[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, [email protected], 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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
______
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 [email protected], (510) 725-4136, or Bob
Libal, Executive Director of Grassroots Leadership at
[email protected], (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
[email protected] 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
[email protected], Amber Ebarb, NCAI Budget and Policy Analyst, at
[email protected] or Brian Howard, Legislative Associate, at
[email protected].
______
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
[email protected].
______
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]