a Polar Communications and Weather (PCW) satellite mission,
    their plans have not reached the stage of maturity at which they are
    presented for detailed discussion among the U.S. Government agencies.
        Question. As an Alaskan, I have an acute interest in the weather
    data provided by the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS). The impending
    gap in this critical data and the lack of robustness in the overall
    program is of great concern to the Nation and especially to my
    constituents. Secretary Pritzker addressed the gap in a recent hearing
    with this committee (April 10, 2014) by stating, `` . . . what we're
    trying to do is move JPSS-2 so that there's greater overlap with the
    JPSS-1 program. To do that, we need to have the procurement of the
    instruments, the bus, the ground system, and the launch.''
        As the acquisition agent, what is NASA currently doing to assist
    NOAA in accelerating JPSS-2?
        Answer. NASA and NOAA are assessing options to possibly accelerate
    the JPSS-2 Launch Readiness Date (LRD) from its current baseline of
    first quarter of fiscal year 2022 in order to reduce the probability of
    a gap between JPSS-1 and JPSS-2. NASA is actively working procurement
    actions for the complement of instruments as well as the spacecraft bus
    in order to get all under contract as soon as possible. The schedules
    of the instruments currently drive the JPSS-2 schedule. One instrument
    is already under contract, and final contract negotiations are underway
    for the other instruments. NASA plans to have all JPSS-2 instrument
    contracts definitized by Summer 2014. In addition, NASA plans to
    release the Request for Offer for the JPSS-2 spacecraft bus on schedule
    by the end of the fourth quarter fiscal year 2014. NASA is applying
    lessons learned from the JPSS-1 instruments and spacecraft
    manufacturing, integration and testing phase to the JPSS-2 mission
    planning, which should permit some level of acceleration.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., Thursday, May 1, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2015

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's Note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
            Prepared Statement of the American Geosciences Institute
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences
    Institute's perspective on fiscal year 2015 appropriations for
    geoscience programs within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
        The American Geosciences Institute (AGI) supports earth science
    research sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
    Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Frontier research on the
    Earth, energy, and the environment has fueled economic growth,
    mitigated losses, and sustained our quality of life. The subcommittee's
    leadership in supporting geoscience-based research is even more
    critical as our Nation competes with rapidly developing countries, such
    as China and India, for energy, mineral, air, and water resources. Our
    Nation needs skilled geoscientists to help explore, assess, and develop
    Earth's resources in a strategic, sustainable, and environmentally
    sound manner and to help understand, evaluate, and reduce our risks to
    hazards. AGI recognizes our Nation's financial challenges and also the
    necessity for steady and sustained growth in investment in science and
    technology for the future. AGI respectfully requests $1.322 billion for
    the Geoscience Directorate at NSF and $1.853 billion for NASA Earth
    Science programs to keep pace with inflation. AGI supports the
    President's request for $5.497 billion for NOAA and $900 million for
    NIST.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of about 50 geoscientific and
    professional societies representing more than 250,000 geologists,
    geophysicists, and other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI
    provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for
    shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening
    geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the
    vital role the geosciences play in society's use of resources,
    resilience to hazards, and the health of the environment.
        National Science Foundation.--AGI supports a minimum increase of
    $18 million over the President's request for the Geosciences
    Directorate to keep pace with inflation, and an overall budget of
    $7.255 billion for NSF. NSF is vital national incubator for scientific
    breakthroughs that will fuel economic growth and for developing the
    educated workforce that is needed to drive innovation and global
    leadership in science, engineering, and technology. AGI believes that
    investment in NSF programs, where research is funded based on
    competitive scientific merit and peer review, will pay important
    dividends in our understanding of the world we inhabit and will play a
    critical role in maintaining U.S. dominance in science and technology
    long into the future.
        NSF Geosciences Directorate.--AGI is very disappointed that the
    President's request for a 0.1 percent increase for the Geoscience
    Directorate (GEO) does not come close to matching inflation, which
    averaged 1.5 percent in 2013, and thus presents an effective cut in
    funding for geoscience research and infrastructure. AGI recognizes the
    challenges faced by Congress in balancing the Nation's budget and
    respectfully asks the subcommittee to provide the Geosciences
    Directorate with a modest funding increase of 1.5 percent over fiscal
    year 2014 levels, which would do no more than match inflation and
    maintain current funding levels for the geosciences.
        AGI asks the subcommittee to provide $254 million for Atmospheric
    and Geospace Sciences, $180 million for Earth Sciences, $362 million
    for Ocean Sciences, $85 million for Integrative and Collaborative
    Education and Research (ICER), and $441 million for Polar Programs, for
    a total investment of $1,322 million in NSF's Geoscience Directorate.
        The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is the principal source of
    Federal support for academic earth scientists and their students who
    are seeking to understand the Earth and the processes that sustain and
    transform life on this planet. The Geosciences Directorate provides
    about 65 percent of Federal funding for basic geoscience research at
    academic institutions. According to NSF data, the Directorate
    distributes about 1,700 awards annually involving about 14,700 people
    and supporting indispensible research infrastructure and instruments.
        Understanding the Earth improves our ability to anticipate and
    mitigate the effects of natural hazards such as earthquakes,
    landslides, and tsunamis, to make long- and short-term weather
    forecasts, to locate and appropriately develop earth resources, to
    sustainably manage our environment, and to make well-informed decisions
    at all levels from the individual citizen to national and international
    policy makers.
        NSF's Division of Polar Programs (PLR) funds basic research in the
    Arctic and Antarctic and manages all U.S. activities in Antarctica as a
    single, integrated program. The polar regions are the focus of intense
    scientific and political interest as new navigation routes are opening
    access to resources and presenting security challenges. NSF-funded
    research and infrastructure are helping the United States understand
    environmental conditions in extreme environments, develop polar
    technology, and construct data-driven strategic and security policies.
    AGI suggests a minimum of $441 million for the Division of Polar
    Programs.
        NSF funds facilities that enable researchers to access locations,
    data, and technologies that serve the overall research community. AGI
    strongly supports robust and steady funding for infrastructure and the
    operation and maintenance of major facilities, including the Academic
    Research Fleet, Geodetic and Seismological Facilities for the
    Advancement of Geosciences and EarthScope (GAGE and SAGE), Ocean
    Drilling Activities, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the
    National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
        Directorate for Education and Human Resources.--NSF support for
    geoscience education must be maintained if we are to meet the demand
    for a skilled workforce and an informed citizenry prepared to make
    well-informed decisions about the management of our planet and its
    resources. Outreach and education are important at all levels from K-12
    through graduate level and should include formal and informal outlets
    to facilitate lifelong learning. AGI strongly supports funding for
    geoscience education at all levels and particularly supports programs
    to diversify the geoscience student population and workforce. AGI urges
    Congress to fund programs in NSF's Directorate for Education and Human
    Resources, including NSF Scholarships in STEM, Graduate Research
    Fellowships, Climate Change Education, Research Experiences for
    Undergraduates, and Advancing Informal STEM Education.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--AGI supports the
    President's request for $5.497 billion for NOAA. We hope the
    subcommittee will continue to support the National Weather Service
    (NWS), Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), National Ocean Service
    (NOS), and the National Environment Satellite, Data and Information
    Service (NESDIS). These programs are critical for understanding and
    mitigating natural and human-induced hazards in the Earth system while
    sustaining our natural resources. Geoscientists rely on NOAA for much
    of the data and long-term monitoring that enable research and rapid
    response to events such as hurricanes, drought, marine oil spills, and
    a range of coastal phenomena.
        National Institute of Standards and Technology.--AGI supports the
    President's request for $900 million for the NIST. Basic research at
    NIST is conducted by earth scientists and geotechnical engineers and
    used by the public and private sectors on a daily basis. The research
    conducted and the information gained is essential for understanding
    natural hazards and for identifying the infrastructure needed to build
    resilient communities and stimulate economic growth. Advanced
    infrastructure research will help to reduce the estimated average of
    $52 billion in annual losses caused by floods, fires, and earthquakes.
        NIST is the lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazard
    Reduction Program (NEHRP), but has received only a small portion of
    authorized and essential funding in the past. AGI strongly supports the
    reauthorization of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (NEHRP) in this Congress. We hope the appropriations subcommittee will
    continue to support this effective and cohesive program, even if the
    authorizing legislation takes more time to complete. NEHRP is an
    excellent example of how to coordinate different entities for the
    safety and security of all. NEHRP develops effective practices and
    policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerates their
    implementation; improves techniques for reducing earthquake
    vulnerabilities of facilities and systems; improves earthquake hazards
    identification and risk assessment methods and their use; and improves
    the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
        National Aeronautic and Space Administration.--AGI is disappointed
    that the President proposes a 3.1 percent cut to Earth Science
    functions at NASA. NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-
    observing satellites, launch the next tier, and accelerate development
    of the subsequent tier of missions. The observations and understanding
    about our dynamic Earth gained from these missions is critical to
    research and to life-sustaining functions like weather forecasting,
    emergency service response and planning, and tracking ash plumes or oil
    spills that disrupt the economy and the environment. We respectfully
    suggest that funding levels should at least match inflation and
    therefore we ask that $1,853 million be appropriated for Earth Science
    Programs within the NASA's Science Mission Directorate.
        AGI applauds NASA's successful launch of the Landsat 8 satellite in
    February, 2013, which will enable the continuation of a 40-year record
    of Earth observations in conjunctions with the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS). Geoscientists use Landsat data to monitor, predict, and help
    land managers to address drought, wildfires, changes in vegetation, and
    other changes to the Earth's surface. AGI strongly supports the NASA/
    USGS Sustainability Land Imaging Architecture Study Team which is
    examining options for continuing Landsat-compatible observations into
    the future and urges Congress to support and fund their efforts.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the
    subcommittee. If you would like any additional information for the
    record, please contact Maeve Boland at 703-379-2480, ext. 228 voice,
    703-379-7563 fax, mboland@agiweb.org, or 4220 King Street, Alexandria
    VA 22302-1502.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2015
    appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
    Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.5 billion in fiscal year 2015.
        The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
    advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
    AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
    community of biologists have access to and use information that will
    guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
    biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
    of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
    in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has more than 140 member organizations and is
    headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
    Washington, DC.
                               nsf and innovation
        The NSF is an important engine that helps power our Nation's
    economic growth. Through its competitive, peer-reviewed research
    grants, NSF supports the development of new knowledge that will help to
    solve the most challenging problems facing society, and will lead to
    new scientific discoveries, patents, and jobs. The agency's education
    and training programs are helping to ensure that the next generation
    has the scientific, technical, and mathematical skills employers are
    seeking. Investments in research equipment and facilities enable the
    country to continue to innovate and compete globally.
        These efforts, however, require a sustained Federal investment.
    Unpredictable swings in Federal funding can disrupt research programs,
    create uncertainty in the research community, and stall the development
    of the next great idea.
        The budget request for fiscal year 2015 will flat line investments
    in foundational research at a time when other nations are accelerating
    their commitments to science. The proposed $1.5 million cut from the
    Research and Related Activities account may seem small, but coupled
    with an anticipated 1.7 percent increase in inflation, NSF research
    funding would decline by $100 million next year.
        The scientific community recognizes that current fiscal conditions
    have necessarily constrained Federal funding, but NSF is a sound
    investment that pays dividends. The use of peer-review to evaluate and
    select the best proposals means that NSF is funding the highest quality
    research.
                        biological sciences directorate
        The NSF is the primary Federal funding source for basic biological
    research at our Nation's universities and colleges. The NSF provides
    approximately 66 percent of extramural Federal support for non-medical,
    fundamental biological and environmental research at academic
    institutions.
        A reduction of $12.8 million is proposed in fiscal year 2015 from
    the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO). This is a considerably
    larger cut than is proposed for any other research directorate. If
    enacted, the funding rate for biological and environmental research
    would drop to 18 percent.
        The research supported by NSF is unique from the science funded by
    other Federal programs. Unlike most Federal agencies, which focus on
    applied research, NSF supports research that advances the frontiers of
    our knowledge about biodiversity, genetics, physiology, and ecosystems.
    Recent discoveries that stem from NSF-funded research include:
      --Discovering that members of a particular kind of bacteria work
            together to find food and survive under harsh conditions. This
            discovery could lead to new antibiotics or development of new
            pest-resistant seeds.
      --Developing a new technique to manipulate the genes of grasshoppers
            in order to prevent them from transforming into crop-destroying
            locusts.
      --Studying the impacts of the death of lodgepole pine forests due to
            bark beetle infestations on the timing of snowmelt and water
            quality.
      --Working to identify the pathway that leads to cells forming into an
            individual body, information that could lead to improved cancer
            treatments.
        BIO funds research in the foundational disciplines within biology.
    In addition to supporting our understanding of how organisms and
    ecosystems function, BIO supports interdisciplinary research at the
    frontiers of science.
        Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation's
    place-based biological research, such as field stations and natural
    science collections. The Long-Term Ecological Research program supports
    fundamental ecological research over long time periods and large
    spatial scales, the results of which provide information necessary for
    the identification and resolution of environmental problems.
        The fiscal year 2015 budget request would sustain an effort to
    digitize high priority specimens in U.S. natural science collections.
    This investment is helping to drive new fields of inquiry and helping
    scientists and the public gain access to rare and irreplaceable
    biological specimens and associated data. These efforts are stimulating
    the development of new computer hardware and software, digitization
    technologies, and database management tools.
        The Dimensions of Biodiversity program supports cross-disciplinary
    research to describe and understand the scope and role of life on
    Earth. Despite centuries of discovery, most of our planet's biological
    diversity (species) is unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly
    troubling given the rapid and permanent loss of global biodiversity. A
    better understanding of life on Earth will help us to make new bio-
    based discoveries in the realms of food, fiber, fuel, pharmaceuticals,
    and bio-inspired innovation. It will also increase our understanding of
    life on Earth and how biological systems and functions respond to
    environmental changes.
        The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account is
    funding the construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network
    (NEON). Once completed, NEON will provide the infrastructure necessary
    to collect data across the United States on the effects of climate
    change, land use change, water use, and invasive species on natural
    resources and biodiversity. This information will be valuable to
    scientists, resource managers, and government decision makers as they
    seek to better understand and manage natural systems.
                                 stem education
        NSF plays a central role in science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics (STEM) education. Support for the scientific training of
    undergraduate and graduate students is critically important to our
    research enterprise. Students recruited into science through NSF
    programs and research experiences are our next generation of innovators
    and educators. In short, NSF grants are essential to the Nation's goal
    of sustaining our global leadership in science, technology, engineering
    and mathematics, and reigniting our economic engines.
        NSF's education initiatives support STEM education innovation from
    elementary school through post-graduate. The Graduate Research
    Fellowship program is an important part of our national effort to
    recruit and retain the best and brightest STEM students. NSF proposes
    to increase both the number of new fellowships as well as the
    fellowship stipend in fiscal year 2015. The Faculty Early Career
    Development program (CAREER) supports young faculty who are dedicated
    to integrating research with teaching and learning.
        The administration once again proposes major changes to STEM
    education programs. Although the plans have been scaled back since the
    fiscal year 2014 budget request, we are concerned that implementation
    of these changes will proceed before the full details are known. Given
    the considerable consequences for student education and training, we
    hope that Congress will provide careful consideration of the potential
    impacts to our Nation's pipeline of researchers and STEM-skilled
    workers.
                                   conclusion
        Continued investments in the biological sciences are critical.
    Sustained support for NSF will help spur economic growth and
    innovation, and continue to build scientific capacity at a time when
    our Nation is at risk of being outpaced by our global competitors.
    Please support an investment of at least $7.5 billion for NSF for
    fiscal year 2015.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your prior efforts on behalf of science and the National Science
    Foundation.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Physiological Society
        The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks you for your
    sustained support of science at the National Science Foundation (NSF)
    and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The APS
    is a professional society, numbering more than 10,000 members,
    dedicated to fostering research and education as well as the
    dissemination of scientific knowledge concerning how the organs and
    systems of the body function. In this letter we offer our
    recommendations for fiscal year 2015 funding levels for these two
    agencies.
      --The APS urges you to fund the fiscal year 2015 NSF budget at a net
            level of $7.6 billion to prevent further erosion of program
            capacity.
      --The APS urges you to restore cuts to NASA's life sciences research
            budgets and to increase funding for the Human Research Program.
        NSF and NASA support scientific research and technology development
    programs that are critical to the future technological excellence and
    economic stability of the United States. Federal investment in research
    is critically important because breakthroughs in basic and
    translational research are the foundation for new technologies that
    help patients, fuel our economy, and provide jobs.
             nsf funds outstanding research and education programs
        NSF provides support for approximately 20 percent of all federally
    funded basic science and is the major source of support for non-medical
    biology research, including integrative, comparative, and evolutionary
    biology, as well as interdisciplinary biological research. It has been
    shown time and time again that the knowledge gained through basic
    biological research is the foundation for more applied studies that
    sustain the health of animals, humans and ecosystems.
        The majority of the NSF funding is awarded through competitive,
    merit-based peer review, ensuring that the best possible projects are
    supported. Reviewers and NSF officials consider both the intellectual
    merit of each research proposal, and also the broader impacts. The
    broader impact criteria are defined as the potential for research to
    benefit society and achieve specific outcomes. NSF has an exemplary
    record of accomplishment in terms of funding research that produces
    results with far-reaching potential. Since its inception in 1950, NSF
    has supported the work of 212 Nobel laureates.
        Biological research is just one part of the NSF portfolio. The APS
    believes that each of the NSF directorates support research that is
    critical to NSF's mission ``to promote the progress of science; to
    advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the
    national defense . . .'' \1\ Collaboration between scientific
    disciplines is increasingly recognized as the best and most efficient
    way to advance science. This will only be possible with strong support
    for all disciplines of research.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.nsf.gov.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to funding innovative research in labs around the
    country, the NSF education programs foster the next generation of
    scientists. The APS is proud to have partnered with NSF in programs to
    provide training opportunities and career development activities to
    enhance the participation of underrepresented minorities in science. We
    believe that NSF is uniquely suited to foster science education
    programs of the highest quality, and we recommend that Congress
    continue to provide Federal funds for science education through the
    NSF.
        The APS joins the Federation of American Societies for Experimental
    Biology (FASEB) to recommend that the NSF be funded at a level of $7.6
    billion in fiscal year 2015 so that it can support a sustainable
    research program that follows a funding trajectory reflecting the level
    authorized in the America COMPETES Act.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ www.faseb.org/fundingreport.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         support for life sciences research should be increased at nasa
        NASA sponsors research across a broad range of the basic and
    applied life sciences, including gravitational biology, biomedical
    research and the Human Research Program (HRP). The gravitational
    biology and biomedical research programs explore fundamental scientific
    questions through research carried out both on Earth and aboard the
    International Space Station, which provides an environment for the
    conduct of experiments in space. The HRP at NASA conducts unique
    research and develops countermeasures with the goal of enabling safe
    and productive human space exploration.
        During prolonged space flight, the physiological changes that occur
    due to microgravity, increased exposure to radiation, confined living
    quarters, and alterations in eating and sleeping patterns can lead to
    debilitating conditions and reduced ability to perform tasks. APS
    scientists are actively engaged in research that explores the
    physiological basis of these problems with the goal of contributing to
    the identification of therapeutic targets and development of
    countermeasures. The knowledge gained from this research is not only
    relevant to humans traveling in space, but is also directly applicable
    to human health on Earth. For example, some of the muscle and bone
    changes observed in astronauts after prolonged space flight are similar
    to those seen in patients confined to bed rest during periods of
    critical illness as well as during the process of aging.
        NASA is the only agency whose mission addresses the biomedical
    challenges of human space exploration. Over the past several years, the
    amount of money available for conducting this kind of research at NASA
    has dwindled. The overall number of projects and investigators
    supported by NASA through the HRP, National Space Biomedical Research
    Institute and Exploration and Technology Development program has
    decreased markedly (https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/Publication/). In the
    past, appropriations legislation specified funding levels for
    biomedical research and gravitational biology, but recent internal
    reorganizations at NASA have made it difficult to understand how much
    money is being spent on these programs from year to year. The APS
    recommends that funding streams for these important fundamental
    research programs be clearly identified and tracked within the NASA
    budget. The APS also recommends restoration of cuts to peer-reviewed
    life sciences research.
        As highlighted above, investment in the basic sciences is critical
    to our Nation's technological and economic future. The APS urges you to
    make every effort to provide these agencies with increased funding for
    fiscal year 2015.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
    life science Society with over 39,000 members, wishes to submit the
    following statement in support of increased funding for the National
    Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2015. The NSF is the only
    Federal agency that supports innovative basic research across all
    fields of science and engineering. For over six decades, the NSF has
    invested in basic research and education at the frontiers of science
    and engineering, including high risk and transformative research not
    supported by other funding sources. In fiscal year 2013, 81 percent of
    the NSF budget supported research and related activities at colleges,
    universities and academic consortia and NSF reviewed 49,000 grant
    proposals and made 10,844 new awards to 1,922 institutions in all
    states across the Nation.
        An estimated 299,000 people were directly involved in NSF programs
    and activities in fiscal year 2013. NSF programs indirectly impact
    millions (e.g., K-12 students and teachers, general public,
    institutions like museums). NSF grants supported eight of the 13 Nobel
    Prize 2013 winners at some point in their research careers. NSF has now
    funded 212 Nobel laureates since the agency began, 41 of whom also had
    been NSF Graduate Research Fellows. Since 1952, the agency has funded
    nearly 47,800 graduate research fellows.
        NSF support of multidisciplinary research and all levels of
    education is critical to improving the future of the Nation's science
    and engineering enterprise and our global competitive edge. NSF's
    National Science Board just released its latest biennial Science and
    Engineering Indicators report, a detailed analysis of the Nation's
    position in global science and technology. Since 2001, the share of the
    world's R&D performed in the United States has decreased from 37
    percent to 30 percent, while that performed by Asian countries grew
    from 25 percent to 34 percent. It is critical to increase the NSF
    budget to help reverse this worrisome trend.
                         nsf builds r&d infrastructure
        Through competitive grants, contracts and fellowships, NSF builds
    partnerships among industry, academia and other R&D stakeholders which
    expands the Nation's technical workforce. The NSF supports
    multidisciplinary research, cutting edge facilities, and initiatives
    and consortia. Examples are the National Big Data R&D Initiative
    launched in 2012 and NSF's Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases
    Initiative (EEID). In fiscal year 2013, the NSF invested more than $17
    million in 60 multidisciplinary projects to employ new computational
    analyses essential to data driven STEM breakthroughs. The effort was
    part of over $75 million spent in fiscal year 2013 to advance software,
    networking, data sciences and workforce training to support all STEM
    disciplines, via NSF's Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century
    Science and Engineering.
        Funding from NSF builds local R&D infrastructures through the long
    standing Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
    (EPSCoR) program. In mid-2013, four newly funded projects were in the
    EPSCoR portfolio: (1) a New England consortium focused on pathogenic
    bacteria in coastal regions, their environmental and economic impacts
    and decisionmaking through human interactions with natural systems; (2)
    a three State study of high elevation water resources, to create better
    computer models related to water quality; (3) a joint project in North
    and South Dakota to develop processing methods for converting biomass
    into renewable energy resources; and (4) a three State collaboration in
    New England placing a network of environmental sensors in each State,
    to collect data on carbon and nutrients in watersheds over time.
        NSF partnerships with academia are vital to energizing the U.S.
    workforce in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).
    The NSF responds to wide spread concerns about future workforce
    shortages across STEM disciplines. An example of NSF's STEM education
    strategy are five STEM projects funded last September involving
    multiple institutions in five States, to increase STEM participation of
    women and girls, underrepresented minorities and underserved rural
    areas. The nearly $4 million in EPSCoR grants will pilot new methods
    among students from middle school to early career levels.
        Another example is the diverse 2013 class of NSF Graduate Research
    Fellows, 2,000 young researchers from 434 U.S. baccalaureate
    institutions, including 1,102 women, 390 from underrepresented minority
    groups, 51 with disabilities and 28 veterans. Forty percent indicated
    interdisciplinary fields of study. In mid-2013, NSF announced the first
    53 recipients of the new Graduate Research Opportunities Worldwide
    (GROW) program, partnering with 12 countries to place NSF research
    fellows in institutions abroad.
        NSF also collaborates with the private sector to boost R&D
    entrepreneurs in the United States, in part through the competitive
    Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)/Small Business Technology
    Transfer program. In October, under an agreement between NSF and the
    Biotechnology Industry Organization, 10 NSF funded early stage biotech
    companies presented at the 12th annual BIO Investor Forum to begin
    raising funds in the private sector. The startups focus on drug
    discovery, diagnostics and other platform technologies.
                      nsf supported microbiology research
        Within NSF, the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) sustains
    a research portfolio encompassing the wide breadth of biology from
    molecules to ecosystems and the global biosphere. BIO divisions include
    those focused on environmental biology, systems biology or molecular
    biology. The Emerging Frontiers Division invests in higher risk,
    interdisciplinary activities that show promise of generating productive
    innovations. BIO also supports R&D infrastructures like the National
    Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), biological field stations and
    computerized databases that include DNA sequences of microorganisms. In
    fiscal year 2013, the directorate was able to fund 21 percent of the
    5,937 grant proposals submitted by researchers. Research reported in
    the past year illustrates the diversity of BIO's funding:
      --Bacterial DNA is more likely to be naturally transferred to human
            tumor cells than to normal, healthy cells, suggesting a role
            for bacterial gene transfer in cancer and other diseases
            associated with mutations. Scientists had already shown that
            bacteria can transfer DNA to animal genomes through previous
            genomic sequencing studies.
      --For the first time, the banded mongoose in Botswana was identified
            as carrying Leptospira interrogans, the bacterial cause of
            leptospirosis, which is the world's most common illness
            transmitted to humans by animals.
      --Scientific analysis of the 2011 record breaking algae bloom in Lake
            Erie blamed a ``perfect storm'' of weather events and
            agricultural practices, predicting more huge blooms in the
            future.
      --An unusual soil bacterium is being used in modeling and simulations
            by computational biologists to study how individual cells might
            have evolved into more complicated configurations. Myxococcus
            xanthus organizes itself into multicellular, three dimensional
            structures made up of thousands of cells to hunt other microbes
            and survive in harsh conditions.
      --The redwoods of California are being threatened by the combined
            effects of forest fires and sudden oak death disease, linked in
            2000 to the plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Flames carried
            into the tree canopy by the dead oaks scorch the crowns of
            surrounding redwoods.
        Last August, BIO funded U.S. and United Kingdom scientists in four
    projects that could revolutionize farming methods: (1) to design a
    synthetic biological module that will ``fix'' nitrogen inside plant
    cells, by reengineering nitrogen fixing bacteria to build an N-fixing
    unit that can be transferred; (2) to rediscover a bacterium found only
    once (in the 1990s in a German charcoal pit) that contains a unique
    enzyme allowing nitrogen fixing in oxygen rich environments normally
    inhibitory to nitrogen fixing bacteria; (3) to genetically alter
    nitrogen fixing bacteria and a grass species similar to more complex
    cereals such as maize, to ensure a lock and key interaction between
    plant and microbe and maximize the amount of usable nitrogen delivered
    to the plant; and (4) to optimize practical applications of nitrogen
    fixing blue green algae and genetically engineer plant cells to fix
    atmospheric nitrogen directly.
        The NSF Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) also funds microbiology
    research through studies of Earth's environment and the myriad roles
    played by microorganisms. In January, the directorate awarded grants to
    four new critical zone observatories, which join six existing CZOs to
    study the zone where Earth's surface meets the atmosphere and living
    organisms. The CZOs are the first research network to holistically
    investigate this zone, so important to water quality, food supplies,
    soil health and carbon storage.
        Both GEO and BIO contribute to NSF's Ecology and Evolution of
    Infectious Diseases program jointly sponsored with the National
    Institutes of Health. EEID supports the study of ecological and
    biological mechanisms of environmental change that shape emergence and
    transmission of infectious diseases. Projects help understand how large
    scale events like habitat destruction can alter microbial diseases in
    humans and other animals. In 2013, new EEID grant recipients included
    studies on foot and mouth disease virus, honeybee killing parasites,
    impacts of livestock production practices on emerging drug resistant
    staphylococci bacteria and transmission of Tasmanian devil facial tumor
    disease. Effects of climate change on the spread of infectious disease
    is another EEID focus area, generating reports last year that model
    disease outcomes based on climate variables to guide public health
    officials. In February, researchers reported field studies showing that
    environmental temperatures significantly influence whether or not
    Wolbachia bacteria will block the malaria pathogen from developing
    within carrier mosquitoes. The Wolbachia malaria interaction is
    considered a promising new tool for controlling malaria. Other EEID
    funded studies are investigating West Nile virus, Lyme disease and
    hantavirus in the context of climate change and other environmental
    factors.
        There is no doubt that NSF contributes to the Nation's scientific
    strength and economic growth. The ASM urges Congress to increase
    funding for NSF in fiscal year 2015 to the highest level possible. The
    ASM also looks forward to continued future investment of NSF resources
    in programs related to microbiology since microbes are at the
    foundation of scientific discovery and other activities that are at the
    core of the NSF mission.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop
      Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America
        Dear Chairwoman Senator Mikulski, Ranking Member Senator Shelby and
    members of the subcommittee: The American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
    the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and the Soil Science
    Society of America (SSSA) urge the subcommittee to support $7.5 billion
    for the National Science Foundation for the fiscal year 2015.
        This funding level will put the premier Government-funding agency
    for scientific research back on track to address to continue valuable
    projects that promote transformational and multidisciplinary research,
    provide needed scientific infrastructure, and contribute to preparing
    the next generation science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
    workforce.
        Specifically, we urge strong support for the following NSF
    programs:
            Within the Biological Sciences Directorate,
          -- Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), which supports the
                Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) program.
          -- Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS), which
                supports the Plant Genome Research Program and the Basic
                Research to Enable Agricultural Development (BREAD)
                program.
            Within the Geological Sciences Directorate,
          -- Division of Earth Sciences (EAR), which supports the
                Geobiology & Low-Temperature Geochemistry Program and
                Critical Zone Observatories.
        The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
    America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA), represent
    over 18,000 members in academia, industry, and government, 12,500
    Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), and 781 Certified Professional Soil
    Scientist (CPSS), as the largest coalition of professionals dedicated
    to the agronomic, crop and soil science disciplines in the United
    States. We are dedicated to utilizing science to manage our
    agricultural system and sustainably produce food, fuel, feed, and fiber
    for a rapidly growing global population in the coming decades.
        Agriculture and agriculture-related industries contributed $742.6
    billion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2011, a 4.8-percent
    share. In 2012, 16.5 million full- and part-time jobs were related to
    agriculture--about 9.2 percent of total U.S. employment. However, even
    though increased agricultural productivity, arising from innovation and
    changes in technology, is the main contributor to economic growth in
    U.S. agriculture not all people at all times have to access to enough
    food for an active and healthy life. The global number of food-insecure
    people is estimated at 707 million in 2013, up 3 million from 2012. By
    2023, the number of food-insecure people is projected to increase
    nearly 23 percent to 868 million, slightly faster than population
    growth. The Nation's economic prosperity and security depend on our
    dedication to developing innovative, science-based solutions to meet
    our growing agricultural needs and managing efficient food systems.
                        biological sciences directorate
    Division Environmental Biology (DEB)
        DEB emphasizes research on complex ecological and evolutionary
    dynamics to improve our ability to understand the reciprocal
    interactions between living systems and the environment, and inform
    essential considerations of environmental sustainability.
        The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network was created by the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct research on ecological
    issues that can last decades and span huge geographical areas. For more
    than three decades, the Network has generated rigorous, site-based
    scientific research that has led to important findings on regional and
    continental scales.
        Among the major goals of long-term ecological research is to
    increase our understanding of a wide array of ecosystems at multiple
    geographical and time scales, giving society the knowledge and
    capability to address complex environmental challenges. Key research
    findings by LTER scientists provide valuable information for Federal
    agencies, land managers, and decision makers who want to develop
    responsible policies to deal with a rapidly changing world.
    Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS)
        In order to meet increasing demands and develop more robust crops,
    additional fundamental understanding regarding the basic biology of
    these crops is needed.
        IOS maintains its commitment to support fundamental plant genome
    research through the Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP).
        PGRP supports genome-scale research to accelerate basic discoveries
    of relevance to basic plant biology as well as downstream applications
    of potential societal benefit such as crop improvement, development of
    new sources of bio-based energy, development of sources of novel bio-
    based materials, and plant adaptation to global climate change.
        In addition, the Developing Country Collaborations in Plant Genome
    Research program links U.S. researchers with partners from developing
    countries to solve problems of mutual interest in agriculture and
    energy and the environment.
        The PGRP's Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development
    (BREAD) Program supports basic research on early-concept approaches and
    technologies for science-based solutions to problems of agriculture in
    developing countries.
                        geological sciences directorate
    Earth Sciences (EAR)
        The Earth Sciences division supports the Surface Earth Processes
    section, which researches geomorphology and land use, hydrologic
    science, geobiology, geochemistry (particularly the Geobiology and Low-
    Temperature Geochemistry Program), and sedimentary geology and
    paleobiology--all crucial to the areas of agronomy, soil, and crops.
        In addition, EAR supports EarthScope which focuses on studying the
    structure and tectonics of the North American continent and an
    Instrumentation and Facilities program that supports community-based,
    shared-use facilities, as well as an education program to attract and
    support students and young investigators to the field of Earth science.
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA also support strong funding for the Critical
    Zone Observatories that operate at the watershed scale and
    significantly advance our understanding of the integration and coupling
    of Earth surface processes as mediated by the presence and flux of
    fresh water.
        We must close the innovation deficit if the United States is to
    remain the world's innovation leader in agriculture. China continues to
    exhibit the world's most dramatic R&D growth at 20.7 percent annually,
    compared to the United States at 4.4 percent growth over the same time
    period. By 2009, agriculture R&D fell to a historically low 0.035
    percent share of the United States economy, a level far below the total
    U.S. R&D spending and that which is necessary to meet the critical
    challenges facing U.S. agriculture in the 21st century.
        Support for NSF is essential to maintain the capacity of the United
    States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research, to
    improve crop and livestock quality, and to deliver safe and nutritious
    food products while protecting and enhancing the Nation's environment
    and natural resource base.
        Thank you for your consideration. For additional information or to
    learn more about the ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, please visit
    www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org, or www.soils.org.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union--Joint Response to
                                NOAA Budget Bill
    Senator Barbara Mikulski,
    Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
            Agencies,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
    142 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Senator Richard Shelby,
    Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
            Agencies,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations,
    125 Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20510.

    Re: Support funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration at or above the President's fiscal year 2015 request of
    $5.5 billion.

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: We write on
    behalf of millions of Americans who are strongly supportive of robust
    funding and smart investment in NOAA's ocean, coastal, and fisheries
    programs. We strongly support funding for the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration at or above the President's Request of $5.5
    billion in fiscal year 2015. In addition, we support balanced
    investments across NOAA's dual atmospheric and oceanic missions--
    Americans shouldn't have to choose between weather satellites and ocean
    and coastal resources that support and protect our coastal economies
    and communities. We simply need both.
        NOAA's mission to protect, restore and manage our ocean, coasts and
    Great Lakes is vitally important not only to sustain these resources
    but also to sustain our coastal economies. The National Ocean Economics
    Program has estimated that the U.S. ocean and coastal economy
    contributes more than $282 billion annually to the Nation's GDP through
    fisheries and seafood production, tourism, recreation, transportation,
    and construction. Additionally, over 2.8 million jobs in the U.S.
    depend on the ocean and coasts. Adequate funding for NOAA is critically
    important to support a healthy and resilient ocean that can continue to
    strengthen our coastal economies and communities.
        Resilience has emerged as the critical goal that unites all of
    NOAA's ocean and coastal programs. Man-made and natural ocean and
    coastal disasters over the last several years, from Department of
    Commerce declared fisheries disasters to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil
    disaster, remind us of the connection between the health of our ocean
    and coasts and the well-being of our coastal communities and economy.
    Resilience means more than just storm-ready; truly resilient
    communities are prepared to face changing ocean conditions, from
    acidification to sea level rise, changing economic conditions, from
    recession to emerging ocean uses, as well as major catastrophes, from
    Superstorm Sandy to marine debris clogging waterways. Investing in
    NOAA's programs will ensure we can respond to and mitigate the impacts
    and costs of future disasters by creating healthy and more resilient
    coastal ecosystems and communities.
        For example:
      --Coastal wetland buffer zones in the U.S. are estimated to provide
            $23.2 billion per year in storm protection and a single acre of
            wetland can store 1 to 1.5 million gallons of flood water or
            storm surge.
      --Healthy fisheries are needed to support an industry of more than
            60,000 jobs and $6.6 billion in GDP. Information provided by
            core data collection, catch monitoring and stock assessment
            programs within the NMFS is critical to ending overfishing.
      --Ocean and coastal observations and monitoring supports severe storm
            tracking and weather forecasting systems, which greatly reduce
            the cost of natural disaster preparation, evacuation, and
            mitigation.
        The President's Request seeks modest increases in ocean, coastal,
    and fishery programs, and we support these increases as an important
    step towards robust funding for NOAA's ocean mission. In fiscal year
    2014, NOAA has finally been put back on a path towards robust and
    sustainable funding, the first step in bouncing back from significant
    cuts to critical programs from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013.
    Underfunding NOAA simply is not sustainable, we urge Congress to
    recognize the importance of our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes by fully
    funding NOAA programs at or above $5.5 billion in fiscal year 2015.
        Signed,
                           organizations & businesses
    Advanced Aqua Dynamics, Inc.
    Alliance for the Great Lakes
    American Geophysical Union
    American Rivers
    Center for Biological Diversity
    Center for Coastal Studies
    Chesapeake Communities
    Citizens Campaign for the Environment
    Coastal Conservation League
    Coastal Research & Education Society of Long Island
    Coastal States Organization
    Conservation Law Foundation
    Consortium for Ocean Leadership
    Earthjustice
    Environmental Defense Fund
    Green/Duwamish & Central Puget Sound Watershed (Watershed Resource
    Inventory Area 9) Ecosystem Forum
    Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology
    International Federation of Fly Fishers
    IOOS Association
    Long Live the Kings
    Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS)
    Marine Conservation Institute
    National Audubon Society
    National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
    National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
    National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS)
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Nature Abounds
    The Nature Conservancy
    Ocean Conservancy
    Ocean Conservation Research
    The Ocean Project
    Oceana
    Operation Splash
    Project AWARE
    Puget Sound Partnership
    Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council
    Reef Relief
    Restore America's Estuaries
    Rhode Island Marine Trades Association
    Save Our Shores
    Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Sierra Club
    Southeast Coastal Ocean Observing Regional Association (SECOORA)
    Surfrider Foundation
                                  individuals
    Carleton Ray, Research Professor, Dept. Environmental Sciences,
    University of Virginia
    Dawn J. Wright, Chief Scientist, Esri, Redlands, California
    Dr. Alina M. Szmant, Professor of Marine Biology, Center for Marine
    Science, University of North Carolina, Wilmington
    Dr. Rozalind Jester, Marine Science Faculty, Edison State College, Fort
    Myers, Florida
    Elizabeth Rhodes, Professor of Hispanic Studies, Boston College
    Harald Duell, Larchmont, New York
    Jennifer I. Barrett, Owner, Island Connect Consulting, LLC, Founder,
    Hawaii Nature Hui, Honolulu, Hawaii
    Jerry McCormick-Ray, Senior Scientist, Dept. Environmental Sciences,
    University of Virginia
    John C. Ogden, Professor Emeritus, Integrative Biology, University of
    South Florida
    Jonathan Milne, M.Sc, Atlantic and Midwest Region Program Manager,
    LightHawk, Sidney, Maine
    Leesa Cobb, Executive Director, Port Orford Ocean Resource Team, Port
    Orford, Oregon
    Michael Krivor, Maritime Project Manager, SEARCH--SEARCH2O, Pensacola,
    Florida
    Mitchell A. Roffer, Ph.D., President, Roffer's Ocean Fishing
    Forecasting Service, Inc., West Melbourne, Florida
    Sarah Towne, NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region and University of
    Washington Masters Candidate (School of Marine and Environmental
    Affairs)
    Will McClintock, Ph.D., SeaSketch Director, Marine Science Institute,
    University of California Santa Barbara
    Y. Peter Sheng, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Coastal and
    Oceanographic Engineering Program, University of Florida
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
        Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for accepting our testimony in support
    of fiscal year 2015 funding for activities under the Office of Justice
    Programs (OJP) and the office of Community Oriented Policing Services
    (COPS) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We ask that no further
    cuts be made in appropriations for these programs and that, to the
    extent possible, funding be restored so that they are better able to
    serve their missions.
        As noted on its Web site: ``The Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
    provides innovative leadership to Federal, State, local, and tribal
    justice systems, by disseminating state-of-the art knowledge and
    practices across America, and providing grants for the implementation
    of these crime fighting strategies. . . . OJP works in partnership with
    the justice community to identify the most pressing crime-related
    challenges confronting the justice system and to provide information,
    training, coordination, and innovative strategies and approaches for
    addressing these challenges.''
        Elsewhere, the COPS website defines community policing as ``a
    philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the
    systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to
    proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public
    safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.''
    There is an emphasis on training and technical assistance; creative,
    innovative, and experimental community policing strategies; and best
    practices, among others efforts.
        Nothing is more creative, innovative, or proactive, nor more open
    to dynamic partnerships, than addressing community safety through
    training, technical assistance, partnerships, and development of
    problem-solving strategies designed to improve the prevention,
    investigation, and prosecution of animal cruelty. Unfortunately,
    reduced funding has impaired the ability of these programs to meet the
    demand for training and assistance in this area.
        Animal cruelty is both a crime (with all 50 States now recognizing
    certain acts as felonies) and a manifestation of social disorder. The
    connection between animal abuse and other forms of violence has been
    firmly established through both experience and science. ``Animal
    abusers are five times more likely to commit crimes against people,
    four times more likely to commit property crimes, and three times more
    likely to have a record for drug or disorderly conduct offenses.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Thompson, Daria, ``The Link Between Animal Abuse and Other
    Violent Behavior,'' in Deputy and Court Officer, 2013 Number 3, p.4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One ``gold standard'' study \2\ has identified animal abuse as one
    of four significant predicators for who is likely to become a batterer.
    Criminals and troubled youth have high rates of animal cruelty during
    their childhoods, perpetrators were often victims of child abuse
    themselves,\3\ and animal abusers often move on to other crimes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Walton-Moss, Benita, Jacquelyn Campbell, et al, ``Risk Factors
    for Intimate partner Violence and Associated Injury Among Urban
    Women,'' Journal of Community Health, vol. 30, No. 5, October 2005.
        \3\ ``Woman's Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion
    Animals in the Lives of Battered Women,'' by Flynn (2000), as cited at
    www.ncadv.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another research project, which is being overseen by an FBI special
    agent, involves ``analyzing the criminal histories of offenders who
    were arrested for active animal cruelty, in order to further examine
    the potential link between animal cruelty and violence against
    persons.'' According to an initial analysis published in a dissertation
    (Leavitt, 2011), the majority of the 66 offenders examined so far ``had
    prior arrests for other crimes,'' including interpersonal violence (59
    percent), assault (39 percent), and assault of a spouse or intimate
    partner (38 percent); 17 percent had a history of sexual offenses. The
    publication of final results is expected by the end of the year.
        All of this experience combined with the growing body of research
    makes a compelling case that addressing animal cruelty is a significant
    tool for enhancing public safety. For example, the Los Angeles Police
    Department's Animal Cruelty Task Force attributes an increase in
    citizen-provided videos documenting animal cruelty to ``a deep concern
    for public safety.'' A press release (January 15, 2014) states that
    ``[w]itnesses come to the realization that anyone that would commit
    such horrific acts of violence on defenseless animals could also do the
    same to humans.''
        Nowhere is this clearer than in the well-documented relationship
    between animal cruelty and domestic violence, child abuse, and elder
    abuse. Up to 71 percent of victims entering domestic violence shelters
    have reported that their abusers threatened, injured, or killed the
    family pet; batterers do this to control, intimidate, and retaliate
    against their victims; they may be trying to coerce them into allowing
    sexual abuse or to force them into silence about abuse.\4\ This poses a
    significant public safety and public health problem. In one study, 48
    percent of women responding reported they had delayed leaving an
    abusive situation out of fear for their pets. (Faver and Strand, 2003)
    Twenty-six States (this tally includes the District of Columbia and
    Puerto Rico) now specifically allow the inclusion of companion animals
    in domestic violence restraining orders.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The study ``I'll only help you if you have two legs,'' or Why
    human services professional should pay attention to cases involving
    cruelty to animals, by Loar (1999), as cited on the website of the
    National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (www.ncadv.org).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another connection that is all too common, and all too dangerous,
    exists among animal fighting, gangs, drugs, illegal guns, and other
    offenses. The Animal Legal and Historical Center at the Michigan State
    University College of Law describes dogfighting in these stark terms:
    ``The notion that dogfighting is simply an animal welfare issue is
    clearly erroneous. Until the past decade, few law enforcement officials
    or government agencies understood the scope or gravity of dogfighting.
    As these departments have become more educated about the epidemic of
    dogfighting and its nexus with gang activity, drug distribution rings,
    and gambling networks, many have implemented well designed,
    sophisticated task forces. The magnitude of criminal activity
    concurrently taking place at the average dogfight is of such a scope as
    to warrant the involvement of a wide range of agencies, including
    local, regional, and Federal law enforcement agencies and their
    specialized divisions such as organized crime units, SWAT teams, and
    vice squads, as well as animal control agencies and child protective
    services.''
        Animal fighting is barbaric and is a violent crime in the truest
    sense of the term. It causes immense suffering to countless numbers of
    innocent animals and its presence threatens the safety of the entire
    community. It is illegal under both State and Federal law, so it well
    serves the entire community for law enforcement to have the most
    powerful tools possible to eradicate it. In fact, as part of the new
    farm bill, Congress has added to these tools by closing a significant
    loophole in the law by making knowingly attending an animal fight
    punishable by fines and jail time and also making it a separate
    offense, with higher penalties, to knowingly bring a minor to such an
    event. This is a significant new tool. Animal fighting is fueled not
    just by those who train and fight the animals and finance the fights,
    but also by spectators. Spectators are not innocent bystanders; they
    are active participants in and enablers of these criminal enterprises--
    and they also provide ``cover'' during raids by allowing the
    organizers, trainers, etc., to ``blend into the crowd'' to escape
    arrest.
        There is a need to respond proactively to animal cruelty at the
    very earliest signs and earliest ages, before it becomes a larger
    public safety issue. ``A study conducted over a 10 year period found
    that children between the ages of 6-12 years old who were described as
    being cruel to animals were more than twice as likely as other children
    in the study to be reported to juvenile authorities for a violent
    offense.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Thompson, Ibid., p.4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. Department of Justice should be commended for taking note
    of these developments in what is commonly called ``the link,'' and then
    taking steps to respond. OJP showed great vision in recognizing that by
    identifying precursor crimes, such as animal cruelty and animal
    fighting, and ensuring proper adjudication of such cases, our criminal
    justice system can reduce the incidence of family and community
    violence and change the path of potential future violent offenders.
        DOJ has given weight to the need to address animal cruelty crimes
    as part of an overall strategy for curbing community violence by
    funding programs that deal with this crime and by weaving the
    recognition of that connection into its own policies and operations.
    For instance, in 2009, what would become the Animal Cruelty Working
    Group had its first meeting. Then-Assistant Attorney General Laurie
    Robinson was aware of, and wanted to bring staff together to discuss,
    the link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence (IPV). She
    ``wanted to make sure [they] were using the evidence on animal cruelty
    to inform how OJP programs were designed and implemented.''
        It is especially noteworthy that DOJ, et al, included witnessing
    animal cruelty on their Polyvictimization/Trauma Symptom Checklist,
    which was developed to ``allow lawyers and other advocates to focus on
    important information about (juvenile) clients' past victimization
    history and help advocates better identify and advocate for appropriate
    placements, disposition plans, trial strategies, services, and
    treatment.'' \6\ This recognizes the impact that witnessing or being
    forced to participate in animal abuse has on children and its
    relationship to later involvement with the criminal justice system. In
    fact, some States have even enacted or are considering provisions that
    enhance the penalty for animal cruelty when it is committed in front of
    a child.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The Checklist is part of a tool (The Polyvictimization and
    Trauma Identification Checklist and Resource) developed by The
    SafeStart Center (a project of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office
    of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs), the American Bar
    Association's Center on Children and the Law, and Child & Family Policy
    Associates. http://www.safestartcenter.org/pdf/Resource-
    Guide_Polyvictim.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2013, DOJ hosted a ``listening session'' on the topic of ``the
    intersection between animal cruelty and public safety'' among its own
    staff and judges, prosecutors, forensic scientists, and representatives
    from law enforcement, animal protection, domestic violence, child
    welfare, and veterinary organizations. At that meeting, which Associate
    Attorney-General Tony West attended, then-Acting Assistant Attorney-
    General Mary Lou Leary said, ``The topic of animal cruelty may seem
    unimportant in the face of events like the Boston bombing, school
    shootings, and other recent tragedies, but we know there's a history of
    animal cruelty in the backgrounds of many perpetrators of violent acts.
    Understanding this link between animal cruelty and interpersonal
    violence is critical to the Department.''
        That the Department takes this seriously is evident. However, cuts
    in the OJP and COPS programs are hampering their ability to be the
    catalyst for innovative responses to animal cruelty and ``the link'' as
    envisioned in their missions and in the Department's commitment to this
    issue. Prosecutors and other members of the law enforcement community
    are eager for new thinking and better tools for dealing with animal
    cruelty crimes in their communities. Funding is needed for training,
    technical assistance, communication and coordination, and dissemination
    of best practices.
        We hope that Congress will take this important public safety need
    into consideration when determining funding for programs under BJA and
    COPS. Enabling DOJ to support initiatives addressing animal cruelty and
    its relationship to other crimes sends a very strong message to
    prosecutors, law enforcement, and, most importantly, the community at
    large, that crimes involving animals are to be taken seriously and
    pursued vigorously.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Associated Universities, Incorporated
        This written testimony is submitted on behalf of Associated
    Universities, Incorporated (AUI) to ask you to continue your support of
    the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2015 by providing
    NSF with $7.5 billion. In particular, we urge you to provide strong
    support for the NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences and the National
    Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).
        My name is Ethan Schreier, President of AUI, a non-profit
    corporation that operates the National Radio Astronomy Observatory
    under a Cooperative Agreement with the National Science Foundation.
    NRAO is a federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) that
    enables forefront research into the Universe at radio wavelengths.
    Radio astronomy has opened new vistas into the Universe, uncovering the
    birthplaces of stars and planets, super-massive black holes,
    gravitational waves and the remnant heat of the Big Bang.
        I would like to emphasize how much AUI appreciates your
    subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
    role of the NSF and its support for science and engineering in enabling
    a strong U.S. economy, workforce, and society.
        Today, I submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
    of NSF in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
        NSF funds basic research that spurs innovation and discovery in all
    fields of science and engineering. As a part of this work, NSF provides
    unique Federal support for ground-based astronomy that is answering
    fundamental questions about our Universe. These questions include how
    the Universe began, how cosmic structures form and evolve, whether
    habitable worlds exist around other stars, and what organic materials
    exist in space as the building blocks of life.
        I join with the research and higher education community and request
    that you provide NSF with $7.5 billion overall. I ask that you allocate
    an additional $245 million above the budget request to Research and
    Related Activities (RRA), and within RRA, we encourage you to provide a
    proportional increase to the Division of Astronomical Sciences to $249
    million.
        NSF provides critical funding to support astronomy facilities and
    the researchers in the United States that use them to answer these
    questions. In particular, NRAO currently operates four world-leading
    telescopes funded by NSF for use by the scientific community: the
    Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico, the most productive,
    ground-based telescope in history; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank
    Telescope (GBT) in West Virginia, the world's largest, fully-steerable
    telescope; the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), the world's largest
    scientific instrument with 10 dishes spanning North America that enable
    the most precise angular measurements of any telescope; and the new
    international Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), the
    largest ground-based astronomy project ever conceived and built, for
    which AUI is the North American lead, overseeing NRAO's construction
    and operations for the North American science community. Each of these
    telescopes fills a unique and essential science role, and each is the
    best in the world in its category. NRAO's Headquarters, and the focus
    of its radio technology development, is in Virginia.
        Certain physical phenomena are only observable by their radio
    signals. Just as visible light from space carries information about
    stars and the astronomical objects that are illuminated by them, radio
    waves are emitted by important celestial phenomena that are often
    invisible to our eyes, even with the best optical telescopes. For
    example, stars form from collapsing cold clouds of molecules and dust
    that are too cold and obscured to be observed by any other technique.
    The earliest stages of star formation, one of the most basic processes
    of astrophysics, are invisible even to the Hubble Space Telescope or
    the future James Webb Space Telescope and can only be studied using the
    techniques of radio astronomy. Radio astronomy also offers cost-
    effective methods to complement other techniques. For example, radio
    astronomers are using accurate timing of pulsars--fast-spinning, highly
    dense, collapsed (neutron) stars--to search for the gravitational waves
    predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. This technique,
    which uses NRAO's Green Bank Telescope among other facilities, is a
    complement to the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory
    (LIGO) and other gravitational wave detectors.
        NRAO facilities provide transformational and unique scientific
    capabilities that enable the astronomy community to answer many
    fundamental questions about the Universe including those highlighted by
    the recent National Academy's Decadal Survey, New Worlds New Horizons,
    studying galaxies as they form and grow since the earliest times of the
    Universe, directly imaging planets in formation around nearby stars,
    and directly detecting gravitational waves from the merging of massive
    black holes.
        We ask that you continue the fiscal year 2014 level for NRAO
    operations to support ongoing activities at U.S. NRAO facilities.
    Support for these facilities will sustain groundbreaking research
    capabilities as well as our very active science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and public outreach
    programs. We additionally hope you will support the President's budget
    request for the ALMA project, now nearing completion of construction,
    at $40.17 million for fiscal year 2015. This represents a $5.9 million
    increase to the AST budget as the ALMA project ramps up to full
    operations.
        AUI also supports the important NSF initiative to fund midscale
    research infrastructure at $29 million, an increase of $8.25 million
    above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level. These funds would support
    scientific instrumentation that facilitate student training, bridging
    the gap between small laboratory-scale instrumentation and large multi-
    user facilities . This midscale program request would implement a
    priority identified by the National Academy's most recent decadal
    survey of astronomy and astrophysics.
        We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
    support of NSF that enables the research and education communities it
    supports, including thousands of astronomers, to undertake activities
    that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the
    U.S. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our competitive
    edge in science and technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that
    you continue robust support of these critical programs in fiscal year
    2015. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    Committee on behalf of AUI. I am happy to provide any additional
    information or assistance you may ask of us during the fiscal year 2015
    appropriations process.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
      Universities' (APLU) Board on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC)
        On behalf of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities'
    Board on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC), we thank you for the
    opportunity to provide recommendations for the proposed fiscal year
    2015 budgets for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and
    the National Science Foundation (NSF). BOAC represents over 300
    scientists and administrators at APLU's 235 member universities and
    systems. We support a budget of $5.6 billion for NOAA, $80 million for
    the NOAA's National Sea Grant College Program, $5.25 billion for NASA's
    Science Directorate and $7.5 billion for NSF.
        According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), between 1980
    and 2013, there were 151 weather/climate disasters that each exceeded
    $1 billion in damages. Combined they totaled $1 trillion in losses. The
    Federal Government spent nearly $140 billion on disasters in 2012
    alone. Additionally, the role of the Federal Government in covering
    many of these losses has grown tremendously over the last few decades.
    Erwann Michel-Kerwann, chairman of the OECD's Board on Financial
    Management of Catastrophes, noted that in 1989, Federal relief covered
    only 23 percent of total damage whereas Federal relief covered 69
    percent of Hurricane Ike in 2008 and 75 percent of Hurricane Sandy in
    2012.
        To decrease future Federal expenditures and to make the Nation more
    prepared for natural disasters, Federal agencies are working with
    communities across the Nation to enhance their resilience. Community
    resilience is a measure of the ability of a community to prepare for,
    respond to, and fully bounce back from a variety of crises. Through
    research, Federal science agencies can play a valuable role in helping
    communities strengthen their resilience.
        In 2005, the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee
    on Disaster Reduction provided a framework for sustained Federal
    investment in science and technology related to disaster reduction,
    regardless of the type of disaster. They call for:
      --Providing hazard and disaster information where and when it is
            needed.
      --Understanding the natural processes that produce hazards.
      --Developing hazard mitigation strategies and technologies.
      --Recognizing and reduce vulnerability of interdependent critical
            infrastructure.
      --Assessing disaster resilience using standard methods.
      --Promoting risk-wise behavior.
        All of these actions require research, whether it be for the basics
    of understanding how and when natural processes become hazardous or for
    modeling potential flooding or for the social science to enhance
    communications, trust and understanding within communities to promote
    ``risk-wise'' behavior.
        Below we comment on the needs of each agency and their
    collaborating science communities in making our Nation more resilient:
                                      noaa
        NOAA conducts research into natural processes and provides
    information on when natural processes may be hazardous. To create
    resiliency for the Nation, researchers and forecasters need increased
    and sustained support of satellite and in situ environmental observing
    systems. As reported in several prior and recent National Research
    Council studies, (Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up, a
    Nationwide Network of Networks, NRC, 2009), the needs are particularly
    acute for urbanized areas as well as mountain, ocean and coastal
    regions.
        While we recommend sustained support for NOAA's satellite programs,
    we point out that this support should not be at the expense of NOAA's
    extramural funding of research, education and outreach. Extramural
    funding is cost effective. Its highly competitive nature ensures up-to-
    date qualifications and cutting-edge approaches without the continuing
    costs of developing, maintaining and updating these skills in house. It
    provides essential training in research skills to provide the next
    generation of researchers. In 2004 the NOAA Science Advisory Board's
    Research Review Team report concluded:
        ``. . . Extramural research is critical to accomplishing NOAA's
    mission. NOAA benefits from extramural research in many ways,
    including: access to world class expertise not found in NOAA
    laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct of global science;
    means to leverage external funding sources; facilitate multi-
    institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities;
    and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists
    also benefit from working with NOAA, in part by learning to make their
    research more directly relevant to management and policy. It is an
    important two-way street . . . NOAA cannot accomplish its goals without
    the extramural community, specifically the universities and
    institutions that represent the broad range of expertise and resources
    across the physical, biological, and social sciences (emphasis added).
    Moreover, there is the important issue of maintaining a scientific and
    technologically competent workforce in NOAA and the workforce is
    another ``product'' of the extramural research community . . . Also it
    is important that during difficult budget periods that NOAA not
    disproportionately target the extramural research for budget cuts.''
        Sustained observations are vitally important to ensure coastal
    communities have the information necessary to increase overall
    resiliency. NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
    funds global observing programs, including globally deployed floats,
    drifters, and fixed moorings to provide information essential for
    accurate forecasting of hurricanes, typhoons, atmospheric rivers and
    associated flooding, heat waves, and wildfires. Data and analyses of
    ocean and atmospheric conditions are increasingly used for drought
    early warning systems, enhanced tsunami warning systems, and storm
    surge monitoring. Ocean observations are also imperative for
    calibrating and validating satellite observations. Maintaining baseline
    ocean observations in support of weather and regional climate
    predictions, fisheries management and ecosystem studies, tide and
    current monitoring, and sea level change is essential. Maintaining
    continuity of long-term data sets is essential to ensure communities
    are able to respond and adapt to today's changing world.
        NOAA's support of environmental research and education via programs
    such as the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research's Sea Grant and the Office
    of Ocean Exploration and Research programs are also critical to
    university research, education and outreach. Similarly, NOAA's role in
    understanding the oceans and coastal areas and oceanic resources
    through the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science support and help
    maintain sustainable coastal economies.
        In particular, we would like to point out the important role of the
    National Sea Grant College Program in increasing the resilience of the
    Nation's coastal communities. Sea Grant personnel excel at working with
    local communities to address their specific needs and prepare them for
    potential hazards. For example, Virginia Sea Grant provided training to
    emergency managers and weather service meteorologists in Rstofs, a
    flood forecasting system used extensively by the National Weather
    Service and emergency managers. In 2011, that training paid off when
    decision-makers, using this training, made a timely evacuation call of
    200,000 residents during Hurricane Irene. Similarly, Virginia Sea Grant
    sponsored the development and dissemination of real-time tide
    monitoring technology (TideWatch). With information from TideWatch,
    marinas were able to properly prepare for the drastic tidal changes
    produced by storms Ida (2009) and Irene (2011) and avoid the damages
    they accrued during similar, earlier storm events. For the reasons
    listed above, we support funding of the National Sea Grant College
    Program at $80 million.
        Another critical pillar of NOAA's extramural research enterprise in
    atmospheric and ocean science, climate, weather, and marine ecosystems
    are its 16 Cooperative Institutes, involving 42 leading research
    universities and non-profit independent institutions located in 23
    States and the District of Columbia. Established through open
    solicitations, competitive Cooperative Institute (CI) partnerships
    provide NOAA direct access to key innovations at the Nation's primary
    institutions of science, social-learning, and research development.
    Recent Cooperative Institute research has focused on forecasting energy
    demand scenarios, seasonal wildfires, and large storm events; assessing
    local impacts of projected sea-level rise; improving seasonal
    precipitation and drought predictions; and understanding atmospheric
    rivers and other causes of extreme flooding. This research is
    translated into information used by private businesses and public
    sector mangers at all levels of government. CI program are
    predominantly funded by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
    (OAR), through its ``Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes'' line,
    but are also administered and/or funded by other NOAA line offices
    including the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the NOAA's
    Satellite and Information Service (NESDIS).
        In addition, OAR's Regional Climate Data and Information line funds
    the Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program, the
    National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), and associated
    programs. The RISA program supports research teams in over 30 States--
    each affiliated with one or many universities--as they work with public
    and private user communities to build the Nation's capacity to prepare
    for and adapt to environmental variability and change. NIDIS provides
    dynamic and easily accessible drought information for the Nation.
                                      nasa
        Like NOAA, NASA is critical to community resilience, both for
    developing an understanding of the Earth and how it functions as well
    as collection of the data scientists use to help aid decision-makers.
        In 2007, the National Academies issued the report, ``Earth and
    Science Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next
    Decade and Beyond.'' The report found that between 2000 and 2009
    funding for Earth Sciences (ES) had fallen substantially. ES research
    is absolutely critical to understanding climate change, such as the
    decline of Earth's ice sheets and the health of the global oceans. Past
    investments in NASA's science mission have funded university research
    that has resulted in the development of new instruments and
    technologies and in valuable advances in weather forecasting, climate
    projections and understanding of Earth ecosystems.
        NASA is instrumental in deploying satellites used by NOAA and in
    cooperating with other countries. Furthermore, without the tools
    developed at NASA, oceanic, atmospheric, hydrologic and Earth-system
    scientists and the Nation would have only a fragmentary picture of the
    interconnected functioning of the planet's oceans, atmosphere and land.
    NASA plays a role in technology transfer from NOAA by testing new
    sensors. NASA is currently developing a sensor that will for the first
    time give scientists and resource planners a global picture of the
    world's terrestrial water supplies. Currently many lakes and rivers are
    not monitored and there is no centralized location for water resource
    information. The NASA data archive is an irreplaceable collection of
    environmental information that researchers depend upon. Furthermore,
    through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the
    NASA science mission supports innovation.
        Finally, we support funding NASA to develop and implement a
    scatterometer mission with fast community access to those data,
    capability to distinguish between wind and rain and a higher orbit for
    coverage of Alaskan waters. The scatterometer has been a critical
    component of hurricane prediction.
                                      nsf
        Understanding natural processes and how or when they become
    hazardous is critical to forecasting those hazards. This requires basic
    research, which is why BOAC supports funding of NSF. NSF supplies
    almost two-thirds of all Federal funding for university-based,
    fundamental research in the geosciences. GEO-supported research
    increases our ability to understand, forecast, respond to and prepare
    for environmental events and changes. NSF's Water Sustainability and
    Climate program addresses the pressing challenge of providing adequate
    water quantity and quality in light of both burgeoning human needs and
    increasing climate variability and change. Through facilities such as
    the Oceans Observatory Initiative, the Integrated Ocean Drilling
    Program, and NCAR-Wyoming supercomputer, NSF provides the academic
    community with advanced capabilities that it would not be able to
    afford if conducted through individual institutions. It does so without
    growing the needs for increased personnel, training and retooling in
    house at Federal laboratories and while training the next generation.
                                    summary
        Together, NOAA, NASA, and NSF provide critical Earth observations
    and research funding for scientists, engineers and mathematicians
    working to increase understanding of natural phenomena of economic and
    human significance. BOAC thanks the Committee for its continued support
    of these critical agencies.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
                                      noaa
        Thank you Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby for
    allowing me to submit testimony on behalf of the Nation's 213 U.S.
    accredited zoos and aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my
    support for the inclusion of at least $3.981 million for the John H.
    Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, $2,500,000 for
    the NOAA Ocean Education Grants Program, and $12,000,000 for the Bay,
    Watershed, Education and Training Program in the fiscal year 2015
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
    Additionally, I urge you to reject any proposal that eliminate valuable
    ocean education programs as part of a plan to restructure Federal
    Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) programs.
        Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a
    nonprofit 501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and
    aquariums in the areas of conservation, education, science, and
    recreation. AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums annually see more than
    182 million visitors, collectively generate more than $21 billion in
    annual economic activity, and support more than 204,000 jobs across the
    country. Over the last 5 years, AZA-accredited institutions supported
    more than 4,000 field conservation and research projects with
    $160,000,000 annually in more than 100 countries. In the last 10 years,
    accredited zoos and aquariums formally trained more than 400,000
    teachers, supporting science curricula with effective teaching
    materials and hands-on opportunities. School field trips annually
    connect more than 12,000,000 students with the natural world.
        During the past 20 years AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums have
    rescued and rehabilitated more than 1,800 marine animals including
    stranded dolphins, whales, sea lions, seals, sea otters, sea turtles,
    and manatees. More than 1,750 (97 percent) of these animals have been
    successfully released back into their natural habitat. While the
    Nations' accredited zoos and aquariums support wildlife rehabilitation
    through their ongoing animal rescue programs, these institutions are
    sometimes involved in addressing natural and manmade disasters such as
    the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill. For example, following the
    oil spill, accredited zoos and aquariums around the country offered
    assistance by pledging the services of 200 animal care professionals
    and donating supplies, vehicles, and other resources to assist in the
    wildlife rescue efforts.
        The John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program
    provides grants or cooperative agreements to eligible stranding network
    participants for the recovery and treatment (i.e., rehabilitation) of
    stranded marine mammals; data collection from living or dead stranded
    marine mammals; and, facility upgrades, operation costs, and staffing
    needs directly related to the recovery and treatment of stranded marine
    mammals and collection of data from living or dead stranded marine
    mammals. Eligible applicants are currently active, authorized
    participants, including AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums, or
    researchers in the National Marine Mammal Stranding Network.
        Without the Prescott grant program, NOAA would have to rely on
    private organizations as it coordinates the response to marine mammals
    in distress; determines disease, injury and potential cause(s) of
    death; and supports emergency response for marine mammals during oil
    spills, outbreaks of diseases, and unusual mortality events. Network
    partners may not have the funds or the ability to respond to some
    stranding events, leaving animals at risk for prolonged exposure and
    likely death. Without funding for this program the critical ability to
    monitor marine mammal health trends, collect scientific data, and
    perform analysis would also be diminished. Information about the causes
    of marine mammal strandings is useful to the public because marine
    mammals can serve as an indicator of ocean health, giving insight into
    larger environmental issues that also have implications for human
    health and welfare.
        At the same time that AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are working
    with Federal partners to conserve ocean wildlife, they also are
    providing essential learning opportunities, particularly about science,
    for schoolchildren in formal and informal settings. Increasing access
    to formal and informal science education opportunities has never been
    more important. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are
    lagging behind their international peers in certain subjects including
    science and math.
        The NOAA Ocean Education Grants Program and Bay, Watershed,
    Education and Training Program bring students closer to science by
    providing them with the opportunity to learn firsthand about our
    world's marine resources. Through these grant programs, aquariums work
    closely with Federal, State, and local partners on projects with long-
    lasting benefits not only for the students but their communities as
    well. For example, previous projects funded by NOAA Ocean Education
    Grants at AZA aquariums have focused on establishing a regional network
    of summer camp programs grounded in ocean science, enhancing teen
    conservation leadership programs, and conserving and managing coastal
    and marine resources to meet our Nation's economic, social and
    environmental needs. As schools face increased budgetary pressures,
    these types of education programs at aquariums will become even more
    important in ensuring that American schoolchildren receive the
    necessary foundation in science education that they will need to be
    competitive in the 21st century global economy.
        AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential partners at the
    Federal, State, and local levels to improve education for
    schoolchildren and ensure that current and future generations will be
    good stewards of the world's oceans. Therefore, I urge you to include
    at least $3.981 million for the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue
    Assistance Grant Program, $2,500,000 for the NOAA Ocean Education
    Grants Program, and $12,000,000 for the Bay, Watershed, Education and
    Training Program in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Nathan M. Bacheler, Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/
                       National Marine Fisheries Service
        Dear Members of the Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
    Science, and Related Agencies: Acting as a private citizen on my own
    time, I would like to submit testimony for the record to strongly urge
    the subcommittee to reject the proposal in the President's fiscal year
    2015 budget to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort, North Carolina, and to
    instead fund this facility so that the crucial work being done there
    can continue on into the future. This laboratory is uniquely located to
    address key marine science issues throughout the east coast of the
    U.S., and its loss would represent a devastating blow to the fisheries
    interests in the region. The decision to try and close the Beaufort
    facility represents a narrow-minded approach to a temporary funding
    concern that is dwarfed in comparison by the potential damage done to
    the research conducted on the marine resources in the southeast.
        The closure of the Beaufort lab would be a grave error because of
    the loss of high-quality science and scientists associated with the
    facility. Located at the intersection of two distinct marine
    environments, the NOAA laboratory in Beaufort is uniquely situated to
    study one of the most diverse ecosystems in the country. The lab is an
    international leader in studies of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the
    invasion of lionfish into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, both of
    which are currently having a significant impact on the fisheries
    resources of the United States. The National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) programs at the lab are responsible for the assessment of the
    major marine fisheries stocks in the southeast, including menhaden (the
    largest fishery along the Atlantic coast as well as in the Gulf of
    Mexico) and the commercially and recreationally important snapper and
    grouper fisheries. NMFS in Beaufort also provides the only up-to-date
    information on the currently-closed red snapper fishery along the
    southeast coast through its SouthEast Fishery-Independent Survey. All
    of these programs would suffer irreparable damage were the lab to close
    because NOAA would be unlikely to retain the world-class scientists
    performing this research in the event their Federal positions were
    transferred to other NOAA facilities in the southeast; the NOAA lab is
    part of a unique conglomeration of research facilities in the Beaufort
    area, and the majority of employees would very likely try and remain in
    the area at a different institution rather than relocate to a less
    desirable location. Thus, NOAA (and NMFS in particular) would be forced
    to rebuild these programs from scratch, programs that are required to
    meet congressional mandates laid out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act. Just as importantly for NMFS, the
    closure of the Beaufort facility would mean that the Fisheries Service
    would not have a presence along the coast between Sandy Hook, New
    Jersey and Miami, Florida--an extent that covers over two-thirds of the
    United States east coast. It is difficult for the agency to claim they
    are interested in conserving the marine resources of the southeast with
    such a large spatial gap in representation, especially compared to five
    NMFS research facilities in the Gulf of Mexico and another five in the
    northeast.
        The financial reasons given by the leadership of the National Ocean
    Service (NOS) for closing the Beaufort facility have been
    misrepresented and overblown. In their justification for closing the
    lab, NOS cited only the NOS employees that would be impacted, grossly
    underestimating the total number of workers at the site. In addition to
    NOS, the lab also houses National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) programs; between
    the three groups there are 108 Federal, State, and contract employees
    at the facility, a much larger disruption of staff than initially
    claimed. Additionally, NOS cited a cost of future maintenance repairs
    to the facility that was outdated and did not take into account recent
    work that has been done to upgrade the laboratory and its
    infrastructure. Since 2006, approximately $14 million in repairs and
    upgrades have been accomplished, including the replacement of multiple
    buildings. The closure of this facility, after so much has been
    invested in its improvement in recent years, seems like a clear waste
    of taxpayer money, especially given that a 2014 report showed that the
    facility is structurally sound.
        In summary, the closing of the NOAA facility in Beaufort is bad
    policy--it is a squandering of taxpayer funds, it is a major detriment
    to the science being conducted in the southeast, and it makes it more
    difficult for NMFS to maintain the quality of the work it is federally
    mandated to achieve. The laboratory in Beaufort has been operating
    continually since 1899 and was sited here specifically because of its
    advantageous position so close to so many of our Nation's valuable
    marine resources; Congress owes it to our country to make sure the
    high-quality work done here continues on for the next 115 years.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of George Boehlert, Redmond, Oregon
        To whom it may concern,
        I am writing concerning the proposed closure of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort,
    North Carolina. I believe that closing this facility entirely is a
    mistake and have some recommendations for the subcommittee to consider.
        First, I will provide some background on my credentials to comment.
    Although I retired in 2012, I have worked with a variety of National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) laboratories during my career, and have
    served as director of two. As a graduate student, I conducted my
    research at the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla,
    California from 1972-77. I conducted postdoctoral research at the
    Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle from 1977-78.
    In academic positions from 1978-1983 at the College of William and Mary
    and at Oregon State University, I collaborated with NOAA/NMFS
    scientists at several labs, including the Beaufort Laboratory. In 1983
    I took a position as division director at the NMFS Honolulu Laboratory,
    and served as director there in 1988-1993, and moved to Monterey,
    California in 1993 as director of the NMFS Pacific Fisheries
    Environmental Group. I left there in 2002 to return to Oregon, where I
    served as Professor and Director at Oregon State University's Hatfield
    Marine Science Center in Newport--a facility co-located with three
    different regional NOAA activities. I have served on external review
    panels of several NOAA labs and am highly familiar with the mission of
    the different organizations.
        From my own perspective, the Beaufort Laboratory has a long history
    that has served NOAA and the central Atlantic Seaboard with
    distinction. As a relatively small lab for several decades, it
    addressed key issues of the National Marine Fisheries Service's
    mission, including fisheries management (menhaden, groundfish species,
    estuarine species), fundamental fisheries ecology, protected species
    (particularly sea turtles), and fisheries habitat (including toxic
    algal blooms). It conducted these tasks with distinction, with an
    enviable publication record as well as a record of solving fundamental
    fisheries problems in the region. I am familiar with these earlier
    endeavors, not only because I collaborated with scientists there, but
    also because I served as an external reviewer of some of their programs
    in the early to mid 1990s on behalf of the National Research Council.
    Beaufort was a perfect example of the value of the smaller regional
    laboratories, meeting the mission of the larger NMFS and NOAA within
    the context of the Southeast Fisheries Science Center while
    collaborating with and augmenting regional State resource agencies.
        Problems with smaller regional labs often arise when political or
    personal forces work to give them greater autonomy and higher budgets.
    In my opinion, this is the case with the Beaufort Laboratory and has
    played a role in making it a weaker laboratory. Roughly 10 years ago,
    NOAA decided to put the Beaufort Laboratory under a different line
    office--the National Ocean Service (NOS), expanding the mission
    significantly but keeping many NMFS employees on site. The broader
    mission requires more funds, more scientists with more expertise, more
    buildings, and an expanded budget. While the mission was more diverse,
    it was also more vague and perhaps less focused on the particular
    regional needs. I am not sure why a decision to close the laboratory
    was made this year, but it may be related to the loss of focus in
    mission and thus to questions about the value of the organization.
        Finally, I do have some recommendations for the subcommittee.
    Rather than taking a meat axe approach and closing this laboratory
    entirely, I believe that an external review of the Beaufort
    Laboratory's mission and function is needed. Direction should be given
    for this review that will address key issues, including the following:
      --Critical regional needs within NOAA's mission that can be addressed
            best by a regional lab as opposed to larger facilities located
            in different regions. This should have significant input from
            the regional coastal States and their resource agencies;
      --Organizational structure of the laboratory within NOAA--given the
            critical needs identified above; for example, determining
            whether NOS is the right place, or if NMFS a better match for
            the regional needs; and
      --Staff size, budgets, and physical facilities required to meet these
            needs.
        Armed with the output of such a review, a values-based decision can
    be made that is beneficial to both NOAA and the regional States; it may
    well involve significant cuts and a smaller laboratory, but will be
    based on an appropriate and well-thought out approach. I continue to
    believe that small regional labs with a clear focus, embedded within
    the larger NOAA and line office structure, are of extremely high value.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Brennan Center for Justice
        Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members
    of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and
    Science, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
    before the committee to discuss fiscal year 2015 budget priorities. The
    testimony is offered to the subcommittee for use during its
    consideration of Department of Justice criminal justice funding.
        The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
    \1\ is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve the
    national systems of democracy and justice. The Brennan Center for
    Justice was created in 1995 by the clerks and family of the late
    Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. to improve our systems of
    justice and democracy. The Justice Program at the Brennan Center is
    dedicated to ensuring a rational, effective, and fair justice system.
    Our priority initiative is to reduce mass incarceration by reducing the
    criminal justice system's current size and severity; while still
    protecting public safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ This letter does not represent the opinions of NYU School of
    Law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Department of Justice (DOJ) administers dozens of criminal
    justice grants, which total over $1 billion each year. In 2012, the
    Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women Act
    grants received more than $1.45 billion. Most notably, the Edward J.
    Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG), the largest
    nationwide criminal justice grant program administered by DOJ, receives
    between $300 million to $500 million each year. It retains an enormous
    influence on criminal justice policies and priorities. JAG dollars
    reach across the entire criminal justice system. They reach all States,
    territories, and thousands of localities, mainly flowing to law
    enforcement. These funds support local police departments, drug courts,
    prosecutor and public defender offices, courts, and more. While
    important, the structure was created more than 30 years ago, based on
    criteria and priorities at a time of rising and seemingly out of
    control crime. Decades after its inception, the criminal justice system
    that JAG dollars were created to support has spiraled into one that now
    supports the world's largest population of incarcerated people and all
    of the inherent problems that come with this distinction.
        It is time for a change. A better approach, termed ``Success-
    Oriented Funding'' would use the power of the purse to steer the
    criminal justice system toward the twin goals of reducing crime and
    reducing mass incarceration--goals research shows are not in conflict.
    The Brennan Center for Justice recently published a report highlighting
    a way to align fiscal and policy priorities.\2\ Grounded in economic
    principles and built on discrete models in other policy areas, Success
    Oriented Funding ties Government dollars as closely as possible to
    whether agencies or programs meet specific, measureable goals. These
    goals would drive toward what policymakers and researchers increasingly
    see as a new, modern, and more effective justice system. The model
    imports private sector business principles and applies it to public
    dollars.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Chettiar, Inimai; Eisen, Lauren-Brooke, Fortier, Nicole;
    Reforming Funding to Reduce Mass Incarceration, Brennan Center for
    Justice, Nov. 2013. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/
    default/files/publications/REFORM_FUND_MASS_INCARC_web_0.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Economic theory indicates that actors provided with clear positive
    rewards will usually alter their behavior to match these incentives.
    Former Chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic
    Advisors and Harvard University Professor N. Gregory Mankiw articulates
    this fundamental tenet in ``Principles of Economics''--one of the most
    widely-used introductory economics textbooks. He defines the discipline
    in this way: ``People respond to incentives. The rest is commentary.''
    \3\ By setting clear goals for success or failure of government
    agencies and programs, Success-Oriented Funding would fund ``success,''
    achieving results-driven government. This cost-effective framework
    ensures that the government is getting a good return on its investment.
    Broad goals for funding recipients include reducing recidivism and
    crime, or reducing unnecessary prison sentences and incarceration.
    Grant-specific goals would vary depending on the agency or program
    funded. For example, grants for police could focus on reducing violent
    crime or diverting drug addicted arrestees to treatment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ N.Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics 7 (6th ed. 2012)
    (quoting Steven E. Landsburg, The Armchair Economist 3 (2012)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Illinois has seen great success with its investment and support of
    the Adult Redeploy Illinois program, which diverts non-violent
    offenders from prison into more effective community-based services.
    Adult Redeploy Illinois provides financial incentives to local
    jurisdictions that design evidence-based services to supervise and
    treat non-violent offenders in the community instead of sending them to
    State prisons. Since 2011, Adult Redeploy Illinois sites have diverted
    more than 1,000 non-violent offenders. These sites spent an average of
    $4,400 per program participant, compared to the annual per capita
    incarceration cost of $21,500 in State fiscal year 2011. This
    represents more than $18.5 million in potential corrections savings.\4\
    By investing in programs like Adult Redeploy Illinois, Congress can
    make inroads in achieving better taxpayer accountability while using
    funding to improve criminal justice outcomes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.icjia.org/public/redeploy/pdf/articles/
    Adult_Redeploy_Illinois_media_
    stories_011714.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Last month, President Obama introduced his fiscal year 2015 budget
    proposal for the Department of Justice, which requests $27.4 billion
    for the Justice Department, of which $173 million is set aside for
    targeted investments for criminal justice reform efforts. The budget
    also calls for an investment of $173 million to support the Attorney
    General's Smart on Crime initiative, which is intended to promote
    fundamental reforms to the criminal justice system that will ensure the
    fair enforcement of Federal laws, improve public safety, and reduce
    recidivism by successfully preparing inmates for their re-entry into
    society.
        The President's budget provides a needed boost to the types of
    competitive, evidence-based grant programs that make better use of
    taxpayer dollars. His budget also improves the Byrne JAG program, by
    calling for an additional $45 million to be funded through competitive
    grants that are conditioned on potential Byrne JAG program recipients
    making a good case for how they will use the money. The budget also
    creates a $15 million incentive grant program, essentially bonus money
    for which States and localities can compete.
        By increasing funding for competitive, evidence-based programs, the
    administration is communicating its desire to move away from blindly
    funding legacy programs without strong records of success, and towards
    modern programs that work at reducing crime and incarceration and
    improving public safety.
        The Brennan Center supports these efforts because they move
    budgeting and funding toward Success-Oriented Funding by holding
    recipients of Federal dollars accountable for their spending choices by
    implementing direct links between funding and proven results. This
    allows Congress to ensure the criminal justice system is producing
    results while not increasing unintended social costs. Success-Oriented
    funding principals improve the use of taxpayer money, promote
    accountability and reduce government waste.
        Restructuring the way taxpayer dollars are sent to law enforcement
    and other criminal justice agencies nationwide can do a great deal to
    modernize our outdated criminal justice system. Funding these incentive
    based grants would mark an important shift in how the Federal
    Government spends dollars on criminal justice. Because these dollars
    travel across the country, changing incentives for these grants can
    create change that reverberates nationwide.
        We encourage you to fully fund the Byrne Incentive grant program,
    the Byrne Innovation grant program, and the Byrne Competitive grant
    program.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Danyelle Solomon
    Policy Counsel, Washington Office
    Danyelle.Solomon@nyu.edu

    Brennan Center for Justice at
    NYU School of Law
    1730 M Street, NW 4th floor, Suite 413
    Washington, DC 20036
    (202) 249-7190

    Lauren-Brooke Eisen
    Counsel, Justice Program
    lbeisen@nyu.edu
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement on the Bureau of Prisons Budget
                       organizations submitting testimony
    AFL-CIO
    American Civil Liberties Union
    American Gateways
    American Immigration Lawyers Association
    Americans for Immigrant Justice
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Los Angeles
    Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI)
    Coalicion de Derechos Humanos
    Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
    Conference of Major Superiors of Men
    Detention Watch Network
    DRUM--South Asian Organizing Center
    Enlace
    Families for Freedom
    Friends Committee on National Legislation
    Georgia Detention Watch
    Grassroots Leadership
    Human Rights Defense Center
    Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
    In The Public Interest
    International CURE
    Justice Policy Institute
    Justice Strategies
    Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
    National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
    National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
    National Center for Transgender Equality
    National Immigrant Justice Center
    National Immigration Forum
    National Immigration Law Center
    National Immigration Project of the NLG
    New Sanctuary Coalition
    Picture Projects/360degrees.org
    Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
    Private Corrections Institute
    Private Corrections Working Group
    Reformed Church of Highland Park (New Jersey)
    Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--Institute Justice Team
    Southern Center for Human Rights
    Texas Civil Rights Project
    The Sentencing Project
    Transgender Law Center
    United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
    Wilco Justice Alliance (Williamson County, TX)
                             testimony addressed to

    The Honorable Barbara Mikulski,     The Honorable Richard C. Shelby,
      Chair                              Ranking
                                          Member
    The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy      The Honorable Mitch McConnell
    The Honorable Dianne Feinstein      The Honorable Lamar Alexander
    The Honorable Jack Reed             The Honorable Susan Collins
    The Honorable Mark Pryor            The Honorable Lisa Murkowski
    The Honorable Mary L. Landrieu      The Honorable Lindsey Graham
    The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen        The Honorable Mark Kirk
    The Honorable Jeff Merkley          The Honorable John Boozman
    The Honorable Chris Coons

    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
      and Related Agencies
    Senate Committee on Appropriations
    SD-142, Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20515

    Re: Do not appropriate funds for additional private prison contract
    beds in the Bureau of Prisons budget

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee: We, the undersigned organizations working to ensure civil
    liberties and human rights in our communities, urge that you do not
    appropriate funding for any additional Bureau of Prison ``Criminal
    Alien Requirement'' (CAR) contract confinement beds beyond those that
    now exist.
        CAR prisons use taxpayer funds to incarcerate non-violent, ``low
    security'' Federal immigrant prisoners, primarily prosecuted for
    immigration violations through the highly controversial program,
    ``Operation Streamline'' and related prosecution programs. These
    facilities are substandard, privately-owned, privately-operated
    segregated immigrant prisons. For the reasons set forth below, we call
    upon you to redirect funding from the wasteful prosecution and
    incarceration of low-level immigration violations and focus resources
    instead on correctional programs that will better prepare Federal
    prisoners for constructive lives when they are released from
    confinement.
        The increasing incarceration of immigrants is the direct result of
    a prosecution program known as ``Operation Streamline'' and the sharp
    increase in felony prosecutions for border crossing. Nearly 90,000
    people were convicted in Federal courts during fiscal year 2013 for
    crossing the border.\1\ Prior to ``Operation Streamline,'' which
    launched in 2005, the majority of immigrants apprehended after entering
    the United States without documentation were processed in the civil
    immigration system. Now, these migrants are charged with one of two
    Federal crimes--(1) unlawful entry to the U.S. (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325),
    usually prosecuted as a misdemeanor with defendants facing a sentence
    of up to 180 days; or (2) unlawful re-entry after deportation (8 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1326), a felony charge carrying a Federal prison sentence of up to
    20 years.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse
    University, ``Immigration Convictions for 2013,'' available at http://
    tracfed.syr.edu/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Once sentenced for Sec. 1326 violations, immigrants are typically
    segregated from other Federal prisoners and sent to CAR facilities,
    dedicated private prisons for non-citizen immigrants in BOP custody, to
    serve their time. Unlike Federal prisons operated directly by the BOP,
    CAR prisons are operated under contract with multi-billion dollar for-
    profit prison companies, including Corrections Corporation of America
    (CCA) and the GEO Group. Also unlike BOP facilities, CAR facilities are
    governed by policies that BOP and its private prison contractors often
    withhold from the public as ``trade secrets'' instead of open and
    transparent to the public. CAR facilities are often located in remote
    parts of the country, where prisoners are far from lawyers, courts,
    advocates and family members. Finally, unlike the BOP, the corporations
    that operate CAR prisons have an incentive to ensure the immigrant
    prisoner population continues to increase, because every prison bed
    with a body in it means higher profits.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Justice Strategies, ``Privately Operated Federal Prisons for
    Immigrants: Expensive, Unsafe, Unnecessary,'' September, 2012,
    available at http://www.justicestrategies.org/publications/2012/
    privately-operated-Federal-prisons-immigrants-expensive-unsafe-
    unnecessary.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Both Federal prosecutions for border crossing and CAR prisons are
    enormously expensive to maintain at a time when budgets are tight and
    Federal dollars are sparse. The Federal Government spent an estimated
    $5.5 billion incarcerating border-crossers in the Federal prison system
    between 2005 and 2012, and the primary beneficiary of this massive cash
    flow is the private prison industry.\3\ Even as the American economy
    has faltered and businesses across the country have been forced into
    bankruptcy, the private prison industry is booming. Three companies--
    GEO Group, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), and the Management
    Training Corporation (MTC)--monopolize Federal prison contracting. CAR
    contracts are very lucrative. The CAR contract issued to house up to
    3,000 prisoners at the infamous Willacy County Processing Center, the
    ``Tent City'' located in Raymondville, Texas, was valued at
    $532,318,723 over 10 years.\4\ MTC won the contract.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Grassroots Leadership, ``Operation Streamline: Costs and
    Consequences,'' September 2012, available at http://
    grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/
    GRL_Sept2012_Report-final.pdf.
        \4\ Jasen Asay, ``Private Prison Company Lands Federal Contract,''
    Standard Examiner, June 8, 2011, available at http://www.standard.net/
    topics/economy/2011/06/07/private-prison-company-lands-Federal-
    contract.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States
    without inspection has been steadily declining for the last several
    years, largely due to economic conditions in the U.S. and countries of
    origin. Yet private prison corporations, motivated by their record
    profit margins, continue to benefit directly from the laws and policies
    that pull more and more immigrants into the Federal prison system, and
    from Federal contracts to build more prisons. Increasing funding for
    the unprecedented imprisonment of immigrants implicitly sanctions
    wasteful and abusive prosecution programs for border crossing that are
    driving the increase in the Federal prison population in the first
    place. It is up to policy makers like you to put a stop to the
    suffering of immigrant families and wasteful spending which benefits no
    one except the private prison operators.
        For all of the above reasons, we ask that you do not appropriate
    funding for any additional Bureau of Prison ``Criminal Alien
    Requirement'' (CAR) contract confinement beds beyond those that now
    exist.
        Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. If you have any
    questions, please contact Alexis Mazon, Researcher with Justice
    Strategies at alexismazon@justicestrategies.net, (510) 725-4136, or Bob
    Libal, Executive Director of Grassroots Leadership at
    blibal@grassrootsleadership.org, (512) 971-0487.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the California Association of Psychiatric
                                  Technicians
         federal funds used to sue & shutter federally accredited care
                                   facilities
        On behalf of approximately 14,000 California Licensed Psychiatric
    Technicians representing the Nation's gold standard in direct-care
    nursing services for people with developmental disabilities and mental
    illnesses, I am writing to respectfully request that the subcommittee,
    committee and Congress as a whole end the ability for the U.S.
    Department of Justice to use its office, powers and funding to
    discourage, downsize and close federally regulated and accredited
    congregate-care facilities.
         olmstead ruling upholds americans' rights and choices for care
        In recent years, the national demand for closure of congregate-care
    facilities such as developmental centers and State hospitals has come
    perhaps most strongly--and, perhaps, most surprisingly--from the
    Federal Government: the very Federal Government that requires these
    facilities to meet its own regulatory standards.
        To be federally certified through the U.S. Centers for Medicare and
    Medicaid Services, such congregate settings as developmental centers
    (ICF/MRs and ICF/DDs) must meet eight major criteria on management,
    client protections, facility staffing, active treatment, client
    behavior and facility practices, healthcare services, physical
    environment and dietetic services. To meet all of these major criteria,
    these accredited centers must comply with 378 specific Federal
    standards and elements. Failure to comply with any one of these
    hundreds of requirements or to swiftly correct any deficiencies means
    the loss of Federal certification as well as Federal Medicaid funding.
        In its landmark 1999 Olmstead ruling on the use and choice of
    federally accredited congregate-care settings such as these, the U.S.
    Supreme Court ruled that Americans have the right to ``community''-
    based housing and care, specifically when the ``State's treatment
    professionals [including Psychiatric Technicians and other members of
    treatment teams charged with following and implementing individuals'
    program plans] have determined that community placement is appropriate,
    transfer is not opposed by the affected individual and the placement
    can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources
    available to the State and the needs of others with mental
    disabilities.''
           the doj deliberately & dangerously misinterprets olmstead
        But the Federal U.S. Department of Justice--charged with upholding
    the Olmstead ruling through its Civil Rights Division and its powers
    under the Americans with Disabilities Act B has overstepped its mission
    and taken a dangerous carte blanche approach to enforcing Olmstead.
        As currently and accurately stated and emphasized on the DOJ's own
    Olmstead section of its Web site, ``The [U.S. Supreme] Court held that
    public entities must provide community based services to persons with
    disabilities when (1) such services are appropriate; (2) the affected
    persons do not oppose community based treatment; and (3) community
    based services can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the
    resources available to the public entity and the needs of others who
    are receiving disability services from the entity.''
        Nevertheless, to date, the DOJ has filed more than 40 actions in
    more than 25 States during the past 5 years aimed at downsizing and
    closing federally regulated congregate-care facilities, regardless of
    the individual and unique wishes and needs of their residents and legal
    conservators. As part of a Federal push beginning in 2009, the DOJ has
    taken a stated and active position of ``Community Integration for
    Everyone''--whether Americans and their families and legal conservators
    wish it or not B and whether or not this position violates Americans'
    rights and choices under Olmstead:
      --In 2010's United States v. Georgia, DOJ did not consult families
            and legal guardians prior to entering into a settlement
            requiring closure of federally accredited congregate-care
            facilities and forcing all residents B regardless of their
            wishes, choices and needs guaranteed under Olmstead--into
            community-based care.
      --In 2011's dismissal order for United States v. Arkansas, which
            ruled against the DOJ regarding Conway Human Development
            Center, U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes noted that ``all or
            nearly all of those residents have parents or guardians who
            have the power to assert the legal rights of their children or
            wards. Those parents and guardians, so far as the record shows,
            oppose the claims of the United States. Thus, the United States
            is in the odd position of asserting that certain persons'
            rights have been and are being violated while those persons--
            through their parents and guardians--disagree.''
      --In 2012's United States v. Virginia, families, parents and legal
            guardians were not included in the exhaustive list of
            stakeholders interviewed by the DOJ prior to that State's
            settlement; families had to spend $125,000 of their own money
            to be included in the settlement process and to include their
            on-record opposition to DOJ's statement that ``the parties' . .
            . desire to phase out the residential Training Centers and
            transition all Virginians with ID/DD to community-based care is
            readily apparent.''
       stop funding doj actions to restrict federally recognized choices
        On behalf of CAPT's members--who are trained, licensed and pledged
    to uphold the choices and rights of Californians with developmental
    disabilities and mental illnesses, wherever they wish to live and
    receive services--I am respectfully requesting that the subcommittee
    end the use of Federal funding and staff of the U.S. Department of
    Justice to discourage, downsize and close federally regulated
    congregate-care facilities against the federally and legally protected
    wishes of residents and their families.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Center for Biological Diversity
        Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member McConnell, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written
    testimony. I am Brett Hartl, endangered species policy director at the
    Center for Biological Diversity. The Center is a non-profit
    environmental organization focused on the protection of native species
    and their habitats through science, policy and environmental law. The
    Center has more than 775,000 members and online activists dedicated to
    the protection and restoration of imperiled plants and wildlife, open
    space, air and water quality, and overall quality of life. We would
    like to submit testimony on the NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected
    Resources and the Enforcement and Observers budget for fiscal year
    2015. The Office of Protected Resources is responsible for protecting
    93 species under the Endangered Species Act. Enforcement and observers
    are critical to implement the protections of the Endangered Species Act
    as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
        The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is America's strongest
    environmental law. It has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the
    1,500 domestic species it protects. Were it not for the Act, scientists
    estimate that 227 of these plants and animals would have disappeared by
    2006, and even more by 2012. The Act also has had considerable success
    moving species towards recovery. For example, the gray whale was first
    protected in 1970. The eastern population, which migrates from Baja
    California to the Chukchi Sea each year, was recovered to its estimated
    pre-whaling population size in just 24 years. Similarly, after just 23
    years of protection under the ESA, the eastern population of Steller
    sea lion was delisted in 2013, having suffered for nearly a century
    from poaching, irrational predator-control actions, and from the near
    collapse of its main food sources due to unsustainable fishing
    practices. The recoveries of these species show the value and
    effectiveness of the ESA's strong protection measures.
        However, not all species that are protected by NOAA are improving.
    NOAA's 2012 recovery report to Congress indicated that approximately 16
    threatened and endangered marine species are still declining towards
    extinction. And as the extinction crisis worsens due to threats
    including climate change, many other once-common species, such as the
    staghorn and elkhorn Corals that once were the dominant reef building
    corals of Florida, have experienced major population declines and now
    are being moved from threatened to endangered status. Scientists warn
    us that the world's coral reefs are in crisis and will be destroyed
    within decades unless we act now. That is why 66 additional corals
    found in U.S. waters await final rules before they will gain the safety
    net of the ESA.
        Accordingly, we strongly support the administration's request for
    an additional $4 million dollars to complete the listing process. This
    funding is desperately needed to give NOAA the tools it needs to start
    addressing the difficult threats that the world's coral reefs face.
    However, even with this additional funding, overall funding for
    protected resources is lagging and is not keeping up with the
    biological needs of protected species in the United States.
        Marine biodiversity is at risk, along with the coastal communities
    that depend on the ocean--but there are solutions. Increasing the funds
    for the Protected Resources division of the NOAA Fisheries Service will
    ensure that declining, threatened, and endangered marine species will
    get the resources they need to recover to the point where they no
    longer need the protections of the Endangered Species Act.
                additional funding is still needed for recovery
        As scientists learn more about the oceans, it is becoming
    increasingly clear that the threats to marine biodiversity continue to
    grow. Unfortunately, funding resources to protect marine species is not
    keeping up with the biological needs of these species. Funding for
    Protected Resources peaked in 2010 at approximately $204 million and
    has since declined approximately 9 percent. This decline occurred even
    though 20 additional species--such as the Puget Sound canary rockfish
    and Atlantic sturgeon-- have been protected by NOAA under the ESA in
    the previous 4 years. As a result, the average funding per species has
    actually decreased 23 percent over the last 4 years.
        This funding situation for threatened and endangered species will
    become even more difficult if additional resources are not allocated
    since an additional 80 species--including 66 coral species, the dwarf
    sawfish, and the scalloped hammerhead shark--have been proposed for
    listing and will likely receive protection under the ESA within the
    next year. An additional 34 species are currently candidate species
    that may eventually be protected under the ESA. If funding does not
    keep up with the growing threat to marine biodiversity, the recovery of
    threatened and endangered species will become more difficult to
    achieve.
                            other protected species
        As stated above, the Center supports the $4 million budget increase
    for the ``other protected species'' category to address the listing of
    66 coral species. We would also like to point out the possibility of
    reconsidering the relative allocations of the remaining five categories
    of funding for protected resources in future years. Specifically, the
    ``Other Protected Species'' category currently covers all non-salmonid
    marine fish, invertebrates, and plants. This category includes
    important animals such as the Nassau grouper, great hammerhead shark,
    queen conch, and the pinto abalone, and should not be overlooked for
    funding despite its broad characterization.
        Last year in the Commerce-Justice-Science Committee Report,
    Congress allocated $49 million to marine mammals, $13 million to sea
    turtles, $6 million to Atlantic salmon, and $65 million to Pacific
    salmon. In contrast, $7 million was allocated to ``Other Protected
    Species,'' which includes all other marine fish, invertebrates, and
    marine plants. In other words, 73 listed species received $133 million
    in recovery funding, while 20 ``other'' species received just $7
    million in funding. If all of the species currently proposed for
    listing are ultimately protected under the ESA, the number of species
    in the ``Other'' category would increase from 20 species to 100
    species, while there would be no change in the number of protected
    marine mammals, sea turtles, or salmonids. Furthermore, if the species
    that NOAA currently identifies as candidates for listing are ultimately
    protected, the number of species in the ``Other'' category would
    increase further to 132 listed species. The number of protected marine
    mammals would increase from 28 listed species to 33 listed species and
    the number of protected sea turtles and salmonids would remain the
    same.
        Simply put, in a few years time, the number of ``Other'' protected
    species may represent over 60 percent of the species under NOAA's
    jurisdiction. If the current allocations are not eventually
    reconfigured, these species would receive less than 5 percent of the
    overall recovery budget. Such limited funding would likely be
    insufficient to protect these species, let alone put them on a path
    towards recover. Accordingly, the Center recommends that the committee
    requests that NOAA develop a plan on how they will allocate resources
    within Protected Resources over the next 2 years to address the
    increase in recovery needs for these ``Other'' species going forward.
        Finally, we hope that the committee will recognize that funding for
    these new species should not come at the expense of those species that
    are currently protected. Cutting funding from species that are already
    protected by the ESA, especially those species that are still
    declining, is not a long term strategy for achieving recovery. Instead,
    additional funding should be allocated to meet the full scope and scale
    of the extinction crisis that is occurring in our world's oceans. Four
    years after the worst oil spill in the United States' history,
    scientists are just beginning to learn how severely the oil spill
    impacted the marine environment. Restoring ocean ecosystems, including
    endangered species, has proven to be more complex and costly than was
    once thought. Providing NOAA with the necessary funds to address its
    responsibilities under the ESA is an important step in protecting our
    ocean's biological diversity.
            maintain or increase funding for stranded marine mammals
        NOAA requested a decrease of $2,500,000 for the John H. Prescott
    Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program and the Marine Mammal
    Protection Program. The President's budget request did not include
    funding for the John H. Prescott Grant Program in fiscal year 2014, but
    Congress thankfully kept the program alive. Last year California,
    Florida and the Mid-Atlantic had unusual mortality events of California
    sea lions, manatees and bottlenose dolphins. With decreased Federal
    funding, State stranding networks struggle to respond to marine mammals
    washing ashore. Virginia reportedly had over 30 animals in 2 days
    stranded on its beaches over one weekend in the last year's die-off and
    had a total of 346 dolphins die since July 1, 2013.
        Scientific investigations to understand the causes of these events
    can help assess ocean health and protect humans. In 2010, nearly 40
    percent of the Nation's population lived in coastal areas. Ensuring
    that States have adequate resources to respond to and study marine
    mammal strandings will help keep marine mammals safe and our coasts
    clean.
                    increase observer coverage for fisheries
        Observer coverage in fisheries is essential to ensure the best
    possible management of our fisheries. This program ensures that our
    fisheries are on a sustainable path for long term success and allows
    NOAA to prevent whales, sea turtles, and sharks from drowning in
    fishing gear.
        This year's budget should increase funding to collect accurate
    fisheries data, especially from the observer program. While NOAA's
    request for an increase of $4,000,000 for Electronic Monitoring and
    Reporting may pave the way for future innovation, NOAA also needs an
    increase now in the budget for Enforcement and Observers.
        This funding is needed most importantly because several fisheries
    lack resources to ensure meaningful observer coverage to monitor
    bycatch of sea turtles, sharks, and marine mammals. For example in
    2012, a longline fishing area NOAA once closed to longline fishing due
    to sea turtle take (the Northeast Distant area) had no observer
    coverage during the third and fourth quarters of the year, when sea
    turtle interactions are highest. Low observer coverage undermines
    confidence in management decisions and can result in severe emergency
    measures.
        Starting in 2014 observers must report fishing and marine pollution
    violations. Additional funding will be needed to effectively implement
    the changes in policy and increase observer-related enforcement once
    observers report violations. Adequate observer program funding ensures
    a fair playing field for U.S. fishermen and keeps fishing sustainable.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Coastal States Organization
        The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization in Washington, DC that represents the Governors of the 35
    coastal States, territories and commonwealths and their issues relating
    to the sound management of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean resources.
    CSO was established in 1972 and is recognized as the trusted
    representative of the collective interests of the coastal States on
    coastal and ocean management. For fiscal year 2015, CSO supports the
    following coastal programs and funding levels within the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

    Coastal Zone Management Grants Program      $70 million
     (Sec. Sec.  306/306A/309).
    Regional Coastal Resilience Grants........  $10 million
    Coastal Zone Management and Services......  $46.472 million
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation     $5 million
     Program.
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System  $22.9 million
    Coral Reef Conservation Program...........  $26.078 million

        The U.S. economy is an ocean and coastal economy and this needs to
    be reflected in our Federal investment into ocean and coastal programs.
    While only accounting for 18 percent of the U.S. land area, coastal
    areas are home to 163 million people and almost 5 million businesses.
    Home to coastal and ocean dependent industries, including marine
    transportation, tourism, marine construction, aquaculture, ship and
    boat building, mineral extraction, and living marine resources, coastal
    counties contribute $8.7 trillion to U.S. GDP and employ 67 million
    people. If these coastal counties were their own country, they would
    have the world's third largest economy, behind the European Union and
    the United States. Coasts and oceans are visited by nearly half of all
    Americans, adding to their health and quality of life. The non-market
    value of recreation alone is estimated at over $89 billion. Every
    American, regardless of where they live, is fundamentally connected to
    U.S. coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. These valuable resources are a
    critical framework for commerce, public recreation, energy, and
    environmental health and merit robust investment.
        Today, our Nation's coasts are as vital for our future as they are
    vulnerable. As a result of their increasing recreational, residential,
    and economic appeal, there are more pressures on our coastal and ocean
    resources. This demand, combined with an increase in natural hazards
    such as sea level rise, extreme weather, and other flooding events,
    highlight the danger of losing these invaluable national assets.
    Despite the difficult budgetary times, adequate and sustained funding
    is needed to support the key programs that are on the front lines of
    this daily battle, which continually advance coastal and ocean science,
    research, and technology to manage our coastal and ocean resources for
    future generations.
        Programs engaged in these important efforts and working to balance
    the protection of coastal and ocean resources with the sustainable
    development of the coasts include the Coastal Zone Management Program,
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Regional Coastal
    Resiliency Grants, the Coral Reef Conservation Program, and National
    Estuarine Research Reserves. These programs reside within the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and provide direct
    funding or services to the States, territories and regions to implement
    national coastal and ocean priorities at the State, local, and regional
    level. These types of partnership programs account for only a small
    portion of the total NOAA Federal budget but provide dramatic results
    in coastal communities. The funding for these programs is cost-
    effective, as these grants are matched by the States and used to
    leverage significantly more private and local investment in our
    Nation's coasts. Maintaining funding for these programs that provide
    on-the-ground services to our local communities and citizens is well
    worth the investment. In fact, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
    (FEMA) estimates that every $1 invested in community resilience it will
    reduce disaster damages by $4.
            coastal zone management program (Sec. Sec. 306/306a/309)
        CSO recommends that these grants be funded at $70 million.--This
    funding will be allocated among the 34 States and territories that have
    approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone
    Management Act (CZMA), States partner with NOAA to implement coastal
    zone management programs designed to balance the need to maintain
    productive coastal and ocean resources with the need for the
    sustainable development of coastal communities. States have the
    flexibility to develop programs, policies, and strategies targeted to
    their State priorities while concurrently advancing national goals.
    Under the CZMA program, the States receive grants from NOAA, which are
    then matched with State funding and then often further leveraged with
    private and local funds. These grants have been used to support and
    enhance coastal economies by resolving conflicts between competing
    coastal uses, reducing environmental impacts of coastal development,
    and providing critical assistance to local communities in coastal
    planning and resource protection.
        These State coastal zone management programs reflect a unique and
    successful Federal-State partnership. Coastal management has become a
    national priority, as they are critical to building coastal resilience
    against extreme weather events and educating and guiding communities to
    build their homes and businesses in ways that minimize the threat of
    loss. Events like Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Katrina reinforced the
    importance of planning ahead. Coastal zone management programs ensure
    that the national interest in a resilient coast is incorporated in
    State actions, while respecting the sovereignty, different priorities,
    and geographic variations of our diverse States.
        The CZMA State grants have essentially remained at an even funding
    level for a decade, resulting in decreased capacity in State coastal
    zone management programs and less funding available to communities. An
    increase to more than $91 million would be necessary to reach actual
    level funding that accounts for inflation since 2001 and would provide
    an additional $300,000--$800,000 for each State and territory. However,
    CSO recognizes that the current fiscal climate makes such an increase
    challenging. By maintaining current funding levels, States and
    territories would receive between $850,000 and just over $2,300,000 to
    carry out their coastal management programs based on a formula that
    considers shoreline miles and coastal population. The following are a
    few examples of activities in Maryland and Alabama that CZM State
    grants have recently funded. These types of contributions, and more,
    can be found around the Nation.
    Maryland
      --Maryland's CZM Program worked with land conservation partners to
            preserve 4,468 acres of critical coastal habitat for storm
            protection, water-filtering benefits, fish nurseries, or
            recreation through acquisition and easements. Maryland
            completed projects that protected 4,980 linear feet of
            nearshore habitat from erosion while providing critical habitat
            through the implementation of shoreline management techniques
            such as living shorelines.
      --Maryland's Coastal Zone Management Program has collected 1.05 tons
            of debris as a part of annual Maryland Coast Days and
            Assateague Coastal Clean-ups, created four new public water
            access (non-motorized) sites, and exposed over 21,000 students
            with the opportunity to participate in a classroom or outdoor
            experience.
      --CZMA funding in Maryland assisted 5 coastal communities in reducing
            vulnerability to future storm events, shoreline change and sea
            level rise and incorporating those considerations into local
            plans, codes and ordinances. Additionally, CZMA funding
            assisted 6 communities that developed designs or plans to
            reduce polluted runoff through the Watershed Assistance
            Collaborative.
    Alabama
      --Last year, CZMA funding in Alabama supported the 26th Annual
            Alabama Coastal Clean-up with over 3,700 volunteers are removed
            38,000 pound of marine debris.
      --In fiscal year 2013, the Alabama Coastal Area Management Program
            provided funds for the public access improvements to City of
            Chickasaw, City of Foley and Dauphin Island Park and Beach
            Board; the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program to facilitate
            Phase II of the development of the Coastal Area and Marine
            Planning Program; the Dauphin Island Sea Lab to conduct Phase I
            of Coastal Habitat Restoration Project Monitoring; the City of
            Chickasaw to develop a comprehensive plan and to develop a
            Three Mile Creek Watershed Management Plan; the City of
            Fairhope to develop low impact development standards and
            ordinance; Town of Dauphin Island and the City of Gulf Shores;
            the City of Orange Beach, for local beach and dune protection
            program; and the sea turtle/share the beach program and the
            annual Alabama Coastal Birding Festival.
        Several years ago, a grant cap of approximately $2,000,000 per
    State was instituted to allow for funding to be spread more evenly
    across the States and territories, so as to prevent most of the funding
    from going entirely to the larger, more heavily populated States. Now,
    however, over half of the States have met the cap and no longer receive
    an increase in funding, despite increased overall funding for CZMA
    State grants since that cap was introduced. Since the cap was never
    intended to serve as a barrier to States receiving reasonable increases
    intended for all States, CSO recommends that the subcommittee include
    language in the appropriations bill report that allows the cap to be
    exceeded when it is fair and consistent with the original purposes of
    the cap. To that end, CSO suggests language declaring that each State
    will receive no less than 1 percent and no more than 5 percent of the
    additional funds over and above previous appropriations. As was
    provided previously by the subcommittee, CSO also requests that
    language be included in the appropriations bill report that directs
    NOAA to refrain from charging administrative costs to these grants.
    This is to prevent any undue administrative fees from NOAA from being
    levied on grants intended for States.
                coastal and estuarine land conservation program
        CSO requests the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
    (CELCP) not be terminated, as has been previously proposed in the
    President's budget. Authorized by Congress in 2002, CELCP protects
    ``those coastal and estuarine areas with significant conservation,
    recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are
    threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational states to
    other uses.'' To date, Congress has appropriated over $250 million for
    CELCP. This funding has allowed for the completion of over 175
    conservation projects, with more in progress. CELCP projects in 28 of
    the Nation's 35 coastal States have already helped preserve more than
    100,000 acres of the Nation's coastal assets. All Federal funding has
    been leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local, and private
    investments, demonstrating the broad support for the program, the
    importance of coastal protection throughout the Nation, and the
    critical role that Federal funding plays in reaching the conservation
    goals of our coastal communities. CELCP is the only Federal program
    entirely dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas.
        The need for CELCP funding far exceeds federally appropriated funds
    in recent years. In the last two funding cycles (fiscal year 2012 and
    fiscal year 2014), NOAA, in partnership with the States, has
    identified, deemed eligible, and ranked over $64.1 million in projects
    with willing sellers and State funding match available. Adequate and
    sustained funding is needed to meet the demand of the increasingly
    high-quality projects developed by the States and submitted to NOAA.
    The importance of natural barriers in preventing and reducing storm
    impacts was recognized in the wake of Superstorm Sandy, when these
    types of areas provided buffers and increased resilience in the face of
    storm surge. Therefore, we request your support for minimally restoring
    funding at the fiscal year 2012 enacted level for CELCP.
                       regional coastal resiliency grants
        $10 million in grants for Regional Coastal Resiliency Grants is
    needed to provide competitive funding to ensure our States and
    communities are prepared to face changing ocean conditions, from
    acidification to sea level rise, changing economic conditions, from
    recession to emerging ocean uses, as well as major catastrophes, from
    tsunamis to marine debris clogging waterways. Resilient communities
    invest proactively to ensure they avoid unnecessary costs--economic,
    social, and environmental--in the future. These grants will help
    States, local communities, and other stakeholders produce on-the-ground
    results that benefit both the economy and the environment, including
    cutting edge science and practical tools like maps and surveys. This
    request is an increase above the President's request of $5,000,000 in
    order to fully establish this key competitive grant program that is
    designed to promote resilience and address shared risks of weather
    events and hazards on coastal communities and economies.
                   national estuarine research reserve system
        The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) partners
    with States and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship,
    and research on estuarine habitats. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Caribbean
    and Great Lakes reserves advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries
    and serve as a scientific foundation for coastal management decisions.
    This unique site-based program around the Nation contributes to a
    systemic research, education and training on the Nation's estuaries.
        CSO greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided
    in the past. Its support has assisted these programs to work
    collaboratively to protect our coasts, support coastal economies, and
    sustain our local communities. Without these competitive grant funds
    and key NOAA programs, States will not have the resources to help
    address local and regional coastal resilience needs and priorities, and
    leverage the Federal Government's support and expertise. Thank you for
    taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in the
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations process.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
        The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased
    to share our views on the Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2015
    budget and has identified the following funding needs:
        $38.2 million for Salmon Management Activities ($11 million above
    the request) of which:
      --$26.6 million for the Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program
            to implement reforms of which $6.7 million (or 25 percent of
            the enacted amount) is directed to the tribes to enhance
            supplementation (natural stock recovery) programs; and
      --$11.6 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty Program, of which $9.76
            million is for the implementation of the 2009-2018 Agreement,
            and previous base programs; and $1,844,000 is for the Chinook
            Salmon Agreement Implementation.
        $90 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ($40
    million above the request) to support on-the-ground salmon restoration
    activities.
        Background.--The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
    (CRITFC) was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty tribes:
    Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated
    Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes
    and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides
    coordination and technical assistance to the tribes in regional,
    national and international efforts to protect and restore the fisheries
    and fish habitat.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes.\1\ The tribes' ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
    U.S. and the U.S. pledged to honor our ancestral rights, including the
    right to fish at all usual and accustomed places. Unfortunately, a long
    history of hydroelectric development, habitat destruction and over-
    fishing by non-Indians brought the salmon resource to the edge of
    extinction with 12 salmon and steelhead trout populations in the
    Columbia River basin listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 6, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 9.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, the treaties form the bedrock of fisheries management. The
    CRITFC tribes are among the most successful fishery managers in the
    country leading restoration efforts and working with State, Federal and
    private entities. CRITFC's comprehensive plan, Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-
    Wit, outlines principles and objectives designed to halt the decline of
    salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild the fisheries to
    levels that support tribal ceremonial, subsistence and commercial
    harvests. To achieve these objectives, the plan emphasizes strategies
    that rely on natural production, healthy rivers and collaborative
    efforts.
        Several key regional agreements were completed in 2008. The
    Columbia Basin Fish Accords set out parameters for management of the
    Federal Columbia River Power System for fish passage. New agreements in
    U.S. v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Commission established fishery
    management criteria for fisheries ranging from the Columbia River to
    Southeast Alaska. The U.S. v. Oregon agreement also contains provisions
    for hatchery management in the Columbia River Basin. The terms of all
    three agreements run through 2017. We have successfully secured other
    funds to support our efforts to implement these agreements, including
    funds from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Department of
    Interior, and the Southern Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name
    just few. Continued Federal funding support is needed to accomplish the
    management objectives embodied in the agreements.
        Columbia River (Mitchell Act) Hatchery Program.--Restoring Pacific
    salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires using the
    Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program to supplement naturally
    spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal, $26.6 million
    is requested for the tribal and State co-managers to jointly reform the
    Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $6.7 million, or 25
    percent of enacted funding, will be made available to the Columbia
    River Treaty Tribes for supplementation (natural stock recovery)
    programs. The Mitchell Act program provides regional economic benefits.
    NOAA Fisheries estimates that the program generates about $38 million
    in income and supports 870 jobs.
        Since 1982, CRITFC has called for hatchery reform to meet recovery
    needs and meet mitigation obligations. In 1991, this subcommittee
    directed that ``Mitchell Act hatcheries be operated in a manner so as
    to implement a program to release fish in the upper Columbia River
    basin above the Bonneville Dam to assist in the rebuilding of upriver
    naturally-spawning salmon runs.''
        Since 1991, we have made progress in increasing the upstream
    releases of salmon including Mitchell Act fish that have assisted the
    rebuilding and restoration of naturally-spawning upriver runs of
    chinook and coho. These efforts need to continue.
        We now face the challenges of managing for salmon populations
    listed for protection under the ESA, while also meeting mitigation
    obligations. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
    operation of Columbia River basin hatcheries released by NOAA in 2010
    illustrates the conundrum we face. While the DEIS, which assumes level
    funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries, points out the need for hatchery
    reform, the implementation scenarios for the proposed alternatives to
    the status quo all call for substantial reductions in hatchery
    releases. From the tribal perspective the proposed alternatives will
    not result in the delisting of salmon populations or meet mitigation
    obligations. Under the proposed alternatives the future is increased
    regulation under the ESA, resulting in more constrained fisheries along
    the west coast The funding for the Mitchell Act program should be
    increased along with natural stock recovery program reform
    (supplementation) so that we can make progress towards ESA delisting.
    This would transition the Mitchell Act program to a much more effective
    mitigation program.
        We support hatchery reform to aid in salmon recovery, while meeting
    mitigation obligations. The CRITFC tribes are leaders in designing and
    managing hatchery facilities to aid in salmon restoration and believe
    similar practices need to be implemented throughout the basin to reform
    current hatchery production efforts. Additional funding is necessary to
    reform Mitchell Act hatcheries to accomplish conservation and
    mitigation objectives. Years of inadequate funding have taken a toll
    resulting in deteriorating facilities that do not serve our objectives.
        Evidence to Support Tribal Salmon Restoration Programs under the
    Mitchell Act.--The tribes' approach to salmon recovery is to put fish
    back in to the rivers and protect the watersheds where fish live.
    Scientific documentation of tribal supplementation success is available
    upon request. The evidence is seen by the increasing returns of salmon
    in the Columbia River Basin. Wild spring chinook salmon are returning
    in large numbers to the Umatilla, Yakima and Klickitat tributaries.
    Coho in the Clearwater River are now abundant after Snake River coho
    was once declared extinct. Fish are returning to the Columbia River
    Basin and it is built on more than 30 years of tribal projects.
        Once considered for listing under the ESA, only 20,000 fall chinook
    returned to the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River in the early
    1980's. This salmon run has been rebuilt through the implementation of
    the Vernita Bar agreement of the mid-1980s combined with a hatchery
    program that incorporated biologically appropriate salmon that spawn
    naturally upon their return to the spawning beds. Today, the Hanford
    Reach fall chinook run is one of the healthiest runs in the basin
    supporting fisheries in Alaska, Canada, and the mainstem Columbia
    River. In 2013, close to 700,000 Fall Chinook destined for the Hanford
    Reach entered the Columbia River, which was a record since the
    construction of Bonneville Dam. The predictions are for an even higher
    return this fall.
        In the Snake River Basin, fall chinook has been brought back from
    the brink of extinction. Listed as threatened under the ESA, the
    estimated return of naturally-spawning Snake River fall chinook
    averaged 328 adults from 1986-1992. In 1994, fewer than 2,000 Snake
    River fall chinook returned to the Columbia River Basin. Thanks to the
    Nez Perce Tribe's modern supplementation program fall chinook are
    rebounding and the Snake River fall chinook is well on their way to
    recovery and ESA delisting. In 2013 about 56,000 fall chinook made it
    past Lower Granite Dam. Of those, approximately 21,000 were wild, twice
    the previous record for wild returns since the dam was constructed in
    1975.
        A Request for Review of Salmon Mass-Marking Programs.--CRITFC
    endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among tribal, Federal
    and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build hatchery programs
    using the best available science and supported by adequate, efficient
    budgets. A Congressional requirement, delivered through prior
    appropriations language, to visibly mark all salmon produced in
    federally funded hatcheries should be reconsidered. We have requested
    that Federal mass-marking requirements, and correlated funding, be
    reviewed for compatibility with our overall objective of ESA delisting
    and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. v Oregon, Pacific Salmon
    Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal
    Fish Commission to U.S. House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf,
    Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Salmon managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-
    case decisions whether to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate
    percentages.
        Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.--CRITFC supports the U.S. Section
    recommendation of $11.6 million for Pacific Salmon Treaty
    implementation. Of this amount, $9.76 million is for the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty base program with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and NOAA to
    share as described in the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
    Commission's Budget Justification. In addition, we support $1.9 million
    as first provided in 1997 to carry out necessary research and
    management activities to implement the abundance based management
    approach of the Chinook Chapter to the Treaty. Costs of the programs
    conducted by State agencies to fulfill national commitments created by
    the treaty are substantially greater than the funding provided in the
    NOAA budget. State agencies supplement the Federal appropriation from
    other sources including: State and Federal grants, and the Pacific
    Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, to the extent those sources are
    available.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRF)/Watershed
    Restoration.--Funding has been sought after by the State of Alaska, the
    Pacific Northwest States, and the treaty tribes since the renewal of
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1995. This would serve critical unmet
    needs for the conservation and restoration of salmon stocks shared in
    these tribal, State, and international fisheries. The PCSRF program was
    developed in 2000 to contribute to the shared effort in accomplishing
    this goal. We recommend restoring the PCSRF fiscal year 2015 funding
    level to $90 million. Long-term economic benefits can be achieved by
    making PCSRF investments on the ground to rebuild sustainable,
    harvestable salmon populations into the future.
        The State and tribal co-managers have responded to concerns raised
    by Congress regarding accountability and performance standards to
    evaluate and monitor the success of this coast wide program. The co-
    managers have developed an extensive matrix of performance standards to
    address these concerns, which includes the use of monitoring protocols
    to systematically track current and future projects basin-wide.
    Tribally sponsored watershed projects are based on the best science,
    are competently implemented and adequately monitored, and address the
    limiting factors affecting salmon restoration. Projects undertaken by
    the tribes are consistent with CRITFC's salmon restoration plan and the
    programmatic areas identified by Congress.
        In summary, the CRITFC and its four member tribes have developed
    the capacity and infrastructure to lead in restoring and rebuilding
    salmon populations of the Columbia Basin. Our collective efforts
    protect our treaty reserved fishing rights and we also partner with the
    non- Indian community to provide healthy, harvestable salmon
    populations for all citizens to enjoy. This is a time when increased
    effort and participation are demanded of all of us and we ask for your
    continued support of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to restore the
    shared salmon resource of the Columbia and Snake River Basins. We will
    be pleased to provide any additional information that this subcommittee
    may require.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership
        On behalf of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, I appreciate the
    opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2015 Federal science budget for
    the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA). Ocean Leadership represents 90 of the
    Nation's leading oceanographic research and education institutions and
    also manages several ocean research and education programs in the areas
    of scientific ocean drilling, ocean observing, oil spills, and ocean
    partnerships. We respectfully request $7.5 billion for the NSF; $1.9
    billion for Earth Sciences at NASA; and $5.6 billion for NOAA.
        As Congress prioritizes Federal investments in the face of
    constrained budgets, it is important to recognize and maintain support
    for basic research as a core Federal responsibility. Increasing this
    investment is a priority given the shift to a science and technology
    (S&T) based economy whose foundation is built on scientific advances,
    both within specific disciplines as well as across disciplines. The
    U.S. dominance in S&T is being challenged by accelerated investment by
    other nations, as evidenced by Battelle's recent research and
    development (R&D) Global Forecast, which states: ``At the current rates
    of growth and investment, China's total funding of R&D is expected to
    surpass that of the U.S. by about 2022.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Battelle and R&D Magazine, December 2013. http://
    www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/2014_global_rd_funding_forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           the role of ocean science
        Recent hypotheses suggest that the extreme weather events we have
    had this past year may be attributable to a persistent shift in the jet
    stream due to a rapidly melting polar region as well as a warmer North
    Pacific Ocean. If this is the case, ice storms in Mobile, Alabama or
    monsoon-like rain events in Boulder, Colorado, may become more
    frequent, along with their significant economic costs. Unfortunately,
    as the demand for more and better data and information to understand
    ocean and atmospheric trends increases, we are instead losing our
    capabilities to collect data at sea and from space to build more
    capable and accurate long-term forecasts. For instance, the inability
    to service the buoys comprising the TAO Array (Tropical Atmosphere
    Ocean project in the equatorial Pacific) has resulted in a degradation
    of the data return rate to just 40 percent capacity from an optimally
    operating system.\2\ This situation greatly reduces our ability to
    accurately forecast El Nino and La Nina strengths and thus risks proper
    preparation to deal with episodes of droughts and flooding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ El Nino monitoring system in failure mode, U.S. budget woes
    cripple a key mooring array in the tropical Pacific Ocean. Jeff
    Tollefson. Nature News, January 23, 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/
    el-nino-monitoring-system-in-failure-mode-1.14582.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given that the ocean absorbs, stores and transfers most of the heat
    (and a high percentage of the carbon) on our planet, the ability to
    understand, forecast and prepare for extreme weather events requires
    investments in basic research to better understand air-ice-sea
    interactions as well as observations of the physical environment from
    space, land and sea. Without this basic knowledge and prediction
    capabilities on regional and seasonal scales, we are essentially flying
    blind in terms of managing resources (e.g. agriculture, fisheries,
    freshwater) and protecting public health. There are many major natural
    threats facing our Nation and significant challenges ahead in
    understanding, forecasting and mitigating them, all of which require
    significant financial resources. We believe that our appropriations
    requests would enable our Nation to maintain the assets and
    capabilities necessary to better understand the physical, chemical,
    geological and biological changes to the natural environment and use
    this information to help Congress, State and local governments,
    businesses and private individuals make informed and fiscally
    responsible economic and national security, public health and safety,
    and resource management decisions.
                               nsf basic research
        The National Science Foundation (NSF) is our top funding priority
    as it is the premier Federal agency tasked with supporting basic
    research, which underpins all future scientific advances. As you know,
    NSF is the only Federal agency with the mission of supporting basic
    research, and has been a primary force in providing support for
    discoveries that have driven our Nation's economy through innovation.
    Historically, Congress has appropriated top line numbers for the agency
    and has refrained from directing the course of the agency's research
    agenda or setting science or infrastructure priorities for the agency.
    We hope that this policy will continue so the Foundation can continue
    to make decisions based on the highest quality peer reviewed science,
    rather than politics.
        Given the tremendous recent impact that natural hazards have had on
    our Nation's economy and public welfare, we believe that investing in
    the geosciences is critical to advance our knowledge of the physical
    world, while social and behavioral sciences can improve our ability to
    understand and communicate key scientific findings and risks to the
    public and policymakers, who must deal with a rapidly changing planet.
    We hope that NSF can continue to fund the best minds in the Nation
    through competitive research grants, while mission agencies such as
    NOAA and NASA can support applied research and observational
    requirements to ensure our Nation has the intellectual capacity to
    develop and deal with the next generation of challenges. Thus, we
    request that Congress appropriate $140 million in additional funding
    for the ``Research and Related Accounts'' to at least match anticipated
    inflationary costs, but preferably above this level to maintain a
    positive trajectory enhancing NSF capacity to support its research
    mission.
                         noaa research and observations
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires
    timely, accurate, and sensitive observations of the planet to meet its
    many missions and mandates. Given the austere budget environment, we
    believe that NOAA can better accomplish its scientific requirements in
    a more effective way through partnerships with the extramural academic
    and industrial communities, rather than relying solely on their own
    internal scientific capability. The majority of scientific research
    expertise in areas such as climate, ocean acidification, ocean
    exploration, instrument development, data dissemination and fisheries
    management resides in the academic and industrial sectors. A greater
    commitment to extramural competitive peer-review grant opportunities to
    answer the key questions necessary to assess trends, make forecasts,
    and manage resources in a changing environment would improve efficiency
    and extend NOAA's access to the best minds in the Nation.
        We remain concerned about the Nation's earth observing satellite
    programs and the ability to maintain continuity of long-term data sets.
    We encourage NOAA to follow the NESDIS Independent Review Team's (IRT)
    recommendations for procurement models for missions beyond J2 that will
    not only reduce costs but also mitigate against data gaps. Implementing
    all the missions as an integrated program could save the agency tens of
    millions of dollars. These savings could help address other needs, such
    as recapitalization of the oceanographic fleet to help service the TAO
    Array, or supporting a more robust ocean exploration program.
    Ultimately, we need the polar observing system to be more resilient and
    more capable, which requires a more integrated approach to weather and
    climate research, monitoring and modeling. Moving NOAA's climate
    sensors to NASA without the resources to support their construction and
    operation defeats this purpose. Consequently, we hope you will continue
    your close oversight of the Federal Earth observing programs to help
    ensure that satellite missions can be cost-efficient, reliable, and
    effective.
        Of course, the ocean also impacts life beyond weather, climate and
    extreme events. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a tragedy with loss
    of life, economic impacts and long-term ecological implications for the
    Gulf region. The fact that it took so long to identify and track the
    location of the massive subsurface oil plume in the water column or
    forecast its trajectory highlights the significant shortcomings of the
    existing ocean and coastal observing systems. Consequently, we need to
    make sure that we are better prepared for the next spill, especially
    given offshore oil exploration in the Arctic and now proposed for the
    Atlantic coast. Ideally, there should be significant coordination
    between NOAA and the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) with regards
    to the use of criminal and civil settlement funds and fines. We have a
    unique opportunity to build a sustainable ocean and coastal observing
    system that will better enable the Gulf region to identify and prepare
    for future problems, such as oil spills, red tides, and hypoxic events,
    while also better managing their marine living resources. I hope this
    opportunity is not lost given the significant funds that will flow into
    the region.
        We are disheartened by the administration's extremely low funding
    request for NOAA's Education programs, including the elimination of the
    competitive program, which in the past has supported successful
    initiatives such as the National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB). For the
    last 16 years, NOSB has exposed 26,000 students to a field of study not
    commonly offered in high school, which enhances student understanding
    of all major areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
    We greatly appreciate your historical support for education programs at
    the mission agencies, and we hope that the administration will take a
    more transparent and deliberative planned approach to improving our
    Nation's STEM education programs in the future.
                    nasa earth science research and missions
        We are very concerned with the administration's proposal to cut
    Earth Science funding at the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's (NASA), particularly at a time when NASA is supporting
    several new Earth observing missions as well as providing unprecedented
    access to their archives of Earth data. NASA has been responsive to the
    2007 ``Decadal Survey,'' but a flat budget, as well as increased
    mission responsibilities, has delayed many critical missions. While we
    support NASA taking on additional responsibilities for developing
    climate sensors from NOAA, we believe that this obligation should be
    accompanied with adequate financial resources. NASA has shown itself to
    be an effective partner with other agencies, such as with the USGS and
    their Landsat-8 mission, and with NOAA and the NPP-Suomi satellite.
    Moreover, its Venture class missions are providing flight opportunities
    for the next generation of scientists and engineers. We also support
    two NASA satellite missions, Surface Water Ocean Topography (SWOT) and
    Pre-Aerosol, Clouds, and ocean Ecosystem (PACE), which are particularly
    important to the oceans community and are tentatively scheduled for
    launch by 2020. NASA supports the only truly global view of the Earth,
    so it is critical to support its Earth science missions and research at
    a time when we see such unprecedented change to the physical
    environment of our planet.
        Madame Chair and members of the subcommittee, I greatly appreciate
    the opportunity to share our recommendations, and I encourage you to
    continue your long-standing bipartisan support for science funding in
    the fiscal year 2015 budget and into the future.
        Below is a list of the institutions that are represented by the
    Consortium for Ocean Leadership.

          Alabama

    Dauphin Island Sea Lab

          Alaska

    University of Alaska Fairbanks
    Alaska Ocean Observing System
    North Pacific Research Board

          California

    Bodega Marine Lab
    Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
    Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
    Naval Postgraduate School
    Stanford University
    University of California, Santa Barbara
    University of California, Santa Cruz
    University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institution of
    Oceanography)
    University of Southern California
    Aquarium of the Pacific
    Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute
    Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies
    Esri
    L-3 MariPro, Inc.
    Liquid Robotics, Inc.
    Teledyne RD Instruments

          Colorado

    Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

          Connecticut

    University of Connecticut
    Mystic Aquarium & Institute for Exploration

          Delaware

    University of Delaware
    Mid-Atlantic Regional Association Coastal Ocean Observing System

          Florida

    Florida State University
    Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute at FAU
    University of Florida
    University of Miami
    University of South Florida
    Earth2Ocean, Inc.
    Florida Institute of Oceanography
    Nova Southeastern University

          Georgia

    Skidaway Institute of Oceanography of the University of Georgia
    Savannah State University

          Hawaii

    University of Hawaii

          Illinois

    John G. Shedd Aquarium

          Louisiana

    Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
    Louisiana State University

          Maine

    Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
    University of Maine
    The IOOS Association

          Maryland

    University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
    Johns Hopkins University
    Marine Technology Society
    National Aquarium

          Massachusetts

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth
    University of Massachusetts, Lowell
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    Battelle

          Michigan

    University of Michigan

          Mississippi

    Mississippi State University
    University of Mississippi
    University of Southern Mississippi

          Nebraska

    University of Nebraska, Lincoln

          New Hampshire

    University of New Hampshire

          New Jersey

    Rutgers University

          New York

    Columbia University (LDEO)
    Stony Brook University

          North Carolina

    Duke University Marine Laboratory
    East Carolina University
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    University of North Carolina, Wilmington
    North Carolina State University

          Oregon

    Oregon State University

          Pennsylvania

    Pennsylvania State University

          Rhode Island

    University of Rhode Island

          South Carolina

    Belle W. Baruch Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences
    South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium

          Texas

    Harte Research Institute
    Texas A&M University
    University of Texas, Austin
    Fugro
    Sonardyne, Inc.

          Virginia

    College of William and Mary (VIMS)
    Old Dominion University
    CNA
    Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
    U.S. Arctic Research Commission
    CARIS, USA
    SAIC

          Washington

    University of Washington
    Sea-Bird Scientific

          Washington, DC

    Southeastern Universities Research Association

          Wisconsin

    University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Great Lakes WATER Institute

          Australia

    Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) at the University of
    Tasmania

          Bermuda

    Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences (BIOS)

          Canada

    Dalhousie University
    University of Victoria

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Consortium of Social Science Associations
        On behalf of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA),
    I am pleased to offer this written testimony to the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the official committee record. For fiscal
    year 2015, COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $7.5 billion for
    the National Science Foundation (NSF), $47.5 million for the National
    Institute of Justice (NIJ), $55.4 million for the Bureau of Justice
    Statistics (BJS), and $107 million for the Bureau of Economic Analysis
    (BEA).
        COSSA is proud to serve as a united voice for the social and
    behavioral sciences, bridging the academic research community with
    Federal policymakers. Its membership consists of more than 100
    professional associations, scientific societies, universities, and
    research centers and institutes, representing thousands of scientists
    working in industry, government, and academia.
                          national science foundation
        First, I wish to thank the subcommittee for its longstanding
    support for Federal science agencies. Despite the tough, ongoing fiscal
    challenges, the subcommittee has remained vigilant in its efforts to
    ensure adequate funding for basic research, particularly at the
    National Science Foundation. Thank you.
        COSSA joins the broader scientific community and the 21 Senators
    who signed the April 11 letter to the subcommittee in support of $7.5
    billion for NSF in fiscal year 2015, an increase of 4.6 percent. This
    amount would return NSF to its fiscal year 2010 funding level when
    adjusting for inflation and would allow the agency to recover some of
    the purchasing power lost in recent years due to sequestration and caps
    on discretionary spending. The amount would also attempt to put NSF
    back on track with the vision of the America COMPETES Reauthorization
    Act of 2010, which authorized NSF at $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2011,
    $7.8 billion in fiscal year 2012, and $8.3 billion in fiscal year 2013.
    If the U.S. is to maintain its scientific competitiveness on the global
    stage, we as a nation must continue to prioritize investments in
    science and technology and not abandon the aspirations set forth in the
    original America COMPETES Act of 2007 and its reauthorization in 2011.
        The U.S. scientific enterprise must remain insulated from political
    and ideological pressure if we are to encourage the most innovative
    science. As you move through the appropriations process this year,
    COSSA urges you to discourage and object to amendments that would
    defund or otherwise compromise specific research areas or programs at
    NSF, as we saw with the political science amendment in fiscal year
    2013. At a time when we should be investing in our knowledge economy
    and doing all we can to encourage a diverse scientific workforce, such
    efforts would instead have a chilling effect, discouraging the next
    generation of researchers to embark on science careers.
        Unfortunately, some recent efforts in the House seek to further set
    back the U.S. scientific enterprise. COSSA is deeply concerned about
    the impacts the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and
    Technology Act (H.R. 4186), or FIRST Act, would have on NSF, the
    scientific community overall, and American innovation and intellectual
    competitiveness. Not only does the FIRST Act lack vision for the U.S.
    scientific enterprise by authorizing levels for NSF that would cut
    funding to the agency in terms of real dollars, it would also degrade
    NSF's gold-standard merit review process by seeking to micromanage the
    agency's award-making process. Regrettably, the legislation serves as a
    soapbox for lawmakers wishing to hurl ideological attacks on specific
    research areas, such as social and behavioral science or climate
    science. The inclusion of specific authorization levels for NSF's
    individual science directorates would set a dangerous precedent by
    allowing Congress to legislate what qualifies as meritorious science,
    as opposed to continuing to rely on a process that has served this
    Nation well; that is, entrusting qualified experts to make such
    determinations. It would also place scientific disciplines (i.e.
    biology, engineering, chemistry, social science, etc.) in direct
    competition with one another for scarce resources, thereby discouraging
    interdisciplinary science, which is becoming increasingly necessary for
    answering complex societal challenges.
        Equally distressing are the attempts to single out the Social,
    Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate. The
    shortsightedness of critics of social and behavioral science research
    is disappointing. Publicly holding up individual research grants for
    ridicule based solely on their titles--research projects that a
    distinguished panel of scientific peers has determined meritorious--
    misleads the American public by asserting that taxpayer funding is
    being wasted without fully understanding the projects, their intent,
    and the benefit to society and/or the progress of science.
        While we understand that the FIRST Act is an authorization bill and
    currently has no legal bearing on the fiscal year 2015 appropriations
    process, we are nonetheless concerned by these efforts in the House and
    any impact they might have on Senators looking to further target social
    and behavioral science funding at NSF. COSSA is hopeful that the Senate
    will reject the FIRST Act should it pass the House this year, and
    object to additional efforts to defund or devalue these NSF programs
    that have proven their value to the U.S. economy, national security,
    and the health of our citizens.
        As the Senate negotiates the CJS Appropriations bill this year,
    please consider the value of the social and behavioral sciences in
    helping to answer questions of national importance, such as how to
    convince a community in the path of a tornado to seek cover, or
    statistical analyses that help local governments understand crime
    patterns, among others. Without this science, and without an
    understanding of the fundamental nature of who we are, policy-making on
    major national issues will not be based on evidence and billions of
    dollars will be wasted.
        Below are just a few examples \1\ of impactful social and
    behavioral science:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bringing People Into Focus: How Social, Behavioral and Economic
    Research Addresses National Challenges, National Science Foundation
    (NSF 13-62).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Research supported by NSF has provided the Federal Communications
            Commission (FCC) with its current system for apportioning the
            airwaves via a fruitful, practical application of game theory
            and experimental economics. Since their inception in 1994, FCC
            ``spectrum auctions'' have netted over $60 billion in revenue
            for the Federal Government. The U.S. system of partitioning
            airwaves is now emulated in several other countries around the
            world, resulting in total worldwide revenues in excess of $200
            billion.
      --Researchers at Indiana University, Drexel University, and Arizona
            State University developed spatial models to help manage the
            location of sex offenders. Their research addressed concerns
            regarding the impact of sex offender residency laws on a
            community, considering important factors such as whether
            residency restrictions lead to high concentrations of offenders
            in specific areas, distribute the risk across a community
            equitably, and keep sex offenders from living near minors.
            Improving the development and evaluation of sex offender
            residency policies in advance of any legislation allows public
            officials the opportunity to consider the resulting
            distribution of offenders in terms of local residents, better
            meeting the needs of communities.
      --Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis investigated
            emotion recognition using nonverbal cues such as facial
            expressions, vocal tones, and body language. Based on this
            research, the Army Research Institute now incorporates
            education on nonverbal communication into soldier training,
            thereby assisting troops in understanding cross-cultural,
            nonverbal communication with non-English speaking citizens with
            whom they interact overseas. Thus, this research has the
            potential to provide human solutions in military situations. It
            has been demonstrated that enhancing troops' interpersonal
            skills can enable them to anticipate and diffuse conflict, as
            well as facilitate cooperation, negotiation and compromise.
         national institute of justice and bureau of justice statistics
                           u.s. department of justice
        COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $47.5 million for the
    National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and $55.4 million for the Bureau of
    Justice Statistics (BJS) within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
    These levels are equal to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request. Taken together--roughly $100 million--this modest investment
    represents the only source of Federal research dollars committed to
    enhancing our understanding of crime and the criminal justice system.
        As the research arm of DOJ, NIJ plays a critical role in helping us
    understand and implement science-based strategies for crime prevention
    and control. The President seeks additional investment for the
    Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in fiscal year 2015 as part of
    the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative; the initiative
    received $75 million in fiscal year 2014. COSSA urges the subcommittee
    to continue its support for this critical activity, the research from
    which will help ensure that policies and investments made at U.S.
    schools to address the safety of students, teachers and administrators
    will be evidence-based.
        BJS' national data collections play an important role in providing
    statistical evidence needed for criminal justice policy decision
    makers. In particular, these programs provide the critical data
    infrastructure supporting the administration's commitment to focus on
    data-driven, evidence- and information-based, ``smart on crime''
    approaches. COSSA supports the request for an additional $1 million for
    the National Survey of Public Defenders and an additional $1.5 million
    for the National Public Defenders Reporting Program. Further, we
    endorse the administration's efforts to ``explore the feasibility of
    statistical collections in important topical priority areas, including:
    recidivism and reentry, prosecution and adjudication, criminal justice
    data improvements and victimization statistics.''
        Increased investment in criminal justice science is needed to
    ensure future policies and decisions are evidence-based and to contain
    escalating costs associated with public safety. COSSA applauds NIJ's
    increased efforts to disseminate research results to practitioners,
    putting it in the hands of those who need it.
                          bureau of economic analysis
                             department of commerce
        COSSA urges the subcommittee to appropriate $107 million for the
    Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within the U.S. Department of
    Commerce. This is equal to the amount included in the fiscal year 2015
    budget request. BEA plays a critical role in helping the Nation
    understand our economy through the National Income and Product
    Accounts, which provides economic data at the national as well as
    industry levels.
        Further, BEA proposes a new $1.9 billion initiative in fiscal year
    2015, ``Big Data for Small Business.'' This would allow BEA to create a
    new Small Business Gross Domestic Product to track the health of the
    U.S. small business sector, thereby addressing the need for more public
    data relating to small businesses. COSSA supports this activity.
        Thank you for the opportunity to express these views on behalf of
    the social and behavioral science community. Please do not hesitate to
    contact me should you require additional information.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Ford ``Bud'' Cross, Ph.D. National Oceanographic
                and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (Retired)
        This testimony addresses the portion of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) fiscal year 2015 Budget that
    proposes to close their research laboratory in Beaufort, North
    Carolina, where I served as Laboratory Director from 1985-2000.
        The purpose of this testimony is to enter my strong objection to
    the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory, Norlth Carolina by
    NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS). Having worked at the Lab for 33
    years that included serving as Laboratory Director for 15 years, I
    would like to provide you with my assessment of the validity of the
    NOAA justification for closing the Beaufort Laboratory. (I still
    interact with Lab staff and visit the lab frequently.)
        NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory is part of the NOS National Centers for
    Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) and the Lab's official name is the
    National Center for Fisheries and Habitat Research. In addition to NOS
    (42), staff from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (51), and
    the State of North Carolina (8) share the Beaufort facility. NCCOS also
    has research Centers or Laboratories in Charleston, S.C., Oxford,
    Maryland, Kasitsna Bay, Alaska, and two Centers at NOAA Headquarters in
    Silver Spring, Maryland. In recent years, NOAA has tried unsuccessfully
    to close two other NOS laboratories, Oxford, MD, and Kasitsna Bay,
    Alaska.
        NOS claims that about $58 million is needed to upgrade the Beaufort
    facility. This estimate is based on an outdated (2010), and somewhat
    inaccurate, facilities assessment report that resulted from a site
    visit in 2009. Since 2000, about $14.5 million has been spent to
    upgrade many structural deficiencies, and two new buildings were
    constructed ($8 million). Also, almost $1 million of Hurricane Sandy
    funds currently are being used to further upgrade the facility for
    storm protection, and the State of North Carolina is spending about
    $500,000 for storm water improvements as well. That's over $23 million
    in upgrades in less than 15 years.
        Why were these upgrades not taken into account when the fiscal year
    2015 budget was submitted? In my opinion, the argument that the
    Beaufort facility is in poor shape and an unsafe work environment is
    not accurate. The figure of $58 million to repair the facility does not
    take recent upgrades into account, and does not reflect a more recent
    informal inspection of the Lab where ``no structural issues'' were
    found. Thus, the Beaufort facility is not in a rundown condition, nor
    is it an unsafe place to work. A visit to the facility will bear these
    points out. Most of funds currently being identified as needed to
    repair the facility were actually identified to replace older buildings
    with state-of-the-art facilities in order to allow the Beaufort Lab to
    take full advantage of its location.
                            impact on nccos programs
        If the Laboratory is closed, the impact on the NCCOS research there
    will be significant, as much of it must be conducted in a laboratory
    and field setting. Priority research in the following areas would be
    disrupted or eliminated: harmful algal blooms, coastal toxic metal
    pollution, sea level rise, invasive species (lionfish), mapping of
    seagrass beds, and coastal planning for sustainable marine aquaculture.
    (Yet, NOS/NCCOS is requesting an additional $4 million in fiscal year
    2015 for similar work.) Several of the NCCOS scientists at Beaufort
    have received national and international awards for research, and one
    received the NOAA Lifetime Scientific Achievement Award. Virtually all
    of this research is conducted cooperatively with universities, State
    agencies, other Federal agencies, or other NOAA programs. Again, much
    of this research cannot be conducted away from the coast.
        Is this research of low priority to NOAA/NOS/NCCOS?
                            impact on nmfs programs
        Since 1899, when the Beaufort Laboratory was created by Congress,
    until 2000, the Laboratory belonged to the National Marine Fisheries
    Service, or its precursor agencies. In the late 1990's, the
    Administrator of NOAA directed the Assistant Administrator (AA) for NOS
    to develop a research capability within NOS. To satisfy that request,
    five field laboratories were transferred in 2000 from NMFS to NOS,
    including Beaufort. However, NMFS fisheries and protected species
    research remained at the Lab. Their contribution to O&M costs is based
    on the ratio of NOS to NMFS staff. The NMFS fisheries and protected
    species research would be highly impacted if the Lab closed. Much of
    this research is used by fisheries and protected species managers, and
    primarily requires the coastal Lab.
                          fisheries stock assessments
        The primary fisheries research at the Beaufort Lab deals with stock
    assessments of more than 100 species of reef fish (mainly snappers and
    groupers) that exist between Cape Hatteras and the Florida Keys. The
    Lab monitors the catch of about 100 head boats along the southeast
    Atlantic coast. They then combine these data with estimates of the
    commercial catch and other recreational catch to produce an estimate of
    the total fishing effort on the populations of reef fish. These data
    are then coupled with economic information to estimate the economic
    effect of various management scenarios. This information is then
    provided to the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council who has the
    responsibility to manage fisheries in the exclusive economic zone
    (EEZ).
        The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council depends on the
    Beaufort Laboratory for providing the science upon which these
    management recommendations are based for the reef fish fishery.
    Attempts to transfer this staff to another location will fracture it,
    disrupt the flow of information to the South Atlantic Council, and
    result in an unnecessary expenditure of relocation funds.
                                    menhaden
        The Beaufort Laboratory is the only entity that monitors the catch
    of the Atlantic menhaden fishery (since 1955), and the Gulf of Mexico
    menhaden fishery (since 1964). Stock assessments are made periodically,
    and the information is provided to the Atlantic States Marine Fishery
    Commission and the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission for
    management purposes. Similar to reef fish, the unnecessary disruption
    of this research will be costly. It could result in the loss of the
    longest and most continuous data bases in the U.S., and essential
    management information to the Commissions would be delayed at best.
                               protected species
        The unique geological location of the NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory
    lends itself to one of the best locations along the Atlantic coast to
    conduct research on marine mammals and sea turtles. This is due to the
    unique mix of estuarine habitats that exists in coastal North Carolina
    and the opportunity to interact directly with commercial fishermen. The
    objectives of this research are to better understand the direct and
    indirect effects of fisheries, climate change, and other environmental
    factors in support of the conservation and recovery of these species as
    mandated by Federal law. This research cannot be done effectively from
    a non-coastal location or out of North Carolina.
         noaa sentinel site cooperative (http://oceanservive.noaa.gov/
       sentinelsites/north-carolina.htlm) (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
                                 sentinelsites)
        NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory is one of only five such sites that NOAA
    has established in the United States. These sites were established to
    leverage existing research and monitoring resources to ensure resilient
    communities and coastal ecosystems in the face of changing
    environmental conditions. The focus of the North Carolina site is sea
    level change and coastal inundation adaptation and planning. About 20
    partners (Federal, State, and other organizations) are involved in this
    effort in which the NOAA Lab is a key player. For more information on
    this Program, see the links given above. Why would NOAA pull the
    Beaufort Lab out of one of only five sentinel sites in the Nation?
            north carolina marine science and education partnership
                                (www.ncmsep.com)
        The central portion of the North Carolina coast has been a focus of
    marine research for well over 100 years. After the establishment of the
    Beaufort Lab in 1899, the Duke Marine Laboratory and the University of
    North Carolina's Institute were established in the late 1940's and the
    North Carolina State University Marine Lab (CMAST) was established in
    the 1990's, all within five miles of each other. This concentration of
    labs has resulted in a center of expertise in coastal North Carolina of
    international and national significance. In 2002, the Carteret County
    Economic Development Council convened a meeting of the leaders of
    marine institutions and organizations and community leaders in the
    county. From that meeting, the North Carolina Marine Science and
    Education Partnership (MSEP) was formed. Currently, there are 18
    organizations that comprise MSEP, including the Carteret Country Public
    School System. Members of MSEP meet regularly to discuss ways to better
    cooperate on research, education, and outreach projects. For example,
    MSEP developed and is running a Coastal Marine Science Competition for
    13-18 year old
    students in the multi-County region (https://www.sites.google.com/site/
    msepcompetition/). For NOAA to eliminate the Beaufort Laboratory from
    such an organization so closely tied to their overall missions is
    puzzling at best.
                                    summary
        1.  In my opinion, the justification for closing NOAA's Beaufort
    Laboratory is weak. The facility report is not up to date, and not
    entirely accurate. The $58 million price tag includes replacing the two
    story research building that would be beneficial but the laboratory is
    operational and safe without it. Also, NOAA has constructed a new
    maintenance building and a $7 million building to house administrative
    staff, the library and the NEERS staff, and has spent an additional $14
    million in facility upgrades, since 2000. I strongly urge that a site
    visit be made so Congress can be assured that the Lab is functional and
    safe.
        2.  The closing of the Lab will destroy critical masses in habitat,
    fisheries, and protected species research. NOAA argues that the
    scientists and support staff will be moved to other locations, but
    there is no plan. Those scientists and staff who chose not to move will
    be riffed. There is no way NOAA can successfully move any part of the
    staff in its entirety to maintain any semblance of a critical mass in
    any one of the three research areas. The result will be a major
    disruption of research that is of high priority to NOAA, and again, not
    for a valid reason.
        3.  NOAA prides itself in its capacity to reach out and interact
    with constituents and partners. The Beaufort Laboratory is the epitome
    of those relationships. A high percentage of the research conducted
    there is with collaborators. Graduate students and post-doctoral
    students from various universities, sponsored by Lab staff, conduct
    their research at the Laboratory. As described above, the Lab is an
    integral part of the North Carolina Marine Science and Educational
    Partnership and NOAA Sentinel Site project. Is it in the best interests
    of NOAA to walk away from these relationships?
                                recommendations
        I would like to make the following three recommendations to the
    subcommittee:

        1.  For reasons given above, please do not close NOAA's Beaufort
    Laboratory. The level of unnecessary disruption to research,
    partnerships, and personal lives is far too great for the questionable
    justification given.
        2.  If the Laboratory remains in NOS, it should have its own line
    item in the NOS/NCCOS budget. This will prevent NOS/NCCOS from
    continually bleeding the Lab of money and positions.
        3.  And my most preferred recommendation is to move the Beaufort
    Laboratory back to the National Marine Fisheries Service, where it
    spent its first 100 years. I cannot believe that NMFS agreed up front
    to this proposed closure. The impact to their programs is too great. It
    would be interesting to know if a paper trail exits between NOS and
    NMFS on this matter.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Michelle Duval, Morehead City, North Carolina
        As a resident of Carteret County and a fisheries management
    professional engaged at both the State and Federal levels, I want to
    express my opposition to the proposed closure of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Lab. The lab has a rich
    history of conducting a wide variety marine science research. There are
    significant collaborations that occur between the Beaufort Lab and
    academic institutions in the area that inform the science used for
    management. Closure of the Beaufort Lab would eliminate those
    collaborations, simply due to the fact that those researchers will not
    be in close proximity to one another. Having received my doctorate in
    1997 from the Duke Marine Lab, which shares Pivers Island with the NOAA
    Beaufort Lab, I have witnessed these collaborations firsthand. However,
    I wanted to express a few very specific concerns regarding fisheries
    science and long term fiscal impacts of the lab closure that merit
    consideration. (Please note that I am not an employee of the Beaufort
    Lab).

        1.  Impacts to fishery-independent surveys.--Most of the federally-
    managed fish species in the southeast are considered ``data poor'' when
    compared to other regions, particularly the snapper grouper complex.
    Information collected through fishery-independent surveys (i.e.,
    surveys that do not rely on commercial and recreational catches) is
    critical to filling in knowledge gaps regarding species distribution,
    abundance, longevity and reproduction--essential elements for a stock
    assessment. There is only one fishery-independent survey for snapper
    grouper species in the southeast, and its geographic range has always
    been limited by available resources. Only since 2010 have the necessary
    staff resources been allocated to the Beaufort Lab to expand the
    northern range of this survey from just south of Cape Lookout, North
    Carolina north to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (as well as add a video
    monitoring component to the survey). Closing the lab and relocating the
    staff would set this program back substantially through survey
    interruption and re-hiring of staff with the appropriate skills to
    replace those unable to relocate.
        2.  Impacts to fisheries stock assessments.--It has taken 10 years
    to build the necessary analytical capacity at the Beaufort Lab to
    conduct much-needed stock assessments for commercially and
    recreationally important fishes in the southeast. These scientists work
    together as a team in completing assessments; they also work side by
    side with the survey scientists mentioned above, as well as the
    scientists who process the biological samples collected to provide
    information critical for the assessments. The ability for the
    assessment team to interact directly with the other teams of scientists
    collecting the data is invaluable. Closing the Beaufort Lab and
    relocating personnel would have significant negative impacts on the
    efficiency and productivity of the process, at a time when the demands
    have never been greater. It will not be possible to relocate all
    personnel to a single location, and the fact is that not all personnel
    will be able to relocate due to spousal commitments, childcare
    obligations, etc. The existing team of assessment scientists are
    nationally and internationally respected and not easily replaced. Loss
    of specialized skill sets that have taken years to acquire is a very
    real risk.
        3.  Downstream fiscal impacts.--Closure of the lab and relocation
    of staff will have significant downstream fiscal impacts that do not
    appear to have been taken into consideration. The development of stock
    assessments in the southeast is a very collaborative process, involving
    the assessment team, other State and Federal agency scientists, and
    fishermen coming together in person to review and discuss data being
    considered for an assessment. Moving the staff from the Beaufort Lab to
    other locations (such as the NOAA lab in Pascagoula) will incur
    additional travel costs in the form of bringing those staff back into
    the region for stock assessments, (or transporting all other
    participants to where the assessment team is located). Similarly, there
    will be additional travel costs to bring fishery independent survey
    staff back to cruise deployment locations; this would likely reduce the
    magnitude of future sampling efforts at a time when they need to be
    expanded, both spatially and temporally.

            With regard to local impacts, even if all existing staff were
    able and willing to relocate (which is unlikely, as noted above), the
    cost of relocation and potentially buying those staff out of existing
    homes is not trivial. The economy and current real estate market simply
    cannot absorb such an influx of houses. At the local level, these NOAA
    employees are important, year-round contributors to an economy that is
    seasonally dependent on tourism.

        Finally, NOAA's proposal to close the lab would leave a notable
    absence in geographic coverage between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and
    Miami, Florida along the Atlantic coast. This is at odds with the NOAA
    presence along the Gulf of Mexico, with labs located in Panama City,
    Florida; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Stennis, Mississippi; Lafayette,
    Louisiana; and Galveston, Texas. This coverage along the Gulf coast
    represents a much larger investment of resources over a shorter stretch
    of coastline. Given the Beaufort Lab's location near the intersection
    of two major biological and oceanographic convergence zones, it seems
    the agency should be investing more in this facility rather than less,
    particularly in light of NOAA's commitment to determining the impacts
    of climate change on fisheries resources. In closing, the $54 million
    figure being cited as the cost of maintaining the Beaufort Lab appears
    excessive considering the condition of the facilities. While I
    appreciate the administration's desire to reduce its overall footprint,
    an updated maintenance estimate and comparison to similar NOAA
    facilities should be considered.
        I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment on such an
    important issue.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
        The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
    this statement for the official record in support of funding for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). ESA requests a robust fiscal year
    2015 appropriation of $7.5 billion for NSF, including strong support
    for the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO).
        Advances in basic biological sciences, including entomology,
    provide the fundamental knowledge that is the basis for overall
    scientific progress and the development of new technologies and
    strategies that address societal challenges related to economic growth,
    security, and human health and well-being. Entomologists' basic
    research on insect anatomy, classification, and genetics improves our
    understanding of evolution and biodiversity. Better knowledge of insect
    behavior and the dynamics of insect populations is an important
    component to the study of ecosystems and the environment. Additionally,
    insects play a critical role in our ability to explore the
    underpinnings of biological processes at the cellular and molecular
    level. Insects including Drosophila flies have long served as model
    systems for animals that scientists use to study biochemistry,
    microbiology, molecular biology, and toxicology, among other subjects.
    In many cases, insects are ideal for use in laboratory experimentation
    because they are inexpensive, easy to handle, have relatively short
    life spans, and do not require special facilities required to maintain
    vertebrate animals.
        NSF is the only Federal agency that supports basic research across
    all scientific and engineering disciplines, except for the medical
    sciences. In fiscal year 2013, the foundation supported an estimated
    299,000 researchers, scientific trainees, teachers, and students,
    primarily through competitive grants to nearly 2,000 colleges,
    universities, and other institutions in all 50 States. NSF also plays a
    critical role in training the next generation of scientists and
    engineers, ensuring our Nation will remain globally competitive in the
    future. For example, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program
    selects and supports science and engineering graduate students
    demonstrating exceptional potential to succeed in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers.
        Through activities of its BIO Directorate, NSF advances the
    forefront of knowledge about complex biological systems at multiple
    scales, from molecules and cells to organisms and ecosystems. In
    addition, the directorate contributes to the support of research
    resources, including important biological collections and biological
    field stations. NSF BIO is also the Nation's primary funder of
    fundamental research on biodiversity and environmental biology.
        For example, NSF-funded researchers have recently examined the
    wide-ranging effects of an ongoing bark beetle invasion which threatens
    the destruction of millions of acres of forests in the Western United
    States.\1\ The death of pine trees caused by bark beetles has severe
    implications for the forest's canopy and water systems, and creates
    conditions that favor devastating forest fires. The study has provided
    new insights into how invasive insect species that damage or destroy
    plants can affect entire ecosystems at the watershed scale.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Mikkelson, KM, et al. ``Bark beetle infestation impacts on
    nutrient cycling, water quality and interdependent hydrological
    effects.'' Biogeochemistry (2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another NSF-funded researcher \2\ is studying a phenomenon that
    allows a locust to change its color depending on how densely populated
    an area is with other locusts; this trait is believed to cause locust
    swarms, which can be very destructive to agriculture. Migratory locust
    swarms, one of the biblical plagues, continue to contribute to famine
    in Africa. The current research is examining how the locusts change
    their appearance, and whether these genetic traits can be manipulated
    to maintain an appearance that is not conducive to forming swarms. The
    results of this study could provide a new way to control locusts
    without relying on chemical pesticides, which can have negative effects
    on the surrounding ecosystem.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ CAREER: ``Evolution of locust swarms and phenotypic plasticity
    in grasshoppers.'' NSF Award Abstract #1253493.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One example of how NSF's support for basic research using insects
    contributes to our understanding of human and animal biology is a
    recent NSF-funded study on the behaviors of Drosophila vinegar
    flies,\3\ which has advanced scientists' knowledge about neurobiology
    of insects, animals, and humans. The results of the research may also
    help inform the field of robotics; scientists believe that modeling the
    functions of the insect brain can help develop algorithms able to
    control robotic systems. Other NSF-funded research on Drosophila
    genetics \4\ is helping scientists understand gene mutations in humans,
    as humans and these tiny flies share conserved genetic similarities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ van Breugel, F, et al. ``Plume-tracking behavior of flying
    Drosophila emerges from a set of distinct sensory-motor reflexes.''
    Current Biology (2014).
        \4\ CAREER: ``Investigating the evolution of gene regulation at
    Drosophila Hox genes.'' NSF Award Abstract #0845103.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given NSF's critical role in supporting fundamental research and
    education across science and engineering disciplines, ESA supports an
    overall fiscal year 2015 NSF budget of $7.5 billion. Within this
    budget, ESA requests robust support for the NSF BIO Directorate, which
    funds important research studies and biological collections, enabling
    discoveries in the entomological sciences to contribute to our
    understanding of environmental and evolutionary biology, physiological
    and developmental systems, and molecular and cellular mechanisms.
        ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
    organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
    of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
    1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated with educational
    institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
    Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
    administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
    consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
    America's support for NSF. For more information about the Entomological
    Society of America, please see http://www.entsoc.org/.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
                              Experimental Biology
        The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
    (FASEB) respectfully requests a fiscal year 2015 appropriation of a
    minimum of $7.6 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF). This
    demonstrates commitment to the critical mission of the agency and is an
    important first step in returning to a model of sustainable growth.
        FASEB, a federation of 26 scientific societies, represents more
    than 120,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
    coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Our
    mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress and
    education in biological and biomedical sciences.
        Progress in science and technology is becoming increasingly
    interdisciplinary, as discoveries in one field fuel progress in
    another. NSF is the only Federal research agency dedicated to advancing
    all fields of fundamental science and engineering. As a result, the
    broad research portfolio of NSF is critical for our Nation's capacity
    for innovation and essential for our prosperity, quality of life, and
    national security.
        The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program awards approximately
    2,500 3-year fellowships annually to outstanding graduate students
    pursuing advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or
    mathematics. These fellowships support the education and training of
    the next generation of researchers, ensuring a robust and competitive
    workforce. NSF graduate research fellows have become leaders in the
    scientific community.
        Of the U.S. Nobel Laureates in the sciences, 200 received NSF
    funding over the course of their careers, including the 2013 prize
    winners in physiology or medicine, chemistry, and economics.
        Recent examples of NSF-funded research include:
      --Harnessing More Solar Energy.--Researches have developed a new
            material for solar panels that is cheaper, more efficient, and
            can harness energy from visible and infrared light, unlike
            previous materials that could only use ultraviolet light. The
            new material, developed by NSF-funded researchers, increases
            efficiency by absorbing and converting six times the energy of
            its predecessors. Researches are currently scaling up the
            prototype to a full size solar panel for implementation on the
            national power grid.
      --New Microscope Detects the Movement of Atoms.--NSF-funded
            researchers have developed a new electron microscope that can
            detect the movement of atoms and molecules. The cutting-edge
            technology allows users to observe the fundamental
            transformations of matter: chemical reactions and the electric
            charges of interacting atoms. The new microscope has immediate
            applications in the clean energy industry, development of
            nanotechnology, and countless other scientific endeavors.
      --Preventing Post-operative Infections.--Infection at the surgical
            site is one of the most common types of post-operative
            complications, which lengthens hospital stays and increases
            healthcare costs. Scientists with NSF support have developed a
            new antibiotic coating for surgical sutures. Lab tests have
            shown that the new coating is 1,000 times more effective at
            preventing infection than previous coatings, and even prevents
            the spread of staphylococcus aureus, the variety of ``staph''
            that frequently causes virulent post-surgical infections.
      --New Storm Radar Saves Lives.--Researchers supported by NSF are
            building an advanced radar network to detect severe storms
            earlier. Using novel algorithms, the network can generate
            information faster and with more geographic specificity,
            enabling first responders to take action before a storm hits.
            Researchers are currently testing the system in southwestern
            Oklahoma and Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas. Once it is broadly
            implemented, the system will reduce injuries, enable first
            responders to be more effective, and save lives.
      --Preserving Bat Colonies to Protect the Ecosystem.--Agricultural
            pests cost the U.S. farm industry over $1 billion per year in
            lost crop yield and additional cost of pesticide use. NSF-
            funded researchers studied bat colonies in the cotton and corn
            growing region of southern Texas and found that bats are
            valuable to farmers because they consume insects that destroy
            crops, reducing the need to use pesticides. Protecting bat
            colonies in crop-growing regions will both decrease pesticide
            cost to farmers and reduce the presence of chemicals on food
            people eat.
                         maintaining global leadership
        Scientific and technological advances keep our Nation
    internationally competitive by spurring the innovations that fuel
    economic growth. NSF's broad portfolio of fundamental research expands
    the frontiers of knowledge, opening the way to these innovations.
    Through its education initiatives, NSF ensures that the U.S. will
    continue to have an unrivaled scientific and engineering workforce.
        NSF-funded research leads to major scientific breakthroughs, many
    of which provide the basic knowledge that stimulates innovation in the
    private sector. We must build on prior NSF investment and provide an
    adequate funding level to advance discovery, educate the next
    generation of scientists and engineers, and retain our position as the
    global leader in innovation. In fiscal year 2015, FASEB recommends a
    minimum of $7.6 billion for the NSF. This is the level that the America
    COMPETES Act authorized for the agency for 2011 and is an important
    first step in returning to a model of sustainable growth.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support and
    recommendations for the NSF.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of John Fieberg, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
     Quantitative Ecology, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation
                        Biology, University of Minnesota
        Dear Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee of Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: I recently became aware of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National
    Ocean Service's (NOS) request to close the Beaufort Laboratory. Having
    collaborated with scientists at the Beaufort lab, I am well aware of
    the many ways the laboratory's staff contribute to NOAA's mission: they
    provide state-of-the-art fishery stock assessments that help to
    determine how many fish can be sustainably caught in the southeast
    United States, they conduct fishery-independent surveys to collect the
    data necessary for conducting informative stock assessments, and they
    conduct cutting edge research aimed at improving the way we ``do''
    science in support of fisheries management. In short, closing the
    Beaufort lab would be a significant loss, not only for the 100-110
    staff employed by the lab, but also the fishing and marine science
    communities that benefit from their work. Thus, I am writing to request
    that NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory closure proposed in the 2015
    President's Budget Request be removed from the NOS budget.
        The recommendation to close the laboratory was largely driven by
    financial considerations related to the long-term cost of maintaining
    the infrastructure at the laboratory. Unfortunately, this decision was
    based on inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
    maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. Several recent investments in
    new construction and renovations, totaling approximately $14 million
    dollars, were not properly considered when making the recommendation.
    Recent facility improvements include:

      --2006: Administration Building replaced (with North Carolina NERRs)
      --2007: Bridge replaced--cost shared with Duke University
      --2008: Maintenance Building replaced
      --2009: Air conditioning/Air handler replacement and mold abatement
      --2009:  Sample Storage/Chemical Storage/Haz-Mat buildings
            consolidated and replaced
      --2014:  Seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North
            Carolina funded storm water control

        In addition, the NOS request underestimated the staff that would be
    impacted by the closure by not including the more than 40 National
    Marine Fisheries Service staff and staff members of the North Carolina
    National Estuarine Research Reserve co-located at the facility.
        It is surprising that the request for closure comes at a time when
    the National Ocean Service is requesting an increase of $4 million in
    funding for another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
    Algal Blooms (HAB), Hypoxia, pathogens and Species Distributions (see
    budget summary, page 8, paragraph 1). The Beaufort Laboratory has both
    the expertise and facilities required to address these issues.
    Researchers and research teams at the Beaufort Laboratory have
    repeatedly been recognized for their work. Further, the laboratory's
    excellent research capabilities and reputation also attract support,
    both from other branches of NOAA and from other organizations which
    have recognized potential benefits of the Laboratory's studies, and
    long have augmented the support provided by NOAA.
        In summary, the closing of the Beaufort Laboratory does not make
    economic sense, given the recent investments in facility infrastructure
    and the need to address emerging marine issues identified by the
    National Ocean Service. More importantly, closing the laboratory would
    have significant negative consequences for the 100-110 staff employed
    by the lab and also the large fishing and marine science communities
    that rely on the outstanding quality of work of the lab and its
    members.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Dr. Janelle Fleming of Seahorse Coastal
                 Consulting, LLC and Discovery Diving Co., Inc.
    In Re:  Potential closing of Beaufort, North Carolina laboratory of
        NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
        Science Center.

        Dear Committee on Appropriations Senators,

        This letter is not a formal testimony, but rather a comment on how
    this laboratory has guided some of my research as a student and as an
    independent consultant and how essential the lab is to the functioning
    of the local economy and research. You may or may not be aware of the
    fact that President Obama has targeted the closing of the Beaufort
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab as part of
    the 2014-2015 budget proposal. This is the only Federal lab between
    Miami, Florida and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. This lab houses over 150
    scientists, technicians, and office personnel that conduct important
    research locally as well as nationally and internationally.
        In terms of ecology and physical oceanography, North Carolina is in
    a unique position because it maintains both tropical and temperate
    characteristics. During the summer, the Gulf Stream pushes up from
    Florida and winds bring it close to shore, bringing it with tropical
    species of algae and animals (fish, mammals, etc). During the winter,
    the Greenland current pushes down from the North Atlantic and brings
    the temperate species into the area. The capes also allow for a
    tremendous amount of recirculation within the area and these different
    species have learned to adapt to the changing currents found of the
    North Carolina coast. All this is to say that North Carolina is
    uniquely situated to study fisheries issues, sediment transport issues,
    wind energy issues, and sea level rise issues, just to name a few. The
    NOAA lab has been essential in understanding the scientific root cause
    of some of the major questions about physical circulation and its role
    governing the ecology of the area.
        As a graduate student, I had the fortune of working with some of
    the NOAA scientists on my Ph.D. project. Their advice in terms of data
    collection and analysis, were pivotal in determining some of the causes
    of wind-driven circulation in the Neuse River Estuary and how that
    might lead to fish kills. As the scientists were down the street, I
    could call them, make an appointment and meet with them that day.
    Nowhere else in the world, do you get that type of interaction. In
    Beaufort, we are able to do this because of the logistics.
        As an independent consultant, I was able to work with Dr. Pat
    Tester on Harmful Algal Blooms, both in North Carolina, South Carolina,
    Georgia and Florida, but also in Belize. Innovative measurement and
    monitoring techniques have been developed at the Beaufort NOAA lab in
    conjunction with the local universities in the area, Duke University,
    North Carolina State University, and University of North Carolina-
    Chapel Hill.
        Finally, I have been collaborating with Dr. James Morris on the
    Lionfish invasive species epidemic that is affect the local fisheries
    in North Carolina as well as Florida and the Caribbean. We have just
    recently started an experimental project that seeks to develop a
    commercial fishery for the lionfish. Being able to communicate with the
    researchers face to face has lead to several advancements in our
    experimental techniques and furthered the studies.
        In closing, when you look at this item in the President's budget
    proposal, I would like you to think of three things:
        1. What would the removal of a vibrant research organization do on
    the ``brain drain'' within a local community, rich with university
    collaboration?
        2. Does it make sense to centralize and reduce the number of
    laboratories that cover the coast, given that each region has their own
    specific characteristics?
        3. If the laboratory is closed, more money and time would be lost
    in transitioning those full time Government employees to a different
    laboratory and the research that they are currently working on would be
    delayed 2-3 years.
        Please reconsider this budget as the Beaufort NOAA lab affects
    approximately $58 million into the local economy and aids in fisheries
    independent research such as advanced procedures in stock assessment,
    fisheries oceanographic research, and oceanic observations.
        Thank you,
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports strong and
    sustained investments in earth science research and education at the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA). We believe investment in these agencies is
    necessary for America's future economic and science and technology
    leadership, both through discoveries that are made and the talent
    developed through their programs. In addition, this research addresses
    such critical societal issues as energy and mineral resources, water
    availability and quality, climate change, waste management, and natural
    hazards. The United States faces a looming shortage of qualified
    workers in these areas that are critical for national security. We are
    very concerned that cuts in earth science funding will cause students
    and young professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a
    lost generation of professionals in areas that are already facing
    worker shortages and inhibit potential economic growth. GSA urges
    Congress to provide the National Science Foundation at least $7.5
    billion in fiscal year 2015.
                    about the geological society of america
        The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific
    society with over 26,000 members from academia, government, and
    industry in all 50 States and more than 100 countries. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind.
        As the National Science Board's recent 2014 Science & Engineering
    Indicators reports, America's share of the world's R&D fell from 37
    percent to 30 percent from 2001 and 2012. As other nations have been
    increasing their support for long-term, high-risk research, we have
    been allowing ours to stagnate or decline. We must reverse that trend
    and tackle our mounting innovation deficit if we want to retain our
    global economic leadership.
                          national science foundation
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to provide
    the National Science Foundation (NSF) at least $7.5 billion in fiscal
    year 2015. GSA greatly appreciates your efforts to increase the NSF
    budget in recent years. Although NSF was able to regain some of its
    loss from sequestration in fiscal year 2014, GSA remains concerned
    about the impact of flat and declining research budgets on our Nation's
    future innovations and innovators. We feel that allowing NSF's budget
    to catch up with research inflation costs over the past few years is
    the first step to putting NSF back on the path necessary to maintain
    and regain America's future economic and science and technology
    leadership. We are concerned about the cuts to the Research and Related
    Activities Account and flat funding (0.1 percent increase) in
    geoscience research in the request, but appreciate that $552 million
    was proposed to allow growth in the agency in the Opportunity, Growth,
    and Security Initiative.
        The Earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
    and technology enterprise and NSF investment and should be increased.
    NSF's Directorate for Geosciences supports approximately 65 percent of
    all basic university research in the geosciences: the largest Federal
    support for Earth science research essential for developing policies
    regarding land, mineral, energy, public safety and water resources at
    all levels of government. This Directorate regularly receives a large
    number of exciting research proposals that are highly rated for both
    their scientific merit and their broader impacts; the funding rate for
    research grants dropped to 23 percent last year, leaving many
    meritorious projects unfunded.
        Increased investments in NSF's earth science portfolio are
    necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, energy, water
    resources, climate change, and education. Specific needs include:
      --Natural hazards remain a major cause of fatalities and economic
            losses worldwide. Several areas in the United States are
            vulnerable to damages from earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes,
            and landslides--as evidenced by the recent landslide in
            Washington. NSF research that improves our understanding of
            these geologic hazards will allow for better planning and
            mitigation in these areas that will reduce future losses. We
            urge Congress to support NSF investments in fundamental earth
            science research that underpin basic understanding and
            innovations in natural hazards monitoring and warning systems.
      --Mineral resources are essential to modern civilization, and a
            thorough understanding of their distribution, consequences of
            their use, and the potential effects of mineral supply
            disruption is important for sound public policy. The Division
            of Earth Sciences supports proposals for research geared toward
            improving the understanding of the structure, composition, and
            evolution of the Earth and the processes that govern the
            formation and behavior of the Earth's materials. This research
            contributes to a better understanding of the natural
            distribution of mineral and energy resources for future
            exploration. In particular, GSA encourages support for research
            on critical minerals, for which our Nation is dependent upon
            foreign sources.
      --The devastating droughts in California highlight our dependence on
            water. NSF's research addresses major gaps in our understanding
            of water availability, quality, and dynamics, and the impact of
            both a changing and variable climate, and human activity, on
            the water system. Increased public investment is needed to
            improve the scientific understanding of water resources,
            including improved representation of geological, biological,
            and ecological systems, for informed decisionmaking.
      --Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
            systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
            understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
            understanding of these processes in Earth's deep-time history
            can increase confidence in the ability to predict future states
            and enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
            impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
                 national aeronautics and space administration
        GSA supports earth science and planetary exploration research at
    NASA and is concerned about cuts in the fiscal year 2015 request,
    although increases are proposed in the Opportunity, Growth, and
    Security Initiative. This research is important to understand the
    evolution of Earth; to deepen and expand human understanding of our
    place in the universe; to reinforce science, technology, engineering
    and math (STEM) education and effective training of the next generation
    of scientists; to increase U.S. competitiveness in science and
    technology development; and to enhance the quality of life through
    technological innovation. In addition, the discoveries and technologies
    of these programs form the basis of many industries and partnerships
    that drive economic growth.
        Planetary missions at NASA are designed to collect data to better
    understand the history and workings of the entire solar system, to gain
    insight into the formation and evolution of Earth and the other
    planets, to understand how life began on Earth, and to determine
    whether extraterrestrial habitable environments and life forms exist
    (or ever did exist) elsewhere in the solar system or beyond. To support
    these missions, planetary scientists engage in both terrestrial field
    studies and Earth observation to examine geologic features and
    processes that are common on other planets, such as impact structures,
    volcanic constructs, tectonic structures, and glacial and fluvial
    deposits and landforms. Geochemical studies include investigations of
    extraterrestrial materials now on Earth, including lunar samples, tens
    of thousands of meteorites, cosmic dust particles, and, most recently,
    particles returned from comets and asteroids.
        Exploration of other planets in the solar system requires major
    national and international initiatives, significant funding levels, and
    long timelines for mission planning and collaborative research. For
    scientists, the funding cycle is much shorter than typical mission
    cycles, and in particular, graduate student and career-development
    timelines are much shorter than mission timeframes. Therefore, the
    growth and continued development of a robust workforce capable of
    conducting complex space missions and analyzing the scientific data
    returned from such missions does not depend on individual missions as
    much as it depends upon a consistent, sustained program that educates
    and develops planetary scientists.
        GSA supports NASA earth observing systems, including Landsat, and
    their research into our planet. By providing adequate resources to
    maintain current and develop next-generation satellites, the Nation
    will continue to have access to data that is used by diverse
    stakeholders ranging from farmers to water managers to make critical
    decisions.
          support needed to educate future innovations and innovators
        Research in Earth science and geoscience education is fundamental
    to training the next generation of Earth science professionals. The
    United States faces a looming shortage of qualified workers in these
    areas that are critical for national security. We are very concerned
    that cuts in earth science funding will cause students and young
    professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a lost
    generation of professionals in areas that are already facing worker
    shortages.
        A 2013 report by the National Research Council, ``Emerging
    Workforce Trends in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to
    Action,'' found, ``Energy and mineral resources are essential for the
    Nation's fundamental functions, its economy, and its security . . . In
    mining (nonfuel and coal) a personnel crisis for professionals and
    workers is pending and it already exists for faculty.''
        Another recent study, ``Status of the Geoscience Workforce 2011,''
    by the American Geosciences Institute found: ``The supply of newly
    trained geoscientists falls short of geoscience workforce demand and
    replacement needs. . . . aggregate job projections are expected to
    increase by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018. . . . The majority of
    geoscientists in the workforce are within 15 years of retirement age.
    By 2030, the unmet demand for geoscientists in the petroleum industry
    will be approximately 13,000 workers for the conservative demand
    industry estimate.''
        Increased NSF and NASA investments in earth science education at
    all levels to meet these needs and develop an informed electorate.
    Knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to science literacy and to
    meeting the environmental and resource challenges of the twenty-first
    century. NSF's Education and Human Resources Directorate researches and
    improves the way we teach science and provide research and fellowship
    opportunities for students to encourage them to continue in the
    sciences. Similarly, NASA's educational programs have inspired and led
    many into science careers.
        Please contact GSA Director for Geoscience Policy Kasey White at
    kwhite@geosociety.org for additional information or to learn more about
    the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
    water resources, planetary research, energy and mineral resources,
    natural hazards, climate change, and public investment in earth science
    research.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of John J. Govoni, Ph.D., Ecological Consultant
        In the President's Budget request for 2015, the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS),
    proposes to close the NOAA Laboratory located in Beaufort, North
    Carolina (reference the President's fiscal year 2015 Budget for NOS,
    Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration: NOAA Blue Book,
    page 8). The reasons given are cost savings by closing an aged
    facility. The request does not, however, cite dollar amounts that would
    be incurred with closure, and ignores the $14 million dollars recently
    invested in infrastructure replacements and refurbishments at the
    Beaufort Laboratory. The United States Government can ill-afford to
    close the Beaufort Laboratory, as proposed in the President's fiscal
    year 2015 budget request.
        The Beaufort Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina, was
    formerly named the U.S. Fisheries Commission Laboratory at Beaufort and
    the Beaufort Laboratory of the NOAA--National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS), and is now formally named the NOAA, NOS, Center for Coastal
    Fisheries and Habitat Research (CCFHR). It is the second oldest Federal
    marine research Laboratory in the U.S. For the past 115 years, the
    Beaufort Laboratory has served the Nation by providing timely and much
    needed research products used to guide the effective management of the
    Nation's natural resources. The Beaufort Laboratory has gained
    prominent recognition, reputation, and credibility both nationally and
    internationally. It is the only Federal, coastal ocean, research
    laboratory between New Jersey and Miami, Florida.
        The Beaufort Laboratory operates research programs within three
    different NOAA components: NOS, NMFS, and the National Estuarine
    Research Reserve System (NERRS). No consideration of NMFS or NERRS
    operations, given the proposed closure, is reflected in the President's
    budget request for NOS fiscal year 2015. If enacted, the closure
    proposed to begin as early as October 2014, will have severe impacts on
    the multiple programs of NMFS, NOS, and NEERS.
        Curiously, in the same budget proposal, NOAA requests an increase
    of $4 million to support ecological forecasting. With this increase,
    NOAA and NOS' National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) will
    develop and implement ecological forecasts for harmful algal blooms
    HABs), hypoxia, marine pathogens, and marine species distributions.
    Ironically, at the same time it is proposing to close the Beaufort
    Laboratory; the Beaufort Laboratory has well-established expertise and
    facilities required to address many of those very same issues, and is
    currently doing so. Closure of the Beaufort Laboratory would be
    operationally and fiscally irresponsible.
        The laboratory currently employs nationally and internationally
    known scientists, who are providing essential and necessary support for
    the resolution of other national issues (NOS). These issues include:
    the impacts of invasive species on marine ecological communities;
    ecological forecasting of the condition of habitats and ecosystems that
    support many commercially and recreationally exploited species; harmful
    algal blooms that can and do impact human health; and aquaculture
    planning and sustainability for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Gulf
    of Mexico, Caribbean (U.S. possessions), and the Hawaiian archipelago.
    The Beaufort Laboratory also supports efforts at recovery from oil
    spills, coral reefs, and sea-grass beds, and the restoration of the
    Nation's shorelines and marshes. The Beaufort Laboratory's excellent
    research capabilities and reputation have attracted, and continue to
    attract, support from other branches of NOAA, from other Federal
    Organizations, and from non-governmental organizations (NGO's) that
    have long recognized the benefits provided by the Beaufort Laboratory.
    This inter-agency cooperation, and the efficiency that this cooperation
    provides, would be lost with closure.
        The Beaufort Laboratory (NMFS) conducts fish stock assessments for
    the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the Caribbean Fisheries
    Management council, the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Council, and the
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. These are all
    organizations mandated by Federal Law. The support of management
    councils and Commissions provided by the Beaufort Laboratory would be
    lost with the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory. Closure is thus
    organizationally irresponsible.
        The Beaufort Laboratory currently employs 71 Federal employees and
    33.5 contractors. Some of the Federal employees could be relocated, but
    contract employees would lose their jobs. Further, the cost of
    relocating permanent Federal employees is not accounted for in the
    President's budget request. Eight North Carolina State employees work
    at the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve (a reserve
    within the NERRS System) headquartered at the Beaufort Laboratory. The
    impacts to the employees, their families, and the local community have
    not been evaluated in the proposed budget request. Thus, closure would
    be an embarrassment to a Government committed to increasing job
    opportunities and supporting economic recovery.
        The President's budget for fiscal year 2015 cites the age of the
    Beaufort Laboratory and the need for infrastructure repairs and
    improvements that exceed agency budget resources. Considerable tax
    dollars have been invested in renovating the Beaufort Laboratory;
    dollars invested toward this end since 2006 currently approach $14
    million. A new administration building, that serves not only NOS and
    NMFS operations at the Beaufort Laboratory, but also the North
    Carolina, Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, Division
    of Coastal Management and the Rachael Carson, has been constructed, and
    has been in operation for 10 years. A new Bridge that accesses Pivers
    Island--both the Beaufort Laboratory and the Duke University Marine
    Laboratory--has been constructed and is in operation. A new Maintenance
    Facility has been constructed. A new scientific collection storage
    building has been constructed. Storm-water drainage systems have been
    constructed. The seawall that surrounds the Federal half of Pivers
    Island is currently being renovated. Yet, the two extant, old
    structures that remain have been renovated and are fully functional and
    operable. Further, the Beaufort Laboratory contains a large and diverse
    array of valuable scientific equipment that cannot be maintained or
    effectively used with the loss of support staff. The large Government
    investment in facilities and equipment would be wasted should the
    Beaufort Laboratory close. Closure would be fiscally irresponsible.
        With the President's fiscal year 2015 budget request, NOAA proposes
    to shift the funding to the Washington, District of Columbia area,
    which is among the most expensive locations nationally: this is not
    cost effective! The cost of providing laboratory and office space at
    Beaufort is cheaper than most other coastal areas of the United States.
    In addition, the District of Columbia area has no access to the marine
    environments represented at Beaufort, and District of Columbia does not
    have the laboratory space and equipment to replace what would be lost
    with the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory.
        Since taking over the Beaufort Laboratory from the NMFS in 1998-99,
    NOS has withdrawn support and drained resources. There has been an
    approximate 45 percent reduction in NOS staff over the past 9 years and
    a concomitant approximate 35 percent reduction in funding. This steady
    withdrawal of support is inexplicable, counter-productive to NOAA's
    mission, and unwarranted.
        I urge this subcommittee to oppose the proposed closure of the
    Beaufort Laboratory when Congress considers the 2015 Appropriations
    Bill. I urge this subcommittee to encourage Congress to inform NOAA
    that requests for closure of the Beaufort Laboratory will not be
    entertained in the future, and that Congress should direct NOAA to
    restore the Beaufort Laboratory staffing, operational support, and
    research funding. I urge the U.S. Congress to restore budget line-item
    appropriations for the Beaufort Laboratory.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                              Commission (GLIFWC)
                                agency involved
        Department of Justice.
                                program involved
        COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP) Hiring and Equipment/
    Training Program under the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation
    (CTAS).
                 summary of glifwc's fiscal year 2015 testimony
        GLIFWC appreciates the increase of $3.5 million proposed by the
    Administration for the Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP), providing
    a total of $20 million for this critical program. The TRGP has enabled
    GLIFWC to solidify its communications, training, and equipment
    requirements, essential to ensuring the safety of GLIFWC officers and
    their role in the proper functioning of interjurisdictional emergency
    mutual assistance networks in the treaty ceded territories. GLIFWC also
    supports the administration's recommendation to dedicate $15 million in
    COPS Hiring funds for hiring new law enforcement officers in tribal
    communities. This program currently allows GLIFWC to maintain one
    additional Conservation Enforcement Officer as well as to provide vital
    training and equipment for all its Officers.
                ceded territory treaty rights and glifwc's role
        GLIFWC was established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within
    the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination Act (PL 93-638). It
    exercises authority delegated by its member tribes to implement Federal
    court orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to
    their treaty rights. GLIFWC assists its member tribes in:
      --securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish,
            and gather in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
      --cooperatively managing, restoring and protecting ceded territory
            natural resources and their habitats.
        For over 25 years, Congress and various administrations have funded
    GLIFWC through the BIA, the Department of Justice and other agencies to
    meet specific Federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa
    treaties; (b) the Federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-
    Determination Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation; and (d)
    various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case, that
    affirm the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member tribes. Under the direction
    of its member tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded territory hunting,
    fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through
    its staff of biologists, scientists, technicians, conservation
    enforcement officers, and public information specialists.
                            community-based policing
        GLIFWC's officers carry out their duties through a community-based
    policing program. The underlying premise is that effective detection
    and deterrence of illegal activities, as well as education of the
    regulated constituents, are best accomplished if the officers work
    within the tribal communities they primarily serve. The officers are
    based in reservation communities of the following member tribes: in
    Wisconsin--Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du Flambeau, Red Cliff,
    Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in Minnesota--Mille Lacs;
    and in Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac Vieux Desert. To
    develop mutual trust between GLIFWC officers and tribal communities,
    officers provide outdoor skills workshops and safety classes (hunter,
    boater, snowmobile, ATV) to 300 tribal youth in grades 4-8 annually.
    GLIFWC's officers also actively participate in summer and winter youth
    outdoor activity camps, kids fishing events, workshops on canoe safety
    and rice stick carving, and seminars on trapping and archery/bow
    safety. GLIFWC officers also work to support drug and alcohol
    prevention efforts in the Lac du Flambeau school system by sponsoring a
    snowshoe making workshop for tribal youth.
        GLIFWC's member tribes realize it is critical to build
    relationships between tribal youth and law enforcement officers as a
    means of combatting gang recruitment and drug/alcohol abuse in
    reservation communities. GLIFWC is taking a pro-active approach to
    support these efforts and obtained fiscal year 2013 Department of
    Justice (DOJ) funding to hire a Youth Outreach Officer. Over the next 3
    years, this Officer will work to improve and expand youth outdoor
    recreation activities in partnership with the other GLIFWC officers.
    The program's goal is to build and expand these relationships to help
    prevent violations of tribal off-reservation codes, improve public
    safety and promote an outdoor lifestyle as an alternative to a
    lifestyle characterized by youth gangs \1\ and substance abuse.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth population
    is more affected by gang involvement than any other racial population.
    15 percent of AI/AN youth are involved with gangs compared to 8 percent
    of Latino youth and 6 percent of African American youth nationally.
    (National Council on Crime and Delinquency: Glesmann, C., Krisberg,
    B.A., & Marchionna, S., 2009).
        \2\ 22.9 percent of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth
    aged 12 and older report alcohol use, 18.4 percent report binge
    drinking and 16.0 percent report substance dependence or abuse. In the
    same group, 35.8 percent report tobacco use and 12.5 percent report
    illicit drug use. (2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary
    of National Findings).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   interaction with law enforcement agencies
        GLIFWC's officers are integral members of regional emergency
    services networks in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only
    enforce the tribes' conservation codes, but are fully certified
    officers who work cooperatively with surrounding authorities when they
    detect violations of State or Federal criminal and conservation laws.
    These partnerships evolved from the inter-governmental cooperation
    required to combat the violence experienced during the early
    implementation of treaty rights in Wisconsin. As time passed, GLIFWC's
    professional officers continued to provide a bridge between local law
    enforcement and many rural Indian communities.
        GLIFWC remains at this forefront, using DOJ funding to develop
    interjurisdictional legal training attended by GLIFWC officers, tribal
    police and conservation officers, tribal judges, tribal and county
    prosecutors, and State and Federal agency law enforcement staff. DOJ
    funding has also enabled GLIFWC to certify its officers as medical
    emergency first responders trained in the use of defibrillators, and to
    train them in search and rescue, particularly in cold water rescue
    techniques. When a crime is in progress or emergencies occur, local,
    State, and Federal law enforcement agencies look to GLIFWC's officers
    as part of the mutual assistance networks. In fact, the role of
    GLIFWC's officers in these networks was further legitimized in 2007 by
    the passage of Wisconsin Act 27, which affords GLIFWC wardens the same
    statutory safeguards and protections that are afforded to their
    Department of Natural Resources (DNR) counterparts. GLIFWC wardens will
    now have access to the criminal history database and other information
    to identify whom they are encountering in the field so that they can
    determine whether they are about to face a fugitive or some other
    dangerous individual.
        DOJ has acknowledged that, ``[t]he officer-to-population ratio
    still remains lower on Indian reservations than in other jurisdictions
    across the country. . . . tribal law enforcement has a unique challenge
    of patrolling large areas of sparsely populated land'' (DOJ 2014 Budget
    Summary--Public Safety in Indian Country). GLIFWC's participation in
    mutual assistance networks located throughout a 60,000 square mile
    region directly addresses this problem in an effective and cost
    efficient manner.
                         glifwc programs funded by doj
        GLIFWC recognizes that adequate communications, training, and
    equipment are essential both for the safety of its officers and for the
    role that GLIFWC's officers play in the mutual assistance networks in
    the ceded territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants have provided a critical
    foundation for achieving these goals. Significant accomplishments with
    Tribal Resources Grant Program funds include: (1) assisting the Apostle
    Island National Lakeshore in protecting 138,000 recent ice caves
    visitors on Lake Superior; (2) working in partnership with the United
    States Forest Service to combat illegal marijuana grow sites on public
    lands; and (3) participating in drug sweeps held on the Lac du Flambeau
    and the Menominee reservations that required large numbers of law
    enforcement officers to coordinate arrests simultaneously.
        Increased Versatility and Improving Public Safety.--Bayfield County
    is the third largest county in Wisconsin, covering 2,042 square miles,
    yet it possesses a population of only 15,014 residents.\3\ This vast,
    rural county is located on the shores of Lake Superior and contains the
    Apostle Island National Lakeshore, which typically hosts 150,000
    visitors throughout an entire year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 2010 census.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2014, the cold winter and multi-media technology resulted in a
    dramatic increase in visitors to the ice caves at the Lakeshore.
    Suddenly, law enforcement needed to provide safety for the 138,000
    unexpected visitors who walked over a mile onto Lake Superior to view
    the ice caves. The National Park Service and local law enforcement
    quickly became overwhelmed with the large volume of visitors and
    requested GLIFWC assistance. GLIFWC responded with certified law
    enforcement officers trained in emergency ice rescue and wilderness
    first aid. Officers were also equipped with snowmobiles for patrol and
    emergency response. GLIFWC's incident command center trailer was used
    to provide a base for enforcement activities at the site and a 20-foot
    airboat was on standby to respond to medical emergencies. It was the
    COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program that provided training for GLIFWC
    officers and funding to purchase the snowmobiles, the incident command
    center trailer, and the 20-foot airboat.
        Partnerships combat illegal marijuana grow sites on public lands.--
    With Federal, State and local law enforcement partners, GLIFWC officers
    have provided assistance in efforts to intervene in cannabis
    cultivation operations. Over the past 3 years, GLIFWC wardens have
    participated in three raids of such operations located on public land
    within treaty ceded territories, including: (1) an interagency cannabis
    arrest of 5 individuals in Ashland county and the destruction of 9,400
    plants in 2011; (2) an interagency cannabis arrest of 6 individuals in
    Langlade County and the destruction of 9,000 plants in 2012; and (3)
    joint grid patrols with the assistance of National Guard helicopters
    that identified 2 grow sites in 2013. In 2013, GLIFWC officers also
    participated in closing down an outdoor cannabis cultivation operation
    on the Menominee Reservation, resulting in the destruction of 1000
    plants and 2 arrests. GLIFWC has used DOJ COPS funding to provide
    equipment and tactical training to its wardens to enhance their
    effectiveness in these rural and heavily-wooded environments.
        Operation Pandora.--In 2011, GLIFWC officers utilized the COPS
    Tribal Resources Grant Program to participate in training with the
    North-Central Drug Enforcement Group to expand professional
    relationships and establish a foundation for cooperative initiatives to
    protect officers and improve community safety. In 2013, GLIFWC officers
    applied their training and participated in Operation Pandora, a multi-
    agency effort that brought together 11 law enforcement agencies from
    seven counties. Approximately 40 officers and agents participated in
    early morning raids at local residences on the Lac du Flambeau
    Reservation, serving seven search warrants from an ongoing
    investigation into synthetic and prescription drug trafficking on the
    reservation. The operation resulted in 35 arrests.
        Looking to the Future.--In 2014, GLIFWC applied to the DOJ TRGP
    program for $301,071 to: (1) continue participation in the North-
    Central Drug Enforcement Group and train GLIFWC officers to identify
    and safely control those suspected of using synthetic drugs; (2)
    purchase Tasers to improve officer safety; (3) provide training to
    maintain law enforcement, first aid, and emergency rescue
    certifications; (4) support interagency efforts to control illegal
    cannabis cultivation operations on public lands within the 1836, 1837
    and 1842 Chippewa ceded territories with training in human tracking
    skills and the purchase of night vision equipment; and (5) provide
    officers with trucks, boats and ATV's to improve and increase community
    policing efforts through safety programs. TRGP resources will allow
    GLIFWC conservation officers to conduct essential cooperative
    conservation, law enforcement, outreach, and emergency response
    activities. We ask Congress to support the DOJ COPS TRGP program at no
    less than its proposed fiscal year 2015 level.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Jonathan Hansen, Madison, Wisconsin
        To whom it may concern,
        I am writing to discuss the proposed closure of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory
    located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the Department
    of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and houses
    employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
    Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR).
        I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
    removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
    from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
    maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
    explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
    employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
    budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
    completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
    replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
    replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
    to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
    approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
    (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
        Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
    stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
    known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
    science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
    menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
    hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
    repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
    Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
    completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
    due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
    of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
    (CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
    Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
    fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
    the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
        Specific items of note from each line office include:
                                      nmfs
    Stock Assessment Science
      --The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
            that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
            United States.

        The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
    focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
    economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
    and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
    Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
    Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
    cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
    tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
    and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
    menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
    menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
    combined value of $127.7 million.
    Fishery-Independent Surveys
      --Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
            stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
            gears and methodologies.

        The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
    NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
    distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
    species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
    Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
    determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
    abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
    The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
    fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
    Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
    middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
    and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
    to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
    the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
    resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
                                      nerr
        Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
    for the Reserve:

      --North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
            Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
            Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
      --In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . .  $5,000,000 for the
            Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
            facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
            facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
            Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S. Rept.
            107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
            million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
            joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
            mission.
      --The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
            specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
            auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
            and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
            workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
            Education Program activities.
      --The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
            Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
            essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
            conduct mission-critical programming including educational
            programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
            programs, and stewardship of the site including species
            monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
            access point maintenance.
    Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
                Education
                      K-12 field trips
                  -- 177 educational programs
                  -- 4947 participants
                      Teacher workshops
                  -- 28 teacher workshops
                  -- 412 participants
                      Summer camps
                  -- 109 camp sessions
                  -- 921 participants
                      Summer public field trips
                  -- 96 field trips
                  -- 1123 participants
                Stewardship
                      Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
                  -- 1170 volunteers
                  -- 2873 volunteer hours
                      Site management
                  -- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
                which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
                proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
                waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
                NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
                Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
                perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
                management.
                Research
                      Research permits
                  -- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
                the Rachel Carson Reserve
                       Water quality monitoring
                  -- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
                Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
                National Park Service
                Coastal Training Program
                      Coastal Training Program workshops
                  -- 31 workshops
                  -- 1076 participants
                                      nos
        NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
    the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
    that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
    Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
    Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
    the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
    for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
    Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
    and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
    damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
    publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
    expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
    University partners to educate the public about the real facts
    concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
    have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
    Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
    occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
    anxiety regarding seafood safety.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
    poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
    of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
    used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
    order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
    employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
    Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
    close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Craig A. Harms, D.V.M., Ph.D.; Diplomate,
         American College of Zoological Medicine; Associate Professor,
      Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and
                   Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
        Dear Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies: In reference to the proposed closure of the National Oceanic
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Laboratory in Beaufort, North
    Carolina, I urge you to ensure that does not occur. Closure of the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory would be a considerable blow to the marine sciences
    and education hub of Carteret County. With it's over 100 years of
    history, the NOAA Laboratory has been a catalyst for attracting
    excellent scientists and other marine science laboratories, and
    conducting important research on harmful algal toxins, invasive
    species, protected species, and stock assessments critical to fishery
    management decisions. The close aggregation of a slew of top flight
    marine laboratory and education facilities in Carteret County
    (including the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory, Duke Marine Laboratory,
    University of North Carolina (UNC) Institute of Marine Sciences, North
    Carolina State University (NCSU) Center for Marine Sciences and
    Technology, North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores, North
    Carolina Maritime Museum, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries,
    Carteret Community College Aquaculture Program, North Carolina
    SeaGrant) at the convergence of major marine life zones, is a
    tremendous asset. As determined by a recent American Association for
    the Advancement of Science (AAAS) study of the University of North
    Carolina System marine laboratories in North Carolina, the programs of
    these multiple facilities are not duplicative, but rather are
    synergistic. The loss of the NOAA Laboratory would weaken all aspects
    of scientific productivity, marine education, and the economic driver
    of marine sciences community.
        I moved to Morehead City in 2000 to take up a position at the NCSU
    Center for Marine Sciences and Technology (CMAST) as soon as it opened.
    As the only full time faculty member from the College of Veterinary
    Medicine based at CMAST, people wondered just what a veterinarian would
    be doing at a marine laboratory. There has been no shortage of
    veterinary applications to marine science to keep me busy. Much of my
    work has been shaped by collaborations with scientists at the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory, particularly at the outset working with scientists
    in the protected species division of the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS) on sea turtles and marine mammals, but extending to work
    on invasive lionfish and development of mariculture. Collaborating with
    the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory has lead to far flung collaborations
    including participating in the sea turtle rescue response to the
    Deepwater Horizon oil spill, follow-up monitoring of dolphin health in
    the Gulf of Mexico, and work with the International Whaling Commission
    improving humane responses to large whale live stranding events, among
    others.
        There are things that a Federal facility can do that academic and
    nonprofit institutions are less well equipped to handle. An example was
    a mass stranding of pilot whales on the Outer Banks in January 2005.
    Having the direct links in Washington both within NOAA and with other
    relevant Federal agencies was essential for timely information exchange
    as the response and investigation transpired. The area academic and
    State agencies could not have managed that response nearly so well
    without those links.
        Commercial fishermen with whom I served on the Sea Turtle Advisory
    Committee of the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission have
    similarly expressed concern about the possible closure of the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory. As much as they bristle at the regulatory arm of
    NOAA, they appreciate good science on fisheries stocks for framing the
    debates on management decisions. Because of the productive
    collaborations NOAA scientist have formed with commercial fishermen
    over the years, on both commercial fisheries species and protected
    species research, fishers know that NOAA Beaufort Laboratory scientists
    will produce good science with unbiased results, to the extent their
    resources allow. A recent intent to sue by commercial fishing groups
    against the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), North
    Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), and NOAA, seeks to
    require carrying out a stock assessment for sea turtles in North
    Carolina. The eventual outcome of that legal action is of course an
    open question, but if an effective and valid stock assessment of sea
    turtles is to be carried out, it would be nearly impossible without the
    people, expertise, and facilities currently in place at the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory, and trying to create that capacity from scratch
    would be prohibitive.
        With offshore energy exploration and development proposed off of
    the North Carolina coast, both fossil fuels and wind, having a Federal
    marine science laboratory on site will be vital to monitor effects and
    to facilitate responses to adverse events if necessary. This is not the
    time to close down a venerable and vital marine science research
    facility in this area of critical biogeographic and economic
    importance.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Patricia Harms, Morehead City, North Carolina
        The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies:

        The Atlantic ocean off our East Coast is an irreplaceable treasure
    which requires our attention and care. The closure of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in Beaufort,
    North Carolina would be a tragic loss to the vital research it
    contributes on coastal and ocean issues. Please take this proposed
    closure out of the National Ocean Service (NOS) budget.
        I cannot believe siphoning off projects to non-agency scientists
    could have the value we have right here, right now. Do look at the
    quality research that has come from the Beaufort NOAA Laboratory. This
    lab is in an excellent location, the only lab between New Jersey and
    Florida, collaborating with Duke University, North Carolina State, and
    University of North Carolina marine scientists. all of whom have
    facilities in Beaufort and Morehead City. They do work together which
    multiplies their value. With concerns over climate change and sea level
    rise, it would seem of even more importance to support NOAA in its
    present location. Hurricanes and weather related issues are also of
    great concern to our maritime and coastal areas. A number of ventures
    proposed off our coast such as sonic testing, oil exploration, and wind
    turbines will require monitoring of their effects on the ocean and its
    inhabitants. I would expect NOAA to be necessary to these and other
    possible changes in the ocean and in the estuaries
        It is true that we have tourism and beaches, but marine science is
    of great importance to our economy as well. Residents and tourists are
    very attuned to the work of marine scientists in the area. Volunteers
    walk the beaches to spot sea turtle nest sites, our citizens know that
    their observations of the ocean and sea life are important. We also
    have the Aquarium in Pine Knoll Shores, a renowned Maritime Museum in
    Beaufort, the Rachel Carson Reserve, and the Beasley Sea Turtle
    Hospital nearby, which relies on NOAA and other marine science
    institutions here. Both commercial and recreational fishermen also
    depend on NOAA. It has been averred that maintaining the lab would
    require too much in infrastructure costs, but according to more recent
    appraisals this is not the case. There is an 2014 engineering report
    listing improvements that have been made. The loss of the NOAA lab in
    Beaufort would be a serious blow to the area and to the country.
        The NOAA lab in Beaufort should be supported and expanded, not
    removed.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Howard F. Horton, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of
                       Fisheries, Oregon State University
        Dear Senators:

        This letter is to urge you to remove the closure of the Beaufort
    Laboratory in North Carolina from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA's) National Ocean Service's budget request. I have
    had a long association with colleagues in the Beaufort Laboratory and
    consider their work to be essential to protecting and enhancing our
    marine species and their environment in coastal areas nationwide.
        In particular, their pioneering work in developing methods to
    detect the presence of and to assess the impacts of toxic marine algae
    is vital to the production of our marine fauna and for the safety of
    human and other affected birds, fish and animals. This important
    research has application throughout the northern and southern
    hemispheres and is not duplicated elsewhere. To stop this activity
    would be a major setback to our knowledge and management of toxic
    marine algae.
        In addition, the location of the laboratory fosters valuable
    research on sustainable fisheries; conservation of sea turtles,
    dolphins, seagrass estuaries, and offshore reefs; invasive species; and
    changes in climate and sea levels. These studies facilities and support
    research affecting not just North Carolina, but the East and West
    Coasts of the U.S. including Alaska.
        Furthermore, the laboratory provides employment for approximately
    108 scientists and staff to conduct this much needed research and their
    presence contributes over $58 million to the local economy.
        From the standpoint of its unique location, the cadre of excellent
    scientists producing much needed cutting edge science, and their
    contribution toward conserving our natural marine resources, I urge you
    to help support existence of this valuable research facility and its
    associated personnel.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Dr. Donald E. Hoss, Beaufort, North Carolina
        Dear subcommittee members: My name is Don Hoss and I am writing
    this letter to strongly oppose the request by National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Ocean Service (NOS) to close
    the NOAA NOS/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) laboratory in
    Beaufort, North Carolina (NOAA fiscal year budget summary, page 8,
    paragraph 3) because of the long-erm cost of maintaining the facility.
    I was employed at the Beaufort Laboratory from 1958 until my retirement
    in 2002. I spent my last years as Director of the Laboratory, so I am
    familiar with the physical condition of the facility. I also know of
    its importance to the marine science community and the local and
    national community in general. The Beaufort Laboratory is the second
    oldest Federal Fisheries Laboratory in the United States dating to
    1899. It was located at Beaufort because of the unique marine and
    estuarine ecosystem adjacent to the North Carolina coast. It is
    recognized as one of the most respected fisheries laboratories in this
    country, and in countries around the world, for the quality of its
    research on marine issues that affect the economy of sport and
    commercial fisheries, and the health of the marine waters of the United
    States.
        Statements have been made that this ``aging facility'' requires
    infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget.
    Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the Beaufort
    Laboratory is the second oldest Federal fisheries laboratory in the
    country does not mean that it is operating out of a 19th century
    facility. Only two building on the facility dates to the late 1950's
    and it has had many renovations over the years. In 1963 a new two story
    laboratory was built and it was completely renovated in 1993-94. In
    recent years NOAA has invested approximately $14 million in new
    construction and renovations at the laboratory. A new administration
    building has been constructed with space for the North Carolina
    National Estuarine Research Reserve Program. The bridge to Pivers
    Island (cost shared with Duke Marine Laboratory) has been replaced and
    a new chemical storage building has been built. Other improvements
    include air conditioning/air handler replacement and mold abatement as
    well as seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North Carolina
    funded storm water control. An updated engineering report in 2014
    documented that the Beaufort facility is NOT unsound.
        In their closure request the National Ocean Service understated the
    number of Beaufort Laboratory employees that would be affected and the
    effect that it would have on them. They did not account for the more
    than 40 National Marine Fisheries Service staff or the 8 staff members
    of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, located at
    the laboratory.
        The current staffing at the Laboratory is as follows: 70 full-time
    Federal employees (39 National Marine Fisheries and 31 National Ocean
    Service staff); 32.5 contract positions (full and part time); and 6
    North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)
    staff. While the missions of the laboratory have been increased in
    recent years, the budget of the laboratory has decreased by
    approximately 30 percent and the NOS staff has decreased by 45
    positions. NOS States that all full-time employees will be offered
    other positions so that none will lose their jobs due to the closure.
    This is of little comfort to the contract employees, some of whom have
    worked at the facility for over 10 years. It is also not true (based on
    past experience) that all of the permanent employees will be able to
    move to other locations (due to various family matters) and, therefore,
    they will lose their jobs.
        It is ironic that while the National Ocean Service, NOAA is calling
    for the closure of one of the most respected NOAA scientific
    laboratories in the country it is, at the same time, requesting an
    increase of $4 million to another center (located in a more expensive
    region and in a non coastal area) to support the same type of research
    in which the Beaufort Laboratory is a recognized leader (see budget
    summary, page 8, paragraph 1).
        In its 100 plus years the Beaufort Laboratory has established an
    extraordinary record for scientific excellence in its research in
    critical problems related to the public concern for coastal and ocean
    issues. This includes, but is not limited to, fisheries stock
    assessment (i.e. reef fish and menhaden), species distribution and life
    history, hypoxia, marine mammals and sea turtles, critical habitat
    evaluation, pollution effects (including oil spills) and harmful algal
    blooms to name a few.
        NOAA has repeatedly recognized the laboratory, research teams and
    individual researchers for the outstanding quality of their work. It is
    hard to understand why NOAA would request an increase in funding for
    research in many of the above areas in fiscal year 2015 and then
    propose to close the Beaufort Laboratory, the very laboratory best
    positioned to do this research.
        I urge you to reject the proposed closure of the NOAA Beaufort
    Laboratory. Should you have additional questions I would be more than
    happy to address them.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Innocence Project
        On behalf of the Innocence Project, thank you for allowing me to
    submit testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies as it considers budget requests
    for fiscal year 2015, and thank you for the subcommittee's support of
    innocence and forensic science research programs in fiscal year 2014. I
    write to request fiscal year 2015 funding for the following programs,
    please:
      --$4 million for the Wrongful Conviction Review and Capital
            Litigation Improvement Programs (the Wrongful Conviction Review
            Program is a part of the Capital Litigation Improvement
            Program), at the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice
            Assistance;
      --$4 million for the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing
            Program (the ``Bloodsworth Program'') at the DOJ, National
            Institute of Justice (NIJ);
      --$12 million for the Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement
            Grant Program (the ``Coverdell Program'') at the NIJ;
      --$6 million for the Department of Justice to support the National
            Commission on Forensic Science; research at the National
            Institute of Justice; and related forensic science standards
            setting activities at the National Institute of Standards and
            Technology (NIST);
      --$11 million for NIST to support forensic science research and
            measurement science.
        Freeing innocent individuals and preventing wrongful convictions
    through reform greatly benefits public safety. Every time DNA
    identifies a wrongful conviction, it enables the identification of the
    real perpetrator of those crimes. True perpetrators have been
    identified in approximately half of the over 300 DNA exoneration cases.
    Unfortunately, many of these real perpetrators had gone on to commit
    additional crimes while an innocent person was convicted and
    incarcerated in their place.
        To date, 316 individuals in the United States have been exonerated
    through DNA testing, including 18 who served time on death row. These
    innocents served on average more than 13 years in prison before
    exoneration and release. However, I want to underscore the value of
    Federal innocence programs not to just these exonerated individuals,
    but also to public safety, fairness, and achieving true justice for
    victims of violent crimes. It is important to fund these critical
    innocence programs because reforms and procedures that help to prevent
    wrongful convictions enhance the accuracy of criminal investigations,
    strengthen criminal prosecutions, and result in a stronger, fairer
    system of justice that provides true justice to victims of crime.
                       wrongful conviction review program
        Particularly when DNA is not available, or when DNA alone is not
    enough to prove innocence, proving one's innocence to a level
    sufficient for exoneration is difficult compared to ``simply'' proving
    the same with DNA evidence. Innocents languishing behind bars require
    expert representation to help navigate the complex issues that
    invariably arise in their bids for post-conviction relief. And the need
    for such representation is enormous when only a small fraction of cases
    involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. (For example,
    it is estimated that among murders, only 10 percent of cases have the
    kind of evidence that could be DNA tested.) Realizing the imperative
    presented by such cases, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
    dedicated part of its Capital Litigation Improvement Program funding to
    create the Wrongful Conviction Review program.\1\ The program provides
    applicants--non-profit organizations and public defender offices
    dedicated to exonerating the innocent--with funds for providing high
    quality and efficient representation for potentially wrongfully
    convicted defendants in post-conviction claims of innocence. The
    program's goals, in addition to exonerating the innocent, are
    significant: to alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice system
    through costly and prolonged post-conviction litigation and to
    identify, whenever possible, the actual perpetrator of the crime.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong.,
    1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office
    of Justice Programs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Numerous local innocence projects have enhanced their caseloads and
    representation of innocents as a result of the Wrongful Conviction
    Review grant program, including those in Florida, Ohio, and in North
    Carolina at Duke University School of Law. The Reinvestigation Project,
    run through the Office of the Appellate Defender in New York, used
    funding that led to the exonerations of Latisha Johnson and Malisha
    Blyden and the identification of one of the real perpetrators. The
    Arizona Justice Project recently exonerated four innocent Arizonians
    who had served over a combined 100 years. The Exoneration Initiative in
    New York, cleared a backlog of hundreds of cases which allowed them to
    secure three exonerations and provided critical support that led to two
    other exonerations. The grant also helped California Innocence Project
    (CIP) free Daniel Larsen after 13 years in prison, and helped Hawaii
    Innocence Project recently secure the release of the first Native
    Hawaiian exonerated by DNA testing.
        To help continue this important work, we urge you to please provide
    a total of $4 million for the Wrongful Conviction Review and the
    Capital Litigation Improvement Programs to help bring them to parity
    with the critical Bloodsworth Program, that focuses on post-conviction
    DNA testing and cases. (The Wrongful Conviction Review Program is a
    part of the Capital Litigation Improvement Program.)
                            the bloodsworth program
        The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to innocent inmates who might
    otherwise have none by helping States more actively pursue post-
    conviction DNA testing in appropriate situations. These funds have led
    to great success, and many organizational members of the national
    Innocence Network have partnered with State agencies that have received
    Bloodsworth funding.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Innocence Network is an affiliation of organizations
    dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to
    individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have
    been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful
    convictions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth Program does not fund the work of organizations in
    the Innocence Network directly, but State applicants which seek support
    for a range of entities involved in settling innocence claims,
    including law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories, and a host of
    others--often in collaboration with each other, and with Innocence
    Network organizations. For example, a Bloodsworth grant allowed the
    Arizona Attorney General's Office to partner with the Arizona Justice
    Project to canvass the Arizona inmate population, review cases, locate
    evidence and file joint requests with the court to have evidence
    released for DNA testing. In addition to identifying the innocent,
    Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has noted that the ``grant
    enable[d] [his] office to support local prosecutors and ensure that
    those who have committed violent crimes are identified and behind
    bars.'' \3\ Such joint efforts have also been pursued in Connecticut,
    Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://
    community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-Federal-DNA-grant.htm
    (last visited Mar. 13, 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth program is a relatively small yet powerful
    investment for States seeking to free innocent people who were
    erroneously convicted and to identify the true perpetrators of crime.
    The program has resulted in the exonerations of 22 wrongfully convicted
    persons in 10 States, and the true perpetrator was identified in 8 of
    those cases. We ask that you please provide $4 million to continue the
    work of the Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program.
                             the coverdell program
        Recognizing the need for independent government investigations in
    the wake of forensic scandals, Congress created the forensic oversight
    provisions of the Coverdell Program, a crucial step toward ensuring the
    integrity of forensic evidence. Specifically, in the Justice for All
    Act, Congress required that

            [t]o request a grant under this subchapter, a State or unit of
            local government shall submit to the Attorney General . . . a
            certification that a government entity exists and an
            appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external
            investigations into allegations of serious negligence or
            misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the
            forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any
            forensic laboratory system, medical examiner's office,
            coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility, or medical
            facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant
            amount.\4\

        The Coverdell Program provides State and local crime labs and other
    forensic facilities with much needed funding to efficiently and
    effectively carry out their work. As forensic science budgets find
    themselves on the chopping block in States and localities, the survival
    of many crime labs may depend on Coverdell funds. To both support crime
    labs and help ensure the integrity of forensic investigations in the
    wake of allegations of negligence or misconduct, we ask that you please
    provide $12 million for the Coverdell Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3797k(4) (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          forensic science improvement
        To continue the critical work to improve forensic science, and help
    prevent wrongful convictions, we request:
      --$6 million for the Department of Justice, including:
        --$1 million for the DOJ-NIST National Commission on Forensic
                Science to continue its work.
        --$2 million for the National Institute of Justice to conduct
                laboratory efficiency and implementation research in this
                area.
        --$3 million to go to NIST to support technical standards
                development in forensic science through the proposed
                Organization of Scientific Area Committees.
      --$11 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
            (NIST) at the Department of Commerce. As the sole entity that
            is both perfectly positioned and capable of conducting
            measurement science and foundational research in support of
            forensic science, NIST's work will improve the validity and
            reliability of forensic evidence, a need cited by the National
            Academy of Sciences 2009 report, ``Strengthening Forensic
            Science in the United States: A Path Forward.'' NIST's
            reputation for innovation will result in technolgical solutions
            to advance forensic science applications and achieve a
            tremendous cost savings by reducing court costs posed by
            litigating scientific evidence and redirecting resources to
            identifiying the true perpetrators of crime.
         additional note on the department of justice's budget requests
        DOJ's fiscal year 2015 budget proposal, as it has in past years,
    would defund the Coverdell and Bloodsworth Programs. Zeroing out these
    programs would negatively impact the State requirements and incentives
    to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure the integrity of evidence,
    which have been critical to the advancement of State policies to
    prevent wrongful convictions. Coverdell forensic oversight requirements
    have created State entities and processes for ensuring the integrity of
    forensic evidence in the wake of scandal and are essential to ensuring
    the integrity of forensic evidence in the wake of identified acts of
    negligence or misconduct. Innocence Project recommends that Congress
    fund these two programs by name, in order to preserve their important
    incentive and performance requirements, and to help to achieve their
    goals of providing access to post-conviction DNA testing and supporting
    State and local crime labs that process a significant amount of
    forensic evidence, helping to ensure public safety.
        Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these
    important programs, and the opportunity to submit testimony. We look
    forward to working with the subcommittee this year.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
                              interest of the ime
        IME is a nonprofit association founded over century ago to provide
    accurate information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the
    safety and security of commercial explosive materials. IME represents
    U.S. manufacturers, distributors and motor carriers of commercial
    explosive materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that
    provide related services. The majority of IME members are ``small
    businesses'' as determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
        Millions of metric tons of high explosives, blasting agents, and
    oxidizers are consumed annually in the United States. IME member
    companies produce 99 percent of these commodities. These products are
    used in every State and are distributed worldwide. The ability to
    manufacture, distribute and use these products safely and securely is
    critical to this industry.
        Commercial explosives are highly regulated by a myriad of Federal
    and State agencies. ATF plays a predominant role in assuring that
    explosives are identified, tracked, purchased, and stored only by
    authorized persons. We offer the following comments to give perspective
    about the need to ensure that ATF has sufficient funds to carry out its
    mission to ensure that commercial explosives are not misappropriated
    for criminal or terrorist purposes.
                      atf's explosives regulatory program
        The administration's fiscal year 2015 budget request envisions a
    current services appropriation for explosives industry operations. We
    understand the current pressure to reduce the Federal budget deficit
    and the shared sacrifice that all segments of the Government are being
    asked to make to help the economy recover. We also understand the
    public attention to other programmatic responsibilities of ATF, and the
    attendant pressure to divert resources to these responsibilities.
    However, the success of the Bureau's explosives industry programs in
    preventing the misappropriation of commercial explosives should not be
    used against us. ATF needs to retain a cadre of trained personnel to
    perform services needed by our industry. The commerce of explosives is
    so closely regulated that failure to provide adequate personnel and
    resources hurts our industry, our customers, and the U.S. economy.
        By law, ATF must inspect over 11,000 explosives licensees and
    permittees at least once every 3 years and conduct background checks of
    so-called ``employee possessors'' of explosives and ``responsible
    persons.'' \1\ ATF estimates that the requirement to inspect 100%of the
    licensees and permittees within their 3-year license/permit cycle
    consumes between 25 percent and 41 percent of available inspector
    resources per year.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal year 2015 ATF Budget Submission, page 15.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, ATF's fiscal year 2015 budget submission does not
    provide retrospective workload indicators such as the number of
    compliance inspections that were accomplished, the number of public
    safety violations, and what those violations were in fiscal year 2013.
    This data have been provided in prior budget submissions. In fiscal
    year 2014, ATF reported that, during fiscal year 2012, it:
      --Conducted 5,390 explosives licensee and permittee compliance
            inspections that identified and corrected 1,528 public safety
            violations;
      --Completed 1,249 Federal Explosive License (FEL) applicant
            inspections;
      --Processed 4,222 FEL applications (new & renewal);
      --Completed 77,965 explosives employee/possessor background checks;
            and
      --Completed 12,188 explosives responsible persons background
            checks.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fiscal year 2014 ATF Budget Submission, page 26.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are certain that the subcommittee appreciates the need for
    annual reporting of these workload indicators to establish trend-lines
    that may point to new resource needs or reallocation and whether or not
    new safety concerns are being recognized. For example, we are very
    interested in understanding what public safety violations were found in
    past inspections. This data helps us to determine whether we need to
    enhance our industry best practices. Looking at ATF's fiscal year 2013
    and 2014 budget submissions, the Bureau identified 1,392 public safety
    violations during fiscal year 2011,\3\ and, as noted above, during
    fiscal year 2012, this number rose to 1,528. The subcommittee should
    direct ATF to consistently report this data in future budget
    submissions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Fiscal year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATF did report that, in 2011, it met its statutory responsibilities
    95.8 percent of the time, and in 2012, 105.7 percent of the time.
    However, in 2013, this performance rate fell to 88.2 percent. With the
    budget agreement enacted earlier this year, ATF estimates that its
    productivity will increase to 92 percent in 2014 and has set a target
    of 94 percent in 2015, which, while it represents an improvement over
    the 2013 number, is still not optimum.\4\ When ATF is unable to meet
    its responsibilities, there are adverse impacts on our industry.
    Without approved licenses and permits from ATF, our industry cannot
    conduct business. Delays in servicing our needs may lead to disruptions
    in other segments of the economy that are dependent on the products and
    materials we provide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Fiscal year 2015 ATF Budget Submission, page 18.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One key workload indicator is the number of background checks
    performed. One component of this investigation is determining whether
    any of our employees have terrorist ties. To make that determination,
    ATF submits names to the FBI to be run against the Terrorist Screening
    Database (TSDB). Currently, ATF does not follow the common practice of
    other Federal agencies with vetting programs that re-vet names at will.
    Rather, the agency runs the names in association with applications for
    new or renewal of ``FELs'' or Federal explosives permits. Because ATF
    does not re-vet names when information on the TSDB changes, ATF's
    program is not deemed equivalent to the vetting and clearance
    procedures used by other agencies. Harmonizing ATF's procedures with
    those used by these other programs will allow ATF's vetting program to
    be reciprocally recognized by these programs. This outcome would add
    intelligence value to all Government vetting programs sharing the same
    platform, and provide savings to the Federal Government and the
    regulated community. We urge the subcommittee to encourage ATF to
    enhance its vetting procedures.
        As the subcommittee considers ATF's budget request, we ask that the
    Bureau's ability to perform its regulatory oversight of the explosives
    industry in a timely fashion not be compromised in the push for fiscal
    discipline and that it be given the resources to preform to current
    state-of-the-art oversight practices.
                           atf's regulatory workload
        Since 2003 when ATF was transferred to the Department of Justice,
    the agency has issued eight rulemakings of importance to IME, including
    two which were interim final rules. It has finalized three, withdrawn
    two, merged two, and docketed but not published three. Of the four
    rulemakings still pending, one is an interim final rule which dates to
    2003. In the absence of a process to ensure timely rulemaking that is
    capable of keeping up with new developments and safety practices,
    industry must rely on interpretive guidance and variances based on
    outdated requirements in order to conduct business. While we greatly
    appreciate ATF's accommodations, these stop-gap measures do not afford
    the surety, continuity and protections that rulemaking would provide
    the regulated community, nor do they allow the oversight necessary to
    ensure that all parties are being held to the same standard of
    compliance. These regulatory tasks are critical to the lawful conduct
    of the commercial enterprises that the Bureau controls. ATF should be
    provided the resources needed to make timely progress in this area.
        ATF is also a key member of the Interagency Working Group (IWG)
    convened under Executive Order (EO) 13650.\5\ The EO tasked the IWG
    with identifying options to improve chemical security and safety after
    the tragic accidental explosion in West, TX as well as other recent
    industrial chemical accidents. Earlier this year, the IWG presented
    options for stakeholder comment.\6\ Among these options, several
    pertain to ATF.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/01/
    executive-order-improving-chemical-facility-safety-and-security.
        \6\ https://www.osha.gov/chemicalexecutiveorder/
    Section_6ai_Options_List.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --ATF asks whether it should close the regulatory gap surrounding
            black and smokeless powder. An examination of information from
            the Bomb Data Center (BDC) on the type and frequency of fillers
            used in bombings and attempted bombings supports closing this
            regulatory gap. It makes little sense to impose stringent
            controls on the explosives industry only to allow a consumer
            exemption that can be exploited by those with criminal or
            terrorist intent.
      --The IWG also asks about updating its regulatory requirements for
            physical security at magazines. IME supports ATF's
            consideration of the adequacy of current locking standards,\7\
            and supports the development of a rule on magazine key control.
            IME is ready to assist in any other research projects to help
            achieve our common goal of ensuring magazine integrity and
            security.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ A study on this topic was conducted by an IME member company,
    and the results were reported at an IME meeting where ATF officials
    were in attendance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The EO also directs ATF to determine the feasibility of sharing
            information with States and localities. While we oppose the
            sharing of security-sensitive information about explosives in
            public forums, we do support enhancing communications with
            local emergency responders. Specifically, we support annual FEL
            reporting to local fire safety authorities of the type,
            capacity, and location of magazines where explosives are
            stored. Current rules require a one-time notification.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 27 CFR 555.210(f).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Each of these options, if pursued, would add to ATF's regulatory
    workload. ATF should have the resources to keep its regulations up to
    date.
                            atf-industry partnership
        The BDC is the sole repository for explosives-related incident
    data, and contains information on thousands of explosives incidents
    investigated by ATF and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement
    agencies. While this data helps government entities to perform trend
    analysis and to compare incidents for similarities and crime
    methodologies, BDC data also helps our efforts to refresh and update
    best practice recommendations. Until 2006, this data was routinely
    provided to industry stakeholders. We are pleased that after an 8-year
    hiatus, ATF has again provided the regulated community with key data on
    bomb and improvised device fillers, as well as information on thefts,
    losses and recoveries categorized by the type and amount of explosives
    involved. The data also indicates the point in the supply chain where
    the reported thefts and losses occurred. ATF has committed to releasing
    this data on an annual basis and it needs the resources to continue
    this important service.
        Explosives manufacturers and importers are required to mark
    products with codes to aid domestic and foreign law enforcement
    agencies in tracing these materials if they are lost or stolen.
    Explosives manufacturers and importers and others in the global supply
    chain cooperate in tracing efforts. However, various government
    entities are imposing their own unique system of identification marks
    without reciprocally recognizing each other's marks. These redundant
    and competing marks are creating non-tariff barriers to trade. We have
    petitioned the United Nations to help develop a harmonized marking
    scheme and expect this issue to be considered by the international
    community at meetings in July 2014. We have asked ATF to join with us
    in working to harmonize a global marking standard.
        Since 2003, ATF, with our support, has required background checks
    of persons authorized to possess explosives. While, as noted above,
    this background check includes vetting against the TSDB, being named on
    the database does not disqualify individuals from possessing
    explosives. We think this is an oversight. The late-Senator Frank
    Lautenberg and Representative Peter King introduced legislation, S. 34
    and H.R. 720, respectively, to close this glaring security gap in the
    Federal explosives law. This legislative change, advocated by both
    Presidents Bush and Obama, will better harmonize the vetting and
    clearance procedures used by the ATF with other government agencies
    that perform security threat assessments of individuals seeking to
    engage in security-sensitive activities. As these standards are
    harmonized, opportunities to leverage other vetting programs and
    security credentials increase. This outcome would add intelligence
    value to all government vetting programs sharing the same platform, and
    provide savings to the Federal Government and the regulated community.
        Each of these collaborative initiatives requires resources. We
    request that ATF be given the requisite funds to advance these
    initiatives.
                               industry standards
        We take seriously the statutory obligation that ATF take into
    account industry's standards of safety when issuing rules and
    requirements.\9\ We continue to fulfill this obligation through our
    development of industry best practices for safety and security,
    membership in relevant standard-setting organizations, and active
    participation in forums for training. We have offered to ATF
    recommendations that we believe will enhance safety and security
    through our participation in the rulemaking process, in the Bureau's
    important research efforts, and in other standard-setting activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In this regard, IME has spent years developing a credible
    alternative to strict interpretation of quantity distance tables used
    to determine explosives setback distances. IME continues to collaborate
    in this effort with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
    as well as Canadian and U.S. regulatory agencies, including ATF. The
    result is a windows-based computer model for assessing the risk from a
    variety of commercial explosives activities called IMESAFR.\10\ ATF and
    other regulatory agencies recognize the value of IMESAFR and have
    participated in development meetings for Version 2.0. ATF is also
    evaluating existing licensed locations with this risk-based approach
    and has agreed to accept variance requests based on IMESAFR
    evaluations. These efforts are vital if ATF is to remain at the
    forefront of technologies designed to safeguard the public. We strongly
    encourage ATF's continued support of this project. The benefits of
    risk-based modeling should continue to be recognized by ATF and
    resources should be provided to develop policies that allow the use of
    such models to meet regulatory mandates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ IMESAFR was built on the DDESB's software model, SAFER. The
    DDESB currently uses SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or
    disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities. Not only can
    IMESAFR determine the amount of risk presented, but it can also
    determine what factors drive the overall risk and what actions would
    lower risk, if necessary. The probability of events for the activities
    were based on the last 20 years of experience in the U.S. and Canada
    and can be adjusted to account for different explosive sensitivities,
    additional security threats, and other factors that increase or
    decrease the base value.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with
    a remarkable degree of safety and security. We recognize the critical
    role ATF plays in helping our industry achieve and maintain safe and
    secure workplaces. Industry and the public are dependent on ATF having
    adequate resources to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. It is up
    to Congress and, in particular, this subcommittee to ensure that ATF
    has the resources it needs. We strongly recommend full funding for
    ATF's explosives program.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Daniel Jensen, Morehead City, North Carolina
        I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
    Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
    Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
    National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
    (NERR).
        I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
    removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
    from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
    maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
    explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
    employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
    budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
    completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
    replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
    replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
    to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
    approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
    (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
        Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
    stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
    known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
    science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
    menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
    hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
    repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
    Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
    completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
    due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
    of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
    (CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
    Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
    fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
    the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
        Specific items of note from each line office include:
                                      nmfs
    Stock Assessment Science
      --The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
            that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
            United States.

        The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
    focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
    economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
    and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
    Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
    Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
    cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
    tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
    and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
    menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
    menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
    combined value of $127.7 million.
    Fishery-Independent Surveys
      --Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
            stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
            gears and methodologies.

        The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
    NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
    distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
    species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
    Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
    determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
    abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
    The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
    fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
    Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
    middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
    and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
    to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
    the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
    resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
                                      nerr
        Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
    for the Reserve:

      --North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
            Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
            Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
      --In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . .  $5,000,000 for the
            Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
            facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
            facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
            Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
            107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
            million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
            joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
            mission.
      --The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
            specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
            auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
            and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
            workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
            Education Program activities.
      --The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
            Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
            essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
            conduct mission-critical programming including educational
            programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
            programs, and stewardship of the site including species
            monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
            access point maintenance.
    Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
                Education
                      K-12 field trips
                  --177 educational programs
                  --4947 participants
                      Teacher workshops
                  --28 teacher workshops
                  --412 participants
                      Summer camps
                  --109 camp sessions
                  --921 participants
                      Summer public field trips
                  --96 field trips
                  --1123 participants
                Stewardship
                      Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
                  --1170 volunteers
                  --2873 volunteer hours
                      Site management
                  -- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
                which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
                proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
                waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
                NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
                Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
                perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
                management.
                Research
                      Research permits
                  -- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
                the Rachel Carson Reserve
                      Water quality monitoring
                  -- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
                Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
                National Park Service
                Coastal Training Program
                      Coastal Training Program workshops
                  --31 workshops
                  --1076 participants
                                      nos
        NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
    the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
    that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
    Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
    Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
    the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
    for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
    Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
    and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
    damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
    publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
    expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
    University partners to educate the public about the real facts
    concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
    have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
    Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
    occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
    anxiety regarding seafood safety.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
    poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
    of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
    used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
    order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
    employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
    Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
    close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Nancy Jensen, Morehead City, North Carolina
        I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
    Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
    Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
    National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
    (NERR).
        I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
    removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
    from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
    maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
    explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
    employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
    budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
    completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
    replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
    replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
    to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
    approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
    (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
        Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
    stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
    known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
    science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
    menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
    hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
    repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
    Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
    completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
    due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
    of Marine Fisheries, the Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
    (CMAST), and the Institute of Marine Science. The NOAA Beaufort
    Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science informing
    fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is currently
    the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami, Florida.
        Specific items of note from each line office include:
                                      nmfs
    Stock Assessment Science
      --The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
            that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
            United States.

        The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
    focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
    economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
    and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
    Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
    Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
    cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
    tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
    and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
    menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
    menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
    combined value of $127.7 million.
    Fishery-Independent Surveys
      --Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
            stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
            gears and methodologies.

        The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
    NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
    distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
    species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
    Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
    determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
    abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
    The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
    fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
    Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
    middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
    and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
    to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
    the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
    resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
                                      nerr
        Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
    for the Reserve:

      --North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
            Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
            Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
      --In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . .  $5,000,000 for the
            Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
            facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
            facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
            Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
            107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
            million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
            joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
            mission.
      --The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
            specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
            auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
            and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
            workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
            Education Program activities.
      --The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
            Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
            essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
            conduct mission-critical programming including educational
            programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
            programs, and stewardship of the site including species
            monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
            access point maintenance.
    Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
                Education
                      K-12 field trips
                  -- 177 educational programs
                  -- 4947 participants
                      Teacher workshops
                  -- 28 teacher workshops
                  -- 412 participants
                      Summer camps
                  -- 109 camp sessions
                  -- 921 participants
                      Summer public field trips
                  -- 96 field trips
                  -- 1123 participants
                Stewardship
                      Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
                  -- 1170 volunteers
                  -- 2873 volunteer hours
                      Site management
                  -- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
                which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
                proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
                waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
                NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
                Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
                perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
                management.
                Research
                      Research permits
                  -- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
                the Rachel Carson Reserve
                      Water quality monitoring
                  -- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
                Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
                National Park Service
                Coastal Training Program
                      Coastal Training Program workshops
                  -- 31 workshops
                  -- 1076 participants
                                      nos
        NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
    the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
    that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
    Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
    Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
    the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
    for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
    Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
    and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
    damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
    publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
    expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
    University partners to educate the public about the real facts
    concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
    have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
    Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
    occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
    anxiety regarding seafood safety.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
    poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
    of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
    used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
    order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
    employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
    Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
    close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Dr. David F. Johnson, Former Director of the NOAA
                         Beaufort Laboratory (Retired)
        Testimony.--My statement is submitted in strong and direct
    opposition to the closure of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) marine science laboratory located in Beaufort,
    North Carolina, as is presently proposed in the President's fiscal year
    2015 Budget for:

      --NOAA
      --National Ocean Service (NOS)
      --Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration:
        --National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), (NOAA Blue
                Book, page 8), the cost is not specified in the Budget
                document.

        The recommendation to close this laboratory is based on dated and
    faulty information, and has not been well justified in the
    administration's budget. I respectfully request this subcommittee to
    consider:

      --directing NOAA's National Ocean Service to withdraw the request for
            closure of the Beaufort Laboratory, and
      --prevent the National Ocean Service from withdrawing support,
            leading to an operational failure of the Laboratory.

        The balance of my statement will provide greater detail and
    justification for this position.
        The Beaufort Laboratory (the formal name is the NOAA, NOS, Center
    for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research located in Beaufort, North
    Carolina) is the second oldest Federal marine laboratory in the U.S.,
    founded in 1899. This national laboratory is a prime location for
    marine science and provides the only Federal access to the most diverse
    marine ecosystem in the U.S. Within a short distance of the Beaufort
    Laboratory, ecological communities can be accessed which represent the
    northern extent of southern species and the southern extent of northern
    species. Offshore and adjacent to the Gulf Stream are reef communities
    representative of tropical environments. This location provides access
    to a ready supply of clean, high salinity, seawater which is so
    essential to marine cultures. In addition, this location provides ship
    access through a deep water inlet. I submit this location is an asset
    which should not be abandoned by NOAA.
        In the budget request, the National Ocean Service proposes ``to
    reduce its physical footprint and fixed costs by closing the Beaufort
    North Carolina laboratory''. A NOAA spokeswoman in Maryland, Ciaran
    Clayton (Director of Communications and External Affairs), was quoted
    in our local newspaper: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure
    repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources. . . .'' In
    subsequent discussions and clarifications for this budget, it seems
    this argument forms the basis for the requested closure. This argument
    is based on outdated information. A recent engineering survey indicates
    some previously reported structural concerns were minor and easily
    addressed without major cost. Please also be informed NOAA has been
    slowly upgrading the facility. In recent years, NOAA has provided
    approximately $14.5 million in infrastructure improvements, including
    three new buildings and a new bridge. In fact, NOAA just initiated a
    new construction project at the Beaufort Laboratory with more than a
    million dollars in funding. Under these present circumstances, closure
    would be a waste of recent Federal funding.
        The proposal for closure was revealed to the Laboratory's partners
    and public with the release of the President's budget for 2015. This
    was a surprise to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NERRS
    and contract partners using the facility, and the many State and
    academic partners involved in joint scientific efforts. I am unaware of
    formal efforts to evaluate the costs and impacts of such a closure on
    these many partner organizations. The loss of the ongoing activities at
    the Laboratory and the disruption to partner activities will have
    effects which will ripple across numerous agencies and programs. This
    lack of evaluation seems programmatically and scientifically
    irresponsible.
        The Beaufort Laboratory has a long and extraordinary record for
    scientific excellence. The laboratory employs a number of
    internationally and nationally known scientists, who are providing
    support essential to international, U.S., and North Carolina issues.
    Without this ongoing support, NOAA programs like Harmful Algal Blooms,
    ecosystem forecasting and invasive species (lionfish) will be severely
    impacted. NMFS programs which, among others, represent management and
    recovery of key commercial species (snapper, grouper, menhaden) will be
    disrupted. The pioneering and essential work of these research teams
    (composed of leading scientists, junior scientists, technicians and
    essential support staff) will be terminated with the dissolution or
    dispersal of the teams. I am unaware of any NOAA efforts to evaluate
    the impacts to the many scientific programs through the loss of this
    scientific prestige.
        The local community will be severely impacted. The laboratory
    provides jobs for 108 people who include not only NOAA, but also State
    and private partners. Beaufort is a small community which would be
    heavily impacted by the economic losses associated with these jobs, and
    those of related family members. I am unaware of any analysis of the
    economic impacts to the community.
        The large Government investment in scientific equipment would be
    underutilized or wasted. The laboratory contains a large and diverse
    array of scientific equipment which cannot be maintained or effectively
    used with closure, or the loss of highly specialized support staff. I
    am unaware of any evaluation of the disposition of this equipment and
    the support requirements.
        The cost to provide laboratory and office space at Beaufort is
    cheaper than most areas of the United States. With tightening budgets,
    it would seem to make more sense to relocate employees to Beaufort.
    From this location, NOAA scientists would have access to facilities,
    equipment and ecosystems which are unavailable where many NOAA
    scientists are presently located.
        In summary, this proposal is ill conceived and not supported by any
    reasonable evaluation of the circumstances. I urge your subcommittee to
    oppose the closure of the Beaufort Laboratory.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and other distinguished
    Members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies, we thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
    regarding the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill.
        The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a collaborative, bipartisan
    effort to catalyze ocean policy reform, urges incremental but
    significant increases for programs necessary to understand, protect,
    and restore our oceans and coasts, so vital to our Nation's economy and
    security. In particular we ask you to continue the progress made in the
    President's fiscal year 2015 budget request and provide $5.6 billion
    for NOAA to protect those core programs that sustain our oceans.
        We greatly appreciate your strong support of ocean and coastal
    issues over many years, and we understand the difficult choices made
    each year regarding scarce resources to address critically important
    issues under your jurisdiction. Our written testimony covers the
    following issues: coastal resilience; ocean observations; ocean
    acidification; STEM consolidation; ocean exploration; science,
    research, and education; and the Arctic.
                               coastal resilience
        The Joint Initiative strongly supports the Regional Coastal
    Resilience Grant program in NOAA's fiscal year 2015 budget, and we ask
    that you consider funding this program at $10 million, a $5 million
    increase from the President's fiscal year 2015 proposal. This program
    can provide competitive funding to support multi-State regional ocean
    partnerships that coordinate data sharing and decisionmaking across
    jurisdictions, implement innovative solutions to shared priorities, and
    effectively engage ocean and coastal stakeholders.
        These partnerships are critical as coastal States and communities
    confront challenges such as ocean acidification, sea level rise,
    growing ocean uses, burgeoning populations, and increasing threats from
    extreme weather events. Resilient coastal communities are not only able
    to minimize loss and negative impacts to life, property, and the
    coastal ecosystem, they are also able to quickly return residents to
    productive activities and restore essential services. This is
    imperative to facilitating full and timely economic, social, and
    environmental recovery. Recognizing the importance of regional
    solutions, Governors have already joined together to share information
    and coordinate with Federal agencies, businesses, nongovernmental
    organizations, and local governments to better adapt to changes
    underway in our oceans and on our coasts.
        Funding the Regional Coastal Resilience Grant program at $10
    million will still only address a small fraction of the demand, but it
    will enable partnerships to more efficiently apply limited resources to
    ensure the health of our oceans and coasts.
                          sustained ocean observations
        Sustained observations are vitally important to ensure coastal
    communities have the information necessary to increase overall
    resiliency. NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
    funds global observing programs, including floats, drifters, and fixed
    moorings to provide information essential for accurate forecasting of
    hurricanes, typhoons, rivers and associated flooding, heat waves, and
    wildfires.
        Funding NOAA's Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring program
    at $41.3 million will help maintain the continuity of long-term data
    sets that are essential for ensuring that communities are able to
    respond and adapt to today's changing world.
                              ocean acidification
        The Joint Initiative encourages you, at a minimum, to include the
    $8.8 million increase in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
    request for Integrated Ocean Acidification, bringing the total funding
    level to $15 million.
        As oceans become more acidic, there is an urgent need to understand
    the chemistry, variability, and impact of acidification on the marine
    environment. Ocean acidification is happening along every shoreline in
    the United States. In the Pacific Northwest, it is killing young
    oysters by the billions, threatening the shellfish industry. In 2011,
    the State of Washington convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean
    Acidification, which identified gaps in scientific knowledge and
    recommended strategies to mitigate immediate threats and improve
    industry resilience. While shellfish and coral reefs receive most of
    the attention related to ocean acidification, fisheries, aquaculture,
    and coastal ecosystems around the Nation will be greatly affected.
        While ocean acidification is a global problem needing global
    solutions, funding the Integrated Ocean Acidification program at NOAA
    at increased levels will allow us to measure and assess the emerging
    threat of ocean acidification, better understand the complex dynamics
    causing and exacerbating it, work to determine its impact, and develop
    mechanisms to address the problem.
                               stem consolidation
        The Joint Initiative is deeply alarmed by the major restructuring
    in the administration's proposal that would consolidate science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs, including the
    elimination of funding for ocean education programs in NOAA. We
    appreciate your thoughtful response to the STEM consolidation proposal
    in the fiscal year 2014 Omnibus Appropriations report, noting that the
    proposal ``failed to sufficiently recognize or support a number of
    proven, successful programs.'' We believe NOAA education programs--
    specifically the NOAA Competitive Education Grants Program, Ocean
    Exploration and Research education, and Sea Grant STEM education
    activities including all State Sea Grant Program STEM activities-- fall
    into this category.
        By eliminating key ocean education programs at NOAA, we are
    concerned that ocean science content may be lost in the proposed
    consolidation, as it is not traditionally viewed as a ``core science.''
    In addition, removing education programs from mission-driven agencies
    such as NOAA, where research is sponsored and conducted, will isolate
    scientific research and its results from ocean education efforts.
    Educating and cultivating current and future ocean stewards is
    critical, especially given the tremendous growth in careers that
    require ocean-related education and knowledge. A recent report by the
    statutorily-created Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) forecast a
    need for approximately one million more college graduates than
    currently estimated in STEM fields over the next decade. This report
    underscores the need for a STEM literate, and ocean literate, workforce
    to fill positions in commerce, energy, transportation, food production,
    national security, recreation, and tourism.
        The Joint Initiative strongly urges you to fund NOAA education
    programs at increased levels.
                               ocean exploration
        The Joint Initiative appreciates your long standing support of
    ocean exploration at NOAA and requests that you provide $30 million for
    the Ocean Exploration program to increase the pace, scope, and
    efficiency of exploration.
        A bipartisan effort since inception, the Ocean Exploration program
    was strongly endorsed by Congress when created in 2002. The program has
    greatly contributed to our knowledge of the ocean, including Arctic
    surveys that enabled the U.S. to argue for an extension of our
    Exclusive Economic Zone; baseline characterization of the Deepwater
    Horizon site in the Gulf before and after the oil spill; discovery of
    new gas hydrates stretching from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras, with
    implications for ocean acidification; and new fishery habitat maps off
    the Northeast.
                        science, research, and education
        The Joint Initiative calls attention to the need for consistent and
    dedicated funding for ocean science, research, and education. We ask
    you to increase funding for ocean science research, infrastructure, and
    grant programs at NOAA, National Science Foundation (NSF), and National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that are working to improve
    our understanding of critical physical and biological ocean processes.
    These programs provide local, State, and national decision makers with
    the information they need to make informed decisions.
        In particular, we encourage you to provide $7.5 billion for the NSF
    to support core ocean and coastal research and research infrastructure,
    which are critical to understanding processes that impact the health of
    the ocean and its role as the ``flywheel'' that drives global
    environmental dynamics. Unfortunately, funding challenges within NSF
    have has significantly impacted the Geosciences Directorate and its
    Division of Ocean Science, thereby seriously eroding funds available to
    support core research. We also urge $1.8 billion in funding for the
    NASA's Earth Science Division to support critically important ocean and
    coastal science and education, including ground support and data
    processing for the multiple Earth observation missions scheduled for
    launch this year, and key missions currently under development.
                                     arctic
        The Joint Initiative recommends that the fiscal year 2015
    appropriations bill make a significant investment toward implementation
    of the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. This will enable the
    United States to prepare for taking over chairmanship of the Arctic
    Council in 2015 and lay the groundwork for sound international
    management of the region while protecting a sensitive and rapidly
    changing ecosystem.
        The changes occurring in the Arctic are not well understood. The
    area is seeing an influx of international activity as changes in sea
    ice coverage and thickness open new shipping routes and provide
    opportunities for energy exploration. Taking over chairmanship of the
    Arctic Council is a real opportunity to be an international leader in
    the Arctic; however, increased funding for Federal agencies operating
    in the Arctic under your jurisdiction, such as NOAA and NSF, is
    essential if we are to do so. NOAA provides a range of important
    services essential to our understanding of the Arctic including ocean
    observation services, weather and sea ice predictions, mapping and
    charting, and sound management of marine resources.
                               concluding remarks
        The Joint Initiative is acutely aware of the challenges you face
    addressing the funding needs of agencies and programs across the
    government. However, the Joint Initiative believes a commitment to
    understanding and protecting our Nation's ocean and coasts is an
    investment in the future of our country that will provide significant
    economic, social, ecological, and national security benefits.
        Thank you for considering our requests as the subcommittee begins
    it fiscal year 2015 appropriations process. The Joint Initiative
    sincerely appreciates your attention to this matter and stands ready to
    assist you in advancing positive and lasting changes in the way we
    manage our Nation's oceans and coasts.

           Joint Initiative Co-Chairs and Leadership Council Members

    The Honorable William Ruckelshaus  The Honorable Norman Mineta

        Frances Beinecke  Don Boesch  Lillian Borrone
                        The Honorable Norm Dicks

     Vice Admiral Paul Gaffney  Robert Gagosian  Sherri
                         Goodman  Scott Gudes

     Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher  Margaret Leinen
                             Christopher Lischewski

      The Honorable Jane Lubchenco  Julie Packard  The
                             Honorable Leon Panetta

       John Pappalardo  Pietro Parravano  Diane Regas
                              Randy Repass

        Andrew Rosenberg  Patten White  The Honorable
                             Christine Todd Whitman

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of G. Todd Kellison, Carteret County, North Carolina
        Resident and Chief, Fisheries Ecosystems Branch, NOAA Fisheries/
             Southeast Fisheries Science Center/Beaufort Laboratory
        Dear Members of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice
    and Science, and Related Agencies: First, allow me to state that while
    I am a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) employee,
    I have written this letter on my own time, with my own resources and
    not as any part of my NOAA-related job. The comments I offer below are
    my personal opinion as a citizen regarding the proposed closure of the
    NOAA Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort, North Carolina.
        I am gravely concerned about the proposal in the 2015 President's
    budget to close the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. The Laboratory is part of
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; it is administered
    by the National Ocean Service (NOS), but also houses the National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Estuarine Research Reserve
    System (NERRS). The Laboratory is a stalwart of fisheries and oceanic
    science, with an outstanding national and international reputation for
    advancing science in numerous areas: population dynamics and stock
    assessments; Gulf and Atlantic menhaden biology, movement, and
    assessments; harmful algal blooms; hypoxia; habitat science; pathogens;
    and science to support management of economically important fisheries.
    NOAA and the President have repeatedly recognized individual
    researchers, research teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for its
    outstanding quality of scientific work. Furthermore, the Laboratory is
    the originator and centerpiece of an internationally esteemed
    consortium of marine science institutions, including the marine
    laboratories of Duke University, North Carolina State University, the
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the North Carolina
    Division of Marine Fisheries. Beaufort was chosen because it is a prime
    location where northern and southern marine ecological communities
    intersect, and as such the Laboratory provides the only Federal access
    to the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United States. There is no
    other location where these opportunities can be accessed as easily or
    as cheaply. The Beaufort Laboratory is the only NMFS facility on the
    Atlantic coast between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, a
    stretch of over 1200 miles of coastline.
        The request to close the laboratory was based on current funding
    allocation, but inaccurate and outdated information that overstated the
    costs of maintaining the facility was used in the analysis that led to
    this request. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees from NOS, NMFS,
    and NERRS. The NOS initiated the proposed closure, but the request
    understated the number of NOS employees and did not account at all for
    employees from NMFS or NERRS. In effect, this mistake excluded more
    than half the staff of the Laboratory. Furthermore, the request was
    based on estimated costs for the Laboratory's upkeep and maintenance
    that were in error. Since 2006, several activities have been completed
    to keep the facility in good working condition, including replacement
    of the administration building, replacement of the maintenance
    building, replacement of the chemical storage building, replacement of
    the bridge to the facility, repair of the seawall, and other
    improvements (air conditioning, electrical, storm water runoff), which
    totaled approximately $14 million. After such investments, closing the
    Laboratory now would represent a conspicuous waste of tax-payer money.
    Finally, contrary to previous claims, an updated engineering report
    (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound. Based
    on mistakes both in the number of staff at the facility and in the
    costs associated with its upkeep, the budgetary calculations used to
    justify the proposed closure were fundamentally flawed.
        I highlight below, by line office, the critical role that the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory has played in helping NOAA achieve its Strategic
    Mission (1) to understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
    oceans, and coasts, (2) to share that knowledge and information with
    others, and (3) to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems
    and resources.
                                      nos
        While the National Ocean Service is calling for the closure of the
    Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an increase of $4
    million to another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
    Algal Blooms (HABs), Hypoxia, pathogens, and Species Distributions.
    These areas of research are the bread and butter of NOS at the Beaufort
    Laboratory. In fact, NOAA would not have the strength it currently has
    in forecasting HABs if it were not for the Laboratory's seminal and
    award-winning work that has been ongoing from the 1980s to this day.
    Furthermore, the Beaufort Laboratory initiated the first-ever study of
    the invasive lionfish in the U.S. South Atlantic, and it has continued
    to play a pivotal role in monitoring the distribution and abundance of
    this invasion throughout the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and
    Caribbean, providing information that has been critical for mitigation
    and management strategies. It is ironic and perplexing that the fiscal
    year 2015 President's budget requests increased research funding for
    coastal ocean issues, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and
    coastal ecosystem management, while at the same time proposing to close
    an existing facility that already has both well-established expertise
    and facilities required to address many of those very same issues.
                                      nmfs
        The Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science that
    allows NOAA to fulfill its obligation toward the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as mandated by Congress. The
    stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory focuses on
    marine fish populations that are ecologically and economically vital to
    the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper and pelagic species
    managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Atlantic
    menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
    and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
    Commission. Atlantic menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S.
    Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
    Gulf of Mexico. To enable robust stock assessments, sampling of the
    Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries has been conducted by the Beaufort
    Laboratory for decades, and monitoring of snapper-grouper species has
    been accomplished by the Laboratory's Southeast Fishery-Independent
    Survey. Removing this sampling and monitoring from the Beaufort
    Laboratory would not only result in a significant disconnect between
    NOAA and the communities that it serves, but would also degrade the
    quality of stock assessments at a time when Congress is rightly calling
    for improvements.
                                     nerrs
        NERRS is partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, with
    program headquarters at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory. This program
    supports long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and
    coastal stewardship. In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . .
    $5,000,000 for the Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to
    existing facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and
    other facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
    Estuarine Research Reserve.'' With this funding, NOAA invested $1.28
    million and the State of North Carolina invested $42,000 for the
    construction of a joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory to
    serve the Reserve's mission. The joint building was completed in 2007
    and was constructed specifically with the Reserve's education programs
    in mind: the auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program
    workshops and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
    workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
    Education Program activities. The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is a 5-
    minute boat ride from the Rachel Carson component of the Reserve, and
    this close proximity is essential for performing Reserve activities
    efficiently to conduct mission-critical work, including educational
    programs, water quality and habitat monitoring, research programs, and
    stewardship of the site, which involves species monitoring, debris
    clean-ups, feral horse management, and access point maintenance. In
    short, NERRS activities in education, training, and stewardship have
    been extensive, and they would not be feasible from any other Federal
    laboratory.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
    detriment to NOAA's ability to accomplish its own Strategic Mission and
    to meet its obligations toward such congressional mandates as the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The only
    argument for closing the laboratory was financial, but that argument
    was based on flawed estimates of maintenance costs and an outdated
    engineering report, which has since been revised with opposite
    conclusions regarding the lab's structural integrity. Relative to
    NOAA's budget, any cost savings associated with closing the Laboratory
    would be trivial; however the loss to the Nation would be significant.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Mary E. Kentula, Corvallis, Oregon
        I am writing on opposition of the proposed closure of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Center for Coastal
    Fisheries and Habitat Research located in Beaufort, North Carolina
    (hereafter the Beaufort Lab), as recommended on page 8 of NOAA's 2015
    Budget Summary. As someone who has worked in the field of aquatic
    science for over 30 years, I am concerned that one of the Nation's
    premier research facilities may be closed. The Beaufort Lab is located
    strategically where the entire East and Gulf Coasts can be easily and
    cheaply accessed. The Lab is manned by an impressive team of nationally
    and internationally known scientists who conduct research critical to
    the understanding of the Nation's coastal ecosystems and the protection
    of our fisheries and other enterprises supporting the economy of
    coastal communities.
        I have had the opportunity to work with scientists from the
    Beaufort Lab throughout my career. I have been consistently impressed
    with the quality of their work and their commitment to the mission of
    NOAA. One of the invaluable services such facilities provide is the
    ability to assemble technical teams from a variety of backgrounds and
    organizations to address difficult problems. This includes expertise
    from academia, the private sector, and other government agencies, as
    well as scientists from the natural and social sciences. Because of the
    mix of skills and perspectives, these teams are highly creative and
    productive. The Beaufort team has been very successful in using this
    approach, for example, to address the protection and restoration of
    coastal ecosystems and to provide guidance to coastal communities on
    how best to manage their lands in a productive and sustainable way.
        I understand the intension is to move the Federal scientists to
    other laboratories; however, the teams that have formed over the years
    to conduct what NOAA deemed high priority research will be disbanded,
    along with the associated institutional history. The time and effort
    lost while the capability is rebuilt will be costly in real dollars as
    well as in delays to important work. In addition, the investment in the
    large and diverse array of equipment at the Beaufort Lab will be lost
    and the funds used to purchase and maintain the equipment wasted. In
    this time of budget constraints, it is ``penny wise and pound foolish''
    to destroy a well-functioning unit and lose the investment in the staff
    and equipment.
        There is also the impact to the community of Beaufort to consider.
    I have read articles expressing concerns about the potential closure of
    the NOAA Lab. One account mentions the NOAA lab is the largest member
    of the North Carolina Marine Science and Education Partnership which
    accounts for over 58 million dollars in funding for research and, with
    the addition of the education component, more than 100 million dollars
    is brought into Carteret County. Loss of a key component of this hub
    for research and education would be devastating to the economy of the
    area and its citizens.
        I urge the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, Science and Related Agencies to remove the recommendation to
    close the NOAA Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research from
    NOAA's budget for 2015 and thus prevent the loss of an outstanding
    center for high priority and critical research on coastal systems and
    fisheries.
        Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Nikolai Klibansky Ph.D., Atlantic Beach, North
                                    Carolina
        Dear subcommittee members,

        I am writing this letter as a private citizen using only my own
    resources on my own time. I write on behalf of myself and no other
    agency to express my opposition to the closure of the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort
    North Carolina, proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget. The Beaufort
    Lab is a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    within the U.S. Department of Commerce. Employees of National Estuarine
    Research Council (NERR), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
    and the National Ocean Service (NOS) are housed at the Lab.
        Though I am currently a post-doctoral research associate for the
    National Research Council working at the Beaufort Lab I am there
    temporarily and closure of the lab would likely occur after I am gone.
    But as a citizen, a voter, and a scientist I find that closing the lab
    would be a loss for us all, for the gain of none.
        While I am strongly in favor of fiscal responsibility, and I
    appreciate public officials trying to save taxpayers money, it is clear
    to me that closure of the Beaufort Lab would cost far more in
    intellectual capital and scientific information than would be gained in
    dollars and cents. The Beaufort Lab is the second oldest marine lab in
    the United States, commemorated in downtown Beaufort by the kind of
    historical marker that honors battlefields and the birthplaces of
    presidents. It is the only lab of its kind on the East Coast from Cape
    May, New Jersey to Miami, Florida, situated in an ideal location near
    Cape Hatteras which serves as the most significant marine ecological
    boundary on this coast. As a North Carolina resident for nearly 7
    years, I assure you that this Federal facility is a point of pride to
    North Carolina voters, who live and breathe to enjoy a healthy ocean,
    and many who feed their families from it.
        The organizations housed within the Beaufort Lab perform essential
    functions for us all, providing information needed to properly manage
    marine fisheries like red snapper, mahi mahi, and shrimp; and to
    mitigate harmful algal blooms and the formation of marine dead zones.
    Other personnel dedicate their time to managing barrier beach islands
    and marshes that protect the mainland, human lives, and billions of
    dollars in coastal real estate from the damaging effects of massive
    hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy.
        Though the argument has been made that closure of the Beaufort lab
    would save money, this is apparently based on inaccurate numbers. In
    the budget it was claimed that the buildings are all falling apart and
    the costs to repair them would be prohibitively expensive, and yet the
    largest building on the property was built less than 10 years ago and
    houses the largest proportion of employees. Of all the NOAA labs on the
    East Coast, the Beaufort Lab is situated on some of the least expensive
    property. It seems highly unlikely that proper accounting would show a
    financial benefit of the closure the Lab that would come close to the
    damage it would inflict. I don't expect that the calculations in the
    budget were intentionally biased, but they are quite clearly wrong.
    Therefore I urge you to do what is in your power, to see that the
    Beaufort Lab is maintained and protected.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Lund's Fisheries Incorporated
        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: On behalf of
    the 150 employees of our family-owned, vertically-integrated seafood
    processing facility and the company-owned and independently-owned
    commercial fishing vessels and crew whom work to support us here in the
    port of Cape May, New Jersey, I am writing in strong opposition to the
    fiscal year 2015 budget proposal to close the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS)/National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Fisheries Laboratory in Beaufort, North
    Carolina.
        While the Beaufort Fisheries Laboratory is the second oldest marine
    fisheries lab in the United States, contrary to the budget proposal's
    justification that the lab be closed because it is structurally
    unsound, a recent engineering report, reflecting more than $14 million
    in new construction and renovations, states that this is not an
    accurate description of the facility's capabilities or infrastructure.
        More importantly, from the perspective of our fishing company, the
    Beaufort Laboratory is strategically located, geographically, to
    monitor the ecological resources and communities of both the northern
    range of southern species and the southern range of northern species,
    which are vitally important to marine fisheries on both the Atlantic
    and Gulf coasts. This location is critical for continued study of
    emerging issues, like climate change-related warming of ocean habitats,
    so that fishery managers may be informed of resulting species regime
    shifts, which are challenging our ability to sustainably manage the
    region's living marine resources.
        Specifically, the Beaufort Laboratory houses a state-of-the-art
    population dynamics and stock assessment program that focuses on a
    number of important, regional commercial fishery species, including
    Atlantic and Gulf Menhaden, which provide a critical source of bait for
    the lobster fisheries of the northeast and the crab and crawfish
    fisheries of the mid-Atlantic, south and southeast.
        Atlantic menhaden, for example, support the largest fishery on the
    Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
    Gulf of Mexico, worth more than $125 million, combined, to local and
    regional coastal economies including the Port of Cape May. Decades of
    experience in assessing and monitoring these fishery resources is
    housed in Beaufort, the loss of which to the region would be
    significant and, we believe, unnecessary.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our view of this
    important budget issue. It is clear to us that this proposal should be
    rejected and that the Beaufort Fisheries Laboratory should be
    maintained by NOAA. We urge you and the other members of the
    subcommittee to adopt this point of view.
        Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide you or your
    staff with any additional information in support of maintaining the
    Beaufort Laboratory.
                With best regards,

                                            Jeffrey B. Reichle,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Institute
        Ms. Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation
    Institute, based in Seattle, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation
    organization that uses the latest science to identify important marine
    ecosystems around the world and advocates for their protection for us
    and future generations. We wish to thank the members of the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations for the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        Marine Conservation Institute was instrumental in President Bush's
    designation of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument
    (Northwest Hawaiian Islands) and the Pacific Remote Island Marine
    National Monuments, which has given rise to our concern for the only
    species of endangered marine mammal, the Hawaiian Monk Seal, that is
    found entirely within U.S. territorial waters. Marine Conservation
    Institute supports $5.0 million in base funding for the Hawaiian Monk
    Seal recovery program, which is one element of the Marine Mammal
    program within the Protected Resources budget line. If funded at $5
    million, the Hawaiian Monk Seal program would receive approximately 35-
    45 percent more than allocated in the fiscal year 2014 spending plan
    and about double what has been requested in the last two Presidential
    budgetn. Though these suggested percentage increases, by themselves,
    would seem large, the amount that the Protected Resources budget would
    increase in order to accommodate this request is quite small: 1.3
    percent ($2.5 million increase to $186 million).
                  why hawaiian monk seal recovery is important
        NOAA is responsible for recovering populations of the Hawaiian monk
    seal, one of the most critically endangered marine mammals in the
    world. The monk seal is also the only marine mammal whose entire
    distribution range lies within our national jurisdiction; thus the U.S.
    is solely responsibility for its continued survival. Over the last 50
    years, the Hawaiian monk seal population has experienced a severe
    decline of 60 percent, and now the population is slightly more than
    1,000 individuals. Various factors have contributed to the seal's
    decline including: human hunting of the species to near extinction in
    the mid-1800's; entanglement in marine debris and fishing gear; loss of
    habitat for pupping and resting; and competition for food in the
    Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; to name a few.
        There is reasonable hope for the monk seal if a small subpopulation
    in the main Hawaiian Islands can continue to grow beyond its current
    level of 130-200 individuals. However, this population growth has
    generated increased conflicts with citizens and recreational fishermen
    who unintentionally hook or entangle monk seals. In 2012 alone, there
    were 15 confirmed hooking incidents, and three seals died as a result.
    Hostility toward the seal has become toxic in some communities,
    prompting at least four intentional seal killings on Kaua'i and
    Moloka'i in a little over a year. Due to the efforts of private
    foundations and funders, Marine Conservation Institute has been able to
    successfully conduct culturally appropriate anger reduction activities
    on Kaua'i in the last 2 years, and there has not been an intentional
    killing since then. But this kind of private funding is not a permanent
    solution for plugging a hole in NOAA's budget.
        It has been conservatively estimated that 30 percent of the monk
    seals are alive today due to direct actions by NOAA and its
    partners.\1\ However, we are concerned that funding for the monk seal
    has severely decreased in recent years (a level as low at $2.7 million
    in 2011). Furthermore, our analysis indicates that cuts to the monk
    seal program have been disproportionate compared to other marine mammal
    species under NOAA's jurisdiction.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ McAvoy, Audrey. ``Feds--Efforts to rescue monk seals helping
    species.'' Associated Press in West Hawaii Today, January 26, 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Lower funding levels in recent years have already severely affected
    recovery efforts by reducing seasonal field camps essential for
    population monitoring and seal protection in the Northwest Hawaiian
    Islands; hampering critical community liaison efforts to explore and
    explain the importance of the monk seal in Native Hawaiian culture;
    removing specialists who eliminate sharks preying on seal pups; and
    diminishing research programs that develop mitigation measures for
    fisheries interactions and other human-seal interactions.
                 funding level necessary for monk seal recovery
        Marine Conservation Institute strongly recommends the subcommittee
    devote a modest absolute increase in funding, an additional $2.5
    million, to reach $5.0 million in fiscal year 2015 to begin to
    reinstate NOAA's lost capacity to recover the species.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories
        The National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) is pleased
    to submit testimony to the subcommittee with a series of
    recommendations that we believe would strengthen the Nation's research
    and education enterprise. NAML is a nonprofit organization representing
    the ocean, coastal and Great Lakes interests of member laboratories
    that employ thousands of scientists, engineers and professionals
    nationwide. NAML labs conduct high quality research and education in
    the natural and social sciences and translate that science to improve
    decisionmaking on important issues facing our country. NAML requests
    the subcommittee to:
      --Provide strong support for competitive, merit-based ocean, coastal,
            and Great Lakes research, infrastructure and education programs
            at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
            the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
            Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This issue is
            discussed in detail later in this statement;
      --Support the research infrastructure of marine laboratories that
            will lead to better integration of environmental data networks
            into Federal information and observing system networks and in
            so doing achieve cost effective science-based decisionmaking
            regarding the management of marine, coastal and Great Lakes
            ecosystems and related resources;
      --Increase the co-location of Federal scientists and Federal research
            infrastructure initiatives at NAML laboratories as well as
            increased coordination and cooperation between NOAA's ocean,
            coastal and Great Lakes research and education programs; and
      --Advance a diverse, distributed ocean science education agenda
            through strong support for ongoing programs within NSF, NOAA,
            and NASA. NAML is concerned that the administration `s STEM
            education consolidation plan will terminate K-12 STEM education
            and fellowship activities within the Sea Grant program as well
            as terminate important ocean literacy activities in the Office
            of Education at NOAA. NAML urges the committee to reinstate
            these activities within NOAA.
    the role of marine laboratories in the nation's research and education
                                   enterprise
        Ocean, coastal and Great Lakes marine laboratories are vital, cost-
    effective, place-based ``windows on the sea.'' They connect communities
    with cutting edge marine, coastal and social sciences, while also
    providing students and citizens with meaningful learning experiences.
    The members of the National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML)
    work together to improve the quality and relevance of ocean, coastal
    and Great Lakes research, education and outreach. In particular, NAML
    laboratories compete for support for the:
      --Conduct of basic and applied research of the highest quality making
            use of the unique capabilities of coastal laboratories;
      --Revitalization of research infrastructure through increased cost-
            effective networking of capabilities;
      --Unique role that coastal laboratories play in conducting education,
            outreach and public service;
      --Encouragement of wise use and conservation of marine and coastal
            habitats and resources using ecosystem-based management
            approaches;
      --Coastal and other observing systems that collect front line data
            needed to improve predictions of natural and human-caused
            disasters, the management of marine resources, research, and
            education; and
      --Increased public ocean and Great Lakes literacy to promote greater
            environmental stewardship.
    oceans, coasts and great lakes--vital for economic growth and enhanced
                               coastal resiliency
        The ocean, coasts, coastal watersheds, and the Great Lakes play a
    central role in the well being of the Nation. Over 8.5 million people
    reside in the 100-year coastal flood hazard area. More than half of the
    United States population lives in 673 coastal watershed counties, and
    these counties generate 58 percent ($8.3 trillion) of the Nation's
    gross domestic product (GDP)--even though they comprise only 25 percent
    of the Nation's land area. Every day, the marine environment supplies a
    multitude of products and services that enhance and support the lives
    and livelihoods of citizens. In 2011, Americans, on average, ate 15
    pounds of fish and shellfish per person--4.7 billion pounds all
    together--making the U.S. second in the world in total seafood
    consumption. Offshore oil production in Federal waters accounts for 24
    percent of total U.S. crude oil production. If American coastal
    watershed counties were considered an individual country, that country
    would have a GDP higher than that of China. The United States has
    jurisdiction over 3.4 million square miles of oceans--an expanse
    greater than the land area of all 50 States combined. This vast marine
    area offers many environmental resources and economic opportunities,
    but also presents threats such as damaging tsunamis and hurricanes,
    industrial accidents and outbreaks of water borne pathogens. The 2010
    Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the 2011 Japanese
    earthquake and tsunami, and the 2012 Superstorm Sandy are vivid
    reminders that our understanding of our oceans and coastal areas is far
    from complete. Developing sufficient capabilities to sustain ocean-
    based economies and protect our coasts and coastal communities from
    natural and man-made hazards will require a sustained investment in
    research, infrastructure and education and training. NOAA's budget
    request contains several programs designed to reduce coastal and
    community vulnerability to future storms, inundation and sea level
    rise. NAML encourages the Committee to support these resilience
    programs
                      naml priority--investing in research
        NAML believes America is driven by innovation--advances in ideas,
    products and processes that create new industries and jobs, contribute
    to our Nation's health and security, and support a high standard of
    living. In the past half-century, educated people and the knowledge
    they produce have increasingly driven innovation. It is essential that
    the Nation reaffirms and revitalizes the unique partnership that has
    existed between the Federal Government, the States and business and
    industry with the Nation's research and education enterprise. In doing
    so, we encourage the innovation that leads to high-quality jobs,
    increased incomes, security, health, and prosperity for the Nation.
    Investing in the Nation's research enterprise should be seen as a high
    priority that has contributed significantly to our long-term prosperity
    and technological preeminence through interdisciplinary research
    spanning a landscape of disciplines, from physics to geology, chemistry
    to biology, engineering to social sciences and modeling to observation.
    NAML believes that research and education programs at the major Federal
    science agencies with ocean and coastal responsibilities should be
    viewed as priority investments in the future health and well being of
    the Nation.
        Programs that support the extramural community via competitive,
    merit-based research provide highly cost-effective returns on
    investment, leverage additional resources to meet science and
    management priorities, and distribute economic and societal benefits
    over a broad array of communities. While NOAA has acknowledged his
    assertion on many occasions, its support for its extramural partners
    has continued to decline. From background information developed for the
    NOAA Science Advisory Board's R&D Portfolio Review Task Force support
    by the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) for extramural
    R&D has declined by $60 million since 2005--from $171.6M to $107.1M
    while the percentage of OAR's research activities to support extramural
    programs has dropped from just over 50 percent down to 34 percent of
    the total. In the National Ocean Service (NOS), support for extramural
    R&D has declined from a level of $21.6M in 2005 to $13.7M in 2011 while
    intramural support has grown from a level of $53 million in 2005 to a
    level of $58 million in 2011. Moreover NOAA has repeatedly proposed the
    termination of numerous extramural programs--such as the John H.
    Prescott Marine Mammal Grants program--and the consolidation of
    research programs--such as Ocean Exploration and Research--which has
    led to the dramatic reduction in extramural research and education
    support.
        Beyond cutting back on its extramural support, NOAA now seeks
    permission to ``receive and expend funds made available by, any . . .
    private organization, or individual (proposed Section 108 of the
    General Provisions in the NOAA Section of the Appendix to the fiscal
    year 2015 Budget).'' This would enable NOAA to compete against non-
    Federal and private entities for private sector support. Thus not only
    is NOAA cutting back its own support, it intends to further exacerbate
    the situation by competing against its partners for the limited
    available non-Federal resources needed to fill the gaps created by
    NOAA's decision to scale back its extramural support.
        NAML urges the Committee to restore to the maximum extent possible
    NOAA support for its extramural research, education, and other related
    programs while also limiting NOAA's ability to compete with the private
    sector for non-Federal resources needed for research, education, and
    conservation programs.
        Much attention has been justifiably focused on the need for our
    Nation to continue its support of premier basic research programs. It
    is also important to maintain strong support for mission-oriented
    ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research, observing and monitoring
    programs. Further, NAML believes that developing exchange programs
    between Federal agencies and marine laboratories--such as co-location
    of Federal scientists and Federal research infrastructure initiatives
    at NAML laboratories--will further strengthen the capacity of both
    sectors while also reducing costs by eliminating duplicative
    activities.
              naml priority--investing in research infrastructure
        NAML believes that a comprehensive range of ocean and coastal
    research infrastructure will be needed to meet growing demands for
    scientific information and to enable the safe, efficient, and
    environmentally sustainable use of the ocean. Institutional barriers
    have inhibited collaborative efforts to plan for the deployment,
    operation and maintenance of high-cost critical infrastructure assets
    such as ships, satellites, observing systems and cyber-infrastructure
    for data sharing, networking and collaborative use of available
    facilities. Marine laboratories often play a critical role in
    supporting studies that extend across decades. Marine laboratories can
    provide the infrastructure to collect data throughout a lifetime, and
    even maintain important data streams that extend well beyond any single
    researcher. Marine laboratories are often a hotbed of sensor
    development and testing. With technology changing rapidly, marine
    laboratories provide the expertise to maintain a level of
    standardization that ensures such data can be interpreted accurately
    even as protocols change in response to improving technology. Marine
    laboratories are playing an increasing important role in supporting
    networks that extend beyond any single lab. Because environmental
    processes occur on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, data
    streams are standardized and networked to varying degrees to facilitate
    cross-site and long-term analyses. Finally, given the complexity and
    interconnected nature of many environmental processes, marine
    laboratories provide important opportunities to weave together the work
    of many researchers across diverse disciplines to detect patterns and
    understand processes that would not be apparent from any single study
    or data stream.
    naml priority--science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem)
                                   education
        NAML's education mission is two-fold: to enhance ocean STEM
    education to ensure that all citizens recognize the role of the oceans,
    coasts and Great Lakes in their own lives and the impacts they
    themselves have on these environments; and to provide formal research
    and training opportunities at K-12, college, and post-graduate levels
    to ensure a technically-qualified, and ethnically diverse workforce
    capable of solving problems and answering questions related to the
    protection, restoration and management of coastal and ocean resources,
    climate variability and society's needs. An informed and engaged public
    is essential to understand complex ocean- and coastal-related issues,
    balance the use and conservation of marine resources, and maximize
    future benefits from the ocean. The public should be armed not only
    with the knowledge and skills needed to make informed choices, but also
    with a sense of excitement about the marine environment. Public
    understanding of human impacts on the marine environment should be
    balanced with recognition of the benefits to be derived from well-
    managed ocean resources. Inland communities need to be just as involved
    as seaside communities, because of the connection among the ocean, the
    atmosphere and the land. Ocean-related education also has the potential
    to help stem the tide of science illiteracy threatening to undermine
    the Nation's health, safety and security. The scientific literacy of
    U.S. high school graduates is well below the international average.
    This progressive loss of literacy weakens the Nation's ability to
    maintain its traditionally strong foundation in science and
    mathematics. NAML laboratories seek to expand the engagement of
    individuals from groups that have been historically under-represented
    in ocean research, education and outreach. This is particularly
    important in fulfilling the goal of achieving a diversified STEM
    pipeline to meet future science and ocean workforce needs.
        NAML remains concerned with certain elements of the
    administration's STEM Education Consolidation proposal for fiscal year
    2015. A total of 31 STEM education programs at nine key R&D mission
    agencies (including NOAA, NSF, and NASA) will be impacted by this
    proposal. It is important for mission agencies to help support the next
    generation of scientific and technical talent--much of which will be
    needed by these agencies in future years. We urge the subcommittee to
    reject these particular consolidation proposals and support the
    continuation of these programs within their current agencies.
        NAML appreciates the opportunity to present these views to the
    subcommittee as it begins work on the development of the fiscal year
    2015 appropriations bill.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
        On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), this
    testimony addresses important programs in the Department of Justice
    (DOJ) and Department of Commerce. NCAI is the oldest and largest
    American Indian organization in the United States. Tribal leaders
    created NCAI in 1944 as a response to termination and assimilation
    policies that threatened the existence of American Indian and Alaska
    Native tribes. Since then, NCAI has fought to preserve the treaty
    rights and sovereign status of tribal governments, while also ensuring
    that Native people may fully participate in the political system. As
    the most representative organization of American Indian and Alaska
    Native tribes, NCAI serves the broad interests of tribal governments
    across the Nation. As Congress considers the fiscal year 2015 budget
    and beyond, leaders of tribal nations call on decision-makers to ensure
    that the promises made to Indian Country are honored in the Federal
    budget.
                                  introduction
        Annual funding decisions by Congress are an expression of our
    Nation's moral priorities. Numerous treaties, statutes, and court
    decisions have created a fundamental contract between tribal nations
    and the United States: tribes ceded millions of acres of land that made
    the United States what it is today, and in return tribes have the right
    of continued self-government and the right to exist as distinct peoples
    on their own lands. And for its part, the United States has assumed a
    trust responsibility to protect these rights and to fulfill its solemn
    commitments to Indian tribes and their members.
        Part of this trust responsibility includes basic governmental
    services in Indian Country, funding for which is appropriated in the
    discretionary portion of the Federal budget. Tribal governments exist
    to protect and preserve their unique cultures, identities, and natural
    environments for posterity. As governments, tribes must deliver a wide
    range of critical services, such as education, workforce development,
    and first-responder and public safety services, to their citizens. The
    Federal budget for tribal governmental services reflects the extent to
    which the United States honors its promises to Indian people.
                             department of justice
        The bi-partisan Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC) recently
    released its report to Congress and the President emphasizing that
    ``[n]ow is the time to eliminate the public safety gap that threatens
    so much of Native America.'' \1\ The public safety problems that
    continue to plague tribal communities are the result of decades of
    gross underfunding for tribal criminal justice systems; a uniquely
    complex jurisdictional scheme; and the historic, abject failure by the
    Federal Government to fulfill its public safety obligations on American
    Indian and Alaska Native lands. Residents and visitors on tribal lands
    deserve the safety and security that is taken for granted outside of
    Indian Country. The time is now to remedy the disparities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Indian Law & Order Commission. (November 2013). A roadmap for
    making Native America safer: Report to the President & Congress of the
    United States, Executive Summary, p. v. Retrieved on January 10, 2014,
    from www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/files/A_Roadmap_
    For_Making_Native_America_Safer-Full.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress has taken historic steps in recent years with the passage
    of the Tribal Law and Order Act in 2010 and the Violence Against Women
    Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013), both of which begin to address
    some of the structural barriers to public safety in tribal communities.
    For the promise of these laws to be fully realized, however, these laws
    must be fully implemented, which requires sufficient resources for
    tribal justice systems and ongoing coordination and consultation
    between various Federal agencies and tribal governments. The Department
    of Justice recognized this reality in its recently issued Proposed
    Statement of Principles. The Proposed Statement articulates DOJ's
    belief that stable funding at sufficient levels for essential tribal
    justice functions is critical to the long-term growth of tribal
    institutions.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Department of Justice. (November 2013). Proposed statement
    of principles for working with federally recognized Indian tribes, p.
    2. Retrieved on January 10, 2014, from www.justice.gov/tribal/docs/
    statement-of-principles-for-working-with-tribes.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increased and targeted funding in the following program areas will
    have a huge impact on safety in tribal communities for tribal citizens,
    residents, and visitors to tribal lands. This would also help foster
    economic development on tribal lands and improve the quality of life in
    immeasurable ways. As the Federal Government balances the Federal
    budget, it must also pledge to honor its distinct legal, treaty, and
    trust obligations to assist tribal nations in providing public safety
    to their citizens. Highly-functioning criminal justice systems and
    basic, on-the-ground police protection are fundamental priorities of
    any government; tribal governments are no different.
        As the ILOC asserts, ``[h]ow we choose to deal with the current
    public safety crisis in Native America--a crisis largely of the Federal
    Government's own making over more than a century of failed laws and
    policies-- can set our generation apart from the legacy that remains
    one of [the] great unfinished challenges of the Civil Rights Movement.
    Lives are at stake, and there is no time to waste.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Indian Law & Order Commission.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Provide at least $395.4 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    public safety initiatives in Indian Country (including $375.4 million
    in discretionary funds and $20 million from the Crime Victims Fund, a
    mandatory account).--The Crime Victims Fund, administered by the Office
    for Victims of Crime (OVC) within DOJ's Office of Justice Programs
    (OJP) includes the $20 million set-aside for tribal victim assistance
    within the Crime Victims Fund, which was initiated in fiscal year 2014.
    The Crime Victims Fund was initially established to address the need
    for victim services programs, and to assist tribal, State, and local
    governments in providing appropriate services to their communities. The
    Fund is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond
    forfeitures from defendants convicted of Federal crimes, but until last
    year, tribes have only been eligible to receive a very small portion of
    the discretionary funding from the Fund. The tribal funding is
    requested as part of OVC's Vision 21 Initiative, a strategic planning
    initiative based on an 18-month national assessment by OJP that
    systematically engaged the crime victim advocacy field and other
    stakeholder groups in assessing current and emerging challenges and
    opportunities facing the field. The initiative focuses on supplemental
    victims services and other victim-related programs and initiatives in
    areas like research, legal services, capacity building, national and
    international victim assistance, and--of course--tribal assistance.
        The Department proposes bill language for a 7 percent tribal set-
    aside from all discretionary Office of Justice Programs to address
    Indian Country public safety and tribal criminal justice needs. Under
    the fiscal year 2015 request, the 7 percent set-aside totals
    approximately $102.8 million--a slight increase from last year's
    request.
        This year's DOJ budget also requests a total of $1.6 million for
    the Office of Tribal Justice (OTJ) to, amongst other things, help fund
    a total of six attorney positions in fiscal year 2015. This request is
    identical to fiscal year 2014. The request for additional staffing
    resources was made in recognition of the increased workload and duties
    of OTJ staff in recent years, particularly since the Tribal Law & Order
    Act of 2010 established OTJ as a permanent component of the Department.
    Hundreds of Federal cases, in addition to other conflicts needing
    resolution are generated in Indian Country each year, and OTJ serves as
    the primary point of contact between all 566 federally recognized
    tribes and DOJ on these matters. Additionally, with the special
    domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ) tribal provisions of
    the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, OTJ plays an
    important role in implementation. OTJ coordinates these complex
    matters, the underlying policy, and emerging legislation between more
    than a dozen DOJ components active in Indian Country. As such, it is
    imperative that OTJ has the necessary resources to sufficiently fulfill
    all of these obligations.
        Additionally, the fiscal year 2015 budget request for tribes under
    the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to fund tribal
    law enforcement expenses is $35 million, an increase of $15 million
    from the fiscal year 2014 requested amount. This program provides
    funding and resources to meet the public safety needs of law
    enforcement and advance community policing on tribal lands. The
    President's fiscal year 2015 increase brings the amount closer to his
    request in fiscal year 2012 (which was closer to $42 million). These
    funds are critical for the hiring and retention of tribal law
    enforcement officers.
        DOJ's fiscal year 2015 Budget Request for Indian Country programs
    is an increase over its fiscal year 2014 numbers, which is particularly
    encouraging given the current budget climate in Washington, DC.
    Moreover, DOJ's request provides tribes with more flexibility in how
    they spend their DOJ grant dollars, demonstrating the Justice
    Department's continued commitment to tribal self-determination and the
    improved administration of justice on Indian lands.
        office on violence against women--violence against native women
        NCAI urges Congress to fully fund the programs authorized in the
    Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), including the funds authorized for
    tribal implementation of VAWA special domestic violence criminal
    jurisdiction. In fiscal year 2015, VAWA in CJS should be funded at the
    authorized level of $569.5 million instead of $422.5 million. Tribes
    receive statutory set-asides.
        VAWA is a cornerstone of our Nation's response to domestic
    violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. Its effective
    coordinated community response model helps hundreds of thousands of
    victims find safety and receive services while holding thousands of
    perpetrators accountable for their actions. VAWA also supports victims'
    long-term stability and security, and it addresses the unique barriers
    that many victims face in accessing services and finding justice.
        It is estimated that one in three Indian women will be raped and
    that 6 in 10 will be physically assaulted in their lifetimes. This
    violence threatens the lives of Native women and the future of American
    Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. No area of need is more
    pressing or compelling than the plight of American Indian and Alaska
    Native women and children fleeing physical and sexual violence.
        On March 7, 2013, President Obama signed into law the Violence
    Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA 2013) which recognizes and
    affirms the inherent sovereign authority of Indian tribes to exercise
    Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) over all
    persons--Indian and non-Indian--who commit crimes of dating violence,
    domestic violence, and violations of protection orders within Indian
    Country. The bill authorized $5 million for tribes to implement the new
    VAWA provisions and otherwise strengthen tribal justice systems.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Present
                   Name of Grant Program                  Fiscal year     Fiscal year    fiscal year     Authorized
                                                        2013 enacted *    2014 budget        2015          level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS
    STOP--Grants......................................         $176.18         $193            $193           $222
    Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP)............           23.30           27              27             40
    Services for Rural Victims........................           34.02           36              33             50
    Civil Legal Assistance for Victims................           38.22           37              42.5           57
    Transitional Housing (OVW)........................           23.30           24.75           25             35
    Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies...............           46.61           50              50             73
    CHOOSE Youth Program..............................            4.66            5               5             15
    SMART Program.....................................            4.66            5               5             15
    Grants to Support Families in the Justice System..           14.45           15              16             22
    Research on Violence Against AIAN Women...........            0.93            1               1              1
    Nat'l Clearinghouse on Sexual Assault of AI/AN                0.47            0.5             0.5            0.5
     Women............................................
    National Tribal Sex Offender Registry.............            0               0              --              1
    Tribal Jurisdiction...............................           --              --              --              5.0
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------
          VAWA CJS Total..............................          388.24          417.0           422.5          569.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * With sequestration and rescissions.

                             department of commerce
        Provide $35 million for the Minority Business Development Agency
    (MBDA).--Created by Executive Order in 1971, the MBDA was established
    to support minority business development centers and received funding
    of almost $63 million to carry out this mission. Since then, MBDA's
    funding has shrunk by over 50 percent to an estimated $30.5 million for
    fiscal year 2013 and $29.3 million for fiscal year 2014. After MBDA
    revamped its cooperative assistance grants to Minority Business Centers
    (MBCs), the Native American Business Enterprise Centers (NABECs) were
    eliminated and their services were consolidated with the MBCs. About
    $13 million of MBDA's budget is disbursed to the MBCs to provide
    business consulting; advice on business financing; and some procurement
    technical assistance to minority businesses, entrepreneurs, and tribal
    enterprises.
        With the service gap created by the elimination of NABECs, the need
    for an increased level of funding for MBDA is even greater. MBDA must
    sustain and expand support for these centers, which provide important
    assistance to businesses that help them grow and develop, thereby
    creating a stronger private sector and healthier national economy. The
    MBDA also supports minority contractors' teaming efforts to pursue
    Federal contracts, directs efforts to track minority business data,
    collaborates with the Office of Native American Affairs, and is
    increasing its focus on global trade.
        Fund the Office of Native American Affairs (ONNA) at a minimum of
    $1.25 million as part of the Commerce Department Management Budget.--In
    the late 1990s, the Secretary of Commerce established ONAA) within the
    Secretary's office that was codified by the enactment of the Native
    American Business Development, Trade Promotion and Tourism Act of 2000
    (Public Law 106-464) (the 2000 Act). Since then, funding for the Office
    has been partial and very limited. In order to carry out its mission,
    ONAA must receive adequate support to implement Indian policy
    initiatives and expand Native American business development initiatives
    both domestically and internationally. Funding made available through
    Commerce's Departmental Management budget would help ONAA's efforts,
    particularly given the reduced focus of MBDA on specific Native
    American business assistance.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. For more
    information, please contact Natasha Anderson, Staff Attorney, at
    nanderson@ncai.org, Amber Ebarb, NCAI Budget and Policy Analyst, at
    aebarb@ncai.org or Brian Howard, Legislative Associate, at
    bhoward@ncai.org.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Court Appointed Special Advocate
                                  Association
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit remarks on the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) fiscal year 2015 budget. On behalf of the
    National Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Association's network
    of 933 State and local CASA and guardian ad litem (GAL) programs in 49
    States, including Maryland and Alabama, I strongly urge the
    subcommittee to fully fund the Court Appointed Special Advocates
    program through DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
    Prevention at the Congressionally authorized level of $12 million. This
    funding, along with significant local and State sources, will be used
    to expand advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected children, a
    vulnerable population that is highly at-risk of juvenile delinquency
    and incarceration.
        We appreciate the subcommittee's long standing recognition of the
    overwhelmingly positive impact CASA programs have in the lives of
    abused and neglected children, and we urge your ongoing support as we
    strive to achieve our national goal of providing a CASA volunteer for
    every child in foster care. In the U.S. today, too many of our 646,000
    foster youth are going it alone. They want and need advocates to help
    them reach their full potential, and every day, CASA programs across
    the country provide an important voice in the lives of children beyond
    the walls of the courtrooms in which their cases are heard.
        The effectiveness of the CASA/GAL program model in achieving
    positive, long-term outcomes for children in care is well documented
    and well supported. CASA volunteer advocates are an influential
    protective factor in children's lives. A child with a CASA/GAL
    volunteer is more likely to receive needed counseling services, less
    likely to experience disruptive changes of placement, and more likely
    to pass all their courses in school. As community members with a vested
    stake in the long-term success of the children they serve, CASA
    volunteers advocate against tremendous odds for the fundamental right
    of every individual to live in a safe and secure environment.
        As the subcommittee is acutely aware, foster youth face an
    extensive range of risk factors, including a much greater chance of
    juvenile delinquency and incarceration than the general youth
    population. According to data last collected by the National Institute
    of Justice in 2011, children who suffer from abuse and neglect are 28
    percent more likely to be arrested as adults and 59 percent more likely
    to be arrested as juveniles.
        Through smart, targeted investments in a program that provides a
    stable, supportive advocacy-based presence in children's lives,
    together, we can stem the tide of youth delinquency in this Nation and
    move our young people--high-risk foster youth included--toward a safe
    and promising future. The value of saving a high risk youth from a life
    of crime has been reliably estimated to range between $2.6 and $5.3
    million. Our programs provide one-on-one advocacy and mentoring
    throughout the course of a child's case that is critical to keeping the
    lives of foster youth on a positive trajectory and away from a
    devastating future.
        As with a number of programs across the Federal Government, the
    Court Appointed Special Advocate program has weathered its share of
    funding cuts over the past few fiscal years as Congress works to
    achieve deficit reduction. I assure you that our programs have left no
    stone unturned in our quest to serve children, but we need the support
    of Congress to help vulnerable children, a population to whom we all
    share a significant obligation. These Federal funds, which are
    leveraged with other State and local resources, have been a significant
    driver of increased service to children.
        While CASA funding has decreased by half of the fiscal year 2011
    enacted level, the need for effective advocacy for foster youth in the
    courtroom--and the need for the robust training, technical assistance,
    and other resources that make this advocacy possible--has not at all
    diminished. Additionally, CASA/GAL programs across the Nation are
    reporting that their cases are increasingly complex and challenging--
    including cases involving the overmedication of foster youth as just
    one example--which require additional time, energy, and resources, all
    of which are stretched significantly across our programs.
        We ask the subcommittee to provide funding for a program that not
    only transforms the lives of foster youth, but is also an effective
    cost investment of taxpayer dollars at a time in which every single one
    of those dollars must be spent wisely. CASA/GAL programs, in addition
    to advocating for a child's best interest in the courtroom and ensuring
    that he/she has the services needed to succeed, work to move the child
    out of the foster care system as quickly and as safely as possible.
    Less time in care is a better outcome for the child and it is a better
    outcome for State governments and Federal child welfare programs,
    compared to the cost of keeping a child in care.
        CASA volunteers save tens of millions of dollars in child welfare
    and other costs to society, as we work to keep at-risk youth out of the
    burgeoning prison system and on the path to promising, fulfilling
    futures. More than 90 percent of children with CASA volunteers never
    re-enter the foster care system. By reducing long-term placements,
    subsequent victimization, and reentry into the system, the CASA program
    substantially reduces foster care costs and significant costs
    associated with long-term services for children who have endured
    traumatic and difficult circumstances through no fault of their own.
        To put this in simple accounting terms, it costs the Federal
    Government $3,250 per month to keep a child in the foster care system.
    Every child with a CASA volunteer saves the taxpayer approximately
    $24,375 per year, because our volunteers are moving these children
    safely out of the system. While a more efficient use of resources is of
    paramount importance, let me also emphasize the value of our work in
    purely human terms. Every day a child spends in the foster care system,
    is a day he or she can never get back. It is a day that they are unable
    to do many of the things that we take for granted in the lives of our
    own children--making lasting friendships, forming a bond with a
    teacher, enjoying the movements of everyday life with a loving family
    that is truly their own. All children deserve a safe, nurturing,
    permanent home.
        I would also like to thank the subcommittee for continuing to
    provide strong funding for DOJ's competitive youth mentoring grants
    program. This funding is critical to strengthening and expanding the
    reach of organizations across the country that positively impact the
    lives of at-risk and underserved youth through one-on-one mentoring.
    The mentoring programs funded through these grants build needed assets
    in young people and change their lives for the better.
        We again ask the subcommittee to fund the Court Appointed Special
    Advocates program at $12 million in fiscal year 2015 to address an
    overwhelming need for advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected
    children. Thank you for your consideration of our request.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC)
        Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, for the
    opportunity to submit testimony to the subcommittee in support of
    funding for the U.S. Department of Justice's crime prevention programs.
    In fiscal year 2015, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to
    appropriate $25 million for the Byrne Memorial Competitive Grants
    Program, $15 million for the Economic, High-Technology, Cybercrime
    Prevention program, and $75 million to continue the Comprehensive
    School Safety Program.
        Within the funds for the Byrne Competitive Grants program, we
    respectfully request that the subcommittee provide specific guidance to
    the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to continue its historic support
    for two essential crime prevention functions. The first is ensuring the
    existence of independent, non-governmental national repositories of
    best practices and evidence-based crime prevention. This ensures that
    State and local law enforcement have access to the best materials on
    effective crime prevention practices--to get the best possible outcomes
    from the subcommittee's investments in Byrne Justice Assistance Grants
    and in OJP's other State and local assistance programs. The second
    essential function is a strong national public education campaign to
    reach the general public with evidence-based crime prevention
    messages--a tactic which has been shown to have tremendous impact in
    changing individual and collective behavior to prevent crime.
        We also want to applaud the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a well
    thought out, comprehensive grants program that supports the work of its
    Intellectual Property Crimes Task Force. In the last few years, OJP has
    awarded grants to State and local law enforcement to encourage strong
    investigations and effective prosecutions of Intellectual Property
    crimes, which cost our economy 373,000 jobs and $58 billion per year,
    and pose serious threats to Americans' health and safety.
        The Department also wisely included a demand reduction component to
    this comprehensive effort. In partnership with DOJ, late in 2011 NCPC
    launched a public education campaign to increase public awareness of
    the consequences of purchasing counterfeit and pirated products. The
    campaign addresses the impacts to health and safety, support for
    organized criminal elements, and job loss. We hope the subcommittee
    will support this effort and encourage OJP to continue this sensible
    approach of including demand reduction and public education in the
    effort to fight Intellectual Property crime. Grants through the
    Economic, High-Technology, Cybercrime Prevention program can continue
    this important purpose.
        Like all Americans, we remain troubled by the increase of violent
    activity in our schools, and support efforts to continue the
    Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with $75 million in fiscal year
    2015. School safety must be addressed through a sustained commitment
    nationally--both to reassure schools that they have a partner, and to
    reassure parents that work is being done to make their schools a safe
    place for their children. Though new, the initiative is a research-
    focused plan to increase the safety of schools nationwide. DOJ has just
    begun work to detail the root causes of school violence, develop
    technologies and strategies for increasing school safety, and provide
    pilot grants to test innovative approaches to enhance school safety
    across the Nation. Significant funding in fiscal year 2015 will
    continue this commitment and realize the gains made in fiscal year
    2014.
        School safety has been at the heart of NCPC's work for much of our
    history. Our signature Be Safe and Sound in School (B3S) initiative
    combines target hardening and Crime Prevention Through Environmental
    Design techniques with concrete ideas on engaging the school and
    surrounding community in activities to promote a culture of respect in
    schools. These techniques include: participation by students, staff,
    parents, teachers and administrators in strategic planning for school
    safety; improved surveillance and maintenance; training; and ongoing
    evaluation.
        Background.--NCPC's mission is to be the Nation's leader in helping
    people keep themselves, their families, and their communities safe from
    crime. Through different media and methods, NCPC enables communities
    and law enforcement to work together to create safe environments,
    especially for children and youth. Established in 1980, the NCPC-led
    National Citizens' Crime Prevention Campaign and related initiatives
    have featured our beloved icon McGruff the Crime Dog and his signature
    message that beckons all Americans to ``Take a Bite Out of Crime.''
        McGruff has had lasting impact. Eighty-three percent of adult
    Americans recognize McGruff. Over 80 percent of kids would follow his
    advice on crime prevention. Over 90 percent of adults describe McGruff
    as informative, trustworthy, and effective. And 72 percent think he's
    cool. Further, Federal resources invested in the National Citizens'
    Crime Prevention Campaign have been well leveraged. For every $1 of
    Federal investment, the Campaign generated $100 or more in donated
    media. Over its history, the Campaign has produced $1.4 billion worth
    of donated advertising.
        Since the inception of the Campaign, NCPC, a private, non-profit,
    tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, has maintained a close partnership
    with DOJ and local law enforcement. Together we create cost-effective
    and award-winning public education campaigns, launch groundbreaking and
    comprehensive support initiatives for crime-besieged cities, provide
    training and technical assistance, produce and distribute hundreds of
    ready-to-use publications filled with practical tips, expand the reach
    of crime prevention tools through online resources, conduct
    conferences, and more. Our goal is to give Americans the tools they
    need on the ground and in the field.
        Supporting Crime Prevention Practitioners.--To the greatest extent
    possible, NCPC designs messages and trains law enforcement, community
    leaders, and other individuals on crime prevention practices with
    proven outcomes based on the highest standards of research. NCPC's
    commitment to promoting the most effective crime prevention tools is
    based our capacity to monitor crime prevention research and translate
    that research into practice.
        With additional support from DOJ, NCPC provides National Training
    and Technical Assistance to address the nationwide gap in education
    opportunities for new law enforcement officers, which was a result of
    local department cuts in training and crime prevention budgets. NCPC
    has also recorded or released five podcast interviews with experts in
    the field on topics such as Neighborhood Watch and Citizen Corps,
    crime-free multi-housing, and what a crime prevention officer is worth.
    Soon NCPC will develop a toolkit for new officers, which will include
    PowerPoint presentations, fact sheets, and resources on basic crime
    prevention that they can share with their communities.
        National Crime Prevention Activities.--NCPC works closely with
    State and local law enforcement and their national organizations to
    anticipate and respond to persistent crime challenges, emerging crime
    trends, and changing crime prevention needs nationwide.
        Through a Byrne Competitive grant, NCPC is working with DOJ and a
    number of other partners to conduct a crime prevention awareness
    campaign to address the dangerous and costly problem of intellectual
    property (IP) crime, such as pirating and counterfeiting. Our goal for
    the campaign is to engage the public in demand reduction and decrease
    threats to public health and safety. We are also working with law
    enforcement to bring the consequences of IP theft to the forefront for
    the public. Through focus groups and survey assessments NCPC uncovered
    that consumers do not expect to get caught. They do not believe that
    law enforcement is overly concerned about this problem because if law
    enforcement were concerned, the public would be more aware of the crime
    and subsequent IP prosecutions. In order to educate the public, we need
    to encourage and equip those officers and agencies who understand the
    impact to talk about IP investigations and arrests in the same way they
    would about a big drug bust or capture of a violent criminal.
        We are also working on several other public education campaigns to
    help people protect themselves, particularly from fraud. In 2013, NCPC
    hosted a virtual conference for consumers and organizations that
    support them in avoiding and recovering from mortgage fraud. It
    provided valuable information to homeowners on how to protect
    themselves against mortgage scams. This complements our individual- and
    community-focused work on foreclosure fraud and vacant property crime.
    Its reach will soon be expanded through public service advertising.
        Additionally, we are tailoring crime prevention information to the
    overlooked population of young people ages 18 to 24. As teens and young
    adults leave their homes to pursue education and employment for the
    first time they are often the victims of criminals and scams that prey
    on their inexperience. That is why we are developing programs to help
    these young people ``Be Smarter,'' live safely and protect themselves
    as they handle their first credit cards, first apartments, first cars,
    first college campuses, first vacations on their own, and first jobs.
        We are providing practical, ready-to-use resources on crimes
    against senior citizens. Senior citizens are vulnerable to
    telemarketing and financial fraud that threaten their financial
    stability. We are also educating the public on the underreported crime
    of elder abuse. An alarming number of senior citizens are physically,
    emotionally, sexually, or financially abused--frequently by people they
    trust. We are striving to ensure that people of all ages can speak out
    and act to prevent abuse and victimization and live in safe
    communities. On April 10, we held a virtual conference to protect
    senior citizens from physical abuse and financial exploitation. For law
    enforcement and direct service organizations, this is also a wonderful
    opportunity to learn how to better serve the victims of such scams. It
    remains available online at http://engage.vevent.com/rt/
    ncpcsafeseniors.
        Four years ago, NCPC set out to work on a new crime prevention
    initiative that would ``inspire us to live in ways that embody
    respect... where we live, learn, work, and play.'' That is our vision
    for the Circle of Respect. Lack of respect contributes to school
    violence, property theft, online aggression, and cyberbullying among
    teens. Studies show that young people join gangs because it is the only
    place they get respect.
        The Circle of Respect is a national initiative that engages and
    challenges children, young people, adults, families, and communities to
    promote a culture of respect that transcends what has been a
    traditional tolerance of unacceptable behavior. The Circle of Respect
    website will also host VOICES--a user-generated site for teens to speak
    about personal experiences of respect within their families, peers, and
    communities. We will use their submitted artwork, poetry, short
    stories, music, and films to guide development on respect-centered
    materials for other youth, service providers, and crime prevention
    practitioners.
        When McGruff and NCPC came on the scene almost 35 years ago,
    community groups and individual citizens thought that crime prevention
    was the sole responsibility of law enforcement. Working together with
    DOJ, local law enforcement, and communities all across the Nation, we
    have ``moved the needle'' so that today, we know that crime prevention
    is everyone's business. McGruff has carried the message that all
    people--whether they are 7 or 107--can do their part to prevent crime
    and make America safer. That's what ``Take A Bite Out of Crime'' means.
    Three out of four adults now know they have a personal responsibility
    for helping to keep their communities safe from crime.
        New forms of crime are growing, such as identity theft, mortgage
    and foreclosure fraud, and cybercrimes of every stripe. We must
    effectively deploy our tightening resources to combat crime. Crime
    extracts a significant financial cost--approximately $3.2 trillion per
    year--borne by victims and their families, employers, communities, and
    taxpayers. In 2011, governments at all levels spent more than $236
    billion for police protection, correctional facilities, and legal and
    judicial costs--corrections alone costs $81 billion annually. In 2010
    violent crimes (murder, rape, assault, and robbery) cost Americans $42
    billion. In 2011, consumers lost an estimated $1.5 billion to fraud.
    There is also an unknowable opportunity cost both financial and social.
    We cannot afford these upwardly trending costs in today's economy.
    Research concludes that crime prevention initiatives are cost
    effective; we can pay modest costs now or exorbitant ones later.
        Crime Prevention in fiscal year 2015.--In an era of tightening
    budgets, investment in prevention initiatives reduces the need for
    government spending on intervention, treatment, enforcement, and
    incarceration. Therefore, investment in crime prevention has never been
    more critical. There is no doubt that when individuals, community
    groups, and businesses work closely with law enforcement to help keep
    watch over their communities, crime is prevented.
        Though most crime prevention activities are local, the Federal
    Government sets the tone by promoting crime prevention strategies that
    work. It provides leadership through funding, education, technical
    assistance, and support for State and local programs. Research and
    identification of what works, and translation and transmission of
    evidence-based best practices and lessons learned to and among the
    field require national leadership.
        Thank you again for allowing NCPC to submit written testimony and
    for your ongoing commitment to State and local crime prevention
    programs. NCPC is proud to have worked with Congress, DOJ, State and
    local law enforcement and other agencies, and the private sector in the
    past, and we believe we can continue to be an effective partner going
    forward. As Congress continues its work to prevent crime, please
    consider NCPC and McGruff as a resource and as your active
    collaborators in building safer communities.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
                                  Association
        Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is William Reay
    and I am the Director of the Chesapeake Bay National Estuarine Research
    Reserve in Virginia, administered by the Virginia Institute of Marine
    Science. I submit this testimony in my capacity as President of the
    National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA). NERRA is a
    not-for-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated to the
    protection, understanding, and science-based management of our Nation's
    estuaries and coasts.
        For fiscal year 2015, NERRA strongly recommends the following
    reserve system programs and funding levels within the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

    NERRS Operations..........................  $22.9 million
    NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and         $1.7 million
     Construction (PAC).

        The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) program and
    its sites bring the strength of NOAA science and stewardship to
    important coastal regions across the Nation. NERRS encompasses 28
    protected reserves located in estuaries that are home to our most
    productive habitats and populated communities--that support science-
    based coastal resource management, research, and education to meet
    national priorities as mandated by Congress in the Coastal Zone
    Management Act (CZMA) of 1972. The States have been entrusted to
    operate and manage NOAA's program in 22 States and Puerto Rico, where
    over 1.3 million acres of land and water are protected in perpetuity.
    What distinguishes the NERRS is the community and State implementation
    of programs and local control of these places that form this Federal-
    State partnership program.
        The administration's fiscal year 2015 request for the NERRS is a
    total of $21.3 million. This amount will result in a reduction of
    funding to each State because a 29th reserve, located in Hawaii, will
    be added this year. Therefore, the administration's budget represents
    reduced funding to States from last year's appropriation (enacted
    fiscal year 2014 budget at $21.3 million). After reviewing the detailed
    NOAA budget request sent to the Congress, it is clear that States
    implementing this national program are left short-changed in their
    ability to fulfill the vision of Congress in its creation of the NERRS
    program.
        NERRA is deeply concerned with the administration's funding levels
    that we believe are inconsistent with key tenants of NOAA's own
    strategic plan--specifically, enhancing community and economic
    resiliency and strengthening science in support of coastal management.
    The administration's fiscal year 2015 requested funding level will
    diminish the NERRS's capacity to deliver important research, education
    and training to its State, local, and regional partners.
        First, the administration budget requests flat-funds the program at
    the fiscal year 2014 level of $21.3 million. Flat-funding in the face
    of the program adding a 29th reserve in fiscal year 2015 will in effect
    result in reduced budgets for each of the current reserves. This
    funding level is problematic because in addition to the new Hawaii
    reserve that is on track to join the system in fiscal year 2015, there
    are two more known--one in Louisiana, and one in Connecticut--in
    process for future years. Equally troubling is the absence of any
    mention of the expected expansions in NOAA's fiscal year 2015 budget
    submission. In addition to projected losses to the States operating
    NERRS sites, the administration's budget will mean less funding for
    science and monitoring of sea level rise change impacts at a time when
    community need is great.
        Investments in the NERRS are dollar-smart because funding for the
    program is matched by the States and leveraged significantly, resulting
    in an average of more than five other local and State partners
    contributing to the work at each reserve. Funding of $22.9 million for
    the NERRS would be a minimal level to provide each reserve with the
    necessary funding to assist our coastal communities, industries and
    resource managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing
    environment.
        Second, within the budget request for NOAA, the administration is
    again proposing the elimination of funding for the Bay-Watershed
    Education and Training (B-WET) regional programs--a reduction of $7.2
    million in funding. The rationale provided for program reductions is
    misleading in stating that NOAA education experiences will continue to
    be provided by programs including the NERRS. Where States are eligible
    for B-WET funding, reserves are able to increase their educational
    capacity by as much as 50 percent, as documented in the Chesapeake Bay
    NERR (VA) for example. NERRA strongly opposes the cut of B-WET regional
    programs and any of the other NOAA STEM educational programs.
    making coasts more resilient and saving the nation dollars through the
                   national estuarine research reserve system
        NERRS assists our coastal communities, industries and resource
    managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing environment. As
    severe weather events become more common, Federal, State, and local
    officials are recognizing that estuaries have the capacity to provide
    green resilience infrastructure. Through NERRS, NOAA can tailor science
    and management practices to enable local planners to use estuarine
    habitat as a tool for resilience and adaptation.
        Through science and science-based management of more than 1.3M
    acres of protected land, NERRS provides numerous benefits to
    communities that result in improved water quality, increased upland
    flood and erosion control, and improved habitat quality that support
    local fisheries and provide storm protection to coastal communities.
    The approximate $10 million Federal contribution in science supports
    NERRS research and a coastal observing system capacity that informs
    regional policy that saves communities money. For example, research
    conducted by the Rookery Bay NERR at Naples, Florida, resulted in
    modified best management practice training for Florida's landscape
    industry, thus saving local businesses hundreds of thousands of
    dollars. It is important to emphasize that the work at each reserve
    goes beyond its property boundaries and creates a number of
    environmental and economic benefits for the communities and regions
    where they exist.
        Additionally, NERRS supports community planning initiatives by
    providing training to local officials and residents about critical
    resource management issues such as impending hazards, storm water
    control, shoreline management, and habitat restoration. The NERRS
    training is designed to help people on the ground and to get resources
    in the hands of the community--all of which amount to saving States and
    local communities more than $13.4 million annually.
        The reserves have a tremendous positive impact on our economy
    including work to maintain clean water, keep the seafood and fishing
    industry viable, provide opportunities for local tourism, and provide
    communities with practical help and science-based information to
    address coastal hazards. Estuaries, where rivers meet the sea, provide
    nursery ground for two-thirds of commercial fish and shellfish.
    Protected and well managed estuaries including those managed by the
    NERRS keep commercial and recreational fishermen sustainable,
    contributing over $2.7B to the shellfish and seafood industry in 2012
    and 2009 respectively in States that have a reserve and over $28
    billion in ocean-dependent industries in 2011 along our coasts (Source:
    National Ocean Economic Program and NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science
    and Technology). In 2010, coastal counties that included a NERR
    supported more than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries (Source:
    Bureau of Labor Statistics; NOAA).
        Protection of these important estuaries within the NERRS can have a
    significant impact on specific ecologically and economically important
    species. For example, Apalachicola Bay, Florida, home to one of three
    reserves in the State, produces approximately 90 percent of Florida's
    oyster harvest and 10 percent of the total U.S. harvest (Source:
    Wilber, 1992).
        Beyond the economic benefits to our national, State, and local
    economies, reserves operate national infrastructure that brings science
    to the management of our coasts and helps our communities prepare for
    weather and accident related disasters. NERRS is a leader in coastal
    monitoring that provides immediate and long-term data to assess water
    quality in support of State environmental programs and water dependent
    industries, enhance understanding of harmful algal blooms, guide and
    track habitat restoration and reconstruction strategies, identify
    ecosystem impacts from changing sea levels and temperature, aid in
    weather and marine forecasting, and improve emergency and insurance
    industry response to storm surges and inundation.
        Being integral members of coastal communities is a key element to
    NERRS successful delivery of science and monitoring data as evidenced
    in the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill of 2010, a coastal area that is
    home to five reserves. We know that the billion dollar tourism and
    seafood industries depend upon clean water, and during the Deep Water
    Horizon Oil Spill crisis the communities and industries along the Gulf
    Coast relied on disaster support efforts including the wide variety of
    data supplied by the five Gulf Coast NERRs, some of which continues
    today.
        Each reserve receives operation funds from NOAA that are matched by
    the States and are used to leverage significantly more private and
    local investments that results in each reserve having, on average, more
    than five program partners assisting to implement this national
    program. In addition, the program significantly benefits from
    volunteers that are engaged in habitat restoration, citizen science and
    education which offset operation costs at reserves by donating
    thousands of hours. Annually, volunteers contribute more than 100,000
    hours to the NERRS with an estimated value of over $2.2 million.
        NERRS have made countless economic contributions to their local
    communities, States, and the Nation. In the aftermath of Superstorm
    Sandy, the Jacques Cousteau Reserve in New Jersey was cited by CNN as
    being ``a natural sponge . . . for absorbing storm and tidal surges.''
    (November 3, 2012). In the category of eco-tourism, more than 2 million
    people annually visit the NERRS: an estimated more than $20 million is
    generated annually in direct benefit from these visitor use
    opportunities (estimated using Federal, State, and local park entry
    fees). Visitors to our reserves walk and snowshoe the trails, paddle
    the waterways, watch wildlife, hunt and fish, engage in community
    stewardship and restoration programs, and participate in numerous
    public outreach activities and events at each of our 28 reserves.
        In addition, NERRS strategically contributes more than $4.9M
    annually in education relief to offset costs to communities that face
    tight budgets in meeting the needs of local school districts. Through
    Estuaries 101 curriculum, NERRS prepares the next generation workforce
    in the key disciplines of science, technology, engineering and math
    (STEM education). The B-WET regional program funding is money that is
    spent in addition to the annual NERRS money invested in the education
    programs. The NERRS educate more than 83,000 children annually.
        The NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) funding
    is designated for land conservation, through acquisition of priority
    lands, and essential facilities construction and upgrades. This
    competitive funding program is matched by State funds and has resulted
    in not only the preservation of critical coastal lands as described
    above, but also in the increase of construction jobs. For example NERRS
    creates more than 60 jobs for each $1 million of Federal construction
    (PAC) money spent. In addition, NERRS leveraged investments of more
    than $115 million to purchase over 30,000 acres of coastal property
    over the last 12 years.
                                   conclusion
        NERRA greatly appreciates the past support the subcommittee has
    provided. This support is critical to sustain and increase the economic
    viability of coastal and estuary-based industries.
        With NERRA's fiscal year 2015 request of $22.9 million for the
    NERRS and $1.7 million for NERRS PAC, the program will be able to
    maintain delivery of credible scientific research that contributes to
    the resiliency of the natural and built communities and that yields a
    high rate of return to the 28, soon to be 29, coastal gems around the
    country. We urge the subcommittee to support this request, and to
    restore funding for the B-WET regional programs.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present these remarks. On behalf
    of NERRA, I would be happy to answer questions or provide additional
    information to the subcommittee.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
                    fiscal year 2015 appropriations request
        The National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) works with Congress
    and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
    connect fellow citizens to the underwater places that define the
    American ocean--the National Marine Sanctuary System. We remain
    concerned that NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) has
    not received sufficient appropriations for several budget cycles.
    Recognizing the coastal job creation benefits provided by sanctuaries,
    NMSF respectfully requests that the subcommittee remedy this situation
    by appropriating:
      --$5.5 million to the National Marine Sanctuary Program--
            Construction/Acquisition Base, within NOAA's Procurement,
            Acquisition, and Construction account; and
      --$51 million to the Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas Base,
            within NOAA's Operations, Research, and Facilities account.
        Joining NMSF in this request is the national network of community-
    based, non-profit organizations that support sites within the sanctuary
    system. On behalf of their members, the Channel Islands Sanctuary
    Foundation (California), Cordell Marine Sanctuary Foundation
    (California), Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (California),
    Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Michigan), Hawai`i
    National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (Hawaii), Monterey Bay Sanctuary
    Foundation (California), Olympic Coast Alliance (Washington), Sanctuary
    Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys (Florida), and Stellwagen Alive!
    (Massachusetts) support funding the National Marine Sanctuary System at
    these levels (Appendix I).
        While we recognize the challenges of providing increased funding in
    the current budget climate, we believe that the President's fiscal year
    2015 budget request fails to address critical sanctuary contributions
    to job creation and economic growth. It also continues a disturbing
    trend of underfunding the sanctuary program--despite signals from
    Congress that the program warrants additional funds.
      the national marine sanctuary system and noaa's office of national
                               marine sanctuaries
        Encompassing over 170,000 square miles of marine and Great Lakes
    waters, the National Marine Sanctuary System includes 13 national
    marine sanctuaries and Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.
    Sanctuaries protect vibrant ocean ecosystems, conserve essential
    habitat for endangered and commercially important marine species, and
    safeguard historical and cultural resources.
        Congress provides funding to ONMS through separate accounts for
    operations and procurement; both are vital components for maintaining a
    robust and effective sanctuaries program.
      --The Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF) account funds
            operation of a variety of education, research, monitoring and
            management programs managed by ONMS, including development and
            implementation of research and monitoring programs, cultural
            resource programs, education and outreach activities;
            permitting; and management of volunteer programs and citizen
            advisory councils.
      --The Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account funds
            the purchase and overhaul/restoration of assets managed by
            ONMS, including construction of vessels, visitor facilities,
            and exhibits; development of partnerships for education and
            outreach; and safety improvements and repairs to NOAA-owned
            facilities.
          national marine sanctuaries are unique and successful ocean
                               conservation tools
        Generations of Americans have grown up, worked jobs, and supported
    their families on the waters of our national marine sanctuaries. Among
    all the statutes enacted by Congress to govern ocean resources, the
    National Marine Sanctuaries Act stands alone in terms of the
    comprehensiveness, community participation, transparency and balanced
    approach provided for all stakeholders. An independent legal analysis
    concluded that ``the National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the best
    existing mechanism available for preserving ocean ecosystems,'' due to
    sanctuaries' commitment to public participation, community engagement,
    and use of a place- and ecosystem-based approach.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Perkins Coie LLP. (2013)'' Area-Based Management of Marine
    Resources: A Comparative Analysis of the National Marine Sanctuaries
    Act and Other Federal and State Legal Authorities.'' Available: http://
    www.nmsfocean.org/files/ABMReport.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unlike other ocean resource laws, the National Marine Sanctuaries
    Act protects nationally significant places and their natural,
    historical, and cultural riches. Experience shows that this approach is
    vital to maintaining the healthy seascapes that underpin our productive
    economies, supporting thousands of businesses while maintaining public
    access for recreation, research, and education.
         national marine sanctuaries are economic engines for coastal
                                  communities
        National marine sanctuaries are vital to the success of coastal
    businesses and job creation. According to the National Ocean Economics
    Program, 70 percent of ocean and coastal employment in the tourism and
    recreation sector depend on visitor opportunities requiring clean
    beaches, clean water, and abundant fish and wildlife promoted by
    national marine sanctuaries. Benefits of funding national marine
    sanctuaries far outweigh the Federal outlays that support them:
      --Over 64,000 jobs and $4.5 billion in GDP contributed annually from
            the marine tourism and recreation sector in the two counties
            adjacent to Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Ocean Economics Program. (2011) ``Ocean Economy
    Data.'' Available: http://www.oceaneconomics.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Over $126 million in whale watching revenue and 600 jobs at 31
            businesses resulting from less than $2 million invested in the
            Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off of
            Massachusetts.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ O'Connor, Simon et al (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism
    numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report
    from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Prepared by Economists
    at Large. Available: http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Program
    _Publications/Whales/asset_upload_file841_55365.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --2,100 jobs and a $291 million budget from marine science and
            education at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, more
            than 100 times the $3 million investment by taxpayers.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium. (2012) ``Major
    Marine Sciences Facilities in the Monterey Bay Crescent- 2012.''
    Available: http://web.me.com/paduan/mbcorc/
    Membership_Info_files/MontereyBayLabs2012-2.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        national marine sanctuaries start and stay in local communities
        Public participation is a hallmark of the sanctuary program.
    Coastal communities have a controlling influence on sanctuary
    priorities to ensure unique, local circumstances are addressed. All
    sanctuary rules and regulations are developed on a site-by-site basis,
    and, from the outset, sanctuaries are designed to accommodate multiple
    uses of the ocean.
        National marine sanctuaries are created by and for the people:
    citizens and communities around the Nation recognized the benefits of
    sanctuaries and expressed strong interest in establishing sanctuaries
    in their own coastal waters. Over 700 Sanctuary Advisory Council
    representatives from the fishing, tourism, and maritime commerce
    industries; Tribes, State and local government; and researchers,
    educators, and conservationists help manage sanctuary operations. Over
    100,000 hours are contributed by local sanctuary volunteers each year.
                   national marine sanctuaries and education
        Through education and outreach programs, sanctuaries function as
    living classrooms that provide students with the knowledge and tools to
    act as responsible ocean stewards. Science, technology, engineering and
    mathematics (STEM) education programs are a key part of national marine
    sanctuaries mission. Eliminating important education infrastructure,
    such as NOAA Office of Education's Bay Watershed Education and Training
    (B-WET) and NOAA's Teacher at Sea program, hinders the ability to
    deliver meaningful watershed education initiatives in sanctuaries.
        We strongly encourage you to oppose any efforts to move or
    terminate the Dr. Nancy Foster Scholarship Program (NFSP). The direct
    connections between students and researchers in sanctuaries are
    critical for the effectiveness of the NFSP. While we support the
    administration's efforts to recognize efficiencies across STEM
    education initiatives, NFSP should remain administered by ONMS, as
    consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
    national marine sanctuaries' programmatic outlook under reduced fiscal
                            year 2015 funding levels
        Funding decreases and level-funding have resulted in layoffs and
    cutbacks to mission critical sanctuary programs. A lack of funds
    results in cuts to public access and recreation opportunities,
    cancellation of partnerships that leverage private funds for taxpayer
    benefit, and the dismantling of successful education initiatives.
    Budget cuts may result in reduced operations at visitor centers; a lack
    of contingency funding needed in case of emergencies like oil spills;
    and additional inoperable vessels. Of particular concern are proposals
    to reduce funding for necessary and ongoing renovation and construction
    projects.
        The potential impact of reducing sanctuary appropriations goes far
    beyond the individual sanctuaries themselves: limiting visitor center
    hours, eliminating research programs, and diminishing enforcement
    capacities prevents ONMS from fulfilling its statutory mandates, while
    also reducing the economic activity and job creation from which healthy
    communities benefit. Funding sanctuaries below recommended levels could
    force the program to:
        Reduce public access and recreation opportunities for all
    Americans.--Funding cuts risk the Florida Keys National Marine
    Sanctuary's 767 mooring buoys, which provide public access and
    recreational opportunities within the sanctuary while protecting coral
    reefs and shipwrecks from anchor damage.
        Restrict enforcement operations that protect legal fishermen.--Lack
    of funding jeopardizes on-water patrols for illegal fishermen in the
    Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. In a single 2013 case, illegal
    fishermen were charged with over 1,300 violations for pilfering 664
    yellowtail snapper from a closed area that was shown to have provided
    benefits to both fish populations and commercial and recreational
    anglers.
        Cut visitor center hours.--Sanctuary visitor centers act as a
    public face of NOAA to over 350,000 visitors per year, including
    Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center (California),
    Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Hawaii), Great Lakes Maritime Heritage
    Center (Michigan), and Florida Keys EcoDiscovery Center (Florida).
        Cancel education and outreach programs that leverage private
    funds.--Reduced funding jeopardizes education and outreach activities
    on the water, at sanctuaries and visitor centers, and in classrooms.
      noaa needs sufficient funds to fulfill its responsibilities to the
                                american people
        We strongly support the Friends of NOAA Coalition request to fund
    the agency at no less than $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2015.--From
    weather forecasts to fisheries management, NOAA provides decision
    makers with critical data, products, and services that promote and
    enhance the Nation's economy, security, environment, and quality of
    life. Insufficient funding will only serve to diminish the economic
    activity and job creation that is successfully revitalizing communities
    across America.

                                                  Jason Patlis,
                                                     President and CEO.
     letter from the national marine sanctuary foundation, cordell marine
    sanctuary foundation, farallones marine sanctuary association, friends
       of thunder bay national marine sanctuary, hawai`i national marine
        sanctuary foundation, monterey bay & channel islands sanctuary
     foundations, olympic coast alliance, sanctuary friends foundation of
                    the florida keys, and stellwagen alive!
                                                        April 25, 2014.

    Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
    Chairwoman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
    Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Richard C. Shelby,
    Ranking Member, Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby:

        As Congress begins negotiations on the fiscal year 2015 Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, we
    respectfully request that you prioritize programmatic requests for:
      --National Marine Sanctuary Program--Construction/Acquisition, within
            the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
            Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) account at a
            level of $5.5 million; and
      --Sanctuaries and Marine Protected Areas Base, within NOAA's
            Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account, at a level
            of $51 million.
        We are deeply concerned by recent decreases to sanctuaries' PAC
    account, which result in multiple, unfinished construction projects,
    and prevent NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) from
    acquiring the vessels necessary to complete core research, education,
    and law enforcement missions that simply cannot be accomplished from
    land alone. Facilities supported by PAC funds anchor tourism and
    recreation economies and serve as the public face of the government's
    ocean management. We strongly encourage you to support PAC funds that
    provide critical links between our ocean and the millions of Americans
    who visit the coast each year.
        Among all the statutes enacted by Congress to govern ocean
    resources, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act stands alone for its
    comprehensive, community-driven, transparent and balanced approach.
    While seeking to sustainably protect resources within sanctuaries, the
    law allows compatible commercial and recreational activities.
    Sanctuaries serve as economic engines for our communities and
    businesses, supporting thousands of jobs and generating billions of
    dollars in local revenues. Sanctuaries serve as living laboratories for
    research and centers for civic pride.
        Sanctuaries are making essential contributions to marine ecosystem
    health and coastal job creation, and sufficient ORF funding will allow
    ONMS to sustain progress to date. ONMS has not received adequate
    appropriations in past budget cycles, despite the program's increased
    responsibilities. Lack of funds will force ONMS to cut public access
    and recreation opportunities, cancel collaborative efforts with museums
    and universities that leverage private funds for taxpayer benefits, and
    terminate education initiatives. We strongly encourage you to ensure
    that funding for these priorities is added to the base level for the
    Marine Sanctuary Program.
        Closing visitor centers, eliminating research programs, diminishing
    enforcement capacities, and abolishing education initiatives will
    prevent ONMS from implementing management plans--driven and informed by
    local communities--for yet another year. We strongly urge you to remedy
    this situation by supporting an overall appropriation of $56.5 million
    for sanctuaries in fiscal year 2015.
        Thank you for your consideration. We wish you all the best for the
    remainder of the 113th Congress.
        Sincerely,

                        Jason Patlis, National Marine Sanctuary Foundation;
                                Tom Lambert, Cordell Marine Sanctuary
                                Foundation; Chris Kelley, Farallones Marine
                                Sanctuary Association; Charles N. Wiesen,
                                Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine
                                Sanctuary; Lynette Poncin, Hawai`i National
                                Marine Sanctuary Foundation; Dennis J.
                                Long, Monterey Bay & Channel Islands
                                Sanctuary Foundations; Jill Silver, Olympic
                                Coast Alliance; George Neugent, Sanctuary
                                Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys; and
                                William Grafton, Stellwagen Alive!
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Shelby and distinguished members
    of the Appropriations Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    provide testimony on the importance of investing in Violence Against
    Women Act programs and the Victims of Crime Act. I sincerely thank the
    Committee for its ongoing support for these lifesaving programs.
        I am the President and CEO for the National Network to End Domestic
    Violence (NNEDV), the Nation's leading voice for victims of domestic
    violence and their advocates. We represent the 56 State and territorial
    domestic violence coalitions, their over 2,000 member domestic violence
    and sexual assault programs, and the millions of victims they serve.
    Our direct connection with victims and those who serve them gives us a
    unique understanding of their needs and the vital importance of these
    continued investments.
        The purpose of this testimony is to request an investment of the
    full authorized amount of $569.5 million in the Violence Against Women
    Act (VAWA) and the release of $1.5 billion from the Victims of Crime
    Act Fund administered by the U.S. Department of Justice in the fiscal
    year 2015 Budget.
        Incidence, Prevalence, Severity and Consequences of Domestic and
    Sexual Violence.--The crimes of domestic and sexual violence are
    pervasive, insidious and life-threatening. In 2011, the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first-ever National
    Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, which found that domestic
    violence, sexual violence, and stalking are widespread. Domestic
    violence affects more than 12 million people each year, and nearly
    three in ten women and one in four men have experienced rape, physical
    violence, or stalking in his or her lifetime. The terrifying conclusion
    of domestic violence is often murder, and every day in the U.S. an
    average of three women are killed by a current or former intimate
    partner.\1\ The cycle is perpetuated as approximately 15.5 million
    children are exposed to domestic violence every year.\2\ One study
    found that men exposed to physical abuse, sexual abuse and adult
    domestic violence as children were almost four times more likely to
    have perpetrated domestic violence as adults.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Homicide Trends in the
    U.S. from 1976-2005. U.S. Dept. of Justice.
        \2\ McDonald, R., et al. (2006). ``Estimating the Number of
    American Children Living in Partner-Violence Families.'' Journal of
    Family Psychology, 30(1), 137-142.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the terrible cost of domestic and sexual violence to
    individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and
    communities. According to the Centers for Disease Control, based on
    1999 figures, the cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8
    billion each year, $4.1 billion of which is for direct healthcare
    services.\3\ Translating this into 2012 dollars, based on share of GDP,
    the annual cost to the Nation is over $9 billion per year, more than
    two-thirds of which is for direct healthcare services. In addition,
    domestic violence costs U.S. employers an estimated $3 to $13 billion
    annually.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of
    Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta
    (Georgia): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003.
        \4\ Bureau of National Affairs Special Rep. No. 32, Violence and
    Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990); Joan Zorza, Women
    Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law, Clearinghouse Rev.,
    Vol. 28, No. 4, 383, 385.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite this grim reality, we know that when a coordinated response
    is developed and immediate, essential services are available, victims
    can escape from life-threatening violence and begin to rebuild their
    lives. To address unmet needs and build upon their successes, VAWA
    programs and the Victims of Crime Act fund release should receive
    significant increases in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
    Science Appropriations bill.
        The Need for Increased Funding to Maintain Programs and Bridge the
    Gap.--At a Congressional briefing in March, NNEDV released Domestic
    Violence Counts (the Census), a 24-hour national snapshot of domestic
    violence services. The report revealed that in just one day in 2013,
    while more than 66,000 victims of domestic violence received services,
    over 9,640 requests for services went unmet due to lack of funding and
    resources. In 2013, domestic violence programs reported that they had
    laid off nearly 1,700 staff positions, including counselors, advocates
    and children's advocates, and also had to reduce or completely
    eliminate over 1,280 services, including emergency shelter, legal
    advocacy, and counseling. I strongly encourage you to read the Census
    at www.nnedv.org/census2013 to learn more. Additionally, since 2011, at
    least 19 local domestic violence programs have been forced to close
    entirely and sequestration meant that approximately 140,000 more
    victims were unable to access services last year.
        For those individuals who are not able to find safety, the
    consequences can be dire, including homelessness or continued exposure
    to life-threatening violence. In order to meet the immediate needs of
    victims in danger and to continue to prevent and end domestic violence,
    VAWA funding must be increased and additional funds must be released
    from VOCA.
                       violence against women act (vawa)
        Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)--$569.50 million funding
    request.--Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been the cornerstone of
    our Nation's response to domestic violence. Now in its 20th year, VAWA
    has contributed to substantial progress toward ending domestic
    violence. Despite this progress, an unconscionable need remains for
    victim services. The progress and promise of VAWA, and related programs
    aimed at addressing domestic and sexual violence, can only be only be
    fulfilled if the programs receive continued investment through the
    appropriations process. We have highlighted the following programs as
    key priorities and we urge you to support full funding for these and
    all VAWA programs as you work on the fiscal year 2015 CJS bill.
        VAWA STOP Program--$222 million funding request.--VAWA's STOP Grant
    Program is at the core of effective coordinated community responses to
    domestic violence and sexual assault. These coordinated responses help
    hundreds of thousands of victims find safety and get the services they
    need to start over, while holding perpetrators accountable. As the
    foundational VAWA program, the STOP program awards funds to every State
    and territory through a formula-based system. States use this STOP
    funding for law enforcement, prosecution, and courts training and
    response. Many States establish special units in law enforcement
    agencies and prosecutors' offices to address domestic and sexual
    violence. Victims benefit from services including advocacy, crisis
    intervention, local crisis hotlines, counseling and support, and victim
    witness notification. We urge you to provide $222 million to support
    these essential, comprehensive services.
        Additionally, we urge you to include report language that would
    exempt the STOP program from the Prison Rape Education Act (PREA)
    penalty, which would cut 5 percent of the STOP funding in States that
    are not in compliance with PREA.
        Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV)--$57 million funding request.--
    Research indicates that the practical nature of legal services gives
    victims long-term alternatives to their abusive relationships. However,
    the retainers or hourly fees for private legal representation are
    beyond the means of most victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
    sexual assault and stalking. In fact, almost 70 percent of all victims
    are without legal representation. The Civil Legal Assistance for
    Victims Program is the only federally funded program designed to meet
    the legal needs of victims. Due to the high demand for these services,
    the Office on Violence Against Women receives almost 300 applications
    per year, and only one-third of these are funded. Last year, funding
    for LAV was cut by $4 million despite its efficacy and the great demand
    for these services. Targeted increases to the LAV program are a sound
    investment in long-term solutions to violence. We urge you to provide
    $57 million for this program.
        Rural Grant program--$50 million funding request.--The Rural Grant
    Program supports services for victims of domestic violence and sexual
    assault living in rural and isolated areas. Rural victims face unique
    barriers including lack of access to child care, legal services, and
    public transportation, under-resourced law enforcement, and a shortage
    of safe shelter and services. Funding for this program has either been
    cut or remained stagnant for the last several years despite the great
    need and a number of States becoming newly eligible through the most
    recent VAWA reauthorization. We urge you to provide $50 million for
    this program.
        Transitional Housing program--$35 million funding request.--This
    vital VAWA program helps communities in every State offer victims a
    safe place to begin to rebuild their lives. In just one day in 2013,
    5,270 adults and 7,561 children were housed in domestic violence
    transitional housing programs. On the same day, however, 5,778 requests
    (60 percent of the unmet requests) for emergency shelter or
    transitional housing were denied due to a lack of capacity. The extreme
    dearth of affordable housing produces a situation where many victims of
    domestic violence must return to their abusers because they cannot find
    long-term housing, while others are forced into homelessness. Increased
    investment in the Transitional Housing program will allow more States
    and localities to ensure that victims indo not have to make these
    unfathomable choices. We urge you to provide $35 million for this
    program.
        Grants to Encourage Arrest (GTEAP)--$73 million funding request.--
    GTEAP helps communities develop and sustain a seamless and
    comprehensive criminal justice response to domestic violence, enhancing
    victims' safety and holding perpetrators accountable. GTEAP encourages
    State, local, and tribal governments and State, local, and tribal
    courts to treat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
    stalking as serious violations of criminal law requiring the
    coordinated involvement of the entire criminal justice system. The
    homicide reduction initiative set aside ($4 million) is designed to
    address the risk of homicide of abuse victims, especially those in
    escalating domestic violence situations. Increased investment in GTEAP
    at $73 million will allow communities to continue this lifesaving work.
        Sexual Assault Services Program--$40 million funding request.--The
    Sexual Assault Services Program (SASP) is the only Federal funding
    source dedicated to providing direct services to adult and minor
    victims of sexual violence and is distributed through a State formula
    grant. Services include hotlines, crisis intervention, advocacy, and
    accompaniment through medical and legal systems. Increased funding will
    help eliminate waiting lists and respond to the unmet needs of victims.
    We urge you to provide $40 million for this vital program.
        Remaining VAWA programs--full funding (see chart below).--All VAWA
    programs work together to improve the system-wide response domestic and
    sexual violence and to meet the unique and pressing needs of victims.
    VAWA programs should be funded at their full authorization levels, as
    indicated in the table below.

        VAWA AND OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS--Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015--Campaign for
                                       Funding to End Domestic and Sexual Violence
                            [All numbers are expressed in millions.]--Updated: March 6, 2014
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                                                              2013 reduced by               President's
         Name of Grant Program      Fiscal year  Fiscal year   sequestration   Fiscal year  fiscal year   Authorized
                                    2012 budget  2013 budget  and rescissions  2014 budget  2015 budget     level
                                                                    \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS.......................................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    STOP--Grants to Combat              $189.00      $189.00        $176.18        $193.00      $193.00      $222.00
     Violence Against Women.......
    Sexual Assault Services               23.00        25.00          23.30          27.00        27.00        40.00
     Program (SASP)...............
    Services for Rural Victims....        34.00        36.50          34.02          36.00        33.00        50.00
    Civil Legal Assistance for            41.00        41.00          38.22          37.00        42.50        57.00
     Victims......................
    Transitional Housing (OVW)....        25.00        25.00          23.30          24.75        25.00        35.00
    Grants to Encourage Arrest            50.00        50.00          46.61          50.00        50.00        73.00
     Policies \2\.................
    CHOOSE Youth Program \3\......         5.00         5.00           4.66           5.00         5.00        15.00
    SMART Program \3\.............         5.00         5.00           4.66           5.00         5.00        15.00
    Grants to Support Families in         16.00        15.00          14.45          15.00        16.00        22.00
     the Justice System...........
    Violence on College Campuses           9.00         9.00           8.39           9.00        11.00        12.00
     (Campus Grants)..............
    Protections and Services for           5.75         5.75           5.36           5.75         5.75         9.00
     Disabled Victims.............
    Elder Abuse Grant Program.....         4.25         4.25           3.96           4.25         4.25         9.00
    National Institute of Justice          3.00         3.50           3.26           3.25         3.00        --
     (NIJ)........................
    Research on Violence Against           1.00         1.00           0.93           1.00         1.00         1.00
     Indian Women.................
    National Resource Center on            1.00         0.50           0.47           0.50         0.50         1.00
     Workplace Responses..........
    Nat'l Clearinghouse on Sexual          0.50         0.50           0.47           0.50         0.50         0.50
     Assault of American Indian
     and Alaska Native Women......
    Outreach to Underserved                0.00         0.00           0.00           0.00        --            2.00
     Populations..................
    National Tribal Sex Offender           0.00         0.00           0.00           0.00        --            1.00
     Registry.....................
    Tribal Jurisdiction...........        --           --             --             --           --            5.00
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          VAWA CJS Total..........       412.50       416.00         388.24         417.00       422.50       569.50
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year
                                    Fiscal year  Fiscal year   2013 reduced  Fiscal year  President's     Funding
                                    2012 budget  2013 budget        by       2014 budget  fiscal year     request
                                                              sequestration               2015 budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VOCA Fund Cap \4\.............      $705.00      $730.00        N/A          $745.00      $810.00        $1.50B
        State Victim Assistance          379.00       425.20        N/A            --           --          500.00
         Grants...................
        Tribal VOCA Funding Stream        --           --            --            --           20.00        20.00
        Vision 21 & Trafficking           --           --            --            12.50        35.00        35.00
         Initiatives..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Fiscal year
                                                            2013 reduced by               President's
        Name of Grant Program     Fiscal year  Fiscal year   sequestration   Fiscal year  fiscal year    Authorized
                                  2012 budget  2013 budget  and rescissions  2014 budget  2015 budget      level
                                                                  \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS..................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES............................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Family Violence Prevention        $129.50      $129.50        $121.19        $133.50      $135.00      $175.00
     and Services Act (FVPSA)
     \5\/Domestic Violence
     Shelters...................
    National Domestic Violence           3.20         3.20           3.04           4.50         5.00         5.00
     Hotline \5\................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL...................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rape Prevention and                $41.70       $41.70         $39.39         $38.00       $38.00       $50.00
     Education..................
    DELTA--Domestic Violence             5.40         5.40           5.13           5.20         5.20         6.00
     Prevention Enhancement and
     Leadership Through
     Alliances \5\..............
    Preventive Health and Health         7.00         7.00           7.00           7.00         0.00         7.00
     Services Block Grant
     (PHHSBG) Sex Offense Set-
     Aside \6\..................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       OFFICE ON WOMEN'S HEALTH.....................................................
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Violence Against Women              $2.30        $2.30          $2.30          $2.30        $2.30       $10.00
     Health Initiative..........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          L-HHS Total...........       189.10       189.10         178.05         190.50       185.50       253.00
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    PLEASE NOTE: This chart will continue to be updated throughout the fiscal year 2015 Appropriations process.
    Updates can be found at www.nnedv.org/funding.
    \1\ Rescissions and sequestration: The L-HHS programs were reduced by a 0.189 percent across the board cut for
      fiscal year 2012. In fiscal year 2012, VAWA DOJ programs were subject to an across-the-board rescission of
      1.877 percent. In fiscal year 2013, most discretionary programs, including those at OVW, were subjected to
      Sequestration cuts between 5-7 percent. Also, in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014, the final bills each
      included a $12 million rescission from OVW from unobligated or deobligated funds.
    \2\ In fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget, $4 million has been
      set aside in GTEAP for a homicide reduction initiative.
    \3\ VAWA 2013 consolidated youth and prevention programs into two programs. Appropriations funded these programs
      as one consolidated program for the past several years. The chart above divides the amounts given to the
      Consolidated Youth program into the two new programs to demonstrate the funding history. Both the President's
      fiscal year 2014 budget and the final fiscal year 2014 bill consolidated these programs and funded them at $10
      million overall. This chart estimates that roughly $5 million will be spent on each.
    \4\ VOCA Notes: State victim assistance grants are a portion of the total VOCA ``cap'' and are distributed to
      States on a population-based formula. The total annual amount for State victims assistance grants is
      determined by a formula and is not specified in Appropriations bills or Presidential budgets. We highlight
      this portion of VOCA because it funds local victim service programs and is a priority for the field. Vision
      21: The President's fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 Budgets proposed setting aside $25 million dollars
      from the amount of money released from the VOCA fund for the Vision 21 initiative, $20 million for tribal
      victim services and $10 million to address trafficking. In the final fiscal year 2014 bill, Congress
      appropriated $12.5 million for the Vision 21 initiative from its general CJS funds and not as a set-aside of
      VOCA funds. We support $35 million for Vision 21 through CJS funds. Tribal funding: We support the President's
      request for a VOCA Tribal funding set-aside.
    \5\ FVPSA, the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and DELTA are authorized through the Family Violence
      Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA).
    \6\ PHHSBG is authorized through the Public Health Services Act and includes a mandatory set-aside for providing
      services to rape victims and for rape prevention. The sex-offense set-aside was not cut by sequestration in
      2013.

                      victims of crime act (voca) funding
        VOCA uses non-taxpayer money from the Crime Victims Fund for
    programs that serve victims of crime, including State formula victim
    assistance grants. These funds, which are generated by fines paid by
    Federal criminals, provide support for services to four million victims
    of all types of crimes annually, through 4,400 direct service agencies
    such as domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, and child
    abuse treatment programs. Additional VOCA funds are critically needed
    to respond to the crisis caused by the dangerous lack of services for
    victims of domestic and sexual violence.
        With an obvious need for increased funding, and a more than ample
    balance of at least $11 billion in the Fund, now is the time to
    establish a long-term, logical and consistent basis for determining the
    annual VOCA cap in order to release additional money for the purpose
    Congress intended and for which it has been collected. The balance in
    the Crime Victims Fund is more than enough to significantly increase
    VOCA funding without jeopardizing the Fund's future sustainability.
        We urge you to request that the committee set the annual VOCA
    funding release level at no less than the amount deposited into the
    Fund during the previous full fiscal year. This number is approximately
    $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2014. We urge you to release $1.5 billion
    from the VOCA fund in fiscal year 2015 to address the needs of victims
    of crime.
        In addition, once at least $500 million is guaranteed for the State
    victim assistance grants, we request that there also be a Native
    American tribal funding stream for victim services. We also request
    funding for the Office for Victims of Crime's Vision 21 Initiative
    through CJS appropriations.
                                   conclusion
        These programs work together to prevent and end domestic and sexual
    violence. While our country has made continued investments in the
    criminal justice response to these heinous crimes, we need an equal
    investment in the human service, public health and prevention responses
    in order to holistically address and end the violence. These vital,
    cost-effective programs help break the cycle, reduce related social
    ills, and will save our Nation money now and in the future.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Native American Rights Fund
        The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) \1\ submits this written
    statement for the record. We respectfully request this subcommittee's
    consideration as you develop the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
    Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill of maintaining funding
    within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Office of Justice Program's
    State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance account, at approximately $3
    million as provided in recent years to the Bureau of Justice Assistance
    (BJA), within assistance to Indian tribes, for the Tribal Civil and
    Criminal Legal Assistance, Training and Technical Assistance grant
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Founded in 1970, the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) is the
    oldest and largest nonprofit law firm dedicated to asserting and
    defending the rights of Indian tribes, organizations and individuals
    nationwide. NARF's practice is concentrated in five key areas: the
    preservation of tribal existence; the protection of tribal natural
    resources; the promotion of Native American human rights; the
    accountability of governments to Native Americans; and the development
    of Indian law and educating the public about Indian rights, laws, and
    issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Twenty-five Indian Legal Services programs, which are the Indian
    program components of the Legal Services Corporation, operate in 23
    States. They annually provide both civil and criminal legal
    representation in tribal courts to hundreds of individual Native
    American clients, including juveniles, who meet Federal poverty
    guidelines.\2\ Legal work encompasses a broad array of cases, including
    domestic violence, pro se assistance, family member prisoner visitation
    and re-entry, child welfare and adoption, employment and home
    foreclosure assistance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ In 2000, Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Technical
    and Legal Assistance Act (Public Law 106-559), which specifically
    authorized the Department of Justice to provide grants to ``non-profit
    entities . . . which provide legal assistance services for Indian
    tribes, members of Indian tribes, or tribal justice systems pursuant to
    Federal poverty guidelines'' [emphasis added]. The Indian Tribal
    Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 was reauthorized
    through fiscal year 2015 as part of the Tribal Law and Order Act
    (Public Law 111-211).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to individual representation, these Indian Legal
    Services programs are currently assisting more than 160 tribes and/or
    tribal judicial systems in such activities as tribal court development
    and improvement, development of tribal dispute resolution and
    peacemaker/mediation systems, drafting of civil and criminal codes and
    rules of procedure and other structural development for court
    implementation, and training of tribal court and justice systems
    personnel and tribal court lay advocates and guardians ad litem.
        Specific project examples with recent funding from BJA include a
    State-wide tribal court support group; a video-conferencing system for
    court appearance; development of Domestic Violence ordinances; work
    with a newly-established Tribal Wellness Drug and Alcohol Court;
    helping to review a tribal criminal and juvenile justice system and to
    recommend reforms based on traditional tribal values and restorative
    justice concepts; assisting juvenile clients who have severe truancy,
    chemical dependency, and mental health issues to receive education,
    treatment, counseling, and other holistic wraparound services to avoid
    out of home placements and further criminal/delinquent behavior and
    consequences; and partnering with a tribal court and tribal college on
    a tribal advocacy certificate program.
        In many instances, these Indian Legal Services programs have been
    ``on the ground,'' in these tribal communities, for decades, an
    integral part of the legal structure of the reservation communities
    they serve. The programs' representation of individual tribal citizens
    and training for and assistance to tribal governments and tribal
    judicial systems help keep citizens safe, help assure that tribal
    justice systems are grounded in solid codes and laws so that those
    communities can better attract business investments, and provide
    economic opportunities by training tribal citizens to work in the
    justice system as advocates and judges. The Indian Legal Services
    programs' work in developing and strengthening the institutions of
    tribal justice and creating a solid legal infrastructure on the
    reservations ultimately builds sustained economic opportunity and
    growth in those tribal communities.
        Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, these Indian Legal
    Services programs have competed with other non-profit entities and
    received grant funding under DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' Bureau
    of Justice Assistance's Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance,
    Training and Technical Assistance (TCCLA) grant program to supplement
    Legal Services Corporation resources and other Federal grant funds in
    order to expand services to tribal citizens and tribal justice
    systems.\3\ The Native American Rights Fund serves as the administering
    agency for these grant funds to the National Association of Indian
    Legal Services (NAILS), an umbrella association of the Indian Legal
    Services programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ In fiscal year 2010, under TCCLA, NAILS was awarded $1.25
    million for civil legal assistance and $1.1 million for criminal legal
    assistance; in fiscal year 2011, NAILS was awarded $536,363 for tribal
    civil legal assistance, and $1.1 million for tribal criminal legal
    assistance; in fiscal year 2012, NAILS was awarded $850,659 for tribal
    civil legal assistance, and $875,000 for tribal criminal legal
    assistance; and in fiscal year 2013, NAILS was awarded $715,944 for
    tribal civil legal assistance, and $515,940 for tribal criminal legal
    assistance. We are awaiting announcement of an fiscal year 2014
    solicitation, upon which the Indian Legal Services programs plan to
    submit applications for both tribal civil and criminal legal assistance
    for fiscal year 2014 funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law
    113-76) provided $30 million for ``assistance to Indian tribes.'' We
    have not yet learned in full detail how DOJ intends to allocate these
    funds. However, we note that the reports of both the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees accompanying your stand-alone fiscal year
    2014 CJS appropriations bills directed again that DOJ allocate fiscal
    year 2014 funds based on tribal consultation for such purposes as
    tribal courts, alcohol and substance abuse reduction grants, tribal
    detention facilities, and tribal civil and criminal legal assistance.
    We are hopeful that this report language will encourage the Department
    to allocate some fiscal year 2014 funding for the TCCLA grant program.
        With respect to the fiscal year 2015 budget request, the
    administration has again proposed bill language in General Provisions--
    Department of Justice for several setasides for DOJ funding, including
    a setaside of 7 percent for tribal criminal (note: not criminal AND
    civil, as provided now, through TCCLA) justice assistance.
        Because the Indian Legal Services programs are not tribal
    governments, and do not want to have to compete with tribes for DOJ
    funding,\4\ what is most helpful is to have a specific funding amount
    for tribal civil and criminal legal assistance, a reference to the
    authorizing statute that allows DOJ to award grants for these services
    (Public Law 106-559), and a mention of the inclusion of the purpose of
    providing tribal civil and criminal legal assistance.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Having to compete with tribal governments for a portion of the
    overall DOJ funds for Indian Country assistance is, as a policy matter,
    something that the Indian Legal Services programs have worked hard over
    the years to avoid, and which led us to get the initial authorizing
    legislation enacted in 2000, Public Law 106-559.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        If in fiscal year 2015, as in fiscal year 2014, (though at a lesser
    percentage than the administration requested), the Senate
    Appropriations Committee should agree with DOJ's request for a tribal
    set-aside, or if, as under the final fiscal year 2014 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, you should, instead, provide an overall ``lump
    sum'' amount to OJP for ``assistance to Indian tribes,'' we would ask
    for your consideration of report language, as included in recent years,
    that would encourage DOJ to make some funding available to non-tribal
    governmental entities such as Indian Legal Services programs for the
    purpose of the provision of tribal civil and criminal legal assistance
    services.
        Prior years' instructive report language of the Appropriations
    Committees has directed the Office of Justice Programs to consult with
    tribal stakeholders in determining how the overall amount of funding
    for tribal assistance will be allocated, and has specifically mentioned
    tribal civil and criminal legal assistance. That report language has
    been helpful in ensuring that the Department of Justice provide
    approximately $3 million in funding to the Tribal Civil and Criminal
    Legal Assistance, Training and Technical Assistance grant program, for
    which Indian Legal Services has competed for funding awards.
        Funding of approximately $3 million should be appropriated in
    fiscal year 2015, as in recent years, for tribal civil and criminal
    legal assistance, and tribal court development work, as undertaken by
    Indian Legal Services programs. Thank you for your attention to and
    consideration of this submission.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration fiscal year 2015 appropriations. My name is
    Billy Frank, Jr. and I am the Chairman of the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes
    that are party to the United States v. Washington \1\ (U.S. v.
    Washington). I am providing written testimony for the record in support
    of funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Ocean
    Service (NOS).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              summary of fiscal year 2015 appropriations requests
      --$110.0 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (NOAA/
            NMFS)
      --$14.7 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty, including the
            Additional $3.0 million for the 2008 Chinook Salmon Agreement
            (NOAA/NMFS)
      --$15.8 million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program (NOAA/NMFS)
      --$20.0 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program
            (NOAA/NOS)

        We are generally pleased with the President's fiscal year 2015
    budget request as it establishes a good starting point. However, it's
    just that--a starting point--much more needs to be done. It promotes a
    strong stewardship in sustaining our vital natural resources. The
    natural resources that we depend on are vital to our tribal
    communities, economies and jobs. The President's budget provides for
    economic growth by paying for new investments while protecting the
    environment. Our economy depends on a healthy natural environment. The
    land and the many natural resources we depend on are a necessity for
    our communities to thrive. We need to continue to improve the condition
    of our changing environment for the benefit of future generations.
        The western Washington treaty tribes brought to the Federal
    Government our Treaty Rights at Risk (TRAR) initiative almost 3 years
    ago. We are slowly creating change in the manner in which government
    agencies operate but it has not yet been enough to change the
    trajectory of salmon recovery in our region from a negative to a
    positive direction. In this initiative we asked the Federal Government
    to take charge of salmon recovery because it has the obligation and
    authority to ensure both the recovery of salmon and the protection of
    tribal treaty rights. We requested that the Federal Government
    implement their fiduciary duties by better protecting salmon habitat
    and the tribes' treaty-reserved resources. The treaty-reserved right of
    the western Washington treaty tribes to harvest salmon is at risk. The
    danger exists due to diminishing salmon populations, which limits or
    eliminates our right to harvest. All of this is due to the inability to
    restore salmon habitat faster than it is being destroyed. Wild salmon
    and their habitat continue to decline despite massive reductions in
    harvest and a significant investment in habitat restoration. We have
    all made a huge investment in the recovery of salmon and their habitat.
    These good investments must continue and will contribute to recovery as
    we work to slow down the continued loss of habitat. Fulfilling these
    Federal obligations is not an option and by addressing our TRAR--we
    will recover the salmon populations.
        Adequate funding is needed in order to restore salmon habitat. A
    critical funding source for this work is the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund (PCSRF). The PCSRF assists tribes in the implementation
    of salmon recovery plans and moves us in the direction of achieving the
    recovery goals, which is a direct request in our TRAR initiative. As
    Congress considers the fiscal year 2015 budget, we ask you to consider
    our requests that are further described below.
                           justification of requests
    Provide $110.0 million for NOAA Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund

        We support the restoration of the PCSRF to the $110.0 million
    level, an increase of $60.0 million over the President's request. These
    funds have decreased from the peak of $110.0 million in fiscal year
    2002. We continue to support the original congressional intent of these
    funds that would enable the Federal Government to fulfill its
    obligations to salmon recovery and the treaty fishing rights of the
    tribes.
        The PCSRF is a multi-State, multi-tribe program established by
    Congress in fiscal year 2000 with a primary goal to help recover wild
    salmon throughout the Pacific coast region. The PCSRF supports projects
    that restore, conserve and protect Pacific salmon and steelhead and
    their habitats. PCSRF is making a significant contribution to the
    recovery of wild salmon throughout the region by financially supporting
    and leveraging local and regional efforts. Salmon restoration projects
    not only benefits fish populations and their habitat but provides much
    needed jobs for the local communities.
        The tribes' overall goal in the PCSRF program is to restore wild
    salmon populations. The key tribal objective is to protect and restore
    important habitat in Puget Sound and along the Washington coast that is
    essential for western Washington tribes to exercise their treaty-
    reserved fishing rights consistent with U.S. v. Washington and Hoh v.
    Baldrige \2\ and also promotes the recovery of ESA listed species and
    other salmon populations. These funds support policy and technical
    capacities for tribes to plan, implement, and monitor recovery
    activities. The tribes use these funds to support the scientific salmon
    recovery approach that makes this program so unique and important. In
    addition to watershed restoration and salmon recovery work they also
    help fund fish hatchery reform efforts to allow for the exercise of
    tribal treaty fishing rights. It is for these reasons that the tribes
    strongly support the PCSRF.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hoh v. Baldrige--A Federal court ruling that required fisheries
    management on a river-by-river basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Provide $14.7 million for NOAA Pacific Salmon Treaty, including the
            Additional $3.0 million associated with the 2008 Chinook Salmon
            Agreement
        We support the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)/U.S. Section's
    request of $14.7 million, an increase of $3.9 million over the
    President's request. We also support as part of their request $1.5
    million for the Puget Sound Critical Stock Augmentation Program and
    $1.5 million for the Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Program as required by the
    2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Chinook Annex Agreement. The Puget
    Sound Critical Stock funding covers the operation and maintenance costs
    for the hatchery augmentation programs established for Dungeness,
    Stillaguamish, and Nooksack Chinook. These hatchery efforts were
    initiated in connection with the 2008 Chinook Agreement of the U.S./
    Canada PST as the conservation needs of these populations could not be
    met by harvest restriction actions alone. The CWT funding allows for
    continued maintenance and efficiency improvements of the coast-wide CWT
    program. This is essential for the sustainability and management of our
    fisheries resources. Currently there is not enough funding allocated to
    carry out the requirements of the PST, which causes the PSC to not be
    able to perform all of its responsibilities required in the treaty and
    its Chinook and coho annexes.
        The PST was implemented in 1985 through the cooperative efforts of
    tribal, State, U.S. and Canadian Governments, and sport and commercial
    fishing interests. The PSC was created by the United States and Canada
    to implement the treaty, which was most recently updated in 2008. The
    PSC establishes fishery regimes, develops management recommendations,
    assesses each country's performance and compliance with the treaty, and
    is the forum for all entities to work towards reaching an agreement on
    mutual fisheries issues. As co-managers of the fishery resources in
    western Washington, tribal participation in implementing the PST is
    critical to achieve the goals of the treaty to protect, share and
    restore salmon resources.
        Adult salmon returning to most western Washington streams migrate
    through U.S. and Canadian waters and are harvested by fisherman from
    both countries. For years, there were no restrictions on the
    interception of returning salmon by fishermen of neighboring countries.
    The 2008 update of the treaty gave additional protection to weak runs
    of Chinook salmon returning to Puget Sound rivers. The update also
    provided compensation to Alaskan fishermen for lost fishing
    opportunities, while also funding habitat restoration in the Puget
    Sound region.
    Provide $15.8 million for NOAA Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs
        We support the President's request of $15.8 million for the
    Mitchell Act Hatchery Programs. Funding is provided for the operation
    of 17 fish hatcheries that release between 50 and 60 million juvenile
    salmon and steelhead in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. This program has
    historically provided fish production for tribal treaty fisheries, and
    recreational and commercial fisheries in the Columbia River and the
    ocean. It is especially important to us in that they provide
    significant fish production for harvest opportunities for tribal treaty
    fisheries along the Washington coast. Providing adequate funding to
    maintain the current production levels from the Mitchell Act hatcheries
    on the Columbia River is important as this production not only supports
    coastal salmon fisheries but dampens the impact of Canadian fisheries
    under the terms of the PST Chinook Annex on Puget Sound and coastal
    stocks.
        Overall production from these hatcheries has been reduced from more
    than 100 million to fewer than 60 million fish. This hatchery
    production is intended to mitigate for the lost production caused by
    the hydropower dam system on the Columbia River. Substantial changes
    have been made, and will continue to be required of the Mitchell Act
    Program, due to the application of the ESA throughout the Columbia
    Basin. Adequate funding will also allow these facilities to be
    retrofitted to meet current ESA standards as identified through the
    hatchery reform process.
    Provide $20.0 million for NOAA Regional Ocean Partnership Grants
            Program
        We request $20.0 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership. It
    appears the President's fiscal year 2015 budget didn't include a
    request for this program but we feel it is necessary to highlight it
    since it is so critical to our regional approach to coastal management.
    Funding for this competitive grant program has in the past been
    included within the National Ocean Service/Coastal Management account
    and supports regional ocean partnerships, including coastal and marine
    spatial planning. This program was developed to advance effective
    coastal and ocean management through regional ocean governance by
    improving communications, aligning priorities and enhancing resource
    sharing.
        The Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Tribes, and the Quinault Indian Nation
    helped form the Intergovernmental Policy Council with the intent to
    strengthen management partnerships through coordination and focus of
    work efforts. They have pioneered cooperative partnerships with the
    State of Washington and the Federal Government in an effort to advance
    management practices in the coastal waters. Through this partnership,
    the entities hope to coordinate rockfish research, habitat mapping, and
    deep sea coral and climate change considerations. The four coastal
    tribes and the State also wish to engage in an ocean monitoring and
    research initiative to support and transition into an ecosystem-based
    fisheries management plan for the Washington coast. This tribal-State
    effort would be in collaboration with NOAA and consistent with regional
    priorities identified by a regional ocean planning body. Effective
    management of the ocean ecosystem and its associated resources requires
    the development of baseline information against which changes can be
    measured. For the tribes and State to conduct an ocean monitoring and
    research initiative off the Washington coast, they will need funding to
    support this effort. Healthy oceans are essential if we value stable
    climates that will sustain our economies and our lives. Tribes must be
    partners in the efforts to research, clean up and restore the
    environment in order to deal with identified problems.
                                   conclusion
        We are sensitive to the budget challenges that Congress faces.
    However, we need your continued support in upholding the treaty
    obligations and fulfilling the trust responsibility of those treaties
    in order for tribes to be successful. We respectfully urge you to
    continue to support our efforts to protect and restore our great
    natural heritage that in turn will provide for thriving economies.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Ocean Conservancy
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide Ocean Conservancy's
    recommendations for fiscal year 2015 funding for National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Ocean Conservancy has worked for 40
    years to address ocean threats through sound, practical policies that
    protect our ocean and improve our lives. We support funding for NOAA at
    or above the President's request of $5.5 billion, and we support
    balanced investments across NOAA's atmospheric and oceanic missions. We
    recommend the following funding levels for specific programs.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal year 2014         Fiscal year 2015         Fiscal year 2015
         Account, Program or Activity              enacted            President's request       recommended level
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND FACILITIES
    National Ocean Service:
      Coastal Science, Assessment,
       Response, and Restoration:
        Marine Debris....................  $6 million.............  $6 million.............  $8 million
        Arctic Spill Preparedness........             --            $1.315 million increase  $1.315 million increase
      Coastal Management Grants:
        Regional Coastal Resilience                   --            $5 million.............  $10 million
         Grants.
    National Marine Fisheries Service:
      Marine Mammals.....................  $49.717 million........  $47.217 million........  $49.717 million
      Fisheries Research and Management    $177.833 million.......  $181.833 million.......  $181.833 million
       Programs.
      Expand Annual Stock Assessments....  $69.745 million........  $72.245 million........  $75.6 million
      Fisheries Statistics...............  $22.361 million........  $22.361 million........  $23.9 million
      Climate Regimes & Ecosystem          $2.031 million.........  $2.879 million.........  $2.879 million
       Productivity.
        Distributed Biological Obs.                   --            $848,000 increase......  $848,000 increase
         (Arctic).
    Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
     Research:
      Integrated Ocean Acidification.....  $6.051 million.........  $14.922 million........  $15 million
      Regional Climate Data and            $37.312 million........  $52.312 million........  $52.312 million
       Information.
        NOAA Arctic Research Program.....             --            $2.190 million increase  $2.190 million increase
    Program Support:
      NOAA Wide Corporate Services &       $113.139 million.......  $125.139 million.......  $125.139 million
       Agency Mgmt. Base.
      Marine Operations & Maintenance....  $172.181 million.......  $175.032 million.......  $175.032 million
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                regional coastal resilience grants: $10 million
        The resilience of our coastal communities is a critical mission for
    NOAA and the National Ocean Service. But resilience means more than
    just storm-ready; truly resilient communities are prepared to face
    changing ocean conditions, from acidification to sea level rise,
    changing economic conditions, from recession to emerging ocean uses, as
    well as major catastrophes, from Superstorm Sandy to marine debris
    clogging waterways. Resilient communities invest up-front today to
    ensure they avoid unnecessary costs--economic, social, and
    environmental--in the future. Regional approaches are an effective and
    efficient way to address the full range of changing ocean and coastal
    conditions and risks--bringing communities, States, and Federal
    agencies together to share their collective knowledge and experience
    and move forward on shared priorities. Regional Coastal Resilience
    Grants from NOAA support work to advance resilience by supporting
    regional priorities for ocean and coastal science and activities.
        Because regional grants were left unfunded for the first time in
    fiscal year 2014, ongoing efforts through States and partnerships (like
    the Regional Ocean Partnerships) have been threatened--interfering with
    progress to support local and regional ocean and coastal needs and
    priorities, or leverage the Federal Government's expertise and data
    collection capacity. Failure to restore the regional competitive grant
    funding and provide an increase to $10 million will undermine and
    threaten the progress these partnerships have made. For these reasons,
    we request that the Regional Coastal Resilience Grants within NOAA's
    National Ocean Service be funded at $10 million.
                        preparing for a changing arctic
        We support the three funding increases requested by NOAA in fiscal
    year 2015 that make investments we need now to be prepared for economic
    and ecological challenges of a changing Arctic.
      --Arctic Spill Preparedness: $1.315 million increase.--Currently,
            there is no demonstrated technology, technique or
            infrastructure to respond effectively to an oil spill in icy
            Arctic waters. Funding to support improved models, increased
            capacity and coordination, and research is urgently needed.
            Along with a precautionary approach, these efforts can guide
            decisions about whether development activities should occur in
            the Arctic and, if so, when, where, and how they occur.
      --Distributed Biological Observatory (Arctic): $848,000 increase.--
            The Arctic marine ecosystem provides irreplaceable benefits,
            but our understanding of this ecosystem is hampered by a lack
            of reliable baseline data, critical science gaps, and limited
            documentation and application/use of traditional knowledge.
            Funding will provide much-needed support for collection of
            baseline data and analysis of ecosystem functions in Arctic
            marine waters so we better understand Arctic fisheries and
            other valuable ecosystem services. Without this better
            understanding our ability to make informed decisions is
            compromised.
      --NOAA Arctic Research Program: $2.190 million increase.--
            Temperatures in the Arctic are warming at twice the rate of the
            global average and seasonal sea ice is diminishing rapidly.
            Funding to expand and improve NOAA's Arctic Observing Network
            is critical to track and understand these profound changes and
            provide products that inform industries and decision-makers and
            support our ability to adapt.
                           marine debris: $8 million
        Marine debris has become one of the most pervasive pollution
    problems facing the world's oceans, coasts and waterways. Research has
    demonstrated that persistent debris has serious effects on the marine
    environment, wildlife and the economy. Marine debris causes wildlife
    entanglement, ghost fishing, destruction of habitat, navigational
    hazards, vessel damage and pollutes coastal areas. There is also
    increasing concern over the threat of microplastics to the marine food
    web and potentially humans. NOAA's Marine Debris program supports
    existing monitoring and research efforts to better understand
    accumulation rates of debris and debris source and sink dynamics. The
    program catalyzes scientific research efforts to quantify the direct
    and indirect economic impacts caused by marine debris on coastal
    communities and economies that rely on them. And increasingly, NOAA's
    program is emphasizing research on microplastics in the ocean and their
    toxicological impacts on marine organisms. NOAA's Marine Debris program
    was originally authorized at a level of $10 million. We support funding
    for this program at $8 million, a $2 million increase over fiscal year
    2014.
                        marine mammals: $49.717 million
        We do not support NOAA's proposed cut of $2.5 million dollars from
    the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program.
    This cut would harm marine mammal stranding networks, which are the
    first responders for sick or dying marine mammals. Marine mammals face
    significant threats in the Gulf of Mexico, with the Galveston Bay Spill
    providing the latest example. Programs in Texas and Florida in
    particular would be harmed by this cut because they are not currently
    benefitting from BP Natural Resource Damage Assessment dollars that are
    temporarily filling funding gaps in northern Gulf rescue centers, but
    not elsewhere.
                       fisheries science and information
        We support funding for programs that implement the ``Magnuson-
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act''. As we review the Act
    for reauthorization, it is important to note that the Act is working--
    NOAA has made great strides towards ending overfishing and continued
    investments in these programs are needed.
      --Expand Annual Stock Assessments: $75 million.--This funding line
            provides critically needed resources for fisheries managers to
            assess priority fish stocks, implement the requirement for
            annual catch limits (ACLs), and ensure the successful recovery
            of overfished populations. The survey and monitoring and stock
            assessment activities funded under this line give fishery
            managers greater confidence that their ACLs will avoid
            overfishing while providing optimal fishing opportunities.
            Because the information provided by stock assessments is so
            vital for sustainable management of U.S. fisheries, increased
            funding for stock assessments should remain among the highest
            priorities in fiscal year 2015.
      --Marine Operations and Maintenance: $175.032 million.--Marine
            Operations and Maintenance should be funded at or above the
            President's Request level of $175.032 million. Days at sea
            funded by this line are functionally tied to fishery stock
            assessments, and the two programs must be viewed together. In
            addition, while not currently requested in the NOAA budget, we
            encourage Congress to consider the needs of the NOAA fleet as
            well.
      --Fisheries Statistics (Marine Recreational Information Program):
            $23.9 million.--Despite their often sizeable economic and
            biological impacts, much less data are collected from
            recreational saltwater fisheries than commercial fisheries due
            to the sheer number of participants and limited sampling of
            anglers' catches. The low level of data collection and lack of
            timely reporting of data in these fisheries is a large source
            of uncertainty and has become a flashpoint for controversy in
            regions where catch restrictions have been adopted to rebuild
            overfished stocks, particularly in the Southeast. By all
            accounts, improved sampling and timelier reporting of catch
            data are needed for successful management of marine
            recreational fisheries.
      --Fisheries Research & Mgmt. Programs (elec. monitoring): at least
            $181.833 million.--We support increasing funding for electronic
            monitoring and reporting by at least the $4 million requested
            by NOAA. This funding has been requested for nationwide
            efforts, but in the Gulf of Mexico alone, where managers need
            electronic monitoring to keep track of catch and prevent
            overruns in the red snapper fishery, there is significant need
            for additional funding. In conjunction with the charter-for-
            hire, seafood, environmental and regulatory communities across
            all five Gulf States, we recommend that NOAA direct $2 million
            of increased funding to create an electronic data collection
            program for the federally-permitted charter boat fishery in the
            Gulf of Mexico.
                         integrated ocean acidification
        In recent years, scientists have raised the alarm about ocean
    acidification--a process whereby ocean waters' absorption of carbon
    dioxide emissions alters marine acidity. These changes can have far-
    reaching consequences for marine life, including economically important
    species like shellfish. For example, the shellfish industry in the
    Pacific Northwest has been devastated in recent years as increasingly
    acidic water impacted oyster hatcheries, nearly wiping out several
    years-worth of oyster ``seed.''
        Given the magnitude of the potential impacts of ocean acidification
    we believe this area warrants significantly more research investment.
    The President's fiscal year 2015 request of $15 million is a good step
    in the right direction of the actual on-the-ground needs for Ocean
    Acidification research. Funding at the $15 million level will allow
    NOAA to improve the understanding of ocean and coastal acidification
    impacts and to develop tools and adaptive strategies for vulnerable
    industries and stakeholders. These tools may include advanced
    technologies to enhance the U.S. Ocean Acidification Observing System,
    develop models to better understand carbonate chemistry dynamics and
    impacts, and provide valuable data products for coastal resource
    managers and other stakeholders. By increasing funding for Integrated
    Ocean Acidification to this level, NOAA will be able to take these
    concrete actions to more effectively tackle the economic, on-the-ground
    implications of ocean acidification and better plan for future
    strategies that will protect our Nation's key ocean and coastal
    economic assets.
    noaa wide corporate services & agency management base: $125.139 million
        We support the administration's request for a $12 million increase
    for NOAA wide Corporate Services & Agency Management Base. As
    Administrator Sullivan said recently, it is rarely popular to invest in
    back-of-house functions, but if you do not support these critical
    functions, program delivery suffers. Appropriate funding for
    organizational hygiene ultimately allows the agency to more effectively
    carry out its mission, and thus results in benefits to ocean programs.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Dr. James Oliver, University of North Carolina at
                                   Charlotte
        Dear Sirs: The President's 2015 budget lists closure of the Center
    for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, National Centers for
    Coastal Ocean Programs, National Ocean Science, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), at Beaufort North Carolina. I wish
    to strongly voice my opposition to this aspect of the budget, which I
    feel is not in our Nation's best interests.
        The Government has invested heavily in this facility: The Beaufort
    Laboratory facility has, over the last few years, had major upgrades of
    approximately $14 million. The lab is also rich in manpower, with a
    total of 108 staff and contractors who would be directly affected by
    the proposed closure.
        Scientific expertise.--The President's same budget also includes an
    increase of $4 million to another center to support ecological
    forecasting of harmful algal blooms (HABs), the effects of the
    decreasing levels of oxygen in our coastal waters, and an increase in
    human and animal pathogens. This is ironic in that the Beaufort
    Laboratory is a recognized leading facility for such studies, and has
    the expertise and facilities needed to address them. Their acknowledged
    reputation attracts support from other NOAA offices and other
    organizations that realize the benefits of this laboratory's
    experience.
        Along with numerous other ocean scientists, many of whom like
    myself who enjoy scientific collaborations with the Beaufort Lab, I
    plead for Congress to direct NOAA to restore support and funding to
    full operational levels in order to fully utilize the capacity of the
    NOAA Beaufort Laboratory.
        Thank you for studying this issue for the benefit of our country's
    scientific efforts.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Omega Protein, Inc. and Daybrook Fisheries, Inc.
                                                        August 8, 2014.
        Dear members: This letter is submitted on behalf of the roughly
    1500 men and women employed by the menhaden industry in the Gulf of
    Mexico and the Mid-Atlantic, many if not most of whom work and fish
    here in Louisiana. The two remaining commercial menhaden fisheries,
    Omega Protein, Inc. and Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., which combined,
    produce an economic impact in excess of $1 billion to these regions and
    manufacture products that support domestic and foreign agriculture,
    aquaculture, and human health and nutrition industries, among many
    others. To do so, our industry must depend on credible and accurate
    scientific and commercial information, which for over a half century
    has been provided by the scientists and researchers at the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Fisheries
    Science Center's (``SEFSC'') Beaufort, North Carolina Lab.
        In his fiscal year 2015 budget, President Obama proposes to close
    the Beaufort Lab and consolidate its operations at other SEFSC
    facilities to be determined in the future. While the President does not
    include a separate line item in his budget for this proposal, the
    closing accounts for a fraction of the $14 million projected savings
    from the Department of Commerce's reorganization of six science and
    technology programs; perhaps a million dollars per year, according to
    staff. We respectfully and urgently request that you oppose this
    proposal and continue funding the Beaufort Lab in the fiscal year 2015
    budget and beyond.
        The Beaufort Lab and its staff of over 100 employees support the
    management activities of the Gulf States and Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commissions, primarily by conducting and leading the menhaden
    stock assessment (the Southeast Data Analysis and Review, or ``SEDAR'')
    for each region. It also collects, digitizes, and analyzes commercial
    catch data provided by the companies' captains in detailed logbook
    form. This information is an essential component of the joint Federal/
    State menhaden management system and critical for continuing science-
    based, sustainable management of these economically and ecologically
    important stocks.
        As such, we are concerned that the Beaufort Lab's closure presents
    a serious risk of disruption and loss of menhaden expertise. The Lab
    currently houses personnel with nearly a century of combined experience
    with the Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries-biologists who provide
    aging data for the stock assessment and who have tracked and analyzed
    the fisheries for decades. It is nearly a certainty that longest
    serving and most knowledgeable staff will not make transition to a new
    location. If the assessment scientists likewise choose to remain in
    North Carolina, the National Marine Fisheries Service (``NMFS'') would
    essentially be faced with starting its menhaden program from the
    ground-up, if it chooses to continue it at all.
        While the menhaden industry has received assurances that NOAA
    Fisheries is committed to continuing to provide support for these
    fisheries, we remain concerned for the future. Given that the States
    take the lead in managing the Gulf and Atlantic menhaden fisheries, it
    is not difficult to imagine NMFS deciding, as an additional cost-
    cutting measure, to forgo its role entirely.
        It also should not be overlooked that Beaufort Lab is one of the
    few remaining scientific institutions NMFS has in the Mid-Atlantic
    region. Beaufort is the center of research on Southeast U.S.
    Continental Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem. It houses NMFS scientific and
    management personnel from SEFSC's Miami and Pascagoula Labs doing
    research on fisheries, marine mammals (such as on Northern right
    whales, whose calving areas are off the North Carolina coast), sea
    turtles, and habitats unique to the area. Beaufort is the only NMFS lab
    located in the breeding areas of loggerhead, green, and Kemp's Ridley
    sea turtles in the Northern Recovery Unit. In order to continue these
    lines of study, NMFS would essentially have to recreate the Beaufort
    Lab.
        In short, the Beaufort Lab's closure would create a significant gap
    in our scientific understanding of the Gulf and Mid-Atlantic marine
    systems and fisheries. This action also unnecessarily jeopardizes
    America's largest fishery by volume, the Gulf and Atlantic menhaden
    fisheries. This is simply too much for such negligible potential
    savings. We strongly urge you to support its continued funding.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Bret Scholtes,
                                   President & CEO, Omega Protein, Inc.
                                                  Gregory Holt,
                                    President, Daybrook Fisheries, Inc.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Planetary Society
        The Planetary Society has serious concerns for the future of NASA's
    Planetary Science Division as proposed in the fiscal year 2015 NASA
    budget request. For the 3rd year in a row, the White House has proposed
    cuts to the program that will ensure the decline of planetary
    exploration over the course of this decade. The core recommendation of
    the National Academy's planetary science decadal survey--the crucial
    balance of small, medium, and flagship missions, combined with steady
    research and technology funding--is not supported by this request,
    which, at $1.28 billion, is nearly $220 million below the recommended
    $1.5 billion per year needed to implement a program consistent with the
    intent of the decadal survey.
        NASA's Planetary Science program has a clear direction provided by
    the Visions and Voyages planetary science decadal survey and has
    maintained a productive, successful, and unprecedented program of
    exploration throughout the past decade. The Curiosity rover is
    approaching the base of an 18,000-foot Martian mountain; the Cassini
    spacecraft has confirmed an underground ocean on Saturn's moon,
    Enceladus; New Horizons will fly by Pluto next year for the first time
    in human history. These are highly engaging, exciting, and compelling
    events delivered by NASA's planetary program. They inspire generation
    after generation of students and the public to embrace science and
    engineering. They dramatically demonstrate the United States'
    engineering and scientific prowess. But despite this, the White House
    has proposed cuts year after year that threaten the health of this
    program.
        Previous actions by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
    have mitigated the losses to planetary science that would have come
    about had the White House's original requests in fiscal year 2013 and
    fiscal year 2014 been enacted. But even with these partial
    restorations, the United States' scientific exploration of the solar
    system is approaching a nadir not seen since the 1980s. The number of
    new missions launching during the period covered by the current decadal
    survey has dropped by half compared to the previous decade [Figure 1].
    When Cassini at Saturn and Juno at Jupiter end their missions in 2017,
    there will be no NASA missions exploring the outer planets for the
    first time since the 1970s. Decades of hard-earned capability and
    engineering know-how will be placed at risk just as Europe, India,
    Russia, and China are committing to solar system exploration.
        Even if a new mission to the outer planets were selected tomorrow,
    the United States would still face a minimum 6-year gap. The ``fade to
    black'' predicted by respected NASA veterans Bobby Braun and Noel
    Hinners \1\ has come to pass. The question facing NASA and the Congress
    is how long to make this period last.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ U.S. Planetary Science: Fading to Black. Space News, April 22,
    2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The administration's budget proposal ensures a long period of
    darkness. Based on statements within the budget document, the number of
    new planetary science missions in development dwindles to two (Mars
    2020 and the next small-class Discovery mission) by 2016, the lowest
    level in decades. While NASA officials have stated their intention to
    increase the cadence of the Discovery missions by the end of the
    decade, the budget makes no statement to this effect. It also suspends
    one of the major components of a balanced planetary program: the
    medium-class ``New Frontiers'' mission line. If this occurs, exactly
    zero of the competitively-selected medium-class missions recommended by
    the decadal survey for 2013-2022 will be implemented. This represents a
    notable change in policy, as all previous budgets anticipated a new New
    Frontiers opportunity in 2016.
        The administration did take a tentative step towards a mission to
    explore Europa, which would help address the lack of outer planets
    exploration. The Planetary Society wishes to recognize the importance
    of this mission, and we are happy to see NASA and the White House take
    this step.
        Europa, the moon of Jupiter with a vast liquid water ocean, is a
    destination long sought by the scientific community. It ranked as the
    most important flagship mission in the first decadal survey and the
    second-most important in the current decadal survey. Last year's
    discovery of likely water plumes erupting from Europa's south pole only
    served to increase the moon's scientific importance. These plumes
    significantly lower the cost of performing initial analysis of Europa's
    water, as a spacecraft could far more easily fly through and collect
    plume samples instead of landing and boring through a thick ice sheet.
        But the White House requests a mere $15 million to study a low-cost
    Europa mission concept, despite having received over $140 million in
    the past 2 years to advance the Europa Clipper concept mission from the
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory, which had
    already reduced the cost of a major scientific mission by over 50
    percent from the original decadal concept. To reduce it further, as
    NASA is proposing, raises serious questions of the scientific return
    possible from such a mission. We are all for cost-savings, but we must
    ensure that this once-in-a-generation opportunity to explore Europa
    achieves the preponderance of scientific goals as defined in the
    decadal survey, and sufficiently moves our understanding of Europa to
    the point where NASA could subsequently attempt a landing on the
    surface.
        The timing for the Europa mission, not mentioned in the fiscal year
    2015 request but stated by NASA officials as ``mid-2020s,'' is also a
    concern. We support section 321 of H.R. 2687, the NASA Authorization
    Act of 2013, which sets key policies for planetary missions, including
    the goal to launch by 2021 a major Europa mission that is responsive to
    the decadal survey. A similar provision is now the 2014 NASA
    Authorization bill currently working its way through the House Science
    Committee.
        The administration's budget deserves praise for funding continued
    operations for several existing planetary science missions, notably the
    popular Curiosity rover on Mars and the long-lived Cassini orbiter at
    Saturn. The next major mission to Mars appears to have a reasonable, if
    tight, budget profile that supports its launch in 2020. Additionally,
    the request provides adequate funding to maintain the Department of
    Energy's Plutonium-238 infrastructure and restart program, crucial for
    continued access to destinations where solar power is not feasible. We
    strongly support these decisions, and urge Congress to do so as well.
        But the budget proposal does place the continued operation of two
    functioning planetary spacecraft at risk. Both the Opportunity rover
    and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter are zeroed out in the base
    proposal. Instead, they are moved to the President's Opportunity,
    Growth, and Security Initiative. The Planetary Society believes in
    maximizing taxpayer value for NASA assets by continuing operations as
    long as missions remain scientifically valuable. We fully expect the
    upcoming senior review at NASA to validate the scientific returns of
    both missions, and strongly recommend that both continue operations
    whether or not the OGSI is passed into law.
        The major NASA achievements in planetary exploration slated for
    fiscal year 2015--Curiosity at Mt. Sharp, New Horizons at Pluto, Dawn
    orbiting Ceres--represent what's great about the country. They are bold
    feats of engineering and scientific prowess. They are optimistic--each
    one faced immense challenges that were overcome by careful thought and
    planning. They engage the public with their bold feats of discovery.
    They are also all initiatives from the previous Presidential
    administration.
        Spacecraft take time to design, build, and fly. We are not so much
    concerned for the health of the current set of missions (Opportunity
    and LRO are notable exceptions) so much as we are concerned for the
    health of the program going forward. NASA already faces the biggest gap
    in solar system exploration in decades, and has dropped its launch rate
    for this decade by half, but this can still change. Wise action by the
    Congress and a receptive administration can embrace planetary science
    for what it is: a unique and hard-earned capability that is worth a
    small investment--$1.5 billion per year, less than 9 percent of NASA's
    total budget--to maintain a peerless program of exploration that
    inspires the country.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 1: Funding level of NASA's Planetary Science Division from 2003-
    2019, adjusted for inflation and displaying the number of missions
    planned to be in development according to NASA Budget requests during
    this period. The average budget for 2003-2013 is $1.5 billion per year.
    Modifications to the budget have been made to preserve programmatic
    consistency. Note that by the end of the decade the Division is working
    on only two new missions while maintaining an aging set of spacecraft
    and funding Pu-238 development, scientific research, NEO detection, and
    instruments on foreign missions. Raw data and methods are available at
    http://planetary.org/planetary-funding-chart.

    Note: funding projections suggest that the Discovery 14 mission could
    begin development in fiscal year 2018 or fiscal year 2019, though this
    is unstated in the budget request and therefore not represented here.
                          about the planetary society
        The Planetary Society has inspired millions of people to explore
    other worlds and seek other life. Today, its international membership
    of over 40,000 individuals makes the non-governmental Planetary Society
    the largest space interest group in the world. Carl Sagan, Bruce Murray
    and Louis Friedman founded the Planetary Society in 1980. Bill Nye, a
    long time member of the Planetary Society's Board, serves as CEO.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
                                    Program
        RISS serves thousands of law enforcement and public safety agencies
    across the country in their effort to successfully resolve criminal
    investigations, apprehend and prosecute offenders, maintain security,
    and ensure officer safety through nationwide deconfliction. Agencies,
    officers, and public safety professionals turn to and rely on RISS to
    access intelligence systems, investigative databases, analytical
    support, training, and a host of other services and resources. RISS is
    a leader and an innovator in technology and investigative support and
    has enabled law enforcement to significantly improve information
    sharing across jurisdictions, resulting in thousands of arrests and
    prosecutions and millions of dollars in seizures. It is imperative that
    these advances continue and be built upon in order to ensure a safer
    Nation. Fiscal year 2015 funding for RISS is requested at $45 million.
    This funding will support the continued operation of the six regional
    intelligence centers, the RISS Technology Support Center, and all of
    RISS's technology, investigative, and deconfliction services and
    resources.
        In fiscal year 2012, RISS's funding was reduced 40 percent from $45
    million to $27 million. RISS continued to provide the best possible
    service and solutions to its agencies and partners. RISS worked
    diligently to maintain its core services and secure infrastructure. In
    addition, RISS was asked by numerous agencies, including many Federal
    agencies, to participate in initiatives and help identify solutions.
    However, in some cases, agencies experienced decreases in analytical
    and investigative case support, training, and other investigative
    services. The RISS fiscal year 2013 appropriation was $35 million, a
    significant increase over fiscal year 2012. Because of sequestration
    and administrative fees, however, RISS's net funding for fiscal year
    2013 was $29.5 million. The fiscal year 2014 appropriation included
    RISS at $30 million. After administrative fees are applied, however,
    RISS's allocation will be $27 million--less than fiscal year 2013. The
    fiscal year 2015 President's budget includes RISS at $25 million, which
    at that level would exacerbate an already critical situation for the
    local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies RISS serves.
     riss provides secure information and intelligence sharing capabilities
        RISS operates the RISS Secure Cloud (RISSNET)--a sensitive but
    unclassified (SBU) law enforcement cloud provider. RISSNET connects
    disparate systems, provides bidirectional sharing, and offers a
    federated search of connected systems. RISSNET serves as the secure
    infrastructure for hundreds of critical resources and investigative
    tools. The owners of these resources rely on RISSNET for its secure
    infrastructure. Currently, 84 systems are connected or pending
    connection to RISSNET. Without RISSNET and the hundreds of resources it
    supports, agencies would be greatly limited in their ability to
    retrieve, exchange, and use information to prevent and solve crimes.
        Examples of RISS-developed resources accessible via RISSNET include
    the RISS Criminal Intelligence Database (RISSIntel), the RISS Officer
    Safety Event Deconfliction System (RISSafe), the RISS Officer Safety
    Web site, the RISS National Gang Program (RISSGang), the RISS Automated
    Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX), and the RISSLeads Investigative
    Website. RISS also develops secure hosted websites for partners to
    share information, post materials, and communicate. There are more than
    30 sites housed on RISSNET, including the Assured SBU Network
    Interoperability Working Group, the National Interagency Fire Center,
    the Medicaid Fraud Control Units, the Medicaid Integrity Institute, and
    the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
        The RISSIntel user interface provides for a real-time, online
    federated search of more than 35 RISS and partner intelligence
    databases, including State systems, the California gang intelligence
    system (CalGang), and systems connected via the National Virtual
    Pointer System (NVPS). This search does not require the RISSNET user to
    have a separate user account with the respective partner systems. This
    simplified sign-on approach enables officers to save time and quickly
    retrieve critical information. Millions of records are available via
    RISSIntel and bidirectionally from connected partner systems.
        The RISSGang Program consists of the RISS National Gang
    Intelligence Database, the RISSGang Website, and information resources.
    The database provides law enforcement agencies with access to gang
    records, including suspects, organizations, weapons, photographs, and
    graffiti. The website provides resources, information, and
    publications. RISS completed a system-to-system interface between
    RISSIntel/RISSGang and CalGang, enabling authorized users to initiate a
    federated search. RISS completed the connection to the Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' GangNet and is working to
    connect other gang systems.
        RISS ATIX provides a secure platform for law enforcement, public
    safety, first responders, and the private sector involved in securing
    our Nation from terrorism and other disasters to share information.
    Community groups include local, county, State, and tribal levels of
    emergency management, law enforcement, and government, as well as
    public and private utilities, transportation, agriculture, chemical
    manufacturing, private security, environmental protection, banking and
    finance, and hospitality industries. The RISS ATIX resources include
    secure Web pages, secure discussion forums, a document library, and
    secure e-mail.
        Each RISS Center maintains a secure Web site to provide users with
    access to RISSIntel, other RISSNET resources, and investigative
    systems, such as the RISS Property and Recovery Tracking System, the
    Cold Case Database, and the Pseudo Violator Tracking System. The number
    of investigative records available through these different systems
    exceeds 37 million. During fiscal year 2013, more than 73 million
    transactions occurred via RISSNET.
                riss supports the nation's public safety mission
        RISS is a key player in Federal information sharing initiatives.
    RISS supports and partners with Federal agencies, such as the Law
    Enforcement National Data Exchange (N-DEx); the Federal Law Enforcement
    Training Center; the Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing
    Environment (PM-ISE); the Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN);
    the National Criminal Intelligence Resource Center; the United States
    Secret Service's Targeted Violence Information Sharing System; the
    Medicaid Fraud Control Units; and the National Motor Vehicle Title
    Information System.
        The N-DEx and RISS Information Sharing Partnership aims to expand
    the availability of case management, investigative, and intelligence
    data as well as critical analytical tools. Access to N-DEx will be
    available to authorized RISSNET users via the Law Enforcement
    Enterprise Portal without requiring an additional username or password.
    This capability enables officers to obtain needed information quickly,
    saves officers' time, streamlines operations, and enhances law
    enforcement's ability to respond to crime in their community
    effectively and efficiently. This effort was launched in the Rocky
    Mountain Information Network (RMIN), a RISS Center, and plans are under
    way to expand it to the other RISS Center regions throughout 2014.
        RISS is the only non-Federal entity participating in the Assured
    SBU Interoperability Initiative under the auspices of the White House
    and the PM-ISE. This initiative seeks to expand federated access to
    resources and to provide simplified sign-on capabilities for officers
    to access multiple systems simultaneously. RISS is at the forefront in
    providing simplified, federated access. More than 18,000 users from
    trusted partner systems are using Federated Identity to access RISSNET
    resources. In addition, RISS built and hosts the NVPS Message Hub to
    provide access to the NVPS participant agencies and to RISS member
    agencies that submit records to the RISSIntel databases via RISSNET.
    Through these partnerships, RISS offers cost-effective and time-saving
    solutions while further strengthening information sharing, public
    safety, and officer safety.
        The RISS Centers have strong partnerships with fusion centers.
    Almost all fusion centers have access to RISSNET. RISS intelligence
    analysts interact daily with staff at various fusion centers. Some
    analysts are collocated. RISS provides technical on-site assistance to
    fusion centers to integrate RISS services and resources into their
    daily operations and coordinates the delivery of RISS services with
    fusion center personnel. During fiscal year 2013, RISS initiated the
    Northeast Fusion Center Intelligence Project, which will connect 17
    existing fusion centers' intelligence systems to RISSIntel via RISSNET.
    By leveraging RISSNET and RISSIntel, fusion centers can securely share
    intelligence data among themselves and other entities and analyze
    criminal and terrorism data across jurisdictional boundaries, while
    safeguarding privacy and civil liberties.
        RISS is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of
    Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the National Narcotic
    Officers' Associations' Coalition, the National Alliance of Gang
    Investigators Associations, and many others. RISS's partnerships have
    resulted in an unprecedented level of information and intelligence
    sharing.
               riss enhances officer safety through deconfliction
        RISSafe is an essential component in helping to ensure officer
    safety. RISSafe stores and maintains data on planned law enforcement
    events--such as raids, controlled buys, and surveillances--with the
    goal of identifying and alerting affected agencies and officers of
    potential conflicts impacting law enforcement efforts. The interaction
    between RISSafe and RISSIntel provides comprehensive officer safety
    event and subject deconfliction services. RISSafe Mobile enables
    officers to access RISSafe from their smartphones and other mobile
    devices. RISSafe is accessible and monitored on a 24/7/365 basis and
    available at no cost to all law enforcement agencies regardless of RISS
    membership. It is impossible to put a monetary value on the number of
    officers that RISSafe has helped protect from harm or, worse, death.
        Since its inception, more than 757,000 operations have been entered
    into RISSafe, resulting in more than 263,000 identified conflicts.
    Currently, 22 RISSafe Watch Centers are operational, 16 of which are
    operated by organizations other than RISS, such as State agencies,
    fusion centers, and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). As
    of March 4, 2014, RISSafe and HIDTA's Case Explorer have been connected
    in the six RISS regions. Work is under way to expand connectivity with
    other deconfliction partners.
        The RISS Officer Safety Website serves as a nationwide repository
    for issues related to officer safety, such as concealments, hidden
    weapons, armed and dangerous threats, officer safety videos, special
    reports, and training.
             riss provides critical investigative and case support
        RISS offers law enforcement agencies and officers comprehensive
    investigative services, from the beginning of an investigation to the
    ultimate prosecution and conviction of criminals. An officer can
    simultaneously query connected intelligence databases; retrieve
    information from specialized investigative databases and resources; use
    analytical products, such as crime scene diagrams, link-analysis
    charts, digital forensics, and audio/video services; solicit assistance
    from research staff to help sift through information, conduct research,
    and help identify the missing piece of the puzzle; borrow surveillance
    and investigative equipment; obtain training on new and emerging
    topics; and access critical publications and law enforcement-sensitive
    briefings. In fiscal year 2013, the RISS Centers developed 27,015
    analytical products, loaned 4,062 pieces of specialized equipment,
    responded to 210,404 requests for research and technical assistance,
    and trained 46,579 individuals.
        RISS is an excellent return on investment for our Nation. Over the
    last 10 years, officers leveraging RISS's services arrested almost
    48,000 offenders and seized more than $765.8 million in narcotics,
    property, and currency. Without RISS's services and resources,
    criminals, drugs, stolen property, and other contraband might still be
    on our streets. Every day, officers use RISS to help solve cases and
    stay safe. To view success stories from every State and other
    information regarding RISS, visit www.riss.net/Impact.
        It would be counterproductive to require local and State RISS
    members to self-fund match requirements or to reduce the amount of
    Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary funding. Agencies require
    more funding to fight the Nation's crime problem. RISS is unable to
    make up the decrease in funding that a match would cause, for it has no
    revenue source of its own. RISS has been instrumental in breaking down
    the communications barriers among the criminal justice community and
    providing seamless access to critical information, intelligence, and
    investigative resources. RISS is A Proven Resource for Law Enforcement.
    RISS's services and programs directly impact law enforcement's ability
    to successfully resolve investigations and prosecute criminals while
    providing the critical resources and officer safety deconfliction
    necessary to safeguard law enforcement officers and citizens. With the
    ongoing threats to our communities and Nation, more support for RISS is
    needed, not less. RISS is grateful to provide this testimony at your
    request and appreciates the support this committee continuously
    provides to the RISS Program.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Research!America
        Research!America, a public education and advocacy alliance
    committed to advancing medical and other scientific research and
    development, appreciates the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies'
    stewardship over such a critical subset of our Nation's discretionary
    funding priorities. As the subcommittee begins the process of
    prioritizing fiscal year 2015 funding, we urge you to consider the
    following thoughts on the National Science Foundation (NSF) which is
    entrusted with sustaining our Nation's sophisticated research
    infrastructure, partnering with the private sector to accelerate
    innovation, and maintaining our global leadership. For fiscal year
    2015, we request that the National Science Foundation receive at least
    $7.6 billion in Federal funding to allow its continued growth as a
    driver for basic research.
        The National Science Foundation (NSF) plays a pivotal role in
    advancing basic and social sciences research. The funding, or lack of
    it, allocated to NSF will bear on our Nation's ability to compete in
    key export markets within the global economy, foster business
    development that grows and maintains jobs across the country, utilize
    social sciences research for more efficient Federal spending based on
    advanced understanding of the use of social services, devise evidence-
    based strategies for empowering Americans to overcome the need for such
    services, meet our solemn obligations to our troops, bolster national
    security, and ensure top-line education for scientists and medical
    researchers at our Nation's colleges and universities. The stakes truly
    are that high.
                         nsf as an innovation incubator
        In fiscal year 2015, we urge you to fund NSF with at least $7.6
    billion to continue the trajectory of increased basic research which is
    so critical to society. NSF supports research in fundamental sciences
    and engineering to keep the United States at the forefront of
    scientific discovery. The source of approximately 21 percent of all
    federally funded basic research, NSF funds over 300,000 scientists,
    engineers, educators, and basic researchers through more than 11,000
    grants annually. The fruits of NSF basic research are integral to our
    Nation's innovation cycle. Countless innovations that Americans depend
    on every day, like laser technologies and Internet search functions,
    are products of NSF-supported research. NSF has also supported the work
    of more than 200 Nobel Prize winners in the past 60 years.
    nsf as a conduit to evidence-based, strategic use of government dollars
        NSF's support of social sciences research is grossly underestimated
    in its value to taxpayers, the wellbeing of children and other
    vulnerable populations, and the prosperity of our Nation. Designing and
    executing social services programs without evidence-based foundations
    is akin to shooting in the dark, wasting resources, and comprising the
    mission. When you think of child welfare programs, the need for social
    sciences research is crystal clear. It would be tragic if programs
    inadvertently created disincentives for proper foster care, for
    example. Social sciences research enables a better understanding of
    international markets, boosting the ability of businesses to succeed in
    our globalized economy. It is a dangerous mistake to dismiss the
    importance of such research.
                               nsf as an educator
        In an era when a capable scientific workforce is crucial, NSF funds
    the education and training of the future STEM staff and leaders through
    various K-12, undergraduate, and graduate education programs. The only
    agency with a federally-mandated mission requiring incorporation of
    science and engineering education in all funded research, NSF helps to
    develop skilled researchers who not only extend scientific innovations
    but also educate future generations. For more than 20 years, the
    Advanced Technological Education program (ATE) has offered scientific
    educational support and opportunities to more than 54,000 undergraduate
    and associate degree students via almost 300 active grants. Without
    sufficient Federal funding, fundamental educational programs like ATE
    are at risk for cutbacks which will weaken the future scientific
    workforce of America and hinder our countries growth as a global
    innovator.
                      the threat of sequestration's return
        The Ryan-Murray Bipartisan Budget Act provided America with 2 years
    of partial relief from sequestration after across the board budget cuts
    dramatically impacted the Nation's research capability in March 2013.
    Unfortunately, sequestration will go back into full effect in 2016
    unless Congress takes action, and it will be in effect for 2 years
    longer than originally established under the 2011 Budget Control Act.
    The return of sequestration's budget cuts to discretionary spending,
    including that for NSF, poses potentially devastating setbacks to our
    Nation's research. Short-changing scientific innovation and basic
    research is not a solution to the Federal deficit or debt. For example,
    neglecting medical research undercuts strategies to fight chronic
    disease and the multipronged Federal costs that arise from it, while
    squandering opportunities to increase private sector and Federal
    revenues through new medical innovations.
        Research!America appreciates the difficult task facing the
    subcommittee as it seeks to simultaneously confront the budget deficit,
    strengthen the United States, and promote the well-being of Americans.
    There are few Federal investments that confer as many benefits as
    medical research--new cures, new businesses, new jobs, new solutions to
    healthcare cost inflation, and new fuel to drive U.S. leadership in a
    global economy shaped by the ability of countries to continuously
    innovate. We firmly believe that investing in NSF is a means of
    advancing our Nation's innovative capacity in both the short- and long-
    term. Thank you for your leadership and consideration; we know that
    your task is extraordinarily difficult, and that our Nation is
    fortunate to have such pragmatic, committed and gifted leaders at the
    helm.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Restore America's Estuaries
        Restore America's Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that has been working since 1995 to restore our Nation's
    greatest estuaries. Our mission is to restore and protect estuaries as
    essential resources for the Nation. Restore America's Estuaries is a
    national alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations
    across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine
    habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society,
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save
    the Sound--a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment,
    Conservation Law Foundation, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina
    Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay--San Francisco, Save the
    Bay--Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we have over
    250,000 members nationwide.
        As you craft your fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill, Restore America's Estuaries
    encourages you to provide the funding levels below within the
    Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) for core programs which greatly support coastal community
    economies:

      --$24 million for Fisheries Habitat Restoration
        (CJS: NOAA: ORF: NMFS: Habitat Conservation & Restoration:
            Fisheries Habitat Restoration)

      --$3 million for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
            (CELCP)
        (CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: CELCP Acquisition)

      --$22.9 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve System
        (CJS: NOAA: ORF: NOS: Ocean and Coastal Management and Services:
            National Estuarine Research Reserve System)

      --$1.7 million for National Estuarine Research Reserve Construction
        (CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: NERRS Construction)

        These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize
    America's communities by buffering against storms, supporting
    commercial fisheries, preventing erosion, protecting vital
    infrastructure, eliminating public safety hazards, and providing new
    recreational opportunities.
       noaa, fisheries habitat restoration--community-based restoration
                                    program
    (CJS: NOAA: ORF: NMFS: Habitat Conservation & Restoration: Fisheries
            Habitat Restoration)
        NOAA's Fisheries Habitat Restoration line provides critical funding
    for the Community-based Restoration Program and newly transferred
    Estuary Restoration Program which was transferred to NMFS in fiscal
    year 2014 from the National Ocean Service. The request includes a
    modest $3.3 million increase above fiscal year 2014 enacted levels for
    the Community-based Restoration Program to allow funding of new
    projects in fiscal year 2015, while maintaining current funding levels
    for the Estuary Restoration Program.
        NOAA's Community-based Restoration Program (CBRP), accomplishes on-
    the-ground projects to restore the Nation's coastal, marine, and
    migratory fish habitat. The program provides technical expertise--
    including engineering, construction, and monitoring--as well as funding
    to regional and national partners, and directly to local communities to
    carry out science-based restoration projects. Federal investments in
    restoration are highly leveraged with local, State, and private funds
    to provide long-lasting benefits to communities and economies.
        The community-engagement aspect of the program is critical to long-
    term restoration efforts because restoration projects occur over time
    and require long-term community support. To date, the program has been
    highly successful at improving the health of coastal habitats across
    the Nation, benefiting both the environment and the economy through
    partnerships involving community members in direct, hands-on service.
    By working collaboratively with more than 1,500 organizations, the
    program has restored over 97,000 acres of habitat and involved more
    than 290,000 volunteers, contributing more than 1 million volunteer
    hours.
        We also request the committee include report language strongly
    encouraging NOAA to implement programmatic enhancements in fiscal year
    2015 to ensure inclusion of a broader, ecosystem-based management
    philosophy and expand their selection criteria. We would strongly
    support the following report language and urge the committee to include
    the following:
            The Committee maintains strong support for the Community-based
            Restoration program. The committee recognizes the importance of
            fish habitat restoration for threatened and endangered species.
            The Committee also recognizes the importance of habitat
            restoration activities for protecting communities, preventing
            species from being listed, and providing enhanced tourism and
            recreational opportunities. Moving forward, the committee urges
            NOAA to implement the following recommendations: (A) Expand
            criteria for project selection to include a broader ecosystem-
            based management philosophy and expand criteria to
            recreationally important species, managed commercial species,
            and their forage species; (B) Select diversity of project sizes
            based on watershed impact and prioritize proposals that include
            multiple projects in single watersheds, in addition to
            individual large projects; (C) Encourage public and direct
            community engagement: from training seminars to volunteer
            engagement; (D) Support overarching science investments to
            advance monitoring, improve techniques, and advance valuation.
        In the fiscal year 2014 omnibus appropriations, the Estuary
    Restoration Program was transferred from the National Ocean Service to
    the National Marine Fisheries Service under the Fisheries Habitat
    Restoration line without additional funding. The Estuary Restoration
    Act established a comprehensive interagency organization, the Estuary
    Habitat Restoration Council, which is comprised of five key Federal
    restoration agencies and leads a coordinated approach to enhance
    estuary habitat restoration. Under the Act, NOAA is responsible for
    maintaining the National Estuaries Restoration Inventory (NERI).
        In November 2012, the Estuary Habitat Restoration Council approved
    the 2012 Estuary Habitat Restoration (EHR) Strategy and 5-year action
    plan. The action plan identifies outcomes and milestones to ensure that
    restoration efforts are coordinated, evaluated, and tracked across
    agencies with the goal of ensuring efforts are effective and efficient.
    Without modest funding, cross-agency collaboration will be disrupted,
    causing duplicative and potentially clashing efforts.
        Restore America's Estuaries urges your continued support of the
    Estuary Restoration Council and NOAA's Estuary Restoration Program and
    asks that you provide no less than $500,000 within requested funding
    for fiscal year 2015.
         noaa, coastal and estuarine land conservation program (celcp)
    (CJS: NOAA: PAC: NOS: CELCP Acquisition)
        The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was
    created in 2002 to provide State and local governments with matching
    funds needed to protect the most significant coastal and estuarine
    areas under threat of development and not presently protected through
    regulatory mechanisms. CELCP is the only Federal land protection
    program with an explicit focus on coastal lands and natural resources.
        The program is implemented cooperatively with willing sellers and
    matched with State and local funds, often playing a key role in uniting
    local, State and Federal efforts to protect an area. While our Nation's
    coastal protection need is far greater, Restore America's Estuaries
    respectfully requests $3 million in funding for the program in fiscal
    year 2015 to ensure the future of this critical tool for coastal
    habitat conservation. This investment will allow the program to
    continue to address our Nation's most pressing coastal resource needs,
    especially in an age of increasing extreme weather and other coastal
    hazards.
            noaa, national estuarine research reserve system (nerrs)
    (CJS: NOAA: ORF: NOS: Ocean and Coastal Management and Services:
            National Estuarine Research Reserve System)/(CJS: NOAA: PAC:
            NOS: NERRS Construction)
        The National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is comprised
    of 28 protected reserves that support long term research, education,
    training, and stewardship. Through an effective partnership between
    NOAA and coastal States, the NERRS plays a critical role in sustaining
    resilient coasts and coastal communities.
        The States have been entrusted to operate and manage NOAA's program
    in 22 States and Puerto Rico, where over 1.3 million acres of land and
    water are protected in perpetuity.
        Restore America's Estuaries respectfully requests $22.9 million for
    NERRS operations in fiscal year 2015. At this funding level, the 28
    existing reserves will maintain level funding and provide support for
    the addition of the 29th reserve in Hawaii. The designation of a Hawaii
    NERR will fill an unrepresented bio-geographic region in the NERR
    system.
        NERRS assists our coastal communities, industries and resource
    managers to enhance coastal resiliency in a changing environment. As
    severe weather events become more common, Federal, State, and local
    officials are recognizing that estuaries have the capacity to provide
    green resilience infrastructure. Through NERRS, NOAA can tailor science
    and management practices to enable local planners to use estuarine
    habitat as a tool for resilience and adaptation.
        Through science and science-based management of more than 1.3
    million acres of protected land, NERRS provides numerous benefits to
    communities that result in improved water quality, increased upland
    flood and erosion control, and improved habitat quality that support
    local fisheries and provide storm protection to coastal communities.
                                   conclusion
        Restore America's Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this
    subcommittee has provided in the past for these important programs.
    These programs help to accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which
    results in major benefits:

      --Jobs.--Coastal habitat restoration projects create between 17-33
            jobs per $1 million invested. That's more than twice as many
            jobs as the oil and gas sector and road construction industries
            combined.

      --More fish.--Traditional fisheries management tools alone are
            inadequate. Fish need healthy and abundant habitat for
            sustainable commercial and recreational fisheries.

      --Resiliency.--Restoring coastal wetlands can help knock down storm
            waves and reduce devastating storm surges before they reach the
            people and property along the shore.

      --Leverage.--Community-based restoration projects leverage 3-5 times
            the Federal investment through private matching funds,
            amplifying the Federal investment and impact.

        Thank you and we greatly appreciate you taking our requests into
    consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2015
    appropriations process. We stand ready to work with you and your staff
    to ensure the health of our Nation's estuaries and coasts.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc.
                                                        April 22, 2014.
        Dear Senators: I am president of Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting
    Service, Inc. I am writing this testimony to ask you to keep the
    Beaufort, North Carolina National Marine Fisheries Laboratory open.
        This lab has a long history of cooperative research with the Duke
    University, North Carolina State University, and University of North
    Carolina-Chapel Hill, among many others. We have had positive
    experiences working with staff at this lab over many years. While being
    well known for working with Atlantic menhaden, sea grasses, red tide,
    and salt marshes they are integrated in the stock assessment process of
    many species from king mackerel to snappers and groupers, triggerfish
    and other coral reef species, shrimp, as well as, turtles and marine
    mammals. See http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/beaufort/ for more details
    on their important work including their work with the Chevron fishery
    independent survey. They work with the head boat fisheries as well.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had recently
    invested in approximately $14 million in upgrades. It has been
    estimated that this lab affects $58 million into the local economy
    (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/01/3750561/false-savings-in-
    cutting-beaufort.html) and it seems to us that this investment should
    be allowed to generate intellectual profit.
        These are critical times in fisheries management and we need the
    contributions from these scientists and staff. This important research
    laboratory has had a renowned history since its origin in 1899. It is
    the second oldest marine laboratory in the United States. It presently
    employs approximately numerous people, including scientists who are
    recognized both internationally, nationally and regionally for the
    excellent quality work they do to support objective ecosystem based
    fisheries management. They may not be seen as a high profile lab. as is
    the Miami Laboratory, but they are the only Federal Fisheries lab
    between Miami, Florida, and Sandy Hook, New Jersey. In my opinion we
    don't need less labs studying fish and our fisheries for improved
    management, we need more. Present employees at other National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) labs are already over subscribed and stretched
    thin.
        It seems to me that this laboratory may be being closed more for
    political reasons rather than objective ones.
        Bottom line: Keep this laboratory open. Perhaps assign it
    completely to NOAA NMFS and not NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS). Also
    more money should be invested in fisheries independent research,
    advanced procedures in stock assessment, fisheries oceanographic
    research, and for ocean observations.
                Sincerely,
                                     Mitchell A. Roffer, Ph.D.,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Sac and Fox Nation
        Chairman Wolf and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am
    George L. Thurman, Principal Chief of the Great Sac and Fox Nation.
    Thank you for accepting this written testimony which presents to you
    our tribal priorities for funding programs with the Office of Justice
    Services, Department of Justice.
        We understand the fiscal constraints of the country but feel that
    there is budget inequity for tribal program funding which has been
    further impacted with the cuts we incurred due to the 2013 sequester.
    Tribes should not be unfairly targeted for reductions and rescissions
    and forced to bear the fiscal constraints of this country alone. A key
    intent of the Murray/Ryan budget deal was to soften the blow of the
    sequester for Indian Country but unfortunately that was not the case.
        As you consider the 2015 appropriations for the Office of Justice
    Programs, we ask that you exempt tribes from any further sequestration.

        1.  Fully fund the Tribal Law and Order Act as authorized.
        2.  Fully fund the Violence Against Women Act.
        3.  Tribal Grants--Utilize the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    appropriations as base funding with tribes setting own priorities.
        4.  Tribal set-aside from all discretionary Office of Justice
    programs.

        The Sac and Fox Nation also support the appropriations requests of
    the National Congress of American Indians.
                          about the sac and fox nation
        The Sac and Fox Nation is headquartered in Stroud, Oklahoma, and
    our tribal jurisdictional area covers Lincoln, Payne, and Pottawatomie
    Counties. Of the 4,000 enrolled tribal members, 2,600 live in Oklahoma.
    We are proud to pay tribute to a Sac and Fox descendent and Great
    Native American, Jim Thorpe. One of the most revered Olympic athletes
    who has ever represented the United States; Mr. Thorpe won the
    pentathlon and decathlon in the 1912 Olympics.
               fully fund tribal law and order act as authorized
        The Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) had three basic purposes:

        1.  Make Federal departments and agencies more accountable for
    serving Native peoples and land;
        2.  Provide greater freedom for Indian tribes and nations to design
    and run their own justice systems; and
        3.  Enhance cooperation among tribal, Federal and State officials
    in key areas such as law enforcement, training, interoperability and
    access to criminal justice information.

        The Sac and Fox Nation operates a Juvenile Detention Center which
    provides services to 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kanas and Texas, as well as
    the State of Oklahoma. We are anxious to advance the opportunities that
    TLOA can offer to further expand and increase access to our facility.
    However, unless TLOA is fully funded, facilities such as ours will not
    be able to attain the full potential and help to guide children in the
    system towards a successful future.
        The full potential of TLOA cannot be realized or implemented
    without sufficient resources for tribal justice systems and ongoing
    coordination and consultation between tribal governments and various
    Federal agencies. DOJ recognizes the importance of completing the
    circle when it issued the ``Proposed Statement of Principles'', in
    which is referenced that a stable funding at sufficient levels for
    essential tribal justice functions is critical to the long-term growth
    of tribal institutions.
              fully fund violence against women act as authorized
        We applaud the work of Indian Country and Congress to successful
    get a comprehensive Violence Against Women Act reauthorized. Prior to
    this bill Native women were denied equal access to justice. Thank you
    for helping us to protect our mothers, daughters, sisters and wives
    from jurisdictional gaps or safe havens for criminals. But without
    appropriations, this is an idle victory. We urge you to fully fund at
    the authorized amount.
     tribal grants--utilize doj appropriations as base funding with tribes
                             setting own priorities
        Eliminate the competitive grant funding process and utilize Justice
    Department appropriations as base funding where tribes and tribal
    courts themselves determine their own priorities.
        Competitive funding for tribal priorities is a no win situation
    that continues to pit tribe against tribes. One of the biggest issues
    with DOJ funding is that it is competitive. In order to obtain the
    funding--on behalf of their tribal courts--tribes must compete against
    each other based on DOJ's priorities and guidelines rather than
    identifying their own priorities to best serve their citizens at the
    local level.
        Instead the approach should be to utilize DOJ appropriations as
    base funding so that tribes are encouraged to determine their
    priorities. It appears that DOJ understands this concept inasmuch as it
    posed the idea of base funding in the form of a block grant during
    tribal consultation on the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW). We
    propose that DOJ not merely propose this for OVW but consider this for
    appropriations across the board.
                tribal set-aside from office of justice programs
        Create a 7 percent tribal set-aside from all discretionary Office
    of Justice programs funding. Ensure that they are allocated as flexible
    base funding. Also, provide funding above the fiscal year 2010 level
    for each formerly separate program area including tribal courts, jail
    construction, legal assistance, juvenile delinquency prevention and
    substance abuse prevention.
        The 7 percent set-aside was cut in the passage of the fiscal year
    2012 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. As a
    result tribal justice programs were cut across the board and continue
    to struggle to address the increasing need of these funds which were
    further impacted by the sequestration.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Zeb Schobernd, Morehead City, North Carolina
        Dear members of the subcommittee,

        I am writing to strongly urge the subcommittee to reject the
    proposal in the President's fiscal year 2015 budget to close the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory in
    Beaufort, North Carolina, and to instead fund this facility so that the
    crucial work being done there can continue on into the future. This
    laboratory is uniquely located to address key marine science issues
    throughout the east coast of the U.S., and its loss would represent a
    devastating blow to the fisheries interests in the region. The decision
    to try and close the Beaufort facility represents a narrow-minded
    approach to a temporary funding concern that is dwarfed in comparison
    by the potential damage done to the research conducted on the marine
    resources in the southeast. While I am addressing the subcommittee as a
    private citizen concerned about this issue and not representing the
    interests of any Federal agency or my employer, I have been a
    contractor for NOAA for most of the past decade and can attest to both
    the quality of the research done at this facility and the harm that
    would be caused by its closing.
        The financial reasons given by the leadership of the National Ocean
    Service (NOS) for closing the Beaufort facility and have been
    misrepresented and overblown. In their justification for closing the
    lab, NOS cited only the NOS employees that would be impacted, grossly
    underestimating the total number of workers at the site. In addition to
    NOS, the lab also houses National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) programs; between
    the three groups there are 108 Federal, State, and contract employees
    at the facility, a much larger disruption of staff than initially
    claimed. Additionally, NOS cited a cost of future maintenance repairs
    to the facility that was outdated and did not take into account recent
    work that has been done to upgrade the laboratory and its
    infrastructure. Since 2006, approximately $14 million in repairs and
    upgrades have been accomplished, including the replacement of multiple
    buildings. The closure of this facility, after so much has been
    invested in its improvement in recent years, seems like a clear waste
    of taxpayer money, especially given that a 2014 report showed that the
    facility is structurally sound.
        Beyond the financial considerations, however, the closure of the
    Beaufort lab would be a grave error because of the loss of high-quality
    science and scientists associated with the facility. Located at the
    intersection of two distinct marine environments, the NOAA laboratory
    in Beaufort is uniquely situated to study one of the most diverse
    ecosystems in the country. The lab is an international leader in
    studies of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and the invasion of lionfish
    into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, both of which are currently
    having a significant impact on the fisheries resources of the United
    States. The NMFS programs at the lab are responsible for the assessment
    of the major marine fisheries stocks in the southeast, including
    menhaden (the largest fishery along the Atlantic coast as well as in
    the Gulf of Mexico) and the commercially and recreationally important
    snapper and grouper fisheries. NMFS in Beaufort also provides the only
    up-to-date information on the currently-closed red snapper fishery
    along the southeast coast through its SouthEast Fishery-Independent
    Survey. All of these programs would suffer irreparable damage were the
    lab to close because NOAA would be unlikely to retain the world-class
    scientists performing this research in the event their Federal
    positions were transferred to other NOAA facilities in the southeast;
    the NOAA lab is part of a unique conglomeration of research facilities
    in the Beaufort area, and the majority of employees would very likely
    try and remain in the area at a different institution rather than
    relocate to a less desirable location. Thus, NOAA (and NMFS in
    particular) would be forced to rebuild these programs from scratch,
    programs that are required to meet congressional mandates laid out in
    the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Just as
    importantly for NMFS, the closure of the Beaufort facility would mean
    that the Fisheries Service would not have a presence along the coast
    between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida--an extent that
    covers over two-thirds of the United States east coast. It is difficult
    for the agency to claim they are interested in conserving the marine
    resources of the southeast with such a large spatial gap in
    representation, especially compared to five NMFS research facilities in
    the Gulf of Mexico and another five in the northeast.
        In summary, the closing of the NOAA facility in Beaufort is bad
    policy--it is a squandering of taxpayer funds, it is a major detriment
    to the science being conducted in the southeast, and it makes it more
    difficult for NMFS to maintain the quality of the work it is federally
    mandated to achieve. The laboratory in Beaufort has been operating
    continually since 1899 and was sited here specifically because of its
    advantageous position so close to so many of our Nation's valuable
    marine resources; Congress owes it to our country to make sure the
    high-quality work done here continues on for the next 115 years.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Amy M. Schueller, Research Fishery Biologist
        I am writing the following letter as a private citizen on behalf of
    myself during off-duty hours using only personal resources. I am not
    speaking for the Federal Government or any of its agencies in any
    capacity.
        I am writing to specifically discuss the proposed closure of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort
    Laboratory located in Beaufort, North Carolina. The lab is part of the
    Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    and houses employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
    National Ocean Service (NOS), and National Estuarine Research Reserve
    (NERR).
        I urge the proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
    removed from the NOS budget. Currently, the lab houses 108 employees
    from NMFS, NOS, and NERR. The costs associated with upkeep and
    maintenance of the lab were inaccurate and outdated in the NOAA
    explanation of budgetary items. There were mistakes in the number of
    employees at the facility and incorrect calculations used to detail the
    budget item. In the past several years, several activities have been
    completed to keep the facility in good working condition including the
    replacement of the administration building and maintenance building,
    replacement of the bridge to the facility, seawall repair, improvements
    to the air conditioning, and other improvements, which totaled
    approximately $14 million. Finally, an updated engineering report
    (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
        Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
    stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science that has produced many well
    known scientists. The Beaufort Lab has a good reputation for advancing
    science in population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic
    menhaden biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms;
    hypoxia; pathogens; and snapper and grouper species. NOAA has
    repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research teams, and the
    Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of scientific work
    completed. Several of the area fisheries labs have located in Beaufort
    due to the NOAA lab including Duke Marine Lab, North Carolina Division
    of Marine Fisheries, CMAST, and the Institute of Marine Science. The
    NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is the center of productive fisheries science
    informing fisheries management for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and is
    currently the only NMFS lab between Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and Miami,
    Florida.
        Specific items of note from each line office include:
                                      nmfs
    Stock Assessment Science
      --The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science
            that determines how many fish can be caught in the southeast
            United States.

        The stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory
    focuses on marine fish populations that are ecologically and
    economically vital to the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper
    and pelagic species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management
    Council, Atlantic menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States
    Marine Fisheries Commission. Commercial landings from the South
    Atlantic have been valued at $176.5 million, supporting a centuries-old
    cultural way of life, and saltwater recreational fishing in this region
    tops the Nation for its economic impact on sales and jobs (East Florida
    and North Carolina generate $5.3 billion and 47,000 jobs). Atlantic
    menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S. east coast, and Gulf
    menhaden support the largest fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, with a
    combined value of $127.7 million.
    Fishery-Independent Surveys
      --Fishery-independent surveys collect data on fish populations for
            stock assessments and research, using standardized sampling
            gears and methodologies.

        The Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey (SEFIS), run out of the
    NOAA Beaufort lab, collects annual information on the abundance,
    distribution, sizes, and ages of economically-important reef fish
    species like groupers and snappers on the U.S. East Coast between North
    Carolina and Florida. Using fish traps and underwater video, SEFIS
    determines whether reef fish species are increasing or decreasing in
    abundance so fish stocks can be managed with much greater certainty.
    The SEFIS staff has developed a close working relationship with
    fishermen in the Carolinas due to their co location in Beaufort, North
    Carolina. NOAA's Beaufort Lab is ideally situated, centered in the
    middle of substantial commercial and recreational fishing industries
    and a thriving marine science community. If the SEFIS staff was forced
    to move out of their survey region, ties with the fishing industry and
    the marine science community would be effectively severed, ultimately
    resulting in a significant disconnect between the National Marine
    Fisheries Service and the communities to which they serve.
                                      nerr
        Impacts of Closure to the Reserve-Strategic Location and Facility
    for the Reserve:

      --North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
            Reserve staff (7) are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort
            Lab, which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
      --In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000 for the
            Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
            facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
            facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National
            Estuarine Research Reserve.'' (Public Law 107-77, See S.Rept.
            107-42, p. 106-108.) $1.32 million was invested in NOAA ($1.28
            million) and State funds ($42,046) for the construction of a
            joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's
            mission.
      --The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
            specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
            auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
            and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
            workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
            Education Program activities.
      --The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
            Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
            essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
            conduct mission-critical programming including educational
            programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
            programs, and stewardship of the site including species
            monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
            access point maintenance.
    Reserve Activities at the NOAA Beaufort Lab, 2008-2013
                Education
                      K-12 field trips
                  -- 177 educational programs
                  -- 4947 participants
                      Teacher workshops
                  -- 28 teacher workshops
                  -- 412 participants
                      Summer camps
                  -- 109 camp sessions
                  -- 921 participants
                      Summer public field trips
                  -- 96 field trips
                  -- 1123 participants
                Stewardship
                      Volunteer service at the Rachel Carson Reserve
                  -- 1170 volunteers
                  -- 2873 volunteer hours
                      Site management
                  -- The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from
                which to manage the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close
                proximity to the Reserve site, location on calm inland
                waters, and boat launching facilities. Additionally, many
                NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the Rachel
                Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional
                perspectives that are valuable to Reserve research and
                management.
                Research
                      Research permits
                  -- 31 research permits issued for research conducted at
                the Rachel Carson Reserve
                      Water quality monitoring
                  -- Water quality inventory and monitoring stations at
                Middle Marsh and Shackleford Banks, in partnership with the
                National Park Service
                Coastal Training Program
                      Coastal Training Program workshops
                  -- 31 workshops
                  -- 1076 participants
                                      nos
        NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
    the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
    that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
    Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
    Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
    the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
    for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
    Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
    and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
    damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
    publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
    expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
    University partners to educate the public about the real facts
    concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood. Beaufort staff
    have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
    Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
    occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
    anxiety regarding seafood safety.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be a
    poor choice scientifically, economically, and would leave a large part
    of the east coast without the science that they deserve. The numbers
    used to estimate the costs of maintaining the facility in good working
    order were incorrectly estimated and inaccurate numbers of current
    employees were provided for the budget. In addition, the Federal
    Government has invested in this laboratory over the long-term, and to
    close it now would be a gross misuse of Government resources.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Scientific Diving International
        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski: I am a marine scientist who has had
    extensive experience in marine bivalve fisheries. I write to offer my
    opinion regarding the proposed closing of the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort laboratory in Beaufort,
    North Carolina. This laboratory has a long and storied history and a
    reputation for excellence within the scientific community. It is also
    positioned in an excellent place to conduct needed research on marine
    finfish and shellfish populations. As these populations come under
    increasing pressure from both commercial and recreational interests the
    work of fisheries scientists become vastly more important.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has an unparalleled
    staff of scientists that perform critical and necessary work on fish
    and shellfish stocks. Their work has allowed populations of many
    animals to recover and become stable along a number of regions of the
    U.S. coast. NMFS scientists have a completely unforgiving task and that
    is to prevent the collapse of fisheries stocks and thereby to prevent
    the degradation of coastal marine ecosystems. I say unforgiving because
    although this seems like an honorable goal it means that NMFS
    scientists have to say no to a lot of people, there simple are not
    enough fish to go around.
        Electronics and the Internet have made adequate fishers out of
    people who would have starved in the past. I once visited the small
    town of Cortez in Florida and spoke with a member of one of the
    original Cortez fishing families. When they arrived in Cortez a
    fisherman could feed his family using a row boat or a small sailing
    skiff. The area in front of this gentleman's home he called ``the
    kitchen'' because they could reliably get a family meal from there if
    all else failed. This is not the case any longer nor has it been for
    decades, however in many areas fisheries management has prevented the
    complete collapse of coastal ecosystems. Despite their valiant effort
    fish and shellfish stocks are under constant attack from development
    and overzealous fishers whose only understanding of fisheries
    management boils down to some scientist in a white lab coat taking
    ``our'' fish.
        The United States put a lot of effort and financial resources into
    the NMFS and NOAA in the 1960s-1980s but, like any issue, people lose
    interest in issues that are still relevant. Marine research, not just
    for exploitation of resources, is an area that has and will pay
    dividends to our Nation and also to the environment. It is not a time
    to retrench and look only to the bottom line, it is time to renew our
    commitment to a healthy marine environment and ecosystems that can
    sustain reasonable harvest. Please keep the Beaufort Lab open, we
    cannot afford to lose it.
        Sincerely,
                                         Dan C. Marelli, Ph.D.,
                                          President and Diving Officer.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is LaDon Swann
    and I am the director of the Alabama-Mississippi Sea Grant Consortium.
    I submit this testimony in my capacity as president of the Sea Grant
    Association (SGA). The SGA appreciates very much the steadfast support
    this subcommittee has provided the National Sea Grant College Program
    over the years. As a result, Sea Grant has been able to deliver a
    number of quantifiable benefits to the residents of our ocean and
    coastal communities, which are documented below.
        To continue to achieve a high rate of return on Federal investment
    and to produce meaningful and quantifiable benefits to coastal
    residents in the future, the SGA recommends that the National Sea Grant
    College Program within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) be funded in fiscal year 2015 at $80 million. The request is
    consistent with the guidance provided in the fiscal year 2012
    conference report that said:

            The Committee recognizes the important role the Sea Grant
            program plays in connecting coastal and Great Lakes communities
            with practical research and results, and encourages the growth
            of this program in future budget requests.

        The National Sea Grant College Program addresses national
    priorities at the local level, by identifying citizens' needs in order
    to help guide State and national research agendas. Sea Grant funds the
    best competitive science at our Nation's colleges and universities. The
    scientific discovery is effectively delivered through Sea Grant's
    robust extension, outreach and education programs to inform public and
    private decisionmaking in order to enhance the practical use and
    conservation of coastal, marine, and Great Lakes resources while also
    expanding economy and maintaining a sustainable environment.
        The administration's fiscal year 2015 request for the National
    College Sea Grant Program is a total of $63.4 million of which $2
    million is for marine aquaculture. This represents a total reduction
    from last year's appropriation of $4 million (from $67.4 million to
    $63.4 million). After reviewing the detailed NOAA budget request sent
    to the Congress, it is clear that important changes to the Sea Grant
    program proposed by the administration are obscured within the bottom
    line requested for the program.
        The Sea Grant Association is deeply concerned with several of the
    proposed changes and believes they are inconsistent with NOAA's own
    strategic plan and reduces Sea Grant's effectiveness at delivering
    important research, education and extension to its State, local, and
    regional partners.
        First, within the budget request NOAA is proposing to terminate
    funding within Sea Grant for all State Sea Grant Program STEM
    activities such as K-12 teacher training, curricula development, and
    education; and Sea Grant/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    Graduate Fellowships. This proposal is part of the administration's
    fiscal year 2015 proposal to reorganize Federal funding for STEM
    education, where a total of 31 STEM education programs at nine key R&D
    mission agencies (including NOAA, National Science Foundation (NSF),
    and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)) will be
    terminated. The Sea Grant Association strongly opposes the termination
    of the education programs both within Sea Grant and elsewhere in NOAA.
        It is important for mission agencies to help support the next
    generation of scientific and technical talent--much of which will be
    needed by these agencies in future years. Education (particularly STEM
    education) within the Sea Grant program is explicitly authorized in the
    legislation enacted by Congress to create the Sea Grant Program. The
    Sea Grant statute recognizes and reinforces the linkage between
    research, education and extension by relying on the land-grant college
    and university model of research and education in service to the
    public. We urge the subcommittee to reject these particular
    consolidation proposals and support the continuation of these programs
    within their current agencies.
        Second, within the budget request for Sea Grant, the administration
    is proposing a $1 million reduction (from last year's level) in
    research funding available for competitively awarded projects under two
    specific focus areas: Healthy Coastal Ecosystems; and Resilient Coastal
    Communities and Economies. This proposed reduction is inconsistent with
    NOAA's stated priorities and strategic plan. Because of Sea Grant's
    prior accomplishment (detailed elsewhere in this testimony) NOAA should
    be strengthening Sea Grant's role in coastal resiliency as a way to
    help make the Nation's ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes economies more
    productive.
        Third, within the budget request for Sea Grant, the administration
    is proposing to reduce marine aquaculture research by $2.5 million;
    down to a total of $2 million. This funding decrease is shortsighted
    and will reduce the number of external grants NOAA provides for
    decision support tools and technology transfer related to sustainable
    domestic marine aquaculture. It will also reduce base-funded
    sustainable seafood industry research performed for NMFS.
        The SGA's proposal for fiscal year 2015 is $80 million, which
    includes a specific enhancement of the Resilient Coastal Communities
    and Economies focus area. Funding Sea Grant at $80 million would also
    allow for the restoration of funding for STEM education, healthy
    coastal ecosystems, and marine aquaculture at levels at least equal to
    fiscal year 2014 levels.
            the return on investment to the nation through sea grant
        The rationale behind the SGA's proposed growth for Sea Grant is
    related to the specific metrics developed that can be used to assess
    the value of this program. In fiscal year 2013, Sea Grant returned the
    following quantifiable benefits to the Nation in return for the Federal
    investment:
      --$485 million in direct economic benefits to the Nation, which
            represents a 7 to 1 return on the Federal investment;
      --3,400 new businesses were created or retained, and more than 15,000
            jobs were created or retained due to Sea Grant efforts;
      --600 communities across the Nation have adopted more sustainable
            economic or environmental development practices and policies;
      --Sea Grant expanded the Nation's workforce by supporting more than
            900 undergraduate and more than 980 graduate students,
            resulting in 335 graduate or undergraduate degrees awarded; and
      --Nearly $100 million annually in additional public and private
            sector investments in Sea Grant supported activities are
            leveraged by the subcommittee's annual appropriation for the
            Sea Grant program.
        Approximately 95 percent of the Federal funding provided to Sea
    Grant leaves Washington and goes primarily to State university-led
    programs where it is used to conduct research, carry out extension, and
    education programs, and deliver valuable services to States that
    participate in this program. In addition, Federal funding through the
    Sea Grant program has a significant leveraging impact with every
    Federal dollar invested attracting more than two additional dollars in
    matching funds and other public and private sector resources.
                      the role of sea grant in supporting
        the nation's coastal communities--increasing coastal resiliency
        In addition to the annual positive scientific and economic impacts
    delivered by the National Sea Grant College Program summarized above,
    the relationships formed in coastal communities and with local
    stakeholders have proved extremely beneficial and supportive in
    disaster response. Beginning with hurricane Katrina and including the
    major disasters of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and most recently
    hurricane Sandy, the Sea Grant network has provided substantial and
    much needed ``boots-on-the-ground'' assistance to affected communities.
    Following each of these disasters, it was often Sea Grant extension,
    outreach and education programs that brought the first response to
    these impacted communities.
        Sea Grant works with Federal and State agencies to provide critical
    information following natural and man-made disasters. In the wake of
    these events, Sea Grant programs assist affected communities and States
    by facilitating community planning and capacity building by working
    with Department of Commerce Disaster Response Teams, Federal Emergency
    Management Agency (FEMA) mitigation assessment teams, State resource
    agencies for fishery and aquaculture impacts, local governments,
    industry groups, as well as others in addressing coastal impacts.
        Immediately following every event, Sea Grant extension
    professionals and scientists were there, helping communities assess
    impacts to coastal businesses including commercial fishing, tourism,
    local marinas, and aquaculture businesses. Sea Grant also helped
    determine the extent of changes in coastal geology, barrier islands,
    beach erosion, and sand dune migration. Sea Grant capabilities allows
    the program to provide expertise and experience in assessing other
    environmental impacts such as marine debris and changes to water
    quality and communicating the results to affected coastal communities.
    Sea Grant adds to its ongoing efforts of providing coastal communities
    with technical assistance, helping to prepare community recovery plans,
    long-term resilience plans, and explaining the consequences of future
    mitigation choices ranging from seawalls to green infrastructure. Sea
    Grant has expanded its role to include the development of tools and
    programs that address the long-term health impacts of disasters on
    coastal residents and help these communities to be better prepared for
    these disasters.
                              concluding thoughts
        America must use its coastal resources wisely to increase the
    economic development and resilience of our coastal communities and U.S.
    working waterfronts while sustaining the health and productivity of the
    ecosystems on which they depend.
        With the SGA's fiscal year 2015 request of $80 million for Sea
    Grant, the National Sea Grant College Program will be uniquely
    positioned to continue to make significant contributions to improve the
    lives and livelihoods of the Nation's coastal communities and
    economies. We hope the subcommittee will be able to support this
    request and restore funding for Sea Grant STEM and other NOAA education
    activities, the NMFS Fellowship program, research in the key Sea Grant
    focus areas, and marine aquaculture.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. The SGA would
    be happy to answer questions or provide additional information to the
    subcommittee.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Consortium for Justice Information
                                 and Statistics
                                  introduction
        Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to submit testimony on the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    funding to be provided for in the fiscal year 2015 Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. In particular,
    SEARCH recommends that the National Criminal History Improvement
    Program (NCHIP) receive an appropriation of $50 million, and the
    National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Act Record
    Improvement Program (NARIP) receive an appropriation of $5 million.
        SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
    Statistics (SEARCH), is a nonprofit membership organization created by
    and for the States. SEARCH's Governor-appointed, dues-paying members
    from the States and territories have the responsibility, among other
    things, to oversee both NCHIP and NARIP within their States.
        Over the years, States have made great strides in meeting their
    criminal history record improvement goals under both programs. Last
    year's increase in funding for these programs as reflected in the
    fiscal year 2014 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    appropriations was welcomed by the States who continue to use the
    funding to modernize, enhance and more effectively share data for
    critical criminal justice and public safety decisions.
        With recent NCHIP and NARIP funding, for example, the Kentucky
    State Police (KSP) has created a firearms application database which
    collects and houses mental health records, judgments and citations used
    for supporting documentation when entering denied persons in NICS
    Index. Funding also allowed for an interface with the State Department
    of Corrections to obtain offender records and update criminal history
    dispositions, as well as focus on NICS Index entries. With these
    efforts, over 22,500 State criminal histories were reviewed, resulting
    in over half being entered into NICS Index, ultimately keeping guns out
    of the hands of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing
    firearms. Kentucky anticipates applying for future funding to improve
    upon their demonstrated success in enhancing records in these
    databases.
        Maryland has used NCHIP and NARIP funding over the past 2 years to
    focus on missing disposition issues, completeing thousands of
    incomplete records, and now over 90 percent of arrests in the State
    database have a final disposition. This updated information is
    available for critical decisions like gun sales, employment for persons
    working with vulnerable populations, and overall criminal justice
    business on the State and Federal level.
        Georgia is actively using NCHIP funding to ensure synchronization
    of State and Federal criminal history files and to provide accurate and
    complete criminal history record information for both criminal justice
    and public safety decisionmaking.
        There is still work to be done to realize a truly complete and
    accurate national criminal history background check system. That system
    not only informs a variety of critical public safety decisions, but
    also noncriminal justice decisions, such as those regarding applicants
    for employment and licensing, to volunteers who work with children and
    other vulnerable populations, to individuals purchasing firearms. In
    light of recent, tragic events due to gun violence, and the
    simultaneous demand for accurate, complete and timely criminal records
    for a range of decisions, a priority placed on NCHIP and NARIP funding
    is essential.
        The States are eager to leverage fiscal year 2014 and new funds in
    fiscal year 2015 funding to engage in broad-scale initiatives and
    partnerships with other State agencies to improve and enhance chriminal
    history record information collection and sharing.
        SEARCH appreciates the subcommittees' recognition that while both
    NCHIP and NARIP each focus on improvements to the efficiency,
    effectiveness, timeliness and accuracy of criminal history record and
    associated data for decisionmaking purposes, each program emphasizes
    specific and distinct goals. NARIP funding has been heavily focused on
    enhancing decisionmaking for firearms purchases, such as increasing the
    number of disqualifying mental health records available to the system.
    NCHIP is focused on a broader range of criminal history improvements
    that individual States have prioritized (improving arrest and
    disposition matching, increasing conviction record availability in the
    Federal systems, etc.). Perhaps most significantly, by current law,
    still less than half of the States qualify for NARIP funding to improve
    their contributions to NICS.\1\ Thus, the majority of the States rely
    on NCHIP for criminal history record and repository improvements
    related to all criminal and non-criminal justice decisionmaking. As
    such, SEARCH makes two key recommendations:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NARIP has two main requirements: States must (1) establish a
    process where those adjudicated as ``mentally defective'' can seek to
    reinstate their right to purchase a firearm, and (2) comply with a
    process to estimate the number of NICS disqualifying records they
    maintain. Only 20 States have met requirement #1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. Support NCHIP funding for improvements to State criminal history
            record information so that States can effectively exchange
            information witho ther States and the FBI.
        The NCHIP program has been successful in helping States to improve
    the accuracy, reliability and completeness of their automated, criminal
    history record systems. It is important to note that information stored
    in the State's criminal history record repositories is the same
    information that is used for criminal justice decisionmaking (such as
    at arrest, filing of charges, sentencing and inmate housing) as well as
    for other public safety and civil decisions (such as decisions
    regarding firearms transfers, or for individuals applying for
    employment or volunteer work with vulnerable populations).
        Unlike the NARIP, all States qualify for funding under NCHIP to
    improve their criminal history record systems. States who cannot
    qualify for NICS funding will be significantly hampered in their
    efforts to help improve the Nation's criminal history record system if
    they cannot access sufficient resources via NCHIP.
        NCHIP's broad objective is to enhance the criminal justice
    capabilities of State governments by improving the accuracy,
    completeness and timeliness of criminal history records. These State
    systems support Federal records systems, including the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI) Interstate Identification Index (III).\2\
    Indeed, 70 percent of all III records are maintained by the States and
    30 percent are maintained by the FBI.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Interstate Identification Index is the national system
    designed to provide automated criminal history record information of
    Federal offenders and records of offenders submitted by all States and
    territories.
        \3\ Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 2010,
    Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
    Justice Programs (November 2011) (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/
    grants/237253.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Indeed States have used NCHIP funding to solve a variety of
    information sharing problems. Virginia used the funding to provide
    electronic access to criminal history records on-site at gun shows,
    ensuring a rapid check to prevent the transfer of firearms to
    prohibited persons.
        States have used NCHIP widely to improve the completeness and
    accuracy of criminal history record as well as to create links with the
    courts to allow automated updates and disposition reporting. In
    Florida, such work over the past several years resulted in updates to
    over 2.5 million dispositions.
        The increase in funding for NCHIP in fiscal year 2014 and,
    hopefully, in fiscal year 2015, will reinvigorate a program that had
    suffered in years past from considerably reduced funding. Because State
    criminal history records are the primary source for the FBI III
    database, any constraints on the States weakens the ability of many
    State and Federal programs to identify threats and keep our Nation
    safe.
    2. Continue to invest in background screening for firearms purchases.
        One of the key tools in keeping firearms out of the hands of those
    who should be prohibited from having them is a robust National Instant
    Criminal Background Screening System (NICS). Given the tragedies of
    recent years, significant focus has been placed on our Nation's
    background screening system for firearms purchases.
        Approximately 90 percent of records used to make firearms transfer
    determinations are records maintained and made available by the States.
    And, therefore, the overwhelming majority of firearms transfer denials
    are based on State records. Continued funding to improve the system's
    effectiveness for existing requirements related to background screening
    for firearms purchases is essential.
        For example, in New York, NARIP grant funds have significantly
    improved the records that New York State makes available to the NICS
    Index. New York built and deployed the NICS Transmission System to
    allow New York State to efficiently transmit mental health involuntary
    admissions records, civil guardianships and order of protections to
    provide better safeguards that prevent firearms from getting into the
    wrong hands. The State also completed system changes to collect and
    report Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (MCDV) convictions to
    NICS as firearm permit prohibitors so that vulnerable spouses, children
    and intimate partners are further protected. The State also completed
    analysis and significant system enhancements to improve the accuracy
    and completeness of disposition data made available to NICS via New
    York's Criminal History Reports.
        Today, the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the Nation's
    criminal history record system is more important than ever before, for
    law enforcement investigations; officer safety; sentencing and other
    criminal justice purposes; for expungement and other reentry
    strategies; for homeland security and anti-terrorism purposes; for
    public non-criminal justice purposes, such as security clearances and
    employment suitability; and for research and statistical programs that
    provide critical guidance for justice assistance decisions and for
    shaping law and policy. Without an adequate level of funding for the
    States, the quality of criminal records available nationwide will
    continue to be negatively impacted.
        As you can see from the examples above, for both of NICS and NCHIP,
    SEARCH encourages Congress to allow States to use funding at their
    discretion to address the specific challenges each State faces in
    making more records available to the national system. Funding should
    also encourage adherence to performance metrics and accountability
    measures. SEARCH supports that Congress should expect, and States
    should define, specific and measurable goals for which they will use
    the funding to demonstrate progress and impact. SEARCH also encourages
    Congress to fund technical assistance and technology investments for
    States to improve automated information sharing systems in support of
    NICS.
                                   conclusion
        SEARCH thanks the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for
    their steadfast support of these programs in the face of daunting
    budget challenges. Given the reliance on criminal history record
    systems for critical decisions that keep our citizens safe from guns,
    predators, terrorists and other criminals, it is a worthwhile and
    needed investment.
        We urge Congress to continue the investment in the Federal-State
    criminal background screening partnership that comprises NICS. NICS is
    a critical tool in the fight against gun violence, but funding for its
    improvement must envision a national scope that is inclusive of all the
    States. As Florida representatives noted, their successes with
    information sharing would not have been possible without the support of
    NARIP and NCHIP funding.
        Meaningful NCHIP funding will more broadly improve this Nation's
    criminal justice information sharing backbone. And the Federal
    investment can be leveraged many times over by contributing to the
    ability of State and local criminal justice agencies to provide timely,
    accurate and compatible information to Federal programs such as III. As
    Kentucky representatives stated, none of the improvements they had made
    would be possible without this funding.
        On behalf of SEARCH's governor's appointees, and the thousands of
    criminal justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and
    who benefit from SEARCH's efforts, we thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Dr. Kyle Shertzer, Morehead City, North Carolina
        Dear Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies: I am gravely concerned about the proposal in the 2015
    President's budget to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory located in Beaufort, North
    Carolina. This lab is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration; it is administered by the National Ocean Service (NOS),
    but also houses the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). Although I am
    writing this letter as a private citizen, and the views expressed are
    not intended to represent those of any government agency, I am a
    scientist at the NOAA Beaufort Lab and therefore have firsthand
    knowledge regarding the value of this laboratory to the Nation, in
    terms of its contributions toward marine science, natural resource
    management, and public outreach. The proposal to close this laboratory
    is a short-sighted reaction to a short-term problem.
        Closing the Beaufort Lab would be a tragedy. The Beaufort Lab is a
    stalwart of fisheries and oceanic science, with an outstanding national
    and international reputation for advancing science in numerous areas:
    population dynamics and stock assessments; Gulf and Atlantic menhaden
    biology, movement, and assessments; harmful algal blooms; hypoxia; sea
    grass; pathogens; and snapper and grouper monitoring and ecology. NOAA
    and the President have repeatedly recognized individual researchers,
    research teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for its outstanding
    quality of scientific work. Furthermore, this lab is the originator and
    nexus of an internationally esteemed consortium of marine science
    institutions, including the marine laboratories of Duke University,
    North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina, and
    the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. Beaufort was chosen
    because it is a prime location where northern and southern marine
    ecological communities intersect, and as such this lab provides the
    only Federal access to the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United
    States. There is no other location where these opportunities can be
    accessed as easily or as cheaply. It is the only NMFS facility on the
    Atlantic coast between Sandy Hook, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, a
    stretch of over 1200 miles of coastline.
        The request to close the laboratory was based on current funding
    allocation to NOS, but inaccurate and outdated information that
    overstated the costs of maintaining the facility was used in the
    analysis that led to this request. Currently, the lab houses 108
    employees from NOS, NMFS, and NERRS. The NOS initiated the proposed
    closure, but the request understated the number of NOS employees and
    did not account at all for employees from NMFS or NERRS. In effect,
    this mistake excluded more than half the staff of the lab. Furthermore,
    the request was based on estimated costs for the lab's upkeep and
    maintenance that were in error. Since 2006, several activities have
    been completed to keep the facility in good working condition,
    including replacement of the administration building, replacement of
    the maintenance building, replacement of the chemical storage building,
    replacement of the bridge to the facility, repair of the seawall, and
    other improvements (air conditioning, electrical, storm water runoff),
    which totaled approximately $14 million. After such investments,
    closing the lab now would represent a conspicuous waste of tax-payers'
    money. Finally, contrary to previous claims, an updated engineering
    report (2014) documents that the facility is NOT structurally unsound.
    Based on mistakes both in the number of staff at the facility and in
    the costs associated with its upkeep, the budgetary calculations used
    to justify the proposed closure were fundamentally flawed.
        I highlight below, by line office, the critical role that the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory has played in helping NOAA achieve its Strategic
    Mission (1) to understand and predict changes in climate, weather,
    oceans, and coasts, (2) to share that knowledge and information with
    others, and (3) to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems
    and resources.
                                      nos
        While the National Ocean Service is calling for the closure of the
    Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an increase of $4
    million to another center to support Ecological Forecasting of Harmful
    Algal Blooms (HABs), Hypoxia, pathogens, and Species Distributions.
    These areas of research are the bread and butter of NOS at the Beaufort
    Lab. In fact, NOAA would not have the strength it currently has in
    forecasting HABs if it were not for the lab's seminal and award-winning
    work that has been ongoing from the 1980s to this day. Furthermore, the
    Beaufort Lab initiated the first-ever study of the invasive lionfish in
    the U.S. South Atlantic, and it has continued to play a pivotal role in
    monitoring the distribution and abundance of this invasion throughout
    the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, providing
    information that has been critical for mitigation and management
    strategies. It is ironic and perplexing that the fiscal year 2015
    President's budget requests increased research funding for coastal
    ocean issues, including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal
    ecosystem management while at the same time proposing to close an
    existing facility that already has both well-established expertise and
    facilities required to address many of those very same issues.
                                      nmfs
        The Beaufort Laboratory provides the stock assessment science that
    allows NOAA to fulfill its obligation toward the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as mandated by Congress. The
    stock assessment science of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory focuses on
    marine fish populations that are ecologically and economically vital to
    the region and Nation, including snapper-grouper and pelagic species
    managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Atlantic
    menhaden managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
    and Gulf menhaden managed by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries
    Commission. Atlantic menhaden support the largest fishery on the U.S.
    Atlantic coast, and Gulf menhaden support the largest fishery in the
    Gulf of Mexico. To enable robust stock assessments, sampling of the
    Atlantic and Gulf menhaden fisheries has been conducted by the Beaufort
    Lab for decades, and monitoring of snapper-grouper species has been
    accomplished by the lab's Southeast Fishery-Independent Survey.
    Removing this sampling and monitoring from the Beaufort Lab would not
    only result in a significant disconnect between NOAA and the
    communities that it serves, but would also degrade the quality of stock
    assessments at a time when Congress is rightly calling for
    improvements.
                                     nerrs
        NERRS is partnered with the North Carolina Coastal Reserve, with
    program headquarters at the NOAA Beaufort Lab. This program supports
    long-term research, water-quality monitoring, education, and coastal
    stewardship. In 2002, Congress provided NOAA with ``. . . $5,000,000
    for the Beaufort Laboratory for necessary repairs to existing
    facilities and to construct a joint laboratory, dock, and other
    facilities in collaboration with the Rachel Carson National Estuarine
    Research Reserve.'' With this funding, NOAA invested $1.28 million and
    the State of North Carolina invested $42,000 for the construction of a
    joint building at the NOAA Beaufort Lab to serve the Reserve's mission.
    The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
    specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
    auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops and the
    teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher workshops, field trips,
    and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine Education Program activities.
    The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel Carson
    component of the Reserve, and this close proximity is essential for
    performing Reserve activities efficiently to conduct mission-critical
    work, including educational programs, water quality and habitat
    monitoring, research programs, and stewardship of the site, which
    involves species monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management,
    and access point maintenance. In short, NERRS activities in education,
    training, and stewardship have been extensive, and they would not be
    feasible from any other Federal laboratory.
        In conclusion, closure of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory would be
    devastating scientifically and economically. It would cripple NOAA's
    ability to accomplish its own Strategic Mission and to meet its
    obligations toward such congressional mandates as the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act. As I understand it, the only
    argument for closing the laboratory was financial, but that argument
    was based on flawed estimates of maintenance costs and an outdated
    engineering report, which has since been revised with opposite
    conclusions regarding the lab's structural integrity. To be blunt:
    Relative to NOAA's budget, cost savings associated with closing the
    lab, if any, would be trivial; however the loss to the Nation would be
    monumental.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
                               Mathematics (SIAM)
        Summary.--This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to
    continue your support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in
    fiscal year 2015 by providing NSF with $7.5 billion. In particular, we
    urge you to provide strong support for key applied mathematics and
    computational science programs in the Division of Mathematical Sciences
    and the Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure.
        Full Statement.--We are submitting this written testimony for the
    record to the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate on
    behalf of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).
        SIAM has approximately 14,000 members, including applied and
    computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
    engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
    industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
    government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
    SIAM has almost 500 institutional members, including colleges,
    universities, corporations, and research organizations.
        First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
    subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
    role of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its support for
    mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong U.S.
    economy, workforce, and society.
        Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
    of NSF in fiscal year 2015 and beyond. In particular, we join with the
    research and higher education community and request that you provide
    NSF with $7.5 billion.
        As we are reminded every day, the Nation's economic strength,
    national security, and public health and welfare are being challenged
    in profound and unprecedented ways. Addressing these challenges
    requires that we confront fundamental scientific questions.
    Computational and applied mathematical sciences, the scientific
    disciplines that occupy SIAM members, are particularly critical to
    addressing U.S. competitiveness and security challenges across a broad
    array of fields: medicine, engineering, technology, biology, chemistry,
    computer science, and others. SIAM recognizes the challenging fiscal
    situation; however, we also face an ``innovation deficit,'' the
    widening gap between the actual level of Federal Government funding for
    research and what the investment needs to be if the U.S. is to remain
    the world's innovation leader. Federal investments in mathematics,
    science, and engineering remain crucial as they power innovation and
    economic growth upon which our economy and fiscal health depend.
                          national science foundation
        NSF provides essential Federal support for applied mathematics and
    computational science, including more than 60 percent of all Federal
    support for basic academic research in the mathematical sciences. Of
    particular importance to SIAM, NSF funding supports the development of
    new mathematical models and computational algorithms, which are
    critical to making substantial advances in such fields as neuroscience,
    energy technologies, genomics, analysis and control of risk, and
    nanotechnology. In addition, new techniques developed in mathematics
    and computing research often have direct application in industry.
    Modern life as we know it--from search engines like Google to the
    design of modern aircraft, from financial markets to medical imaging--
    would not be possible without the techniques developed by
    mathematicians and computational scientists. NSF also supports
    mathematics education at all levels, ensuring that the next generation
    of the U.S. workforce is appropriately trained to participate in
    cutting-edge technological sectors and that students are attracted to
    careers in mathematics and computing.
        Below are highlights of the main budgetary and programmatic
    components at NSF that support applied mathematics and computational
    science.
                     nsf division of mathematical sciences
        The NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) in the Directorate
    for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) provides the core support
    for all mathematical sciences. DMS supports areas such as algebra,
    analysis, applied mathematics, combinatorics, computational
    mathematics, foundations, geometry, mathematical biology, number
    theory, probability, statistics, and topology. In addition, DMS
    supports national mathematical science research institutes;
    infrastructure, including workshops, conferences, and equipment; and
    postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate training opportunities.
        The activities supported by DMS and performed by SIAM members, such
    as modeling, analysis, algorithms, and simulation, provide new ways of
    obtaining insight into the nature of complex phenomena, such as the
    power grid, software for military applications, the human body, and
    energy efficient building systems. SIAM strongly urges you to provide
    DMS with the highest possible funding level to reverse the damaging
    cuts of recent years and enable critical mathematical research and
    related mathematical education and workforce development programs.
        In particular, investment in DMS is critical because of the
    foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and computational
    science play in sustaining the Nation's economic competitiveness and
    national security, and in making substantial advances on societal
    challenges such as energy, the environment, and public health. NSF,
    with its support of a broad range of scientific areas, plays an
    important role in bringing U.S. expertise together in interdisciplinary
    initiatives that bear on these challenges. DMS has traditionally played
    a central role in such cross-NSF efforts, with programs supporting the
    interface of mathematics with a variety of other fields. SIAM endorses
    DMS participation in NSF-wide initiatives such as Cyber-enabled
    Materials and Manufacturing for Smart Systems (CEMMSS), to develop
    computational tools for transforming materials discovery, and BioMaPS,
    to advance research at the intersection of biology, mathematical and
    physical sciences, and engineering.
                  nsf division of advanced cyberinfrastructure
        Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical
    to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information
    technology and cyberinfrastructure. Programs in the NSF Division of
    Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (ACI) in the Directorate for Computer and
    Information Science and Engineering (CISE) focus on providing research
    communities access to advanced computing capabilities to convert data
    to knowledge and increase our understanding through computational
    simulation and prediction.
        SIAM strongly urges you to provide ACI with the highest possible
    level of funding to invest in the computational resources and science
    needed to solve complex science and engineering problems. In addition,
    SIAM strongly endorses ACI's role as steward for computational science
    across NSF, strengthening NSF support for relevant activities and
    driving universities to improve their research and education programs
    in this multidisciplinary area.
        SIAM strongly supports ACI data activities, including data
    infrastructure, tools, and repositories, as well as the NSF-wide Big
    Data initiative. The explosion in data available to scientists from
    advances in experimental equipment, simulation techniques, and computer
    power is well known, and applied mathematics has an important role to
    play in developing the methods and tools to translate this shower of
    numbers into new knowledge. The programs in ACI that support work on
    software and applications for the next generation of supercomputers and
    other cyberinfrastructure systems are also very important to enable
    effective use of advances in hardware, to facilitate applications that
    tackle key scientific questions, and to better understand increasingly
    complex software systems.
        SIAM continues to support the agency-wide initiative
    Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering
    (CIF21). This program works to develop comprehensive, integrated,
    sustainable, and secure cyberinfrastructure to accelerate research and
    capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and
    engineering.
            supporting the pipeline of mathematicians and scientists
        Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
    engineers is a critical role of NSF and a major step the Federal
    Government can take to ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the
    U.S. SIAM strongly supports significant funding for the Graduate
    Research Fellowship (GRF) program and the Faculty Early Career
    Development (CAREER) program. Strong investments in these programs will
    support thousands of new graduate students, which will help develop the
    country's next generation of scientists.
        Before reaching the graduate and early career stage, young
    mathematicians and scientists gain critical interests and skills as
    undergraduates. SIAM supports efforts by NSF to improve undergraduate
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and
    notes the key role that mathematicians play in training for these
    fields.
             mathematics and international science and engineering
        Science knows no borders, and nowhere is this truer than in
    mathematics. Mathematical research typically advances through the close
    collaboration of small groups of researchers, without the need for
    expensive equipment and using universal mathematical notation to
    minimize language obstacles. In addition, mathematics, as an enabling
    discipline for all of science and technology, and as a foundation for
    science education, plays a key role in addressing many of the most
    challenging problems that the world faces, such as infectious disease
    and sustainable energy generation. International scientific cooperation
    is not just good science, however; it can also foster understanding and
    goodwill between societies more broadly. Mathematical and scientific
    activities can aid in promoting United States international policy
    goals by building relationships and trust with other countries,
    enhancing the global image of America, and spurring global development.
        SIAM believes strongly in the Federal Government's support of
    international science and technology initiatives that help advance U.S.
    foreign policy and security, including cooperative research programs
    that further scientific knowledge applicable to major societal
    challenges, promote development of research and education capabilities
    abroad, and introduce U.S. students to global issues and collaborative
    relationships.
                                   conclusion
        We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
    support of NSF that enables the research and education communities it
    supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake activities
    that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the
    United States. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our
    competitive edge in science and technology, and therefore we
    respectfully ask that you continue robust support of these critical
    programs in fiscal year 2015.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee on behalf of SIAM. SIAM looks forward to providing any
    additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations process.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Society for Neuroscience
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Carol Ann
    Mason, Ph.D. I am a professor of pathology and cell biology,
    neuroscience, and ophthalmic science at Columbia University. I study
    the development of visual pathways in mammalian brains, with a focus on
    how neurons in the eye are encoded to project to the correct side of
    the brain, setting up the circuit for binocular vision. This statement
    is in support of increased funding for the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) for fiscal year 2015. I am pleased to submit this testimony in my
    capacity as president of the Society for Neuroscience (SfN). On behalf
    of the nearly 40,000 members of SfN, thank you for your past support of
    neuroscience research at NSF.
        The Society stands with others in the research community in
    requesting at least the President's budget request of $7.3 billion for
    NSF for fiscal year 2015. Sequestration has taken an enormous toll on
    the research enterprise, coming on top of recent years when funding has
    failed to keep pace with the cost of research--let alone the scientific
    opportunities that are available. SfN urges Congress to reverse the
    current course and find ways to invest more in scientific discovery.
    Let's work to put research on a trajectory of sustained growth that
    recognizes its promise and opportunity as a tool for economic growth
    and, ultimately to advancing the health and well-being of Americans.
                   neuroscience: an investment in our future
        Even in the face of the difficult funding situation, the last
    several years have been a tremendously exciting and productive time for
    neuroscience discoveries. Major research advances on brain development,
    imaging, genomics, circuits, computational neuroscience, neural
    engineering, and many other disciplines are leading to new tools, new
    knowledge, and greater understanding that were unimaginable even a few
    years ago.
        All told, there are more than 1,000 debilitating neurological and
    psychiatric diseases that strike over 100 million Americans each year,
    costing an estimated $760 billion a year. Advances made possible by
    publicly-funded research will help us maintain and restore healthy
    brain function. Now more than ever, it is time to fan the flames of
    research in order to ensure life-changing breakthroughs continue.
        Resources provided to NSF will support the Nation's best and
    brightest researchers at the forefront of promising discoveries,
    graduate students at the start of their careers, and the development of
    advanced scientific tools and infrastructure that will be broadly
    available to the research community. These researchers are the ones who
    will be answering some of the vexing questions facing the field of
    neuroscience: how do the genetic, molecular, and cellular elements of
    the brain interact to allow for brain function and behavior? How will
    new tools such as brain-machine interfaces, computational models, and
    advanced imaging techniques deepen scientific capacity for inquiry, and
    contribute to better health and quality of life in the years ahead? NSF
    is uniquely positioned to address questions of this kind because of its
    emphasis on integrative and interdisciplinary research and its long
    history of funding research that leads to the development of life-
    changing neurotechnologies.
        NSF funding is an investment in America. Funding for research
    supports quality jobs and increases economic activity. In fiscal year
    2012 alone, NSF supported 39,862 senior personnel, 4,596 postdoctoral
    fellows, and 25,550 graduate students through 11,524 awards. Ninety
    percent of the NSF budget goes right back to fund extramural research
    in every State. Many of my colleagues can point to their first NSF
    grant as the launching pad for a career in science.
        Finally, without robust, sustained investment, America's status as
    the preeminent leader in biomedical research is at risk. Other
    countries are investing heavily in biomedical research to take
    advantage of new possibilities. Even with the growing philanthropic
    support, private sector cannot be expected to close the gap. The lag
    time between discovery and profitability means that the pharmaceutical,
    biotechnology, and medical device industries need federally-funded
    basic (also known as fundamental) research to develop products and
    treatments. The foundation that basic research provides is at risk if
    federally-funded research declines.
                              the brain initiative
        The Brain Research through Application of Innovative
    Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative--announced by the President last
    April--will enable NSF and other Federal agencies to develop tools and
    plans that will help accelerate fundamental discoveries in
    neuroscience. The scientific community is providing direction through
    diverse workshops being held throughout the country.
        The overarching goal of the BRAIN Initiative is to integrate across
    scales (genes to behavior) and disciplines (engineering and life
    sciences) to establish predictive theories of brain structure and
    function, and the use of these theories to maintain and restore the
    healthy brain. The Initiative has a strong focus on technology and
    cyber tool development and the training of new generations of
    scientists to use the resources that emerge from the BRAIN Initiative,
    both of which have the potential to benefit all of neuroscience and
    even non-neuroscience research.
        BRAIN--as with all the neuroscience research that takes place with
    Federal support--can only be successful if it is part of a broad effort
    by Congress and the administration to prioritize biomedical research so
    that it can reach its full potential. Such an investment will also help
    ensure the U.S. remains a global leader, even as other nations ramp up
    their investments in neuroscience research.
                        cross-disciplinary neuroscience
        NSF-funded basic research continues to be essential for discoveries
    that will inspire scientific and medical progress for generations. The
    work supported by NSF has led to the development of new technologies
    that have revolutionized neuroscience research. The following examples
    are just a few of the many basic research success stories in the
    science of the brain emerging now thanks to interdisciplinary research
    funded by a strong historic investment in NSF and other research
    agencies.
                           green florescent proteins
        Basic research funded by NSF creates revolutionary advances in
    science, such as green florescent protein (GFP)--a transformative tool
    in cellular biology which allows scientists to look at the brain in
    unprecedented detail. The works that lead to its discovery and
    development for use in research received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
    in 2008.
        The discovery of GFP revolutionized scientists' view of the nervous
    system allowing them to add an incredible range and depth to images of
    the brain. With this protein and others like it, researchers are
    applying colors to brain cells to look at under the microscope. This
    enables them to map intricate details of brain cells, in particular,
    how brain cells connect to each other. Understanding these connections
    and their susceptibility to change help researchers better understand
    the healthy brain and how they might be damaged in a variety of
    disorders.
        More than 100 years ago, scientists got their first glimpse at
    brain cells under a microscope after successfully staining cells with
    dark pigment. This and similar techniques are limited because they
    can't be used in living cells and they can only stain in a single
    color. GFP is a molecule that glows green under blue or ultraviolet
    light. Since its discovery, scientists have developed similar molecules
    that glow many different colors. Moreover, GFP can be used to visualize
    activity of a living cell. These light-emitting proteins have been used
    to illuminate the inner workings of brain cells by letting scientists
    track the movement of molecules inside the cells or watch how neurons
    react to environmental stimulation in living brains. Scientists have
    also used GFP to help answer questions about brain structure by using
    it to identify specific cells in specific areas and trace connections
    between two brain areas.
        Recently, GFP has been adapted to help trace many brain regions at
    a time. In 2007, researchers found a way to make brain cells emit one
    of nearly 100 colors. They genetically engineered mice to carry
    multiple copies of a chain of three or four genes for different colored
    fluorescent proteins. In each cell, the combination of the colors
    emitted from each chain led to unique color blends. Just as a
    television produces a wide spectrum of colors by mixing red, green, and
    blue pixels, this so-called ``brainbow'' technique cast neighboring
    cells in colors from aquamarine to magenta. This technique allows
    scientists to map many pathways in the brain to a much larger extent
    than before and has allowed for a deeper understanding of brain
    circuits. GFP is now widely used to track everything from how nerve
    cells develop to how cancer spreads through the body to how HIV travels
    from infected to non-infected cells. In the field of neuroscience
    specifically, this technology will continue to evolve and will be
    instrumental in our efforts to understand brain structure and function.
                            brain-machine interface
        The brain is in constant communication with the body in order to
    perform every minute motion from scratching an itch to walking.
    Paralysis occurs when the link between the brain and a part of the body
    is severed, and eliminates the control of movement and the perception
    of feeling in that area. Almost 2 percent of the U.S. population is
    affected by some sort of paralysis resulting from stroke, spinal cord,
    or brain injury, or other cause. Basic research funded by the NSF has
    provided fundamental understanding of how the brain controls movement,
    which in turn has led to advances in next-generation prosthetics.
        In the 1990s, scientists developed an array of electrodes that
    allowed them to study an unprecedented number of nerve cells at once--
    almost 50 at a time. This research demonstrated that brain cells
    communicate in clusters, not in isolation. In other words, cells work
    together to direct complex behaviors. Since then, scientists have found
    ways to translate messages from clusters of neurons into a language
    that an artificial device can understand and convert into movement.
    Fundamental research in humans and animals led to the discovery that
    thinking of a motion activates neurons in the same way that actually
    making the movement would--opening the possibility for thought to
    operate robotic devices.
        Thanks to successes in animal research, brain-controlled
    prosthetics are now being piloted in humans. Paralyzed humans implanted
    with electrodes can learn to guide a machine to perform various motor
    tasks such as picking up a glass of water. These advances, while small,
    enable substantial improvements in the quality of life for people
    suffering from paralysis. As deeper understanding of the language of
    the brain occurs in concert with advances in biomaterials,
    neurotechnologies, and computational power, scientists hope to
    eventually broaden the abilities of such devices to include thought-
    controlled speech and more.
                    understanding the development of vision
        My own area of research is the development of the circuits
    underlying vision. For binocular vision to function, the brain must
    receive information from both eyes. Nerve fibers from each retina grow
    to the `optic chiasm,' at the midline of the bottom of the brain. Here,
    nerve fibers from each eye cross to the other side of the brain. Other
    axons, however, are repelled at the midline and project to the same
    side of the brain. These connections underlie binocular vision which
    enables animals, including humans, to calculate how far objects lie in
    the distance.
        One area of my research focuses on this question and the molecular
    mechanisms that prompt some growing nerve fibers to ``stop in their
    tracks'' and reroute to the same side. These two groups of cells in the
    eye, each taking different routes, are endowed with distinct genes that
    direct their time of birth and their growth to the regions where they
    make their synaptic connections. Understanding their genetic
    ``signatures'' and growth helps us to learn how to encourage stem cells
    to be integrated into the diseased eye and injured nerve fibers to
    regrow in the correct circuits. We also investigate how the retinal
    pigment epithelium (RPE) surrounding the eye, directs retinal
    development. Perturbations in the RPE occur in albinism and in juvenile
    forms of macular degeneration, the latter leading to blindness, and our
    gene identification efforts are important for gene therapy at early
    stages of the disease. Moreover, understanding how tracts are laid down
    is essential for unraveling the basis of defects in fiber pathways and
    synapse formation in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. This
    research is made possible with support primarily from NIH, especially
    the National Eye Institute and with a team of innovative and
    collaborative scientists and trainees in my lab and in our community,
    and provides a foundation for future discovery and new understanding
    about diseases of the eye and other neurodevelopmental conditions.
                         the future of american science
        As the subcommittee considers this year's funding levels, please
    consider that significant advancements in the biomedical sciences often
    come from young investigators. The current funding environment is
    taking a toll on the energy and resilience of these young people.
    America's scientific enterprise--and its global leadership--has been
    built over generations. NSF alone has awarded over 46,500 Graduate
    Research Fellowships since 1952. Many young scientists receive their
    first grants from NSF on their way to having careers as independently-
    funded investigators. Without sustained investment, we will quickly
    lose that leadership. The culture of entrepreneurship and curiosity-
    driven research could be hindered for decades.
        We live at a time of extraordinary opportunity in neuroscience. A
    myriad of questions once impossible to consider are now within reach
    because of new technologies, an ever-expanding knowledge base, and a
    willingness to embrace many disciplines. To take advantage of the
    opportunities in neuroscience we need an NSF appropriation that allows
    for sustained, reliable growth. That, in turn, will lead to improved
    health for the American public and will help maintain American
    leadership in science worldwide. Thank you for this opportunity to
    testify.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research
        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR), I am pleased to submit this testimony to the Senate
    Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related
    Agencies. UCAR is a consortium of over 100 research institutions,
    including 77 doctoral degree granting universities, which manages and
    operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf
    of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
        I urge the subcommittee to provide the maximum amount of support
    possible for the vital research and education programs administered by
    the NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in fiscal
    year 2015.
        On February 6, the National Science Board (NSB) released its latest
    report entitled ``Science and Engineering Indicators 2014''. The
    biennial report makes it increasingly clear that the United States'
    predominance in science and technology (S&T) eroded further during the
    last decade, as several Asian nations--particularly China and South
    Korea--rapidly increased their innovation capacities. According to the
    NSB report, the major Asian economies taken together now perform a
    larger share of global research and development (R&D) than the U.S.,
    and China performs nearly as much of the world's high-tech
    manufacturing as the U.S.
        The NSB report makes it increasingly clear that the U.S., Japan,
    and Europe no longer monopolize the global R&D arena. Since 2001, the
    share of the world's R&D performed in the U.S. and Europe has
    decreased, respectively, from 37 percent to 30 percent and from 26
    percent to 22 percent. In this same time period, the share of worldwide
    R&D performed by Asian countries grew from 25 percent to 34 percent.
    China led the Asian expansion, with its global share growing from just
    4 percent to 15 percent during this period. Recognition on the part of
    national leaders that S&T innovation contributes to national
    competitiveness, improves living standards, and furthers social welfare
    has driven the rapid growth in R&D in many countries.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        China and South Korea have catalyzed their domestic R&D by making
    significant investments in the S&T research enterprise and enhancing
    S&T training at universities. China tripled its number of researchers
    between 1995 and 2008, whereas South Korea doubled its number between
    1995 and 2006. And there are indications that students from these
    nations may be finding more opportunities for advanced education in
    science and employment in their home countries.
        In addition to investing in their research and teaching
    enterprises, these countries have focused their attention on crucial
    sectors of the global economy, including high-tech manufacturing and
    clean energy. The size of China's high-tech manufacturing industry
    increased nearly six-fold between 2003 and 2012, raising China's global
    share of high-tech manufacturing from 8 percent to 24 percent during
    that decade, closing in on the U.S. share of 27 percent. In addition,
    emerging economies now invest more in clean energy--a critical 21st
    century industry--than advanced economies do. In 2012, emerging
    economies invested nearly $100 billion in clean energy, primarily wind
    and solar, with China serving as the ``primary driver of investment''
    with $61 billion. China's investment is more than double the $29
    billion spent in the U.S.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        One of the most notable S&T trends of the last decade has been the
    increased innovation capacity of emerging economies as they narrowed
    many gaps with the West. However, the U.S. S&T enterprise remains the
    global leader. For example, the U.S. invests twice as much as any other
    single nation in R&D, despite slipping to tenth in world ranking of the
    percentage of its GDP it devotes to R&D. In 2011, the U.S. spent $429
    billion on R&D, compared to China's $208 billion and Japan's $146
    billion. Among other S&T metrics, the U.S. leads in high quality
    research publications, patents, and income from intellectual property
    exports.
        While the U.S. remains the world's leader in science and
    technology, there are numerous indicators showing how rapidly the world
    is changing and how other nations are challenging our predominance. As
    other countries focus on increasing their innovation capacities, we can
    ill afford to stand still. We now face a competitive environment
    undreamt of just a generation ago as indicated in the chart entitled
    R&D Expenditures as a Share of Economic Output for Selected Countries/
    Economies: 1996-2011.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Federal Government has a critical role in funding R&D. To a
    large extent, the Federal Government devotes resources to R&D to fund
    projects that, despite their potential for improving economic growth
    and people's well-being, would be unattractive for businesses to
    pursue. Businesses tend to underinvest in R&D because the returns from
    their investment are often smaller than the returns to the economy as a
    whole.
        The knowledge generated from a basic research project can often be
    used--without compensation--by other firms within and outside their
    industry. To make up for this underinvestment, the Federal Government
    has played a major role in funding R&D. Federal support for basic
    research is particularly crucial because the lack of direct commercial
    applications from basic research projects--as well as the uncertainty
    of project success--can deter businesses from performing basic research
    even though some studies have shown that it is this form of R&D that
    generates the greatest economy-wide returns.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Economists studying the link between science funding and economic
    growth have found that innovation through R&D is the primary driver of
    growth over the long run. Nobel prize winning MIT economist Robert
    Solow famously found that over half of increases in economic
    productivity can be attributed to new innovations and technologies.
    Another similar study that attempted to quantify the impact of R&D on
    economic growth found that increases in the level of research intensity
    in the U.S. and four other developed countries may have accounted for
    close to 50 percent of U.S. economic growth between 1950 and 1993.
        The return on investments in the atmospheric sciences exemplifies
    how Federal R&D drives economic growth. The commercial weather industry
    leverages U.S. investments in weather observation, atmospheric
    research, and computer modeling to produce tailored products for a wide
    variety of clients, including the general public. There are now more
    than 350 U.S. commercial weather companies, and they are estimated to
    generate nearly $3 billion in annual revenues. The growth rate of this
    industry is estimated to be about 10 percent per year.
        This entire weather industry is directly dependent on the Federal
    scientific infrastructure, and most of its tools and technologies were
    developed in universities and laboratories with Federal R&D dollars. In
    fact, a nationwide survey indicates that the U.S. public obtains
    several hundred billion forecasts each year, generating $31.5 billion
    in benefits compared to costs of $5.1 billion, a 6 to 1 direct return
    on investment.
        Even though Federal support for research--particularly basic
    research--is inextricably linked with long term economic growth,
    Federal funding for basic research has dropped since 2004. In real
    dollars, the Federal Government spends less on non-defense R&D than it
    did 10 years ago, even as Asian R&D investments have ballooned. R&D is
    no longer prioritized in the Federal budget as it once was. As a
    percent of GDP, U.S. Federal R&D has been cut by over one third from
    1.3 percent to 0.8 percent since 1976. Many of these cuts have fallen
    on the atmospheric and geospace sciences, and universities and
    laboratories including NCAR have been forced in recent years into
    difficult layoffs of researchers and other staff. This comes at a steep
    cost to our future.
        This subcommittee--with its oversight for the NSF, NOAA, and NASA--
    is singularly responsible for determining over 50 percent of the annual
    Federal investment in non-biomedical non-defense research--the very
    research portfolio so critical to long term economic growth and
    international competitiveness. For all of these reasons--though
    confronted by extreme constraints in overall spending--it is vitally
    important for the future health and well-being of our citizens that the
    Congress do all it can to support this subcommittee's ability to fully
    fund its R&D portfolio as exemplified in the funding decisions you will
    be making regarding NSF, NOAA, and NASA. The University Corporation for
    Atmospheric Research and its more than 100 member institutions
    respectfully urge the subcommittee to maintain its strong priority
    commitment for research and education as it moves to develop its fiscal
    year 2015 appropriations recommendations.
        We appreciate very much the opportunity to provide these views and
    stand ready to provide whatever assistance we can to the subcommittee
    and its members.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Brian Vandersea, Vice President, Oral &
                        Maxillofacial Surgery Associates
        Dear members of the subcommittee,

        I want to express my strong opposition to President Obama's 2015
    budget proposal to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS)/National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) lab in Beaufort, North Carolina, and urge the
    subcommittee to help reinstate funding for this essential resource.
    This laboratory is a vital part of the local, national, and
    international marine science community. It has partnerships with
    academic institutions such as North Carolina State University,
    University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Duke University, East
    Carolina University and University of North Carolina-Wilmington.
    Without collaboration with the NOAA NOS/NMFS Beaufort Lab, each of the
    marine science programs at these institutions will suffer.
    Additionally, the laboratory's partnerships with economic development
    activities such as the North Carolina Marine Science and Education
    Partnership, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, and Marine
    Biotechnology Center of Innovation are important to the Morehead City/
    Beaufort/eastern North Carolina economies. This laboratory has served
    North Carolina and the Nation for 115 years by executing top-notch,
    award winning, marine science.
        The NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is situated in a prime location,
    between tropical and temperate waters, and provides the only Federal
    access to one of the most diverse marine ecosystems in the United
    States. It is unthinkable that the U.S. Government would give up on a
    facility that is located in such a strategic position on our national
    coastline.
        A prime example of research ongoing at the NOAA Beaufort Lab that
    is important to me is their ongoing work on harmful algal blooms.
    Having grown up in New Bern, North Carolina, the Neuse River, which is
    literally in my parents' back yard, experiences periodic algal blooms
    and fish kills. After a fish kill, the NOAA Beaufort Lab tests water
    samples and dead fish to determine the cause(s) for these kills. This
    gives local residents ease of mind regarding the health of our river
    ecosystems and the seafood that we purchase from local commercial
    fishermen. In the early 1990's there was an extensive fish kill that
    was supposedly caused by the algae ``Pfiesteria''. This caused a lot of
    people to stay off of and away from the local rivers and made them
    anxious about buying local seafood. Needless to say, this resulted in
    major economic damage to eastern North Carolina. The Beaufort Lab's
    tireless efforts led to a better understanding of the Pfeisteria
    lifecycle and helped ease the fears of the local communities affected
    by these types of fish kills. The Beaufort Lab is able to investigate
    problems of this nature world-wide. This gives me a sense of security
    in the seafood that I purchase and confidence in the water quality
    where my seafood originates.
        In conclusion, the NOAA NOS/NMFS Laboratory in Beaufort, North
    Carolina is home to critical research that can only be conducted at
    this unique location, and my family members and I are direct
    benefactors of all of their hard work. The science that is conducted at
    the Beaufort is of the highest quality and has won national and
    international recognition all being done on a limited budget for quite
    some time.
        Why would the Government want to close down a facility that
    produces high quality products at a minimal cost to the United States
    public? I urge you to please restore full funding for this important
    Federal laboratory.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Dr. Harold Vandersea, New Bern, North Carolina
        Dear Committee members,

        Acting as a private citizen on my own time, I would like to submit
    testimony for the record.
        I have recently been informed that the Presidents fiscal year 2015
    budget proposal includes plans to close down the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Beaufort Laboratory in Beaufort,
    North Carolina. This is a misguided decision. To learn why, I would
    like the Senate Subcommittee of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies to consider the following testimony.

        Issue presented in budget.--Long term cost of maintaining the NOAA
    Beaufort Laboratory (NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for
    Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat
    Research)

        ``To strengthen NOAA's coastal science in the long run, NOAA
    proposes to reduce its physical footprint and fixed costs by closing
    the Beaufort, North Carolina laboratory . . .''

        On this budget item, a NOAA spokesperson in Silver Spring was
    quoted saying: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs
    and improvements exceeding agency budget resources. . . .''

        Response.--Urge proposed closure of NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory be
    removed from the NOS budget.

        Inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
    maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory was used in the analysis that
    led to the request to close this facility. An updated engineering
    report (2014) documents the condition of the facility is not
    structurally unsound. Additionally, there have been substantial
    improvements to the facility:

    Facilities Upgrades:

        2006-- Administration Building replaced (with North Carolina
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRs))
        2007--Bridge replaced--cost shared with Duke University
        2008--Maintenance Building replaced
        2009-- Air conditioning/Air handler replacement and mold abatement
        2009-- Sample Storage/Chemical Storage/Haz-Mat buildings
    consolidated and replaced
        2014-- Seawall repair, electrical upgrade and State of North
    Carolina funded storm water control

        Additionally, the National Ocean Service (NOS) initiating the
    closure request understated the NOS staff and did not account for the
    more than 40 National Marine Fisheries Service staff or the 6 staff
    members of the North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve
    (Rachel Carson) co-located at the facility. In total 108 staff and
    contractors will be directly affected by this closure.

        Issue.--While the National Ocean Service, NOAA is calling for the
    closure of the Beaufort North Carolina laboratory, it is requesting an
    increase of $4 million to another center to support Ecological
        Forecasting of Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB), hypoxia, pathogens and
    Species Distributions.

        Response.--NOAA should not close the facility that has a proven
    track record with successful and effective research conducted on
    harmful algal blooms (HAB) and species distributions.

        NOAA's HAB program was initiated at the Beaufort Laboratory from
    the work conducted in North Carolina in 1987 during the ``red tide''
    that affected the central coast for more than 6 months. The Beaufort
    Lab continues to provide essential research and field data that inform
    Ecological Forecasting of HABs in Alaska, North Carolina, Florida,
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
    the Caribbean. Additionally, Beaufort Laboratory staff were recognized
    for conducting award winning science in elucidating the life history of
    Pfiesteria, a HAB species that inhabits estuaries and river systems up
    and down the eastern seaboard. The threat of Pfiesteria caused economic
    damages of $35 million a month to the seafood industry following
    publicity of local fish kills. Beaufort laboratory staff provided
    expertise and knowledge to local and State resource managers and
    University partners to educate the public about the real facts
    concerning Pfiesteria and the safety of their seafood.Beaufort staff
    have continued to provide their expertise and knowledge to the North
    Carolina River Keeper Alliance and North Carolina Department of Natural
    Resources, Division of Water Quality when fish kill events have
    occurred in local estuaries. This has helped to alleviate public
    anxiety regarding seafood safety.
        In regards to species distribution research, Beaufort Laboratory
    staff initiated the study of the invasive lionfish in the U.S. South
    Atlantic Bight, providing timely information on distribution, abundance
    and ecology to inform mitigation and management strategies throughout
    the southeast U.S., Florida Keys, Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean.

    Additional Impacts of the Beaufort Lab Closure:

      --North Carolina Coastal Reserve and National Estuarine Research
            Reserve staff are currently located at the NOAA Beaufort Lab
            which serves as the headquarters office for the program.
      --The joint building was completed in 2007 and was constructed
            specifically with the Reserve's education programs in mind: the
            auditorium regularly hosts coastal training program workshops
            and the teaching classroom hosts school groups, teacher
            workshops, field trips, and lectures to support K-12 Estuarine
            Education Program activities.
      --The NOAA Beaufort Lab is a 5-minute boat ride from the Rachel
            Carson component of the Reserve; this close proximity is
            essential for conducting Reserve activities efficiently to
            conduct mission-critical programming including educational
            programs, water quality and habitat monitoring and research
            programs, and stewardship of the site including species
            monitoring, debris clean-ups, feral horse management, and
            access point maintenance.

        The NOAA Beaufort Lab provides an ideal base from which to manage
    the Rachel Carson Reserve due to its close proximity to the Reserve
    site, location on calm inland waters, and boat launching facilities.
    Additionally, many NOAA staff conduct or have conducted research at the
    Rachel Carson Reserve and are able to provide professional perspectives
    that are valuable to Reserve research and management.

        Request.--The Senate Subcommittee of Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies decline to endorse the recommendation to close the
    Beaufort Laboratory and request current and accurate information from
    the Beaufort Laboratory leadership on costs for maintaining the
    Laboratory.

    Desired Outcomes:

      --NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory closure proposed in the 2015 President's
            Budget Request should not be included in the NOS budget.
      --Congress should inform NOAA that requests for closure of NOS
            laboratories will not be entertained in the future.
      --Congress should direct NOAA to restore staffing, operational
            support and funding for science to full operational levels to
            utilize the capacity of the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory.
      --NOAA should provide a report and a timeline to Congress with a
            strategy to address these concerns.
                                   in summary
        Inaccurate, outdated information that overstated the costs of
    maintaining the NOAA Beaufort Laboratory was used in the analysis that
    led to the request to close this facility. The request understated the
    number of staff housed at this facility, and did not include NMFS or
    North Carolina NERRs employees. For 115 years, the NOAA Beaufort lab
    has had a rich history of involvement in local, national, and
    international marine science issues. The laboratory has produced award
    winning science in Fisheries and Harmful Algal Bloom research and is
    respected for the expertise and knowledge of the staff working there.
    The programs that NERRs conducts at the facility are clear evidence of
    the Beaufort lab's commitment to education and outreach--closing the
    facility would disrupt and greatly increase the hardships of running a
    successful marine science educational program. The lab originatedin
    Beaufort, North Carolina because of its unique position, being at the
    edge of two biogeographic regions (i.e., Cape Hatteras), and at the
    cusp of expanding tropical regions. It is critical that a NOAA lab of
    this strength continues in this location given the imperative to
    understanding fisheries management, coastal ecosystem management,
    climate impacts, coastal pollution, and harmful algal bloom issues in
    the mid and south Atlantic regions. Closing the Beaufort lab would
    leave a NMFS ``facilities-based-gap'' from Sandy Hook, New Jersey to
    Miami, Florida. This fact alonereveals the shortsightedness of the
    President's proposal. I hope the committee carefully considers this
    testimony and the testimonies of others that voice similar opinions
    against the President's proposal to close the Beaufort NOAA Laboratory.
        Thank you for your consideration in this matter. The closing of
    this facility will impact greatly the entire eastern coast of the
    United States as well as all the other areas that this lab collaborates
    with to assist with fishery issues.
                                     ______

                           Prepared Statement of VOR

      Protecting the Interests of Residents of Medicaid-Licensed Facility
     Homes for Persons With Intellectual Disabilities in Actions Conducted
    by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division That Affect Their
                              Choice of Residency

                                i. introduction
        VOR, a national advocacy organization for people with intellectual
    and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families, express
    gratitude to Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski and members of the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for
    this opportunity to submit testimony for the record in consideration of
    fiscal year 2015 appropriations for the Department of Justice.
        VOR's members look forward to working with Senators and their staff
    to ensure the civil rights of our most fragile citizens with I/DD.
               ii. summary: legislative choice language proposal
        As explained in detail below, VOR asserts that legal proceedings
    and related actions, such as investigations, brought against States by
    the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division under the Americans
    with Disabilities Act (ADA) have caused significant financial and
    emotional hardships, and sometimes harm, to individuals with
    developmental and intellectual disabilities and their families. The
    concern is widespread: the Department of Justice has filed more than 40
    actions in more than 25 States. VOR views these ``Olmstead
    enforcement'' actions to violate the spirit and even, at times, the
    letter of the Olmstead decision, especially with regard to the
    requirement of individual choice [Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527
    U.S. 581 (1999)]. To correct for this injustice, VOR urges the Senate
    to adopt the following choice language relating to Department of
    Justice appropriations:

            ``No funds appropriated for any Department of Justice program
            shall be expended to promote any law or policy that limits the
            choices of individuals with intellectual and developmental
            disabilities (or, if an individual has a legal representative,
            the legal representative), seeking living arrangements they
            believe are most suitable to their needs and wishes.''

                                 iii. rationale
    A. Background on Forced Deinstitutionalization
        There is a national trend towards deinstitutionalization, whereby
    individuals are encouraged and sometimes forced to move out of
    Medicaid-licensed care facilities (including Intermediate Care
    Facilities for Persons with Intellectual and Development Disabilities,
    ``ICFs/IID'') and into residential settings.
        However, there are significant concerns among the family members
    and legal guardians of individuals residing in State-run and private
    ICFs/IID regarding the adequacy of opportunities for residents to make
    their views and preferences known throughout the process. They are also
    concerned about whether State-run and private facilities are being
    closed before adequate community placements are available; whether
    Medicaid reimbursements rates are adequate to facilitate the services
    necessary in such community placements for residents to lead safe and
    fulfilling lives; whether, due to a lack of adequate local community
    placements, some residents are being placed in community facilities too
    far from family members sometimes to meet the goals of integration into
    the community; the pace of transfers; and the pressure being put on
    legal representatives to move residents from their ICF/IID homes and
    other specialized facilities.
    B. The U.S. Department of Justice's Olmstead Enforcement
        As stated above, legal proceedings and related actions, such as
    investigations, brought against States by the Justice Department's
    Civil Rights Division under the ADA have caused significant financial
    and emotional hardships, and sometimes harm, to individuals with I/DD
    and their families. VOR views these ``Olmstead enforcement'' actions to
    violate the spirit and even, at times, the letter of the Olmstead
    decision [Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999)].
        In particular, the Supreme Court in its Olmstead decision
    establishes the right to community-based housing and care only when the
    ``State's treatment professionals have determined that community
    placement is appropriate'', ``transfer is not opposed by the affected
    individual'' and ``the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking
    into account the resources available to the State and the needs of
    others with mental disabilities'' [Olmstead at 587].
        The Court clarified its holding as follows:

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

        It is not the Justice Department's place to substitute its
    ideological view that all residents of ICFs/IID and similar facilities
    are better served in community placements for the Supreme Court's
    specific tests for community placement, which includes the judgments of
    the legal representatives of behalf of incapacitated residents.
        Yet, Olmstead investigations and actions by the Justice Department
    against States have been pursued with the express intent of ``Community
    Integration for Everyone'' [DOJ Olmstead Enforcement website, 2014],
    have rarely included consultation with families and legal guardians,
    and have led to settlements requiring deinstitutionalization without
    regard to assessments of individual needs and choices. As recognized by
    U.S. District Judge J. Leon Holmes in his order dismissing the Justice
    Department's case against the State of Arkansas:

            ``Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
            have been violated. Not this one. The Civil Rights Division of
            the Department of Justice brings this action on behalf of the
            United States of America against the State of Arkansas and four
            State officials in their official capacities alleging that
            practices at Conway Human Development Center [a Medicaid-
            licensed ICF/IID] violate the rights of its residents
            guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with
            Disabilities Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities
            Education Act. All or nearly all of those residents have
            parents or guardians who have the power to assert the legal
            rights of their children or wards. Those parents and guardians,
            so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United
            States. Thus, the United States is in the odd position of
            asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are being
            violated while those persons--through their parents and
            guardians--disagree.'' [U.S. v. Arkansas (June 8, 2011,
            dismissal order) (emphasis added); see also, Olmstead:
            Community Integration for Everyone--Olmstead Enforcement, U.S.
            Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (website) (emphasis
            added): detailing the Division's Olmstead enforcement efforts
            in more than 40 matters in more than 25 States in the past 5
            years].

        In United States v. Virginia (2012), families and legal guardians
    were conspicuously absent from the long list of stakeholders
    interviewed by the Justice Department prior to settlement and families
    spent $125,000 to overcome Justice Department and Commonwealth
    opposition to secure intervention of right [see, United States v.
    Virginia, Memorandum Order Approving Motion to Intervene (May 9, 2012):
    ``[T]he Petitioners have a significant, protectable interest in
    receiving the appropriate care of their choice and protecting their
    rights under the ADA. See Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S.
    581, 602 (1999) (`Nor is there any Federal requirement that community-
    based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.'') . . .
    The Petitioners are all [ICF/IID] Training Center residents who wish to
    continue receiving institutional care in their current settings. As
    such, their interests are certainly affected by a lawsuit alleging
    deficiencies in their care and a consent decree whose stated purpose is
    to prohibit the unnecessary institutionalization of Virginians with ID/
    DD . . . The parties' [Justice Department and Commonwealth] desire to
    phase out the residential Training Centers and transition all
    Virginians with ID/DD to community-based care is readily apparent.''].
        In United States v. Georgia (2010), the Department did not consult
    with families and legal guardians before entering a settlement that
    requires that the closure of Georgia's ICFs/IID and forces all
    residents from these homes. The Settlement does not provide families
    and legal guardians any decisionmaking authority except in the context
    of community transition. As discussed next, significant harm to
    affected individuals has followed transitions in Georgia and other
    States.
    C. The Human Consequences
        VOR is also deeply concerned by the many reported outcomes of
    abuse, neglect and death of individuals with intellectual and
    developmental disabilities in community settings [see e.g, Letter from
    U.S. Senator Chris Murphy to Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General,
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (March 4, 2013): ``I write
    to you today to request that you undertake an immediate investigation
    into the alarming number of deaths and cases of abuse of
    developmentally disabled individuals in group homes. In particular, I
    would like you to focus on the prevalence of preventable deaths at
    privately run group homes across this Nation and the widespread
    privatization of our delivery system.''; ``In State Care, 1,200 Deaths
    and Few Answers,'' New York Times (November 5, 2011): investigation
    finding that more than 1,200 deaths in State-run group homes in the
    past decade have been attributed to either ``unnatural or unknown
    causes''; and Bagenstos, Samuel R., The Past and Future of
    Deinstitutionalization Litigation, 34 Cardoza L. Rev. 1, 15, 21 (2012),
    which raises serious questions about the adequacy of community-based
    placements; notably, Mr. Bagenstos is a former Principal Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department's Civil
    Rights Division and was a key litigator in deinstitutionalization
    cases.]
        In Georgia, where a Justice Department Settlement Agreement with
    the State in U.S. v. Georgia calls for the transition of nearly 1,000
    individuals with I/DD and the closure of all State-operated ICFs/IID
    and the transition of 9,000 individuals with mental illness from
    facility-based care, the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health &
    Developmental Disabilities' Office of Quality Management released its
    Annual Quality Management Report (February 2014) finding that in 2013
    there were 82 unexpected deaths, 1,200 hospitalizations, 318 incidents
    requiring law enforcement services, 305 individuals who were
    expectantly absent from a community residential or day program, and 210
    alleged instances physical abuse of mentally ill and developmentally
    disabled individuals. Similar concerns, including some mortalities,
    were confirmed in a March 23, 2014 report from Elizabeth Jones, the
    Independent Reviewer in U.S. v. Georgia. In report, Jones cites an
    ``urgent need to ensure competent and sufficient health practitioner
    oversight of individuals who are medically fragile and require
    assistance with most aspects of their daily lives.'' [see, ``Report:
    Developmentally Disabled Need Better Care,'' Georgia Health News (April
    10, 2014); see also, ``Widespread Abuse, Neglect and Death in Small
    Settings Serving People with Intellectual Disabilities,'' VOR (rev.
    February 2014)].
                                 iv. conclusion
        Given these concerns, VOR respectfully request that language be
    added to appropriations legislation to require individual choice,
    nothing more or less, as follows:

            ``No funds appropriated for any Department of Justice program
            shall be expended to promote any law or policy that limits the
            choices of individuals with intellectual and developmental
            disabilities (or, if an individual has a legal representative,
            the legal representative), seeking living arrangements they
            believe are most suitable to their needs and wishes.''

        Thank you for your consideration. For more information please
    contact Tamie Hopp, VOR Director of Government Relations & Advocacy at
    thopp@vor.net.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of James R. Waters, Morehead City, North Carolina
        The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Chair, and other members of the
    subcommittee, I am a retired Federal employee. I spent most of my
    professional career at the Beaufort Laboratory as an employee of
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA's) National
    Marine Fisheries Service, and was disappointed and saddened to learn of
    the recent proposal to close the lab.
        The Beaufort Laboratory, located in Beaufort, North Carolina, has a
    history of more than 100 years of research about fisheries and the
    marine environment. The history of publications in professional
    journals attests to this research. Within the past 35 years or so, the
    focus of research has evolved to reflect the requirements and mandates
    of major Federal legislation, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act, the Marine Mammal Act, and the
    Endangered Species Act. In particular, fishery scientists at the
    Beaufort Lab collect data, perform biological analyses and develop
    models with which to evaluate the status of important recreational and
    commercial species, especially for reef fishes that often are slow-
    growing, long-lived and vulnerable to overfishing and depletion, and
    for menhaden, which supports a major industrial fishery that produces
    fishmeal and oil. The Beaufort Laboratory works with stakeholders and
    fishery managers at the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Gulf
    of Mexico Fishery Management Council, NOAA's Southeast Regional Office,
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Gulf States Marine
    Fisheries Commission, and various State fisheries agencies to evaluate
    the effects of existing and proposed methods of achieving sustainable
    fisheries for these species.
        I urge the Senate subcommittee to question whether a closure of the
    Beaufort Laboratory is in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
    If the Beaufort Lab were closed, taxpayers would incur major expenses
    to relocate personnel to other Federal facilities. These facilities
    probably are inadequately sized to accommodate the influx of
    transferred employees, and as a result taxpayers would incur additional
    major expenses to either lease office/laboratory space or expand
    existing facilities. These costs could be minimized if Federal
    employment was terminated for some or all staff at the Beaufort Lab,
    but then taxpayers would lose the benefits of the data and analyses
    that would no longer be forthcoming with which to meet the mandates of
    major Federal legislation. In my opinion, taxpayers would suffer a net
    loss if the Beaufort Lab were closed.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. I
    hope that NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory will continue to be the source of
    productive research about fisheries and the marine environment for many
    years to come.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Dr. Michael P. Weinstein, Senior Scientist,
      Center for Natural Resources Development and Protection, New Jersey
                            Institute of Technology
        The National Marine Fisheries Laboratory at Beaufort, North
    Carolina has played a critical role in developing science to inform
    policy for more than a century. It is the only Federal facility between
    Miami and New Jersey Atlantic that is heavily invested in applied
    science to comply with the ``bottom up'' provisions of the Magnuson
    Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Its scientists were
    among the first to recognize the linkage between coastal wetlands and
    seagrass meadows as primary nurseries for the early life stages of
    finfish and shellfish including seatrout, menhaden and many other
    species that contribute to the U.S.-wide $50 billion commercial and
    recreational fishery. The facilities location on Pivers Island,
    adjacent to the Duke Marine Laboratory and near the University of North
    Carolina and North Carolina State University marine science
    laboratories is ideal for catalyzing Federal-university partnerships in
    cooperative marine research.
        I wholeheartedly concur with North Carolina's congressional effort
    to keep the lab open, and similarly agree that ``the NOAA Beaufort
    Laboratory is a prime location and provides the only Federal access to
    the most diverse marine ecosystem in the United States,'' as noted by
    Dr. David B. Eggleston, a professor at North Carolina State University.
    The Federal-university complex employs 500 staff, and hosts more than
    160,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 laboratories. These
    facilities supports a $58 million economy, according to the county's
    economic development council.
        If this facility is closed, a gaping hole would be left in the
    continuity of Federal research along the Atlantic Coast; one that
    serves as the direct liaison between university basic research and its
    application through practical ``use inspired'' research of the sort
    that is conducted at NMFS Beaufort. The lab should remain open.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Douglas A. Wolfe, Ph.D. NOAA (Retired), Beaufort,
                                 North Carolina
        My statement is in direct opposition to the closure of the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) marine science laboratory
    located in Beaufort, North Carolina, as presently proposed in the
    President's fiscal year 2015 budget for the National Ocean Service
    (NOS), Coastal Science, Assessment, Response and Restoration: National
    Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) (NOAA Blue Book, page 8).
        This facility, identified in the budget request as the Beaufort,
    North Carolina laboratory, has a long tradition of: (1) excellence in
    marine science and research, (2) fisheries management, (3) marine
    environmental restoration, and (4) collaboration with regional
    university programs in marine science research and education.
    Originally founded in 1899 by the U.S. Fisheries Commission, the
    Beaufort Laboratory is the second-oldest (after Woods Hole) Federal
    marine science facility in the United States. Its closure is is not at
    all justified in the budget documents cited above and I respectfully
    request this subcommittee to:

        1.  direct NOAA's National Ocean Service not to close the
    Laboratory, and
        2.  recommend full funding for staffing and operations at the
    Beaufort Laboratory in fiscal year 2015 and subsequent years.

        The balance of my statement will provide greater detail and
    justification for this position.
        In the NOAA Bluebook: fiscal year 2015 Budget Summary, the National
    Ocean Service proposes (on page 8) ``to reduce its physical footprint
    and fixed costs by closing the Beaufort North Carolina laboratory . .
    .'' A NOAA spokeswoman in Silver Spring, Ciaran Clayton (Director of
    Communications and External Affairs), was further quoted in our local
    newspaper: ``this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and
    improvements exceeding agency budget resources..'' This appears to form
    the entire basis for the NOAA/NOS/NCCOS request for lab closure. But in
    fact, NOAA has routinely been maintaining and improving this facility.
    The two-story laboratory, originally constructed in 1963, was renovated
    in 1994 to remove the outdated seawater systems from the building and
    to correct the structural damage caused by that flaw in the original
    design. A new (2014) engineering report found no residual structural
    problems in this building. More recently, a new administration building
    was constructed in 2007 at a cost of $7 million to house administrative
    and support staff offices, new library and conference room facilities,
    and the Offices of the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserves
    (NERRS). In 2008 the maintenance building was replaced at a cost of
    $960,000. In 2009 a chemical storage and hazmat building was
    constructed at a cost of $1 million. Bridge renovation/replacement
    (2007) and seawall repairs (2014) were performed at a cost of $3.5
    million. Several smaller aging structures were demolished and removed
    from the premises. The total cost of facility upgrades within the past
    7 years exceeds $14 million, including a $1 Million cost-sharing
    contribution from NERRS, $500,000 of North Carolina State funds for
    stormwater runoff management, and a shared cost with Duke University
    for the bridge work. The present facility is modern in appearance and
    houses state-of-the art scientific instrumentation and equipment in
    support of the research programs conducted by the staff.
        While the request for closure of the Beaufort Laboratory is
    presented in the NOAA/NOS/NCCOS budget statement, the Beaufort
    Laboratory in fact is occupied by programs and staff of three different
    NOAA components: NCCOS employs a permanent staff of 31; the National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has a permanent staff of 40 at the
    facility, and NERRS--a program funded cooperatively by NOAA and the
    State of North Carolina--supports a permanent staff of 8 (all State
    employees of North Carolina). The Center employs 33 additional
    personnel--most of them science-related--on a temporary or contract
    basis. The ramifications of laboratory closure are not reflected in the
    budgets shown for either NMFS or NERRS. Nor have the impacts to the
    employees and their families and to the local community been carefully
    evaluated.
        The Beaufort Laboratory has established an extraordinary record for
    scientific excellence in its research. NOAA and the Department of
    Commerce have repeatedly recognized individual researchers, research
    teams, and the Laboratory as a whole for the outstanding quality of the
    work performed there (with Commerce Gold Medals, Career Achievement
    Awards, Technology Transfer Award, etc.). Staff members at the
    Laboratory have also received major recognition and awards from
    professional scientific societies, including the Phycological Society
    of America and the Geochemical Society.
        The laboratory's excellent research capabilities and reputation
    also attract support--both from other branches of NOAA and from other
    outside agencies which have recognized potential benefits of the
    Laboratory's studies, and have augmented the base-level program support
    provided by NOAA. For example, the Office of Aquaculture provided
    nearly $1 million in fiscal year 2014 to conduct a feasibility study
    for sustainable aquaculture on the U.S. Atlantic coast, Gulf of Mexico,
    Caribbean (U.S. possessions), the Pacific west coast, and the Hawaiian
    archipelago. Other recent research initiatives of the NCCOS staff at
    the Beaufort Laboratory include (a) ecology of and responses to harmful
    algal blooms; (b) restoration of injured habitats including seagrass,
    saltmarsh, and reef systems; (c) ecosystem responses to climate change;
    and (d) population dynamics and spread of invasive species, such as
    lionfish. The current focus of the NMFS staff at the Beaufort
    Laboratory is on: (a) studies of population dynamics and stock
    assessments in support of fisheries management, especially of Atlantic
    menhaden and the offshore snapper/grouper and other reef fisheries; (b)
    population dynamics and health of protected and endangered species,
    including sea turtles and marine mammals; (c) densities of coral and
    the reproduction and life histories of reef fish; and (d) ecological
    studies on the ecosystem structure and function of the southeastern
    U.S. continental shelf system that supports these fisheries and
    protected species. The reponsibility of NERRS staff at the Beaufort
    Laboratory is direction and management of the four major Estuarine
    Research Reserves in North Carolina, one of which--the Rachel Carson
    Reserve--is located directly across the navigation channel from the
    Beaufort Laboratory, which provides a most convenient and economical
    logistics base for field research, training and educational programs at
    their reserve.
        It is ironic (to the point of giving an impression of fiscal
    irresponsibility) that the NOS/NCCOS budget initiative for fiscal year
    2015 requests increased research funding for coastal ocean issues ,
    including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal ecosystem
    management at the same time it is proposing to close the Beaufort
    Laboratory, which has well-established expertise and the facilities
    required to address many of those very same issues.
        The Beaufort Laboratory is strategically located for temperate and
    subtropical marine and estuarine habitat studies on the east coast of
    North America. It was no accident that Beaufort, North Carolina was
    selected by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries as the location for this
    laboratory, and not surprising that several Universities and State
    agencies have also located marine research facilities in the same area.
    North Carolina has one of the longest coastlines and greatest estuarine
    areas of any State on the east coast; and the Gulf Stream approaches
    the coast more closely at Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout than at any
    other point north of Cape Kennedy, Florida-- accounting for the
    occurrence of tropical corals and reef habitats just at and beyond the
    edge of the broad continental shelf. Laboratory scientists at the
    Beaufort Laboratory have developed academic affiliations with several
    nearby universities, especially with North Carolina State University,
    University of North Carolina-Wilmington, and East Carolina University,
    and have helped to sponsor graduate student research on many topics
    related to NOAA's initiatives. Close ties and research collaboration
    also exist between laboratory scientists and the faculty at the
    adjacent Duke University Marine Laboratory, and the University of North
    Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences in nearby Morehead City. The
    Beaufort Laboratory is an excellent living example of a truly effective
    Federal-Academic Partnership. The NERRS facility at the Beaufort
    Laboratory also provides educational experience and opportunities to
    thousands of elementary and secondary school students every year.
        The Beaufort Laboratory also provides administrative support and
    scientific direction for a field laboratory at Kasitsna Bay, Alaska,
    where researchers are quantifying ecosystem change and studying
    variability in ocean acidification in nearshore subarctic Alaskan
    habitats. In partnership with the University of Alaska, Native
    corporations and marine conservation groups, the Kasitsna Bay facility
    provides training in diving for scientific objectives, marine ecology
    and oceanography; conducts field science camps for high school
    students; and offers field housing for visiting researchers and
    students including NOAA undergraduate and graduate student interns. The
    implications of Beaufort Lab closure on the operation of the Kasitsna
    facility appear not to have been considered.
        In conclusion I will repeat my earlier recommendation and request
    the Honorable Members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to formulate
    appropriate strategies to:

        1.  direct NOAA/NOS not to close the Beaufort Laboratory as
    currently proposed, and remove all references to such closure in the
    final appropriation; and
        2.  direct NOAA to restore full funding for operations, staffing
    and research at the Beaufort Laboratory in fiscal year 2015 and
    subsequent years.

        Thank you for your consideration.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   120
    American:
        Geophysical Union--Joint Response to NOAA Budget Bill,
          Prepared Statement of the..................................   276
        Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............   267
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..   269
        Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of the.............   271
        Society:
            For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............   272
            Of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the
              Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of
              the....................................................   275
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   278
    Associated Universities, Incorporated, Prepared Statement of.....   281
    Association of:
        Public and Land-Grant Universities' (APLU) Board on Oceans,
          Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC), Prepared Statement of the..   282
        Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the................   285

    Bacheler, Nathan M., Fisheries Biologist, NOAA/National Marine
      Fisheries Service, Prepared Statement of.......................   286
    Boehlert, George, Redmond, Oregon, Prepared Statement of.........   287
    Bolden, Hon. Charles F., Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics
      and Space Administration:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   229
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   256
        Statement of.................................................   225
        Summary Statement of.........................................   227
    Boozman, Senator John, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
      Submitted by

    Brennan Center for Justice, Prepared Statement of the............   288
    Bureau of Prisons Budget, Prepared Statement on the..............   290

    California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   292
    Center for Biological Diversity, Prepared Statement of the.......   293
    Coastal States Organization, Prepared Statement of the...........   296
    Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   208
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   299
    Comey, Hon. James B., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation:
        Prepared Statement of........................................     5
        Statement of.................................................     1
        Summary Statement of.........................................     4
    Consortium:
        For Ocean Leadership, Prepared Statement of the..............   301
        Of Social Science Associations, Prepared Statement of the....   305
    Coons, Senator Christopher A., U.S. Senator From Delaware,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................   112
    Cross, Ford ``Bud'', Ph.D. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
      Administration (NOAA) (Retired), Prepared Statement of.........   307

    Duval, Michelle, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   310

    Entomological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......   311

    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   313
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by

    Fieberg, John, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Quantitative
      Ecology, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, Conservation
      Biology, University of Minnesota, Prepared Statement of........   314
    Fleming, Dr. Janelle, Seahorse Coastal Consulting, LLC and
      Discovery Diving Co., Inc., Prepared Statement of..............   315

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........   316
    Govoni, John J., Ph.D., Ecological Consultant, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   318
    Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................   216
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC),
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   320

    Hansen, Jonathan, Madison, Wisconsin, Prepared Statement of......   322
    Harms:
        Craig A., D.V.M., Ph.D.; Diplomate, American College of
          Zoological Medicine; Associate Professor, Department of
          Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and
          Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, Prepared
          Statement of...............................................   325
        Patricia, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared Statement
          of.........................................................   326
    Holder, Hon. Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, Department of
      Justice:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    41
        Questions Submitted to.......................................    94
        Statement of.................................................    35
        Summary Statement of.........................................    39
    Horowitz, Hon. Michael E., Inspector General, Department of
      Justice:
        Prepared Statement of........................................    84
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   132
        Statement of.................................................    82
    Horton, Howard F., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Fisheries, Oregon
      State University, Prepared Statement of........................   326
    Hoss, Dr. Donald E., Beaufort, North Carolina, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   327

    Innocence Project, Prepared Statement of the.....................   328
    Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the.....   331

    Jensen:
        Daniel, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared Statement of.   334
        Nancy, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared Statement of..   336
    Johnson, Dr. David F., Former Director of the NOAA Beaufort
      Laboratory (Retired), Prepared Statement of....................   339
    Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Prepared Statement of the.....   340

    Kellison, G. Todd, Carteret County, North Carolina Resident and
      Chief, Fisheries Ecosystems Branch, NOAA Fisheries/Southeast
      Fisheries Science Center/Beaufort Laboratory, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   343
    Kentula, Mary E., Corvallis, Oregon, Prepared Statement of.......   345
    Kirk, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
      Submitted by

    Klibansky Nikolai, Ph.D., Atlantic Beach, North Carolina,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   345

    Landrieu, Senator Mary L., U.S. Senator From Louisiana, Questions
      Submitted by

    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by

    Lund's Fisheries Incorporated, Prepared Statement of.............   346

    Marine Conservation Institute, Prepared Statement of the.........   347
    Martin, Hon. Paul K., Inspector General, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration, Prepared Statement of....................   236
    Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon, Questions
      Submitted by

    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of

        Prepared Statements of

        Questions Submitted by

        Statement of.................................................   246
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
      Submitted by

    National:
        Association of Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement of the   348
        Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of the......   351
        Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   397
        Court Appointed Special Advocate Association, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................   354
        Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), Prepared Statement of the...   356
        Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................   359
        Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.......   361
        Network to End Domestic Violence, Prepared Statement of the..   365
    Native American Rights Fund, Prepared Statement of the...........   370
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.   372

    Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.....................   374
    Oliver, Dr. James, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................   377
    Omega Protein, Inc. and Daybrook Fisheries, Inc., Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   377

    Planetary Society, Prepared Statement of the.....................   378
    Pritzker, Hon. Penny, Secretary, Department of Commerce:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   143
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   188
        Statement of.................................................   137
        Summary Statement of.........................................   142
    Pryor, Senator Mark L., U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   194

    Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   382
    Research!America, Prepared Statement of..........................   385
    Restore America's Estuaries, Prepared Statement of...............   386
    Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service, Inc., Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   388

    Sac and Fox Nation, Prepared Statement of the....................   389
    Schobernd, Zeb, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................   390
    Schueller, Dr. Amy M., Research Fishery Biologist, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   391
    Scientific Diving International, Prepared Statement of..........   394
    Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the.................   395
    Shaheen, Senator Jeanne, U.S. Senator From New Hampshire,
      Question Submitted by..........................................   198
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Opening Statement of.........................................   225
        Questions Submitted by

        Statements of

    Shertzer, Dr. Kyle, Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   399
    Society for:
        Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Prepared Statement
          of the.....................................................   401
        Neuroscience, Prepared Statement of the......................   404

    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
      Statement of
      the............................................................   407

    Vandersea:
        Brian, Vice President, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery
          Associates, Prepared Statement of..........................   412
        Dr. Harold, New Bern, North Carolina, Prepared Statement of..   412
    VOR, Prepared Statement of.......................................   415

    Waters, James R., Morehead City, North Carolina, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................   417
    Weinstein, Dr. Michael P., Senior Scientist, Center for Natural
      Resources Development and Protection, New Jersey Institute of
      Technology, Prepared Statement of..............................   418
    Wolfe, Douglas A., Ph.D. NOAA (Retired), Beaufort, North
      Carolina, Prepared Statement of................................   418

    Zinser, Todd J., Inspector General, Department of Commerce:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   146
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   218

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    2020 Census

        Summary of Census Bureau Corrective Actions--Table 1.........   220
    Addressing Issues with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration (NOAA) Weather Satellite Programs

        GOES-R.......................................................   163
        Managing GOES-R Program Issues With Launch Readiness and
          System Development.........................................   148
        Mitigating Potential JPSS Coverage Gaps......................   147
        NOAA Afternoon-orbit Polar Satellite Constellation With
          Potential Continuity Gap--Figure A-1.......................   163
        Ongoing OIG Investigation....................................   148
        Potential Policy Gaps for Geostationary Operational
          Satellites--Figure A-2.....................................   164
        JPSS.........................................................   162
    Affiliations.....................................................   207
    Anti-Dumping and Subsidy Enforcement.............................   176
    Athletic Footwear and TPP........................................   183
    Buy America......................................................   197
    Census

        Managing the Bureau's 2020 Decennial Planning and Other
          Census Bureau Issues.......................................   148
            2020 Census:
                Design...............................................   149
                    Shifting Deadlines--Figure 1.....................   149
                Integrated Schedule and Budget.......................   149
                Planning.............................................   149
            Ongoing OIG Investigation................................   150
    Denali Commission................................................   210
    Department of Commerce's Role in Creating and Retaining Jobs.....   179
    Electronic Monitoring............................................   211
        For Trawlers.................................................   178
    Enhancing Departmental Cybersecurity

        Cyber Incident Response......................................   166
        Department's Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives--Table C-1.   167
        Enhancing the Department's Cyber Incident Detection and
          Response...................................................   150
        Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives.........................   166
        Implementing Enterprise Cybersecurity Initiatives............   150
        Ongoing OIG Work.............................................   151
    Finances, Contracts, Grants, and Operations......................   153
        Agency Oversight.............................................   157
            Addressing:
                Concerns With BTOP Grants' Closeout Process..........   158
                Issues With NOAA Satellite Accounting................   159
            Answering Congressional Questions About a BTOP Awardee...   158
            Examining Issues With BTOP Equipment Acquisitions........   158
            Managing:
                Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (STOP)
                  Award Closeouts....................................   157
                NOAA Real Property Leases............................   159
            Reforming Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) Export
              Control................................................   158
            Supporting International Trade Administration (ITA)
              Export Programs Under a New Organizational Structure...   158
        Department-Wide Oversight....................................   153
            Addressing the Unauthorized Reprogramming of Funds.......   153
            Administering High-Risk Contracts and Grant Awards.......   155
                Incurring Risk From the Use of High-Risk Contracts...   155
                Tightening Controls Over Use of Federal Funds by
                  Award Recipients...................................   156
            Analysis, by Bureau, of OIG-Reviewed Single Audit
              Reports--Table 2.......................................   157
            Managing the Working Capital Fund........................   155
            Monitoring the Department's Obligation Balances..........   154
            Ongoing OIG Investigation Into NOAA Grants...............   157
            Overseeing:
                Conference Spending..................................   154
                Premium Travel Spending..............................   154
            Updating the Enterprise Financial Management System......   154
    Financial Management System......................................   188
    Fisheries

        California Drought...........................................   193
        Disaster Assistance..........................................   181
        Electronic Reporting for Recreational Reporting for Gulf of
          Mexico Red Snapper:
            Reporting on:
                Charter Boats........................................   200
                Headboats............................................   200
            Pilot Studies Using Electronic Reporting for Pulse
              Fisheries..............................................   200
        Finance Program..............................................   215
        Real-Time Monitoring.........................................   192
        Western Region...............................................   191
    Fishery:
        Disaster.....................................................   183
            Relief Funding...........................................   181
        Service Labs.................................................   174
    Fishing Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico........................   172
    Foreign Commercial Services......................................   185
    Fueling a Data-Driven Economy....................................   145
    Gathering and Acting on Environmental Intelligence...............   146
    Highlights of the Department of Commerce Budget..................   142
    Hydrographic Charting............................................   213
    Improving the Function of Patent and Trade Office................   186
    International Trade Administration...............................   217
        Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)..............................   198
        U.S./Canada..................................................   208
    Internet Policy Center...........................................   206
    Investment in Manufacturing Community Program

    Job Creation.....................................................   179
    Managing the Census Bureau's 2020 Decennial Planning.............   164
        2020 Decennial...............................................   164
        Accurately Recording Costs in the Accounting System..........   165
        Completing Timely Research For Making Evidence-Based Design
          Decisions..................................................   164
        Costly 2010 Census Operations and 2020 Research Efforts to
          Address Them--Table B-1....................................   165
        Integrating Schedule and Budget To Provide Valid, Timely,
          Accurate, and Auditable Performance Information on Which To
          Base Project Management Decisions..........................   165
    Manufacturing....................................................   184
        Initiative...................................................   209
    Marine Debris....................................................   213
    Market Competition...............................................   178
    National:
        Data Buoy System.............................................   213
        Telecommunications and Information Administration............   205
    NIST Cyber-Security Framework....................................   190
    NOAA:
        Cooperative Research to Develop and Implement a Cooperative
          EM Research Plan to Test and Compare Different EM
          Technologies With Observers, To Work Out Logistical Issues,
          and To Estimate Implementation Costs.......................   212
        Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) Recommendations
          on NOAA Fisheries Having a Role in Eco-Labeling of U.S.
          Federally Managed Seafood..................................   215
        Satellite....................................................   170
    NTIA, Internet Contract..........................................   175
    Ocean Exploration................................................   175
    Oil Country Tubular Goods........................................   207
    Patent:
        Backlog and Pendency Decreases and RCE Backlog and Pendency
          Increases Through February 2014............................   169
        Fee Collection...............................................   186
        Office Fees..................................................   187
    Polar Satellite:
        Gap Mitigation...............................................   218
        Program Robustness...........................................   201
    Prioritization Within NOAA.......................................   172
    Profit For Constructed Value.....................................   206
    Program Robustness--JPSS.........................................   219
    Promoting Trade and Investment...................................   144
    Reducing USPTO Backlogs

        New Application, Appeal, and RCE Backlogs and Pendency--Table
          1..........................................................   152
        Ongoing OIG:
            Work.....................................................   152
            Investigation............................................   153
        Patent Backlogs..............................................   151
            And Pendency Decreases and RCE Backlog and Pendency
              Increases Through 2014--Figures D-1a and D-1b..........   169
        Reducing Patent Application Backlogs.........................   168
    Regional Innovation Strategies Program...........................   195
    Relocation of the NOAA Vessel....................................   174
    Resolving Ethics and Compliance Issues Raised by Whistleblowers..   160
        Complaint Referrals to Bureaus Awaiting Initial Response--
          Figure 2...................................................   161
    Rural Broadband..................................................   196
    Satellite Gap Mitigation.........................................   202
    Seafood Certification............................................   214
    Secretary's Working Capital Fund (WCF)--Attachment: Appendix C,
      ``Detailed Overcharges and (Undercharges) by WCF Projects in
      Fiscal Year 2013,'' of OIG Final Report Number OIG-14-020-A,
      Office of the Secretary's Working Capital Fund Billing Control
      Issues Resulted In Incorrect Charges, Issued May 13, 2014......   222
    South Korean Manufacturers.......................................   208
    Spurring Innovation..............................................   144
    Steel............................................................   216
        Dumping......................................................   198
    Strengthening First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to
      Support Economic Growth........................................   159
        Ongoing FirstNet Oversight...................................   160
        Overseeing the First Responder Network Authority and the
          Implementation of the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband
          Network....................................................   159
    Trade............................................................   201
        And Footwear Manufacturing...................................   182
        Economic Development Administration..........................   201
        Promotion....................................................   190
    Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)..................................   216
    Truck Scrapping..................................................   189
    Unfair Steel Trade Practices.....................................   194
    USPTO Backlogs...................................................   151
        New Application, Appeal, and RCE Backlogs and Pendency--Table
          1..........................................................   152
        Ongoing OIG:
            Work.....................................................   152
            Investigation............................................   153
        Reducing Patent Backlogs.....................................   151
    Weather Satellites...............................................   170
    Working Capital Fund.............................................   219
                                   __________

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Office of the Attorney General

    Actions/Cases Taken to Hold Those Accountable for Distributing
      Misbranded, Unapproved, Adulterated, or Counterfeit Drugs

    Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 Funding Levels
      by Component...................................................    95
    Assets Forfeiture................................................   101
    Attorney Misconduct..............................................   127
    Autonomy of Office...............................................    93
    Becoming Smarter on Crime........................................    43
    Boston Marathon Bombing..........................................    36
    Budget Cuts......................................................   103
    Bulletproof Vest Program.........................................   113
    Bureau of Prisons................................................    36
        Most Successful Programs.....................................   104
    Cases Prosecuted Involving Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals Imported
      From Overseas

    Civil and Criminal Fines, Penalties, and Settlement..............    40
    Cooperative Law Enforcement Mechanisms to Pursue IP Offenses in
      Source Countries

    Cuts.............................................................   114
    Cyber Security

        Improvements.................................................    90
    Drugs

        Courts.......................................................    73
        Monitoring...................................................    65
        Related Crime................................................    51
    Effects of Sequestration.........................................    78
    Efforts to Fight Counterfeit Drugs...............................   121
    Enforcing Immigration Laws and Addressing the Immigration Case
      Backlog........................................................    47
    Fairness in Disclosure of Evidence Act...........................   126
    Federal Prisons

        Percentage of the Prison Population Connected in Some Way to
          Violent Crime..............................................    52
    Financial Fraud..................................................    67
    Fiscal Year 2015 Budget..........................................    37
        Cuts.........................................................   113
    Forensics Reform.................................................   102
    Funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
      Explosives (ATF) Attrition.....................................   106
    Future Work and Top Challenges Facing DOJ........................    86
        Crisis in the Federal Prison System Continues................    86
        DOJ Must Continue its Efforts to Protect Taxpayer Funds From
          Mismanagement and Misuse...................................    87
        Major Challenges for the Department..........................    86
    Gangs

        Of National Significance.....................................    66
    Granting Asylum..................................................    62
    Heroin:
        And Prescription Drug Abuse..................................    64
        Crisis.......................................................    50
    Human Trafficking................................................    96
        Curriculum Development.......................................   100
        Future Trainings.............................................   101
        Investigations and Initiatives...............................    99
        Prosecutions.................................................    98
        Training

    IG access to DOJ documents.......................................   118
    Immigration Courts

        Court Backlog................................................   108
    Improving:
        Collaboration with Foreign Law Enforcement Partners..........    46
        Our Ability to Implement and Enforce Gun Safety Measures.....    45
    Indicting Corporations...........................................    67
    Inspector General................................................    38
        Access.......................................................    92
    Investigating Cybercrime and Protecting Our Nation's Critical
      Networks.......................................................    46
    Investing in State, Local and Tribal Assistance Programs that
      Work...........................................................    48
    Legislative Changes to Improve U.S. Enforcement Efforts Involving
      Pharmaceuticals, Including Counterfeit Drugs Recommended by the
      Administration.................................................   124
    Maintaining Safe and Secure Prison and Detention Facilities......    47
    Methamphetamine:
        Container Program............................................   120
        COP Anti-Methamphetamine Program (CAMP)......................   120
            Eligibility..............................................   121
            Funding Provisions.......................................   120
        Meth in Tennessee............................................   120
    New Orleans Consent Decree.......................................   109
    Office of the Inspector General:
        Oversight of the Department's Operations.....................    84
        Position Regarding Access to Documents and Materials Gathered
          by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.....................    55
            Introduction.............................................    55
            I. The Inspector General Act.............................    57
                A. GThe Inspector General Act Grants the OIG Full and
                  Prompt Access to any Documents and Materials
                  Available to the DOJ, Including the FBI, that
                  Relate to the OIG's Oversight Responsibilities.....    57
                B. GThe Only Limitation on the OIG's Authority to
                  Conduct Audits and Investigations within its
                  Jurisdiction is Section 8E of the Inspector General
                  Act, and that Limitation Must Be Invoked by the
                  Attorney General...................................    58
            II. Grand Jury Secrecy Rules.............................    58
                A. GGOIG Attorneys Are ``Attorneys for the
                  Government''.......................................    59
                B. GThe OIG is entitled to Receive Grand Jury
                  Materials Involving Foreign Intelligence
                  Information........................................    60
            III. Conclusion..........................................    61
    Payment Fraud....................................................   112
    Prison Staffing..................................................    72
    Prisoner Reentry.................................................   103
    Prosecuting:
        Financial and Mortgage Fraud.................................    47
        GITMO Detainees in U.S. Courts...............................   105
    Prosecution of Senator Stevens...................................    69
    Protecting the American People from Terrorism and other National
      Security Threats...............................................    44
    Recent DOJ OIG Oversight of the Department's Operations..........    84
    Role of Inspector General........................................    53
    Safeguarding the Most Vulnerable Members of Society..............    43
    Safety of Correctional Officers..................................    71
    Senator Stevens Prosecution......................................    69
    Sentencing Reform................................................    52
    Sex Trafficking..................................................    77
    Smart Crime Initiative...........................................   114
    Stopping Child Predators.........................................    94
        Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 Funding
          Levels by Component........................................    95
    Strengthening the Independent Oversight of the DOJ...............    88
        Access to Documents Relevant to OIG Reviews..................    88
        Limitations on the DOJ OIG's Jurisdictions...................    89
    Summary of the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector
      General's Position Regarding Access to Documents and Materials
      Gathered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation................    55
        Introduction.................................................    55
        I. The Inspector General Act.................................    57
            A. GThe Inspector General Act Grants the OIG Full and
              Prompt Access to any Documents and Materials Available
              to the DOJ, Including the FBI, that Relate to the OIG's
              Oversight Responsibilities.............................    57
            B. GThe Only Limitation on the OIG's Authority to Conduct
              Audits and Investigations within its Jurisdiction is
              Section 8E of the Inspector General Act, and that
              Limitation Must Be Invoked by the Attorney General.....    58
        II. Grand Jury Secrecy Rules.................................    58
            A. GGOIG Attorneys Are ``Attorneys for the Government''..    59
            B. GThe OIG is entitled to Receive Grand Jury Materials
              Involving Foreign Intelligence Information.............    60
        III. Conclusion..............................................    61
    Task Forces......................................................   101
    Ted Stevens Investigation........................................   129
    TEDAC/HDS/NCETR Facilities.......................................   115
    Terrorism........................................................    78
    Terrorist Asylum.................................................   105
    Transition Technical Assistance Providers........................    72
    Unaccompanied Alien Children.....................................   107
    USA PATRIOT Act Review...........................................   136
    Victims of Child Abuse Act

    Web Sites Seized That Were Used to Facilitate Distribution of
      Illegal Sales of Pharmaceuticals...............................   125
    White Collar Crime:
        FTE Workyears Over the Last 6 Fiscal Years, Including
          Overtime Hours That Average More Than 200 Additional FTE
          Per Fiscal Year--Table.....................................   112
        Prosecution..................................................   110
                                   __________

                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

    Agent Joy Whistleblowing.........................................    22
    Agriculture Espionage............................................    19
    Budget...........................................................    15
    Child Exploitation and Child Pornography.........................    24
    Criminal.........................................................     8
        Crimes Against Children......................................    10
        Financial Crimes.............................................     9
        Gangs/Violent Crime..........................................     9
        Indian Country...............................................    10
        Public Corruption............................................     9
        Referrals from Financial Regulatory Agencies.................    27
        Transnational Organized Crime................................    10
    Critical Incident Response Group.................................    12
        Active Shooter Training......................................    12
        Tactical Operations & Crisis Response........................    12
    Cyber Security

        Efforts with Private Industry................................    30
    Employer Misconduct Relating to Stevens Investigation............    21
    Espionage........................................................    19
    Follow-up on deferred and non-prosecution........................    29
    Forensics Reform.................................................    26
    Hazardous Devices School

    Human Trafficking:
        In Native Communities........................................    23
        Of Native Americans..........................................    23
    Information Technology...........................................    13
    International Offices............................................    13
    Investigating multinational companies............................    28
    Leadership Development...........................................    14
    Legal Attache Offices............................................    20
    Mortgage Fraud Cases.............................................    28
    National Security................................................     6
        Counterintelligence..........................................     7
        Counterterrorism.............................................     6
        Cyber........................................................     8
        Intelligence.................................................     7
        Weapons of Mass Destruction..................................     7
    Offsets..........................................................    14
    OIG Report.......................................................    30
    Online Sex Trafficking...........................................    32
    OPR Report on Ted Stevens Case Agent.............................    22
    Science & Technology.............................................    11
        Criminal Justice Information Services........................    12
        Laboratory Services..........................................    11
        Operational Technology.......................................    11
    Senator Stevens Investigation....................................    22
    Shooting of Ibragim Todashev.....................................    25
    State and Local Law Enforcement..................................    16
    Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center.....................    18
    Training.........................................................    14
    Victim Assistance................................................    13
    White-Collar Crime...............................................    26
        Mortgage Fraud 2008-2014--White-Collar Crime Table...........    27
        Other White-Collar Crime 2008-2014--White-Collar Crime Table.    27
                                   __________

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    Aeronautics Research.............................................   233
    Altering Mission Payloads........................................   241
    Astrophysics and James Webb Space Telescope......................   231
    Commercial:
        Cargo........................................................   251
        Crew.........................................................   252
            And Cargo................................................   235
            Program..................................................   243
            Transportation Services..................................   236
        Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program...............   259
            Payments Through April 30, 2014--Table...................   259
        Resupply Services (CRS)......................................   260
            Flights to the International Space Station--Table........   260
    Cybersecurity at NASA............................................   253
    Earth Science....................................................   231
        Budget.......................................................   250
    Education........................................................   235
    Exploration:
        And Space Operations.........................................   234
        Systems......................................................   234
    Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request..................................   227
    Funding Reductions...............................................   248
    Heliophysics.....................................................   232
    Hubble Space Telescope...........................................   246
    Human Exploration and Operations.................................   259
    International Space Station......................................   234
    Launch Vehicles..................................................   241
    Maintaining a Balanced Space Program.............................   249
    Mars Mission Potentials..........................................   245
    NASA:
        Information Technology Governance Structure..................   238
        Priorities...................................................   255
        Russian Cooperation..........................................   251
    Planetary Science................................................   232
    Relationship With Russia.........................................   251
    Roadmap to Mars..................................................   244
    Rocket Engine Purchase...........................................   240
    Science

        Budget.......................................................   249
        Missions.....................................................   263
    Space:
        Communications Networks......................................   237
        Launch System Joint Confidence Level.........................   239
        Station Extension............................................   250
        Technology

    The Space Communications Networks................................   237
    U.S. Reliance on Russia for Launch Vehicles......................   241

                                       [all]