<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27360.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-375, Pt. 5
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2007
109th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
H.R. 5672
PART 5
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2007
(H.R. 5672)--Part 5
S. Hrg. 109-375, Pt. 5
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 5672
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE,
JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2007, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
PART 5 (Pages 1-811)
Department of Commerce
Department of Justice
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Nondepartmental Witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-360 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
TED STEVENS, Alaska DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas PATTY MURRAY, Washington
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Art Cameron
Allen Cutler
James Hayes
Rachelle Schroeder
Goodloe Sutton
Paul Carliner (Minority)
Gabrielle Batkin (Minority)
Alexa Sewell (Minority)
Kate Fitzpatrick (Minority)
Administrative Support
Augusta Wilson
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page
Department of Justice:
Office of the Attorney General............................... 1
Federal Bureau of Investigation.............................. 36
Drug Enforcement Administration.............................. 45
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.......... 61
United States Marshals Service............................... 73
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 117
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary.................. 197
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 233
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:02 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby, Stevens, Mikulski, Leahy, Kohl,
Murray, and Harkin.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the
subcommittee. He has been here before. And also, my second
panel, we will have the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Director Robert Mueller, Drug Enforcement Administration
Director Karen Tandy, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives Director Carl Truscott, and U.S. Marshals Service
Director John Clark who will be appearing before the
subcommittee this afternoon.
Mr. Attorney General, in reviewing the Justice Department's
budget request and anticipating the budget constraints weighing
upon us due to the war on terror and the natural disasters that
devastated the gulf coast, I believe it will take your unified
leadership to make the tough choices regarding the allocation
of scarce resources in this bill.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of
Justice is $20.8 billion and represents a 0.5 percent decrease
over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. While this request
proposes increases for the FBI, the U.S. attorneys, and the
U.S. Marshals Service, it proposes cuts to local law
enforcement assistance programs and other critical areas that
are troubling. In particular, it recommends a $1.6 billion
decrease for State and local law enforcement programs. It
proposes to rescind $142 million for the construction of two
new Federal prisons and includes the same failed $120 million
mandatory fee on explosives manufacturers to fund the day-to-
day operations of critical law enforcement activities.
The budget request for the FBI provides $6 billion, an
increase of 6 percent over the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
As the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I
know firsthand the challenges facing the Bureau's new national
security branch, which is responsible for coordinating
intelligence activities with the Director of National
Intelligence. The Bureau's budget request seeks to permanently
realign 300 special agent positions from criminal
investigations to counterterrorism, to support the work of the
NSB.
This shift in resources signals the importance of
reprioritizing funding and personnel to the threat of
terrorism. However, this realignment may not go far enough, as
the budget request only adds one new agent position for this
upcoming year. Instead, the FBI budget funds a variety of
technological improvements for intelligence infrastructure,
information technology management, information technology
infrastructure, and the next generation of the much-maligned
Trilogy program.
This subcommittee and the Bureau share the difficult task
of targeting these resources in a manner that safeguards
taxpayers' dollars while preserving public safety.
The FBI's former $537 million technology initiative,
Trilogy, while providing primitive functionality, was hardly a
sound investment for the taxpayers. I was disappointed to learn
that after spending in excess of $170 million, Trilogy's
Virtual Case File system was basically a failure. This
represents a devastating blow to the information technology
needs of the FBI.
The 2006 Government Accountability Office Trilogy report
raises serious questions about the FBI's ability to oversee and
to build any type of information technology system. The FBI's
new technology initiative, Sentinel, like Trilogy, promises to
bring the FBI into the 21st century. This new technology, I
believe as you do, is critically important, but I remain
concerned that the FBI does not possess the necessary project
management expertise, nor do I feel that the FBI has applied
lessons learned from past mistakes. We hope so.
And while I support and realize the importance of
information technology to the FBI's mission, as you do, I
cannot support unlimited and unchecked resources. I do not
believe this subcommittee would do that. We will not tolerate
broken promises for results that were never realized or
delivered, such as Trilogy.
Given one failed attempt, Mr. Attorney General, I believe
it is imperative that you proceed with caution to ensure that
the FBI does not make the same mistakes. I expect results. We
do here, and I will do everything we can to ensure there is a
thorough congressional oversight for this program.
The budget request for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives imposes a $120 million tax on
explosives manufacturers. I want to point out that even if
Congress passed this proposal today, it would take the
Department 2 years, I have been told, to begin collecting the
fee. If this were true, I do not understand how the Department
of Justice proposes to use the receipts from this fee to offset
the 2007 ATF budget.
This $120 million hole is just one example of many
contained in this budget request. These shortfalls force the
subcommittee to make extremely difficult choices that undermine
our ability to fund critical budget increases for hard working,
as you have, Department of Justice law enforcement agencies.
While we believe that your new initiatives are extremely
important, Mr. Attorney General, it will be difficult to give
them consideration when the subcommittee must weigh this
request with the numerous proposed rescissions, cuts, and
eliminations of local law enforcement programs. State and local
law enforcement agencies are the foundation of our Nation's law
enforcement community. You know this as the former attorney
general in Texas.
These proposed cuts have the potential to significantly
weaken the ability of these agencies to protect our communities
from traditional crimes, to maintain vigilance in the war on
terror and to prepare for catastrophic disasters. Continually
proposing major reductions for local law enforcement assistance
programs will cripple the police and sheriffs' departments
which are fixtures in our Nation's communities.
For the second year in a row, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
has disregarded explicit congressional direction to construct
new prisons in McDowell, West Virginia, and Burlington, New
Hampshire. This year's proposed $142 million rescission,
combined with last year's $314 million rescission, totals $456
million in previously appropriated funding for the construction
of additional correctional institutions. Not only are we facing
significant prison overcrowding here in the country, but the
Bureau of Prisons projects, according to what they tell us,
approximately 8,500 new prisoners will enter the Federal system
this year alone.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Attorney General,
first, and then the others later about your visions and the
challenges that you see.
Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
once again, as we open our hearings on the Commerce, Justice,
Science appropriations we look forward to working with you on a
bipartisan basis to achieve important national goals in terms
of public policy and yet be stewards of the Federal purse.
We want to welcome the Attorney General and our top law
enforcement team from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and of course, the
Marshals Service. Mr. Attorney General, I know we are anxious
to get to your testimony, but we want to welcome you. We know
that you said your goal was to help secure the American dream
for all Americans and to keep America safe. We want to work
with you to do that.
Your Department is responsible for protecting America, for
your Department is one of the agencies responsible for
protecting America from a predatory attack by international or
even domestic terrorists and at the same time protect Americans
from predatory attacks in our own neighborhood, whether they
commit arson against those people in our community trying to
buy a home for the American dream; whether they are the sexual
predators stalking and betraying children on the Internet; or
whether they are the drug kingpins coming into our community.
We need to protect America.
We are concerned, as we look at all of this and the
national goals about some of the aspects of the budget, but
before we get into the cuts that I am concerned about, we
understand that when we look at counterterrorism, which we know
is one of your priorities, the FBI does get the largest
increase to pay for investigations and technology upgrades.
I share the flashing yellow lights and flashing impatience
that has been shared with you by the chairman. I have met with
the director of the FBI on our new approach to the case
management system, and we are satisfied that a framework has
been put in place that we can begin to get the best value in
technology and the best value for the taxpayers' dollar. I want
to work with the chairman and with the director on important
oversight of this system.
At the same time, we do know that while we are upgrading
the technology, we need to upgrade our agents and make sure
that they have the best training. I am concerned that the
facilities at Quantico are aging, that they are tattered; that
while our agents are being brought in that we need to be sure
that where we train them and how we train them is as modern as
the mission that we have given them.
In the areas of agreement, we agree with you on reducing
gun violence, ridding our streets of gangs, and keeping the
Internet safe for our children, and protecting our fair
housing. Those are your national goals, and we want to work
with you on that. Yet, what we are concerned about is the cuts
to local law enforcement. In my time, I would just like to
focus on that, because your national goals, I will get to in
there, but no matter how great the FBI, ATF, DEA is, they have
to rely on local law enforcement. There is just not enough
agents. There will never be enough agents. They have to be the
cops on the beat, and they have to be trained. They have to be
equipped, and they have to be ready to work with the kind of
talent that we are asking.
In my own hometown in Maryland, because we are in the
Capital region, we fear a predatory attack from terrorists, and
at the same time, we have one of the highest heroin addiction
rates in the country, and we need DEA, and ATF has come to our
rescue in helping to find people who are trying to burn down
the homes of African-Americans moving into new neighborhoods.
So we worry, though, that because the people that were
caught were caught by local law enforcement, we are concerned
about the cuts of several hundreds of millions of dollars in
the Byrne grants and in other local law enforcement areas. So
we want to hear from you how you think that is going to work,
because as I said to you privately, and I said to you publicly,
all of these members will feel this pressure.
We do not want to be into the mother of all earmarking. And
we are concerned that if the communities cannot get their money
for their policemen through a grant program that is peer
reviewed, based on competition, granted on merit, they come to
us to be able to do this, to fight crime, upgrade their
technology, gang initiatives, and also deal with this
horrendous challenge of meth that is sweeping this country.
So we need to find a way and a wallet to really deal with
the local law enforcement that is the underpinnings that
support in many ways the efforts of our very talented Federal
law enforcement and the variety of agencies that they have. So
let us work on those national goals, but really, the gang
fighting, so many of these things, are done at the local level.
So, Mr. Chairman, we will follow this up in more extensive
conversations.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS
Senator Stevens. Well, thank you very much, and welcome,
Mr. Attorney General. I have another committee meeting, as a
matter of fact, but I came to emphasize what Senator Mikulski
has already addressed, and that is this methamphetamine. The
COPS meth hot spots program was authorized for $99 million.
This is a scourge as far as rural America is concerned. And I
have got a question I would like to submit for the record and
appreciate your answers, Mr. Attorney General.
Thank you very much.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I will put my whole statement
in the record so we can go to the witnesses.
Senator Shelby. Without objection.
Senator Leahy. I would say that I am concerned, and I will
raise this in my questions, about the budget cutting of funds
for proven anti-crime and anti-drug and community safety
efforts. They make a difference in your State, my State,
Vermont and elsewhere. I see programs slated for elimination.
Cuts include Byrne and the COPS grant, something every police
department has benefitted from; the crime victims fund, the
bullet proof vest partnership that Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell and I started; the Violence Against Women Act
programs; boys and girls clubs.
We have unlimited amounts of money to build up everything
that they want in Iraq. I think we should be worried more about
crime victims and rank and file police in the United States.
I will also ask questions about what, in heaven's name, we
are allowing somebody as careless as ChoicePoint to get control
of our data, but I will put my whole statement in the record,
Mr. Chairman, and I will ask those questions.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Mr. Chairman, I join you, the ranking member and our colleagues in
welcoming all of our distinguished witnesses who are here to testify
before our subcommittee today on the Justice Department's fiscal year
2007 budget. I particularly want to welcome Attorney General Gonzales
and FBI Director Mueller, both of whom I see from time-to-time when
they come before the Judiciary Committee for oversight hearings. Today,
however, I am here to wear my appropriator's cap and listen to them
describe and attempt to justify the Justice Department budget request
for the coming year.
During recent years, the Justice Department has confronted the
daunting challenge of protecting our Nation against international
terrorism in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the
subsequent anthrax attack and other threats. All the witnesses before
us today deserve credit for their efforts to assure the safety of the
American people.
I was disappointed to see, however, that the administration's
fiscal year 2007 Justice Department budget request calls for deep cuts
in crime prevention programs that State and local police and sheriffs'
departments have long relied upon, including key efforts such as Byrne
Grants, the Crime Victims Fund, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
Program, and the Violence Against Women Act programs. This budget would
undermine proven anti-crime, anti-drug and community safety efforts
that are making a difference in Vermont and in communities across the
Nation. These budget priorities are out of whack. This budget puts more
tax cuts for the rich at the front of the line, while leaving behind
crime victims, local police and boys and girls clubs. This is simply
irresponsible and wrong.
In the wake of terrorist attacks, I recognize that the Justice
Department focused much of its attention on the prevention of terrorism
and the promotion of national security. Its top priorities continue to
be the prevention, investigation and prosecution of terrorist
activities against U.S. citizens and interests, which is evident in the
request for $318.5 million in new investments for the FBI, including
counterintelligence activities and justice information systems
technology. Unfortunately, the FBI has not always been a good steward
of those resources.
It has been almost a year since the FBI announced it would have to
scrap the $170 million IT project known as the Virtual Case File (VCF).
I have repeatedly expressed my deep frustration and concern over the
millions wasted on ``lessons-learned'' and the fact that more than 2
years have passed since the original deadline; however, these
technology goals are not yet met.
In the year since the FBI announced the VCF's successor, the
Sentinel program, I have seen nothing to boost my confidence in the
Bureau's ability to manage the status and cost of this project. We
learned recently that the FBI estimates that Sentinel will cost the
American taxpayers $425 million to complete and that the full Sentinel
system will not be deployed until 2009. The FBI has asked Congress to
commit $197 million to the project between this year and the coming
year, but it is already behind schedule and the FBI has yet to solidify
its IT goals and plans for achieving them. The President's fiscal year
2007 Budget proposes another $100 million for the Sentinel project. We
must ensure that the FBI's technological capabilities keep pace. To do
so requires an emphasis not just on providing funds, but also on
effective use and implementation. I hope the latter is not neglected.
No one will argue over the importance of counterterrorism programs.
Nonetheless, I am concerned that the DOJ's traditional duties have
recently garnered too little attention and support. The Justice
Department must lead the Nation in deterring, investigating and
prosecuting gun, drug and civil rights violations; incarcerating
offenders; partnering with State, local and community groups to prevent
crimes; and providing leadership and assistance in meeting the needs of
crime victims. In recent years we have seen an end to the downward
trend in violent crime, with rates leveling out instead of continuing
to decrease. We must not allow daily responsibilities that keep our
citizens safe to fall aside.
The President claims that he wants to ensure that our State and
local police receive the resources necessary to do the job the American
public expects them to do. I am truly frustrated to see, however, that
he proposes the elimination or reduction of funding by $1.31 billion,
or 52 percent cut, for programs crucial to State and local law
enforcement and terrorism prevention. As a Senator from a rural State
that relies in part of Federal grants to combat crime, I am deeply
concerned about these cuts.
Under this budget, we would see an end to Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grants, which Congress recently reauthorized by law to
provide vital grant funding to States to improve the functioning of the
criminal justice system, as well as a $23.3 million cut COPS programs.
Police departments nationwide would experience severe reductions in
equipment and support staff grants to combat illegal drugs. In my home
State, these programs have provided vital funding for the Drug Task
Force, which combats the growing problem of heroin use and trafficking,
as well as keeps the production and use of highly addictive
methamphetamine from infiltrating Vermont's borders.
The Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Program plays a vital role
in distributing lifesaving bulletproof vests to law enforcement
officers serving in the front lines nationwide. I am proud to have
authored with our former colleague, Senator Campbell, the charter to
create this program that saves lives and spares injuries of law
enforcement officers nationwide by providing more help to State and
local law enforcement agencies to purchase body armor. The Vests
Partnership is authorized to allow for $50 million per year through
fiscal year 2009 so that this successful program can continue to help
protect the lives of State and local law enforcement officers. Indeed,
it is so successful that since 1999 it has provided law enforcement
officers in more than 11,900 jurisdictions nationwide with nearly
450,000 new bulletproof vests.
The President's budget, however, proposes to drastically reduce
funding of this program by almost $20 million, or by 67 percent. This
proposal comes at a time when the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program
is needed more than ever. Compounding the usual funding demand for help
to purchase vests, concerns over the effectiveness of Zylon-based body
armor vest have resulted in an estimated 200,000 of these vests needing
to be replaced. Across our Nation, law enforcement agencies are
struggling over how to find the funds necessary to replace defective
vests that are less than 5 years old with ones that will actually stop
bullets and save lives. We should be making sure that every police
officer who needs a vest gets one.
Two more points I would like to make: The Boys and Girls Clubs of
America--a proven and growing success in preventing crime and
supporting our children--would have its budget reduced by $25 million,
a 30 percent cut. Finally, the President proposes to drain all amounts
remaining in the Crime Victims Fund at the end of fiscal year 2007.
This represents an estimated cut of $1.255 billion, and will place
crime victim service programs in serious jeopardy. These cuts send the
wrong message to our children and crime victims.
Now is not the time to eliminate initiatives that we know to be
effective in the prevention, enforcement and aftermath of crime.
Strengthening security, information sharing and disaster response
programs to combat terrorism must not totally overshadow the prevention
of more traditional crimes.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. I just wanted to make one point. Mr.
Attorney General, just echoing what Senator Mikulski and
Senator Stevens were saying. Methamphetamine. I was looking
through your statement, there are drastic cuts in the COPS
program and in the Byrne grant program, and when my question
comes around, that is what I want to focus on. Because I see no
justification for this. We are just having the rug pulled out
from underneath our local law enforcement by submitting a
budget that zeroes out the Byrne grant program. I will have
more to ask you about that when my question comes around.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite getting to
our witnesses, I will forego an opening statement.
Senator Shelby. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Murray.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Mikulski for holding the hearing and Attorney General Gonzales
and all the witnesses today. Like my colleagues, I just want to
say that I have some serious concerns about the cuts to the
Byrne grant and COPS programs. These programs really help
reduce crime in communities all across this country, and Byrne
grants in particular have allowed my State, the State of
Washington, to take on the meth epidemic with some real
resources. And I am proud to say that Washington State is now
the national model in the fight against meth.
You know, States from all over the country have been
talking to leaders in law enforcement and education and
treatment in my State about how to create similar comprehensive
efforts to stop meth in their States. But Washington State got
to be a leader in the fight on meth by showing that
partnerships work, and not just partnerships between law
enforcement and education and treatment community but
partnerships at all three levels of the Government: Federal,
State, and local jurisdictions. And there is no question that
the Federal resources from COPS and the Byrne grant help these
partnerships grow and become really a keystone in the fight
against drugs.
At the same time that police officers are retiring, and
local funding has dried up for our drug task force, this
administration wants to close the door on law enforcement, and
I know that this subcommittee will hear about some newfound
efficiencies and better partnerships. But let me be clear: any
solution that lets the criminals win is not a win in my book.
Speaking of meth, I want to just say that I am very
concerned that the Department of Justice is not doing enough, I
believe, to stop the spread of methamphetamine and other
synthetic drugs. Although efforts in our States to increase
precursor control and the passage of the Combat Meth Act are
going to help, drug cartels are now flooding the market with
meth.
So just as we are now succeeding to stop some of the
smaller mom and pop operations, we are now seeing these cartels
use their immense resources and drug distribution chains to
bring meth back into our neighborhoods and meet the demand that
is out there. So I hope to hear this afternoon how you and
Administrator Tandy are working on taking on those drug cartels
to help stop this.
Finally, I just want to mention, we have talked before, you
and I, about the needs of local jurisdictions along our
northern border. In Washington State, our northern border
counties are spending millions of dollars on cases that are
initiated by Federal agencies. Whether it is Customs or ICE,
our Federal agencies are increasing the numbers of criminals
that they bring into these local courts and detain in our local
jails. And the U.S. Attorney's Office has been unable to meet
the demand and often declines these cases and refers them
directly to cities and counties for processing and prosecution.
Whatcom County, which is on our northern border just across
the border from Vancouver, British Columbia, is now spending
over $2 million a year to process these federally initiated,
declined, and deferred cases. So we have county sheriff offices
who are unable to serve warrants now because their jails are
full, and I hope that we can continue to work together to help
the northern border communities so that our local communities
are not forced to let their criminals go free because the
Federal agencies are now forcing them to take more and more of
these border related cases.
This is really an equity issue, because as you know, along
the southwest border, there is a program to reimburse those
local costs associated with the criminals caught on the border,
and I think it is time we fixed this problem and created a
sister program to the Southwest border prosecution initiative
to help States like mine and Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Wisconsin, other northern border States that are facing the
same problem.
So I hope that we hear from all of you today about how your
departments and agencies are finding better ways to partner
with our local jurisdictions and working with our communities
to help our neighborhoods be safe. And I think we can continue
to create some success stories if we have increased law
enforcement partnerships at the local, Federal, and State
level.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Attorney General, welcome again to the
subcommittee. Your written testimony will be made part of the
record. You may proceed as you wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES
Attorney General Gonzales. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Mikulski, and members of the subcommittee. First
of all, Senator Mikulski, congratulations on last night's great
victory.
The men and women of the Department of Justice are working
every day to secure the opportunities of the American dream for
all Americans. As Attorney General, I want to ensure that our
neighborhoods are safe, secure, and prosperous. This is an
enormous goal and one that we have made steady progress on over
the past few years.
Today, I present the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
for the Department. Mr. Chairman, in an administration that is
committed to controlling overall Government spending, this
budget prioritizes our top public safety needs. This is a
budget that builds on our expertise, launches new programs, and
eliminates or cuts programs that have not met our high
standards. It focuses State and local assistance on priorities
established by the administration and by Congress.
COUNTERTERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS
Included in this $19.5 billion budget are the Department's
six major priorities for the coming year. Our highest priority
is to stop the terrorists who seek to destroy the American
promise of liberty and prosperity. Waging the war on terror has
been among the most difficult challenges that the Justice
Department and the Government have ever undertaken. But we have
made great progress, as evidenced by the hundreds of
convictions we have obtained in terrorism-related
investigations and by the terror cells that we have located and
broken up from coast to coast.
Still, we know that al Qaeda remains a threat. I want to
thank Congress for reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act and providing
resources in the war on terror. I look forward to your support
of our effort to stand up the new National Security Division,
which will enable us to house our counterterrorism and
counterintelligence prosecutors side by side, making it faster
and easier to connect the dots.
The threat of terrorism is not going to go away, and
neither is our commitment to do everything we can to stop it.
And so, we are requesting over $330 million for new and
directed counterterrorism and intelligence programs to protect
our Nation from this continuing threat.
Every American deserves to live free from the fear of
violent crime. The President's Project Safe Neighborhoods is
taking criminals off the streets and reducing gun and gang
crime. Our efforts are working. Crime has plunged to 30-year
lows, resulting in thousands of Americans who have not been
threatened, have not been harmed, and have not been violated by
gangs with guns. However, gang violence is still a problem, and
this budget requests over $22 million in enhancements and
almost $163 million in State and local grants to further
liberate our communities from gang and gun crime.
Illegal drugs poison children, destroy lives, and threaten
the safety and the prosperity of our communities.
Methamphetamine is particularly destructive, and the Department
has worked harder than ever to combat methamphetamine over the
past year. We have successfully dismantled some of the most
deadly drug organizations that dump drugs into our
neighborhoods. This budget requests almost $235 million in
enhancements to stem the supply of drugs from overseas and
secure our homeland and shut down our borders to illegal
aliens.
CHILDSAFE INITIATIVE
The Internet should be a safe, crime-free place for all
Americans, especially our children. Our new Project Safe
Childhood Initiative is designed to complement our other
efforts to secure for every child the most important gift that
we can give: a safe environment in which to live, grow, and
learn.
Through this initiative, we will identify, prosecute, and
lock up those who victimize our children through the production
and distribution of child pornography and those who use the
shadow of the Internet to lure minors into sexual activity. In
this budget, we seek more than $186 million to end the sexual
exploitation of children and the proliferation of obscenity.
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
Securing the American dream requires protecting individuals
from illegal discrimination, and I am pleased that the
Department prosecuted a record number of criminal civil rights
cases in the last 2-year period, but I am asking the Civil
Rights Division to do even more: to vigorously protect our
citizens' right to vote, to work, and to buy or rent a home
free from discrimination. We are seeking over $113 million for
the Civil Rights Division to accomplish these goals. We have
also launched a new initiative, Operation Home Sweet Home,
which expands our Fair Housing Act testing program.
HUMAN TRAFFICKING
The Division is also focused on eradicating the modern day
slavery of human trafficking. Prosecutions of this crime have
increased over 300 percent during this administration, but even
one victim is too many. In the coming year, we will continue
our efforts to locate and rescue the victims of this atrocity.
The sixth and final priority I want to emphasize is the
Department's fight against Government and corporate corruption.
Honesty and integrity in Government and in business are
essential for a strong America. Prosperity cannot flourish if
taxpayers and investors lose their confidence in these
institutions. As part of our anticorruption commitment, more
than 200 new FBI agents have been added in the past 3 years to
anticorruption squads across the United States.
Now, virtually all of these priorities require our Federal
prosecutors to do more. Over the past several years, Congress
has been supportive in providing law enforcement more agents
and investigators to detect crime. But now that we have more
cops on the street, we need more prosecutors in the courtroom
to make sure that the criminals we identify are brought to
justice. Accordingly, I am asking that you fully fund the
budget for the United States Attorneys, to provide additional
prosecutors to ensure justice in communities across the Nation.
The priorities I outlined today in no way reflect all of
our many important responsibilities. The Department serves as
the Nation's chief prosecutor and litigator, representing the
people of the United States in court not just to prosecute
crime but also to enforce immigration laws, protect
intellectual property, safeguard the environment, defend the
laws that Congress passes, and protect the National Treasury
against fraud.
The Department also protects our communities by safely and
securely confining all of the people in Federal custody. These
are all tremendous responsibilities and require sufficient
resources as well.
Securing the American dream for all Americans is an easy
thing to say, but it is a very difficult thing to do. In the
past few years, America has been a safer, more secure place
than it was a decade ago. We have faced many challenges, and we
have made great strides. Others are still before us. You have
my commitment that the men and women of the Department of
Justice will work hard every day with the resources you provide
to make the communities that we both serve as safe, secure and
prosperous as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alberto R. Gonzales
Good afternoon Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, and Members of
the Subcommittee: It is my pleasure to appear before you today to
present the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for the Department of
Justice (``Department'' or ``DOJ''). My goal as Attorney General is
simple: Secure the opportunities of the American dream for all
Americans and for future generations. It is a goal I am sure this
Committee supports. But it is no small task and requires the hard work
of thousands of Department officials stationed around the country and
the globe. With your continued support, I have established priorities
and initiatives to guide the Department's efforts in the coming year.
My highest priority remains keeping America safe by using every
tool at our disposal, consistent with our Constitution, to prevent
another terrorist attack on our Nation. At the same time, the
Department continues to investigate, prosecute, detain, and incarcerate
federal criminals. We are currently focusing on top initiatives such as
an aggressive anti-gang program that will help combat some of the most
violent gangs in the country.
In pursuit of these and other priorities, for fiscal year 2007, the
President's Budget requests $19.5 billion for DOJ, including $330.8
million in new investments for preventing and combating terrorism. The
fiscal year 2007 budget further strengthens counterterrorism efforts by
investing in essential intelligence infrastructure and information
technology. The budget also includes many new, critical investments
that will continue to make America a safer place for law-abiding
American citizens and a tougher place for criminals. An integral part
of our funding need is support for the United States Attorneys'
Offices. The budget prioritizes funding for our most important goals
and proposes reductions to some programs, many of which have not shown
effective results.
I also want to thank the Congress for reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT
Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is a vitally important tool for the
Department, and its reauthorization will help us prevent another
terrorist attack.
PREVENTING AND COMBATING TERRORISM
In the 5 years since 2001, the Department has requested and the
Congress has provided significant resources for counterterrorism and
intelligence activities. With these resources, the Department has
accomplished a great deal. But we must never forget we are under
constant threat. Al Qaeda leaders continue to remind us of their desire
to attack our homeland and murder our citizens. We must continue to
work together to stop terrorists before they strike. To that end, the
Department remains open to productive suggestions on how to improve our
organizational capacity to accomplish our counterterrorism mission.
With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization, the Department
is moving quickly to make operational the new National Security
Division. Yesterday, I sent up to the Congress a reprogramming request
for the National Security Division. I hope the Congress will support
this request.
The National Security Division was created in response to the
recommendations presented by the Commission on the Intelligence
Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
(WMD Commission). This major organizational change reflects the
Department's commitment to building a structure that best supports our
national security mission. The fiscal year 2007 budget includes $67
million to fund the new National Security Division. This Division will
combine the Counterterrorism Section and the Counterespionage Section
from the Criminal Division with the Office of Intelligence and Policy
Review (OIPR). The Division will be led by a new Assistant Attorney
General for National Security who will coordinate all of the
Department's counterterrorism, counterespionage, and intelligence work.
This new Assistant Attorney General will also serve as the lead conduit
for our activities with the Intelligence Community and the Director of
National Intelligence.
The requested increase would add 21 attorneys to OIPR and 12
attorneys to the Counterterrorism and Counterespionage Sections of the
National Security Division. These additional resources will assist the
new Division in meeting the increased workload of intelligence searches
and surveillances, and will ensure that the Department aggressively
pursues cases involving trade in weapons of mass destruction.
Over the past 5 year's, the FBI has developed a distinct
Intelligence Program and hired and trained thousands of new Special
Agents and Intelligence Analysts who have contributed to our continuing
safety. The fact that there has not been another major attack within
the United States borders since September 11th is a credit to the hard
work of those individuals, working alongside our prosecutors and
partners in law enforcement and intelligence. With the support of
Congress, the Department has realigned millions in base resources to
support these efforts. This budget requests additional, critical
resources to further enhance our counterterrorism efforts, while
continuing to realign base resources to wage the war on terror. The
Department will use these resources to remain on the offensive,
detecting and disrupting the enemies' plans and bringing terrorist
operatives to justice.
As the lead federal law enforcement agency for counterterrorism,
the FBI's critical mission requires a significant amount of personnel
and infrastructure. To maximize the effectiveness of the additional
personnel resources Congress has provided in recent years, this request
stresses the FBI's infrastructure needs. The request provides a total
of just over $6 billion for the FBI, with enhancements of $319 million
to support the following objectives: the continued development of our
intelligence infrastructure, including increasing the number of secure
facilities to conduct intelligence analysis; enhanced intelligence
collection systems and training for a growing and diverse workforce
that can act upon intelligence information; the continued development
of the SENTINEL case management system, which will improve productivity
and information sharing; and upgraded fingerprint identification
systems to improve screening activities and identify more criminals and
terrorists.
Since 2001, the Federal Government has added thousands of federal
agents and analysts to the counterterrorism effort. The addition of
these personnel has magnified the need for additional prosecutors in
the field. For example, the criminal caseload for the United States
Attorneys has increased by 18 percent in this same time frame. The 2007
budget supports the ongoing activities for the United States Attorneys
with over $1.6 billion in total resources, of which $92 million will
support national security and terrorism-related prosecutions. I believe
that it is very important that the President's budget request for
United States Attorneys be fully funded.
The United States Attorneys are vital to the Federal Government's
counterterrorism effort. In the past year alone, the government has
obtained convictions or guilty pleas in 40 terrorism-related cases
across the Nation, continuing the successful record established since
September 11th. For example, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was convicted of
terrorism charges, including conspiracy to assassinate the President of
the United States; conspiracy to commit air piracy; and conspiracy to
destroy aircraft. Ali Al-Timimi was convicted on all charges in
connection with the ``Virginia Jihad'' case. In a domestic terrorism
case, Eric Robert Rudolph pleaded guilty to charges related to deadly
bombings in Birmingham, Alabama, and in the Atlanta area, including the
bombing at the 1996 Olympics. Since the September 11th attacks, the
Department has charged more than 400 individuals in matters arising
from terrorism-related investigations and obtained convictions or
guilty pleas in more than 220 of those cases to date. Some of those
cases include the conviction of John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid and the
disruption of terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Ohio, Virginia, and
North Carolina. This budget requests additional positions and $7.7
million to enhance counterterrorism prosecution efforts by our United
States Attorneys' Offices.
This budget also supports other key intelligence initiatives within
the Department. The Department is requesting an increase of $12 million
for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to facilitate full
coordination and information sharing with other members of the U.S.
Intelligence Community. That coordination will enhance national
security, combat global terrorism, and reduce the global supply of
drugs. Even though DEA did not officially have capabilities in the
Intelligence Community until February, it has been contributing to
national security investigations for many years. In fiscal year 2005,
DEA disrupted eight, and dismantled two, terrorist-linked Priority
Target Organizations using information gathered during drug
investigations. In support of our national security objectives, the
fiscal year 2007 budget also provides resources to help the Executive
Office for Immigration Review and the Civil Division's Office of
Immigration Litigation address their expanded caseload.
PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
In 2001, the Administration announced the Project Safe
Neighborhoods (PSN) initiative to reduce gun crime in our communities.
PSN brings together local, State, and Federal law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, and community leaders to implement a multi-
faceted strategy to deter and punish gun criminals. This initiative is
taking some of the most dangerous and violent offenders out of our
communities. Today, federal firearms prosecutions are up nearly 73
percent and violent crime is at its lowest level in 30 years. Since
2001, the nonfatal firearm crime rate has dropped from 2.3 incidents
per 1,000 residents to 1.4, and firearm incidents have dropped 40
percent--from 467,880 to 280,890. With the support of Congress, the
Department has dedicated over $1.5 billion to this important program.
Those funds have provided necessary training, hired agents and
prosecutors, and supported State and local partners working to combat
gun crime. For 2007, the budget requests $395 million for PSN.
In response to the danger that violent gangs pose to our
neighborhoods, the Department recently developed a comprehensive
strategy to combat gang violence as part of PSN. Building on the
lessons learned fighting gun crime, this strategy coordinates
enforcement, prosecution, and prevention resources to target gangs that
terrorize our communities. The Violent Crime Impact Team (VCIT)
program, part of the PSN initiative, helps reduce communities' homicide
and firearms-related violent crime through the use of geographic
targeting, aggressive investigation, and prosecution. This budget
provides $16 million for ATF and the United States Attorneys to combat
gang activity by expanding the VCIT program to 15 additional cities,
for a total of 40 sites.
The PSN request also includes enhancements of $44 million for DOJ's
State and Local Gun Violence Assistance Program. This program is the
State and local grant program that supports PSN in individual
communities. This request also includes $15 million to initiate a new
Gang Training and Technical Assistance Program that will provide
assistance to States and localities in support of efforts to reduce
criminal gang activity and reduce the threat of terrorism and violent
crime through enhanced sharing of criminal intelligence; and a $29
million increase for the National Criminal History Improvement Program,
which provides grants to States to improve their criminal history and
related records so that they are complete, accurate, and available for
use by Federal, State, and local law enforcement.
United States Attorneys' Offices across the country continue to
work with law enforcement partners to develop strategies to make their
communities safer. Thus, the fiscal year 2007 PSN request includes
resources to prosecute gang members and gun criminals and to create new
and strengthened partnerships with local agencies that are addressing
gang violence and gun crime.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AND BORDER SECURITY
In February 2002, the President set an ambitious goal: ``To reduce
the use of illegal drugs by 10 percent over 2 years, and by 25 percent
over 5 years.'' To meet this goal, the Department announced a six-part
drug enforcement strategy for DOJ. The Department focuses its drug law
enforcement efforts on reducing the availability of drugs by disrupting
and dismantling the largest drug supply and related money laundering
networks operating nationally and internationally, including those on
the Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. The CPOT
list identifies the ``Most Wanted'' drug trafficking and money
laundering organizations believed to be primarily responsible for the
Nation's illicit drug supply. In fiscal year 2005, the Department
dismantled 121 CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations and severely
disrupted another 204 CPOT-linked organizations. For example, DOJ
arrested the two founders of the Cali Cartel and arrested two Afghan
drug kingpins with ties to the Taliban. The fiscal year 2007 budget
requests enhancements of $234.7 million for its drug enforcement
efforts.
The cornerstone of the Department's drug supply reduction strategy
is the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program.
Centrally managed within the Department, the OCDETF program combines
the resources and expertise of DEA, the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the U.S. Marshals Service, the
Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the litigating forces of DOJ's
Criminal Division, Tax Division, and the United States Attorneys'
Offices. The fiscal year 2007 Budget contains $706 million for OCDETF,
which includes a $208 million transfer of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program.
Transferring the HIDTA Program to the Department will facilitate
strategic coordination with our other drug enforcement assets,
eliminating duplication and ensuring the most effective use of limited
resources.
As the only federal agency with its sole focus on drug enforcement,
DEA must have the necessary resources to invest in intelligence and
operational requirements overseas to stem the supply of illegal drugs.
This budget requests $13 million in additional funds to continue
reducing the availability of illicit drugs and the diversion of licit
drugs and precursor chemicals in the United States. The Department will
achieve these goals by disrupting and dismantling significant drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations as well as attacking the
economic basis of the drug trade. DEA's drug trafficking and money
laundering enforcement initiatives support and augment U.S. efforts
against terrorism by denying both drug trafficking and money laundering
routes to foreign terrorist organizations. DEA's work also helps stem
the use of illicit drugs as barter for munitions to support terrorism.
This request includes $4 million for Foreign Advisory Support Teams
(FAST) to continue attacking drug trafficking and foreign terrorist
organizations operating in Afghanistan, and $3.5 million for a new team
to deploy in the Western Hemisphere. Focusing resources on a geographic
area or group, like the FAST program, yields results: for example, DEA
investigations have led to the indictment of 13 members and associates
of the Colombian terrorist group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC), on drug trafficking. In fiscal year 2005, two high
ranking FARC officers were extradited to the United States to stand
trial.
After the drug arrests, searches, and seizures have been completed
by DEA, the Federal Government also has the responsibility to clean-up
the toxic chemicals left behind at methamphetamine labs. This budget
provides $40 million to the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services for the clean-up of these toxic waste sites, an increase of
$20 million over the enacted 2006 level. The additional funding would
ensure that DEA is able to respond to the increased workload to clean
up methamphetamine laboratories seized by State and local law
enforcement agencies and fund the start up costs for State container
programs.
On November 28, 2005, President Bush outlined his plan to enhance
America's homeland security through comprehensive immigration reform.
Two major partners in this reform are the Department's Executive Office
for Immigration Review (EOIR), and the Civil Division's Office of
Immigration Litigation (OIL). The Department's fiscal year 2007 Budget
requests significant increases to help EOIR and OIL keep pace with the
growing workload resulting from DHS' increased border security efforts.
A good portion of this workload is related to national security and is
critical to the Department's mission to combat terrorism and violent
crime.
The EOIR request includes an increase of 120 positions and $8.8
million to meet additional caseload requirements that have resulted
from the increased resources DHS has received for immigration
enforcement from 2003 to 2006. For example, EOIR caseloads increased by
70,000 cases in 2005. In addition, the appellate caseload is expected
to increase by approximately 4,000 cases annually. EOIR's requested
increase is linked to DHS' increase of nearly 4,000 detention beds,
which will be fully on-line by 2007.
Established in 1983, OIL has jurisdiction over all civil
immigration litigation and is responsible for the nationwide
coordination of immigration matters before the federal district courts
and circuit courts of appeals. Since fiscal year 2001, OIL's caseload
has more than tripled as OIL attorneys defend the government's efforts
to detain and remove illegal aliens, many of whom are criminals or
suspected terrorists. This budget provides 114 positions and $9.6
million in enhancements to assist OIL's vigorous defense of the cases
that are critical to the safety of our communities.
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN AND OBSCENITY
The Department is committed to fighting child pornography and
obscenity as well as to protecting children from trafficking and other
forms of exploitation. The Department works with other law enforcement
agencies to target, dismantle, and prosecute predatory child molesters
and those who traffic in child pornography. In 2005, the Department
increased its efforts, charging 1,503 individuals and obtaining 1,220
guilty pleas and convictions in criminal cases involving predation of
children.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an additional $2.7
million to combat crimes against children and obscenity, $23.9 million
for the Office of Justice Programs to direct to State and local law
enforcement, and an enhancement of 26 positions and $2.6 million for
the United States Attorneys' Offices to bolster their efforts in
combating child exploitation. These requests are complemented by $50.9
million for the Missing and Exploited Children Program (MECP), which is
the primary vehicle for building an infrastructure to support the
national effort to prevent the abduction and exploitation of our
Nation's children. The request includes support for the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children.
To enhance this work, I recently announced a new Project Safe
Childhood initiative. This effort will be implemented through a
partnership of United States Attorneys, Internet Crimes Against
Children Task Forces, and other Federal, State, and local law
enforcement officials in each district. These partnerships will
investigate and prosecute crimes against children that are facilitated
through the Internet or other electronic media. Communities will be
able to design and execute programs tailored specially for their
individual needs, while maximizing national resources and expertise. In
fiscal year 2006, DOJ will award more than $14 million to the Internet
Crimes Against Children program, a national network of 46 regional task
forces funded by the Department's Office of Justice Programs. In fiscal
year 2005, federal prosecutors charged 1,447 child exploitation cases
involving child pornography, coercion, and enticement offenses. The
Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, in
conjunction with the FBI's Innocent Images Unit, will fully integrate
the Project Safe Childhood Task Forces by sharing local leads that
develop from its major national operations.
CIVIL RIGHTS
In 2005, the Civil Rights Division secured more convictions against
human trafficking defendants, increased the number of trafficking cases
filed by over 30 percent, and doubled the number of trafficking
defendants charged from the previous year. We need to continue to
support this concerted effort. The Civil Rights Division has also
reported record enforcement of laws that protect the right to vote,
ensure the disabled can fully participate in their communities, and
provide the highest standard of care for institutionalized persons. It
is my goal to build on these successes while supporting the
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and renewing the Department's
commitment to the principle of fair housing.
In addition to an increased Civil Rights Division budget request of
$113 million, the President's 2007 Budget envisions the creation of
Operation Home Sweet Home. This initiative will focus on ensuring fair
housing practices through improved targeting, increased testing,
aggressive public awareness, and partnership with fair-housing
organizations across the country. The initiative will include
concentrated housing discrimination testing in areas recovering from
the effects of Hurricane Katrina and bring to an all-time high the
number of fair housing test investigations nationwide.
All Americans should have the same chance to pursue their dreams by
earning a job, finding homes for their families, voting for their
representatives, and living safe from fear and servitude. We will
continue to aggressively combat discrimination wherever it is found.
PUBLIC AND CORPORATE CORRUPTION
Another priority for the Department is ensuring the integrity of
government and business. Integrity in these institutions is the
foundation for a strong America--both taxpayers and investors deserve
nothing less. The Department is engaged in robust efforts to prosecute
corruption, and I have called on Justice Department employees to
preserve the integrity of our public institutions and corporations.
With several high-profile convictions over the last year, the
Department has made great strides in this area. For example, former
public relations specialist Michael Scanlon pleaded guilty to
participating in a conspiracy to commit bribery, mail and wire fraud,
and honest services fraud, and 40 defendants pleaded guilty in
connection with Operation Lively Green, a widespread bribery and
extortion conspiracy.
ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW IN THE COURTS
The Department of Justice serves as the Nation's chief prosecutor
and litigator, representing the United States in court by prosecuting
crime and enforcing federal civil laws. The Department's work includes
protecting civil rights, safeguarding the environment, preserving a
competitive market place, defending the national treasury against fraud
and unwarranted claims, as well as preserving the integrity of the
Nation's bankruptcy system.
As Congress puts more law enforcement agents on the street, the
number of cases referred for prosecution continues to rise and the
number of criminals incarcerated will climb. The fiscal year 2007
budget request includes enhancements of $20.2 million to fortify the
United States Attorneys' immigration and intellectual property crime
prosecutions; enhance the Criminal Division's ability to investigate
and prosecute intellectual property crimes; and provide sufficient
resources to the Tax Division to handle an increased number of tax
cases referred by the Internal Revenue Service. Also, the fiscal year
2007 budget includes additional resources for the United States
Trustees to address new requirements imposed by the recently enacted
Bankruptcy Reform legislation.
JUDICIAL SYSTEM SUPPORT AND INCARCERATION
As a result of successful law enforcement policies targeting
terrorism, violent crime, and drug crimes, the number of criminal
suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow, as does the
number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated. The
fiscal year 2007 President's Budget requests significant resources to
improve courtroom security and to provide for the detention and
incarceration of those accused or convicted of violent crimes. During
fiscal year 2005, the Nation's federal prison population rose 4
percent, an increase of 7,499 inmates. During the same period, the
federal prisoner detention population rose 7.8 percent, increasing by
approximately 4,558 detainees per day. The request provides additional
resources for the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Office of the Detention
Trustee (OFDT) to manage this growth, including funds for additional
contract beds. The fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $156.6 million in
enhancements in these areas.
The United States Marshals Service (USMS) provides protection to
federal courthouses, members of the federal judiciary, and witnesses
associated with federal court cases. The fiscal year 2007 budget
provides 37 new positions and an increase of $4.6 million to enhance
this mission. These resources will enable the marshals to detect,
assess, and respond to potential threats in a timely manner and will
strengthen threat analysis capability. This budget also provides new
resources to make important upgrades to USMS information technology and
financial management capabilities.
The Department's BOP and OFDT protect American society by providing
for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of persons in federal
custody. This budget provides $1.3 billion for the OFDT and $5 billion
for the BOP. The costs of federal incarceration and detention account
for almost a third of DOJ's annual discretionary budget. At present,
there are over 189,000 inmates in federal custody, of which
approximately 11 percent were arrested on immigration-related charges
and over 53 percent were arrested on drug-related charges. The BOP
request will provide an additional $40.4 million to add contract beds
at a new contractor-owned and operated low security prison in
Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, to secure additional contract prison bed
space and to begin the activation of a new housing unit at an existing
correctional institution at FCI Otisville, New York, adding a total of
1,962-beds. This budget also provides funds to house an average daily
detainee population of 63,000. These funds will support the
Department's goal of ensuring zero escapes from federal detention and
secure BOP facilities.
Criminals deserve to serve the time that they are sentenced in
prison. However, once their time is served, they will re-enter society.
The fiscal year 2007 Budget includes $14.9 million for a prisoner re-
entry initiative at the State and local level, designed to reduce
recidivism and the societal costs of crime by helping released
offenders find work and stable housing when they return to their
communities.
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE
State and local law enforcement agencies are critical partners in
the war against terror and the fight against crime. The 2007 budget
includes over $1.2 billion in discretionary grant assistance to States,
localities and tribes. This funding includes $66.6 million to
strengthen communities through programs providing services such as drug
treatment; $44.6 million to fight terrorism; $409 million to assist
crime victims; $88.2 million to combat crime, including enhancements to
grant funding provided under Project Safe Neighborhoods; $214.8 million
for law enforcement technology, including funding to continue and
enhance the Administration's DNA initiative; and $209 million to
support drug enforcement, including funding to continue the Southwest
Border Drug Prosecution Program.
In addition to the requested funding at DOJ, the Administration has
continued its commitment to provide funding to State and local
governments for homeland security by including $2.8 billion in funding
for these programs in DHS' budget request for fiscal year 2007.
The Department's fiscal year 2007 request provides enhancements to
strengthen our communities, including $9.9 million for the Department's
component of the Administration's offender re-entry initiative, which
includes the participation of the Departments of Labor and Housing and
Urban Development; $13.9 million for Capital Litigation Improvement
grants that provide training to private defense counsel, public
defenders, State and local prosecutors, and State judges to improve the
competency of all participants connected with the trial of State
capital cases; $59.3 million for Drug Courts; and $68.4 million for the
President's DNA initiative.
The fiscal year 2007 budget also contains $29.8 million for local
prosecutor offices in the four Southwest border states--California,
Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. This funding would provide for payment
of approved prosecution and pre-trial detention costs for cases
referred to local prosecutors by the United States Attorneys' Offices,
and cases diverted from federal prosecution by law enforcement pursuant
to a locally-negotiated agreement.
The fiscal year 2007 request for State and local resources also
includes $40.7 million in support of activities authorized in the
Justice For All Act, including funds for the enhancement of the federal
victim notification system as well as legal counsel and support
services for victims of crime.
MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS
The Department of Justice is committed to providing the management
and information technology necessary to ensure that our resources are
used efficiently and effectively. The fiscal year 2007 President's
Budget requests $133.9 million in enhancements for critical Department-
wide initiatives that support the Department's Strategic Goals and the
President's Management Agenda.
DOJ Financial Management
The Department of Justice is committed to full accountability and
continuous improvement in its financial operations, and we were
extremely pleased to restore the unqualified audit opinion on our
public financial statements this past year. However, independent
auditors again identified material weaknesses in the Department's
outdated financial systems, weaknesses that the planned Unified
Financial Management System (UFMS) is designed to address. To that end,
we greatly appreciated the funding provided by Congress in fiscal year
2006 for the UFMS project. That funding permitted us to make a contract
award to begin implementation of the new system in the first two
components (DEA and the Assets Forfeiture Fund). To continue this
critical project in 2007, we are requesting $25 million to complete the
component implementations begun this year and begin implementation work
for three additional components, including the FBI.
Other DOJ Information Technology Initiatives
The fiscal year 2007 Budget request includes enhancements of $18.1
million for the Justice Consolidated Office Network (JCON) to complete
transition of the Bureau of Prisons to the JCON community. JCON
provides a modern office automation system to multiple components using
a common architecture for enhanced information sharing and
interoperability. The request also includes $9 million and 29 positions
for USMS audited financial statements and technology enhancements,
including $3.9 million for the Justice Detainee Information System. The
request also includes $83.7 million for FBI information technology
enhancements, including $33 million for IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability
activities.
The Department continues to evaluate its programs and operations to
improve management and stewardship. Our goal is to achieve both
component-specific and Department-wide economies of scale, increased
efficiencies, and cost savings/offsets to permit us to fund initiatives
that are of highest priority. The Department is engaged in a multi-year
process to implement a wide range of management and information
technology improvements that will result in substantial savings.
Enhancements in management and information technology will ensure all
DOJ components are able to function in an interoperable environment,
particularly with respect to preventing terrorist attacks on the United
States.
Working for America Act Implementation
The Working for America Act requires agencies to manage, develop,
and reward employees effectively and to implement a new pay and
performance system. Implementing this Act requires significant
investments in training. The Department requests $2 million to support
the Working for America Act through the training of managers and
supervisors in performance management and in using the new pay and
performance system.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, Members of the Subcommittee, I
recently started my second year as Attorney General. I would like to
take this opportunity to commend the people of the Justice Department.
Each day I work with people who could be Chief Executive Officers in
the private sector or partners at private law firms, but they all
choose to serve their Nation by working for justice. They work for
justice because they believe in the work we do to fight crime and
safeguard the American people from terrorism. I am honored to work
alongside them every day.
I ask for your support in providing the resources requested in the
2007 budget, so that we can fulfill our mission to safeguard the
American people. I am honored to testify before you and look forward to
working with you on this budget proposal and other issues.
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Just to touch on a few subjects, we have all brought them
up, Mr. Attorney General, the Department of Justice, as I said
earlier, is requesting a 51.6 percent funding cut for State and
local law enforcement assistance programs. The Department
expresses how critical State and local law enforcement
partnerships are in homeland security and the war on terror but
continuously proposes these cuts.
When you visited the gulf coast area devastated by the
hurricanes of the 2005 season, what was the number one thing
that State and local law enforcement officials needed from the
Department of Justice in support of their recovery efforts?
Attorney General Gonzales. They needed resources. They
needed training. They needed support. That is what they were
asking for. Mr. Chairman, this budget does have cuts in certain
programs----
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Attorney General Gonzales [continuing]. That have
benefitted State and local law enforcement. But I think if you
study the budget, you will see that there is a lot of
assistance being provided through this budget to State and
locals in a wide variety of areas. There is $1.2 billion in
discretionary grants to State and locals, for example. There is
$66 million to help communities with issues like drug
treatment; $44 million to fight terrorism--these are grants
directly to State and locals--$409 million to assist crime
victims; $82 million to fight crime, including enforcement for
Project Safe Neighborhood programs; $214 million for law
enforcement technology, including funding for the DNA
databases; $209 million to support drug enforcement, including
funds for the Southwest border drug prosecution program.
And so, there is a lot of assistance and support for State
and local agencies in this budget. I want to emphasize that. We
understand how important these partnerships are. As I travel
around the country, and I talk to State and local officials, I
emphasize to them my commitment to continue working with them
as hard as I can.
We have difficult decisions that have to be made in the
budget. This budget represents the President's priorities. We
think this budget does provide a large amount of assistance to
State and locals, but it is targeted in a way that meets the
President's priorities and ensures that we are accountable in
the way these funds are spent, we are accountable to the
taxpayers in this country.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the budget also
proposes a 44 percent cut from last year in juvenile justice
programs. Why such a drastic cut on programs that impact our
children?
Attorney General Gonzales. We have reduced juvenile justice
programs by $150 million; $98 million of that is for
demonstration programs that were earmarked funding that we
simply are not requesting, and $49 million of that was for the
juvenile accountability block grant that did not fare well in
our evaluation and analysis process of whether or not programs
that we are funding are effective. There is insufficient
accountability.
But we still fund $188 million for juvenile justice, and I
think we should also get credit for the amount of money that we
spend on law enforcement to help kids in the area of gangs,
prevention, reinforcement, and reentry; OJP programs focusing
on child prostitution, the sex offender registry, the ICACs,
which are the Internet crimes against children task forces;
Amber Alert; the money we spend to fund for new prosecutors to
go after people exploiting children, trafficking in children;
money for drug courts.
So there is a lot of money in the President's budget to
focus on crime specifically related to juveniles.
SEXUAL PREDATORS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, the rate of
recidivism among convicted sexual predators remains alarmingly
high. According to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, there are approximately 550,000 registered
sex offenders in the United States. It is estimated that nearly
100,000 sex offenders have not registered or have failed to
update their information. These people are normally obscure
when living in our neighborhoods but have been convicted of
preying upon families and children.
Last year, the Department of Justice announced the creation
of a National Registry website for sex offenders. Could you
tell us about the registry, expand just a little on it, and any
goals or successes the Department could share with us here? I
think it is important.
Attorney General Gonzales. We did announce a National
Registry which would allow parents to go online to determine
whether or not there were sex offenders living in their
neighborhoods. The registry is dependent on the information
provided by State records. To date, all the States but two are
now part of this registry. So we have made good progress in
getting States to participate in this program.
There is, however, a problem, as I indicated. We are
dependent on the records provided by the States and the upkeep
of these records by the States, and we have discovered
instances where some States are rather tardy in updating their
records.
Senator Shelby. Do they register them in different ways in
different States?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is different information.
That is right. We did not want to impose upon the States a
uniform method of providing the information. This was a way
that we could provide information to parents fairly quickly,
without a great deal of cost to the States. So that is why we
took this approach. In my judgment, it has been effective, but
again, we need to work with the States to ensure that they are
updating their databases as often as possible so that we have
the most current information for parents.
Senator Shelby. How can you meet the challenge, that is,
there are an estimated 100,000 sex offenders who are
unregistered? How can you work with the Justice Department and
local law people to get these 100,000 people to register?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, that is a very good
question, Mr. Chairman. It is a challenge for the Department.
As these offenders are, in fact, convicted, and first of all,
we hope that there are requirements that they do register. If
they do not register, there needs to be some kind of
enforcement to ensure that there are consequences for it. But
you are right. I do not have an answer for you, a good answer
for you, Mr. Chairman. What I can tell you is that I am aware
of the problem, and we will continue to work on it with State
and local officials.
FEDERAL PRISON
Senator Shelby. I want to get into the Bureau of Prisons. I
mentioned that in my opening statement.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
Senator Shelby. A couple of prisons that you recommended
last year and this year, one in West Virginia, one in New
Hampshire for rescission. How and under what statute could you
justify ignoring the direction of Congress 2 years in a row by
rescinding funding for two prison construction projects? Could
this be clarified as an impoundment of funds, or what is it?
Attorney General Gonzales. It is not an impoundment, Mr.
Chairman, and it is not as a technical matter a rescission. No
one has told the Bureau of Prisons or directed the Bureau of
Prisons not to move forward with these two prisons. And in
fact, with respect to the West Virginia prison, we expect that
a contract for the design and planning will be let shortly and
that there are sufficient funds in the budget for 2007.
With respect to New Hampshire, we anticipate that that
contract will be let sometime in the fall, and we will have a
decision by this subcommittee as to whether or not funds will
be available in 2007 for the design and plans of that facility.
If the subcommittee makes the decision to not provide funds for
the design and the planning of that facility for 2007, then
what we will have to do is see if there are other resources
within BOP, see if there are other resources within the
Department.
Again, if resources are not there, then what we will have
to do is see whether or not we ought to look at--besides
looking at building a new facility, is there a way we can
renovate existing facilities? Is there a way that we can
contract out for beds with State and local entities? We do need
the beds, and the question is what is the most efficient way to
obtain those beds? So that is my response to your question
about the $142 million.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Senator Mikulski.
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, the Justice
Department is tasked with playing a very important role in the
global war against terrorism. Under the PATRIOT Act, my
question is going to go to the National Security Division that
has been created through the PATRIOT Act.
The 2007 budget includes the funding of $67 million for
this National Security Division. Could you share with the
subcommittee what this money will buy? Essentially, how does
it--because we have now been through a look at the PATRIOT Act.
How will this $67 million buy us more security, or is it buying
us more bureaucracy?
And how, then, does that differ from the national security
branch that is going to be at the FBI? And how does it all fit
together, and how do you fit in with the DNI? Let us start with
what we buy for $67 million. That is a lot of money, and is
this to stand up a new division? Is it to buy more gizmos and
gear? Where are we heading here?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, currently, we are talking
about consolidating three branches within DOJ: The Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review, the counterespionage section
and the counterterrorism section. So we are talking about 226
individuals, 226 people with a budget of currently about $48
million.
And so, what we are asking for in 2007 is for an additional
$19 million to add an additional 68 people to the National
Security Division. You have to remember that part of what we
are talking about is the branch that is responsible for
preparing the applications for the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA). And there has been a lot of talk
recently about FISA application and whether or not we have
sufficient resources to continue to make FISA an effective tool
not only in the war on terror but against other foreign powers.
Senator Mikulski. You need $20 million more and 68 people
just to do FISA applications?
Attorney General Gonzales. Oh, no ma'am, that is not what I
said, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. And does it cost $20 million to hire 68
people? That is expensive even by some Government accounting.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am. But in addition, of
course, there are going to be startup costs in connection with
consolidation of these units. It is going to require special
technology. We want more secure technology so that they can
communicate with each other and also communicate more
effectively with the entire intelligence community.
And so, these are some of the costs that are going to be
incurred. I would like the opportunity, Senator, to give you a
more detailed breakdown.
Senator Mikulski. Is this an awkward place to have this, in
an unclassified setting?
Attorney General Gonzales. No, ma'am, I do not think it is
that, quite frankly. I just do not have the detail in my head
that you are asking for. Okay; technology, the Sensitive
Compartmental Information Facility (SCIF), we need more SCIFs
and more intel analysts. So these are some of the additional
things that we would need in connection with the startup of
this division.
And you asked whether or not this is the creation of a new
bureaucracy. You have to remember that this was one of the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They recognized that of
all the departments, all the agencies that focus on the war on
terror, here you have the Department of Justice claiming that
terrorism is our number one priority, and yet, we had no
central location, no central officer below the Attorney General
and the DAG that was focused primarily on the national security
of our country with respect to law enforcement matters.
And so, my hope and certainly my intent--this is not the
creation of a bureaucracy, but we will make the Department more
effective.
Senator Mikulski. If I could jump in, the FBI, first of
all, I understand we are into the 9/11 Commission reforms. We
recommended some essentially one-stop shops: the Office of DNI;
now, this at the Justice Department. And I am not disputing the
value. We want to implement the--absolutely passionate about
implementing the 9/11 Commission's report. But then, it says
the Criminal Division of Counterterrorism and Counterespionage.
But does the FBI not also have this?
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And are you duplicating what the FBI
does?
Attorney General Gonzales. Of course, their focus is in the
investigation. We will be focused primarily on the prosecution
side of it, and so, we will have different functions. And
obviously, there will be a lot of interaction, and we will be
working closely together.
Senator Mikulski. You mean the prosecution of terrorism?
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am, but not only the
prosecution of cases but also detection and prevention. Working
with----
Senator Mikulski. Is that not what FBI is doing with
detection and prevention?
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am, and they will
certainly be doing that as well.
Senator Mikulski. You see my question is are we all going
to be bumping into each other.
Attorney General Gonzales. No, ma'am, we are not going to
be bumping into each other. We have been working very hard.
Senator Mikulski. And I am not being sarcastic.
Attorney General Gonzales. And I do not take your comment
as that.
Senator Mikulski. It has been 5 years since 9/11, 5 years,
and I do not know if I feel safer. We in the Capital region
still do not have a clear evacuation plan. We in the Capital
region do not have interoperable communication. We do know in
the Capital region local law enforcement talks with each other
and works together, as we saw under the leadership of the FBI
and ATF the way we handled the sniper, which is considered a
national model of dealing with a crisis, for which we were very
grateful and very proud. But----
Attorney General Gonzales. You asked whether or not we were
safe.
Senator Mikulski. Do you see where----
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Mikulski. And so, I am looking at whatever we do,
it is not about new boxes and new bucks. It is about safety,
security, and strength.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I believe that this
will make us safer, and I think we are safer than we were 5
years ago. We have taken tremendous steps with the assistance
of Congress, and thank you for that, to give us additional
tools to make America safer. I believe, and I think others
believe, including the President of the United States, that
having a National Security Division which focuses on our number
one priority, which coordinates the law enforcement efforts to
prosecute and to prevent terrorism, is something that is
necessary for the Department of Justice and will make us safer.
You ask a legitimate question as to whether or not we are
going to be bumping into each other. My goal is that we
recognize that that cannot happen, and obviously, it is
something that we have to be sensitive to as we stand up the
National Security Division and as the FBI moves forward with
the national security branch.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I know we will be pursuing this
more when we talk to the FBI.
I want to be very clear about what I said about feeling
safer. I want to say hats off to the people who work in the
intelligence community, to the FBI and others who are doing due
diligence, that I believe have detected, derailed, destroyed
the predatory attacks coming into the United States. So it has
been 5 years since an attack. So I want to acknowledge that.
But we have a lot more systemic reform that we need to do,
and I sometimes am fearful that we get bogged down in boxes and
charts and bureaucracy rather than safety and security. So I do
not in any way doubt the energetic, dedicated work that people
all over our country and all over the world who work for the
Federal Government are doing to keep us safe, so I want to
acknowledge that.
That is why we want the best organization, the resources
that they need along with the training and management and
technology, that they do it right. So my time is up on this. I
know that we will come back.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
CHOICEPOINT
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in
my earlier statement, I am concerned that the FBI signed a
multimillion dollar licensing agreement with data broker
ChoicePoint. I consider them the poster child for lax identity
protection. They want to expand the use of software to help the
Bureau analyze criminal organizations.
Just to put this into context, earlier this year, the FTC
levied the largest civil penalty on record on ChoicePoint. They
found that they had sold 160,000 consumer records to identity
thieves. Last year in the Senate Judiciary Committee, we heard
that because of this, hundreds of Americans were victims of
identity theft, and people who have faced that sometimes can
spend years and huge amounts of money to get out of it.
So now, we take the same company that has done horrible
damage to their customers already, and they are to expand the
FBI's analysis of criminal organizations. How do you justify
entering into a multimillion dollar contract with ChoicePoint
to handle sensitive investigative data about criminal
enterprise operations when we know they are so lax that they
used terrible judgment before with nonsensitive data, just
normal data?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, obviously, there were
mistakes made by ChoicePoint, and they have suffered the
consequences for that. Let me just----
Senator Leahy. Consequences, yes, they got a big fine, but
why ChoicePoint? What is in their history that suggests that
they know how to do this?
Attorney General Gonzales. The decision was our
determination that this was the best contract for the Bureau.
It is a contract for technology and software only. It is not a
contract for data services. It is a $12 million contract over 5
years, and I think that it reflects the best judgment that this
was the best contract for the Bureau.
I want to emphasize that we understand the importance of
respecting and protecting people's privacy, and we take those
concerns very seriously. Those concerns were taken into account
in connection with this contract.
Senator Leahy. Well, you know, I want to beg to differ with
you a little bit on taking the concerns of people's privacy
seriously. Yesterday, the GAO found that the Justice
Department, which uses private information services for law
enforcement and counterterrorism and other investigations often
does not even follow Federal rules. You do not even follow your
own laws in protecting Americans' privacy.
According to the report, the Department of Justice and
three other Federal agencies spent about $30 million last year
on companies such as ChoicePoint that maintain billions of
electronic files about adults' current and past addresses,
family members and associates, buying habits, personal
finances, listed and unlisted phone numbers.
I mean, this is going way beyond criminals or criminal
organizations you are after. This is people in this room,
tourists walking through this building or viewing the Grand
Canyon or anything else. Now, what do you say about GAO? They
say you are not even following the law. You are contracting out
tens of millions of dollars. You are collecting a huge amount
of data. Why should we feel more secure about this?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, obviously, the
allegation that we are not following the law is a serious one.
I have not read the GAO report, but obviously, we are going to
study it very, very carefully, and if we are not doing what we
are supposed to be doing, there should be consequences. We take
our responsibilities very seriously, but again, I have not seen
the report. I have not studied the report. I am not saying the
report is incorrect.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Attorney General, understand that I am
not suggesting that you as Attorney General want to go and hand
out this private data to crooks any more than I do or any more
than anybody here. What I am saying is what level of competence
are you requiring so that does not happen? Because it is not
enough for us just to say, whoops, too bad if you have had
somebody's life or their business ruined or their children's or
their spouse's, or their medical records are all over the
place, and they have lost their privacy. You see my concern.
Attorney General Gonzales. I do understand your concern,
and I share your concern. There should be only one standard,
and that is what the law requires to ensure that the personal
data with respect to individuals is not compromised. You are
correct: when that happens, it can be devastating to
individuals. We have an obligation to ensure that we are doing
everything we are legally required to do and perhaps beyond
that to ensure the protection of this kind of information. If
we are not doing that, Senator, I am going to--I want to know
why and----
Senator Leahy. Well, I have asked this question. I will be
following up with you, and somebody should look carefully into
it.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.
Senator Leahy. I was glad to hear you say you want to keep
FISA helpful in your answer to Senator Mikulski's question; I
am glad to know that you consider it helpful. Next time you are
down at the White House, you might want to mention it to them
that it is helpful, because the word has not gotten there.
CRIME VICTIMS FUND
I have one last question on the crime victims fund. I saw
so many victims of crime when I was a prosecutor. It has gotten
far worse now than it was then just because we have become a
larger country, and crime has gotten even more vicious. The
crime victims fund has been so helpful all over the country,
and now I find the administration wants to raid it of roughly
$1.25 billion by the end of the fiscal year. Last year, the
administration tried to do that. Congress, in a bipartisan way,
blocked it.
Now, this is not money from American taxpayers. It comes
from criminal fines----
Attorney General Gonzales. And penalties.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. And forfeitures. It has
provided critical services: 4 million victims of domestic
violence and sexual assault, child and elder abuse, drunk
driving, all these other crimes, this is $1.25 billion, what we
will spend between now and the end of the week in Iraq. But we
are cutting this from people here in the United States who
desperately need it. How can you justify that?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, there has been a
cap on the use of this excess above what has been appropriated
since, I believe, 2000 or 2001. And so, when you say how can
you take this away from victims, the truth is we cannot even
spend it on victims. There is an obligation cap on spending
this money. What we are----
Senator Leahy. Operation cap? This is going to leave it at
zero going into 2008. I guarantee you, just go one dollar over
zero, and we will spend that.
Attorney General Gonzales. We begin collecting receipts for
2008 in 2007. If we look at the record of the past few years,
we can see the receipts will clearly reach a level of $625
million, which is what both the administration and the Congress
have indicated in the past few years is an appropriate level of
expenditure with respect to----
Senator Leahy. No, because last year, when you tried to cut
it out, we put it back in, so now you are trying the same thing
so we will put it back in?
Attorney General Gonzales. But, Senator, you said you put
it back in----
Senator Leahy. Big spending Congress?
Attorney General Gonzales [continuing]. We cannot spend it
on victims. You characterize this as monies that are available
for victims, and yet, you would not let us spend it. There is a
cap.
Senator Leahy. And drunk driving and child and elder abuse
and a whole lot of other things. Maybe we are ships crossing in
the night, but under your plan it is zeroed out by fiscal year
2008. How many of these organizations that are using this are
going to be able to plan for it?
Attorney General Gonzales. We will commence collecting
receipts for 2008 in 2007, and we will have a very good idea as
to whether or not the receipts are going to be sufficient to
meet the obligations.
Let me just emphasize that again, this administration is
very much committed to crime victims. That is why we support
the $625 million to be spent on crime victims programs. What we
are talking about is $1.2 billion, which represents a perpetual
float. It is not appropriate--well, I am not an accountant, but
it seems to me it seems an odd accounting--I do not want to say
gimmick--but procedure to include this in the budget when, in
fact, it cannot be spent for crime victims. And it simply rolls
over year after year after year. We believe very strongly in
ensuring that there is a large amount of money available for
crime victims, and we believe $625 million----
Senator Leahy. Well, I think it is going to come as a huge
surprise to a lot of people who deal with crime victims around
this country that, gosh, we have got too much money for you to
use. I know so many crime victims organizations that are
desperate for money for battered women----
Attorney General Gonzales. But, Senator, you will not let
us spend the money.
Senator Leahy [continuing]. For abused children----
Attorney General Gonzales. You will not let us spend the
money.
Senator Leahy. What?
Attorney General Gonzales. You will not let us spend the
money for crime victims above $625 million. So to say that
the----
Senator Leahy. Well, let me put it this way: you say the
Congress, so it is Congress' fault. Has the administration ever
asked us to put more money or lift these caps?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, I think the $625 million
is sufficient to meet the needs of crime victims.
Senator Leahy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
the time.
Senator Shelby. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. Attorney General, I want to get back to the Byrne grant
program. Funding has been eliminated in the budget. One of the
rationales offered is that the program has not demonstrated a
satisfactory level of performance results. You said in your
opening statement that your budget cuts programs have not met
our high standards.
However, the people in Iowa tell me that there has never
been any effort on the part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance
to actually measure the performance results of this program.
Mr. Attorney General, has there been a valid effort to
determine if Byrne dollars are working nationally as well as
they are in Iowa?
Attorney General Gonzales. My understanding, Senator, is
that with respect to the Byrne grant funds that are
discretionary, they are all earmarked, and it is very, very
difficult for us to determine whether or not they are being
effectively spent. I do not know the answer to your question as
to whether or not there has been some kind of effort by the
Department to evaluate the effectiveness of these grants in
your State, but I can certainly find out and get back to you.
Senator Harkin. I am talking about nationally. I mean, you
said that you cut these programs that do not meet your high
standards and that have not demonstrated a satisfactory level
of performance results. Well, how can you zero out the Byrne
grant program when you do not know?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, I think that
again----
Senator Harkin. May I correct one thing?
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes.
Senator Harkin. You said that all the dollars were
earmarked? Is that what you said?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, with respect to Byrne
grants, some are based on formulas to States.
Senator Harkin. Yes, $416 million was formula.
Attorney General Gonzales. And some are discretionary.
Senator Harkin. $167 million.
Attorney General Gonzales. Which are earmarked.
Senator Harkin. $167 million.
Attorney General Gonzales. All of it is earmarked.
Senator Harkin. $167 million.
Attorney General Gonzales. As I understand it.
Senator Harkin. Pardon?
Attorney General Gonzales. As I understand, all of it is
earmarked.
Senator Harkin. $416 million went out by formula.
Attorney General Gonzales. Exactly; some of it is by
formula to the States, and a portion of it, which is
discretionary, and all of that is earmarked.
Senator Harkin. And that is $167 million. I said that.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir, and part of the
problem that we have with the earmarks is, quite frankly, it
takes off the table the ability of nonprofit groups, faith-
based organizations to compete for these dollars. They can
provide services, very important needy services to the
community, but they are precluded from doing so because these
programs----
Senator Harkin. Can you name me one NGO or faith-based
group that is doing the kind of work that the local law
enforcement people are doing under Byrne in fighting
methamphetamine?
Attorney General Gonzales. Perhaps not on the law
enforcement side, but of course, in fighting methamphetamine,
we are focused well beyond law enforcement. We are looking at
education; we are looking at prevention; we are looking at
reentry, and so, clearly, there are NGOs and faith-based
organizations that are involved in that effort.
Senator Harkin. That is true, but that is in another
funding packet. Where do you fund that? That is not funded
under Byrne. Byrne is for law enforcement.
Attorney General Gonzales. Well----
Senator Harkin. I still want to get back. I mean, how can
you say it has not met your high standards when there has not
been any effort done to quantify performance results?
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I did not say that
there has not been an effort. Let me find out and confirm that
with you.
Senator Harkin. Well, I have reviewed the publicly
available so-called performance assessment rating tool, PART
analysis of the Byrne JAG program. It does not contain any
feedback from any of the program participants or beneficiaries.
Again, I would think that feedback and actual results, which I
can compile, would be included in any type of review. Why would
that not be included?
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, let me just say
this, and I would like the opportunity to get back to you to
respond to your question. I want to make sure that I give you
the most accurate information that I can. But in terms of while
Byrne grants may have been zeroed out, we are giving a lot of
money to States, to local communities on a wide variety of
issues including drugs, $10 million for the prescription drug
monitoring program; $70 million for drug courts.
And so, the fact that Byrne may have been cut does not mean
that State and locals are not receiving Federal dollars with
respect to some of these programs. What we have done is
identified those priority areas for this President and focused
money on those priority programs.
Senator Harkin. Well, all I can say is that just between
2005 and this year, Iowa absorbed a $2 million cut, 42 percent
of the funding. And again, this paid almost exclusively for
drug task officers going to have to be laid off in the middle
of a meth epidemic.
And again, I recognize you have to have education. We need
more money for rehabilitation. We do not have enough money in
there for meth rehab. The recidivism rate is very high, because
we know that to effectively get people over the hump on meth,
it takes 6 months to 1 year. Yet, we are treating them for 6
weeks, and then, we are wondering why they are showing back up
in our jails and our prisons again. So we do not have enough
money for that either. But I am really upset. As far as I have
heard from law enforcement all over this country, the Byrne
grant program has worked. It is working well.
I just want to say one other thing for the record, Mr.
Attorney General. On the issue of performance results, States
are required to report the results of the Byrne grant program
to the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Last year, my staff asked
BJA about this reporting. They were told that 20 States had not
met the deadline to turn in their reports. So we investigated
that. We called these States. And then finally got back to BJA,
and they conceded that, in fact, only Guam and American Samoa
had failed to turn in their performance results. We were being
told that 20 States had not.
So again, this all calls into question your justification
for eliminating the program. You say you are going to get back
to me on it. I appreciate that. But what in the meantime do I
tell law enforcement officers in Iowa and others when I see the
budget eliminated? You know, again, I just see no justification
for it whatsoever. And I still do not know the answer as to why
it has been eliminated. But if you can get back to me on that,
I would appreciate it.
[The information follows:]
Cuts to Byrne JAG Program
In order to focus departmental resources on
counterterrorism, which is and must be the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) overriding priority, the Administration was
required to make difficult choices in this budget proposal.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal recognizes
the Federal government's responsibilities in regard to
supporting effective law enforcement and improving the nation's
criminal justice system. If approved as proposed, the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget will provide over $1.2
billion to State, local, and tribal law enforcement through the
U.S. Department of Justice. This includes $66.6 million to
strengthen communities through programs providing services such
as drug treatment; $88.2 million to combat violence, including
enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods; and $209 million to
support drug enforcement, including funding to continue and
expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program. The
initiatives included in this proposal were selected by
concentrating scarce resources on the highest priority criminal
justice issues; promoting effective, evidence-based approaches
to improving law enforcement and criminal justice system
capabilities; and eliminating funding for programs that could
not demonstrate results.
The proposed elimination of the JAG Program in fiscal year
2007 is based on this program's inability to clearly
demonstrate its effectiveness. During the fiscal year 2005 PART
assessment of the JAG Program and its predecessors (the Byrne
Formula Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant), OMB concluded that these programs have not been able to
clearly demonstrate through quantifiable performance measures
that they had achieved nor were making progress toward their
goals. In light of the broad array of assistance offered to
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through OJP,
the Administration determined that the funds currently devoted
to the JAG Program could be used more effectively elsewhere.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
Senator Harkin. One last thing, Mr. Attorney General, and
that is the Violence Against Women Act. The President hailed
the reauthorization of it when he signed the bill in early
January, but in February, the budget provided no funding for
any of the new programs authorized by the Violence Against
Women Act. That included $50 million in funding for victims of
sexual assault. I was just visited in my office this morning by
some people regarding that.
It is the first time that sexual assault victims received
dedicated funding. And again, if you have any information on
that at your fingertips, I would like to know why there was not
any funding for any of the----
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, Senator, I believe that
the President's budget does include $347 million for the Office
on Violence Against Women. So perhaps I need to go back and
check my figures, and I am happy to do that. If we need to give
you more information about what we are doing for victims of
violence, be happy to do that.
Senator Harkin. Well, I would appreciate that, because I am
told that there is no funding for any of the new programs, one
of which is in funding for victims of sexual assault. It is the
first time that they received dedicated funding, and there was
no funding for it.
Attorney General Gonzales. I would be happy to look at
that.
[The information follows:]
Violence Against Women Act Funding Within the Department of Justice
The 2007 President's budget for the Office on Violence
Against Women (OVW) is $347,013,000. An additional $21,869,000
is requested for victims of child abuse programs administered
by the Office of Justice Programs. These amounts do not include
increased funding or new initiatives based on the recently
enacted reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA), due to the fact that the reauthorization was signed
just prior to the release of the 2007 President's budget. As
the Administration prepares future budget proposals, the
reauthorization will be considered. In the interim, OVW is
actively working on a plan to make the changes directed by the
new legislation for the current VAWA grant programs.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Attorney
General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BYRNE GRANTS
Just to conclude the Byrne grant questions, Mr. Attorney
General, if you talked to police chiefs or sheriffs all across
my State, all across the country, they say that the Byrne grant
program is the backbone of Federal aid for local law
enforcement. Now, it has been for many, many years. They have
always attested that it was a good program, that the funds were
used carefully.
As you know, the funds are appropriated down to the local
level so that each dollar becomes very important. We are not
talking about billions. We are talking about, you know,
millions and thousands and hundreds of dollars so that they see
that these dollars are used very efficiently. I think there is
ample evidence that that is true.
Now, you have not told us why you would see fit not to cut
this program but to scrap it. Did I hear your explanation, or
have you not given it?
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS
Attorney General Gonzales. Well, let me try to clarify what
I have said. With respect to Byrne, this has been a difficult
decision. The decision was made that we have got to be more
focused on the priorities of the administration. And if you
look at the money that is going to State and locals, there is a
lot of money that is being spent for State and locals on areas
like terrorism, $40 million for terrorism. And so, it may not
be going through a Byrne grant, but there is $40 million going
to State and locals regarding terrorism; to reduce crime, $16
million for VCIT programs; $59 million for Project Safe
Neighborhoods; $15 million for gang training and technical
assistance; $10 million for prescription drug monitoring; $7
million for drug courts; $15 million for ICACs; $22 million for
trafficking; $2 million for sex offender registry; $347 million
for Office on Violence Against Women; $106 million for DNA; $40
million for the national criminal history improvement program
(NCHIP); $30 million for Southwest border prosecution; $50
million for the weed and seed program; $31 million for Indian
country problems; $40 million for meth cleanup; $3.9 million
for training.
The point is, Senator, is there is a lot of money going to
State and locals. We have simply decided that it is better--we
have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that the
monies that are being allocated to the States are focused on
specific programs which we believe are effective, which we
believe affect the most pressing needs of our communities.
And we believe it is a more effective way to provide monies
out to deal with local issues. This does not reflect in any way
a lack of commitment to working with State and local officials
who we consider our partners. We want to continue to build on
that relationship, but we have a responsibility, too, to the
taxpayers, and we believe this is a more responsible way to get
dollars down to State and local officials.
Senator Kohl. Are you saying that these programs total up
to as much as more than the Byrne grant program.
Attorney General Gonzales. No, sir, I am not saying that.
Senator Kohl. I see.
Attorney General Gonzales. I am not saying that, no, sir.
Senator Kohl. I think when we add up the dollars, Mr.
Attorney General, we are talking about cuts, significant cuts.
Attorney General Gonzales. But, sir, I am not sure that our
service to our communities can be measured solely in the
dollars. The dollars have to be spent efficiently and wisely,
and I know as a businessman, you understand that and can
appreciate that.
And so, that is the question: are we spending the
taxpayers' dollars efficiently and wisely on programs that are
targeted on the greatest needs in our communities?
Senator Kohl. But you have never assessed the program. You
are apparently saying the money was not being spent
efficiently. You are sort of winging it when you say that, and
I do not want to use that word inappropriately.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, sir.
Senator Kohl. So we are just going to cut it.
Attorney General Gonzales. No, Senator, what I am saying is
that we have identified in this budget the President's
priorities: the pressing needs within the communities, and the
decision has been made that we ought to take the monies in the
budget and target those needs and focus dollars on the programs
that address the most pressing needs.
Senator Kohl. That is fine, and I appreciate that. I think
these scarce dollars that have been appropriated to local law
enforcement should not have been cut; now, of course, we can
have a difference of opinion on that, and it is very strongly
felt out there at the local level, where I know you are
focused.
Attorney General Gonzales. Sir, I hear about it when I
travel. Obviously, this is an important issue. But I think, and
I may be wrong about this, but I think State and local
officials, they care about the dollars. I am not sure that they
care that they be funded through the Byrne program. If there is
another way that the dollars are getting down to the State and
local officials, obviously, that is what they care about.
Senator Kohl. Just one other, and then, I will turn it over
to Senator Murray.
COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
The COPS program, as you know, was a brilliant program for
several years. It was universally acclaimed as being
successful. It was at $1 billion at its zenith, and now, it is
basically zeroed out. Now, when Attorney General Ashcroft was
here several years ago, and we asked him about it, I want to
quote what he said: he said the COPS program was, quote, a good
thing, quote, that it had worked very well, and quote, that it
had been one of the most successful programs that we have ever
had, quote.
So now, we are talking about taking a program that did as
much good around our country again at the local level, which is
where it is all about, and we are just saying let us forget
about it. Why would you do that?
Attorney General Gonzales. Let me just echo General
Ashcroft's comments about the importance of the COPS program.
Putting more people on the streets, I think, is one reason we
have had a reduction in violent crime across America. The COPS
program in terms of hiring more cops was focused on getting
100,000 cops on the street by a certain period of time.
We met that goal. I do not believe it was ever intended
that we would continue to make monies available to continue to
fund more hiring of State and local police officers on the
streets. Now, having said that, there is still $400 million in
proposed appropriations for the COPS program. There is $102
million for COPS-administered programs, including $31 million
for Indian country issues, $40 million for meth cleanup, $3.9
million for training of State and local officials.
And so, this notion that we have zeroed out COPS, there is
no money for hiring additional police officers, but that was
reflected in last year's budget approved by Congress. There
were no additional COPS dollars for hiring police officers.
That is the budget that Congress passed. And so, this is
consistent with what Congress did in 2006, and I would just
again remind you that there is $400 million in proposed
appropriations in the COPS program.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.
DRUG CARTELS
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you about the meth program, because I am deeply
concerned that--well, back in 2001, actually, a Drug
Enforcement Administration estimate said drug cartels made up
80 percent of the meth consumed in the United States, and that
has probably increased since then because of the crackdown we
have done on some of the home mom and pop production.
But what we do know is that these cartels require about 200
metric tons of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine every year, and it
is about 10 percent of the world's output of those legal
chemicals. I am very concerned that we may be missing an
opportunity to work with chemical factories abroad to prevent
the cartels from getting their hands on these chemicals, and I
wanted to know what you and the administration are doing to go
after these cartels and their suppliers to stop the flow of
meth into our communities.
Attorney General Gonzales. Those are all very good
questions, Senator. I am sure Administrator Tandy will be able
to amplify on what I have to say.
We are working with countries like China, Germany, and
India to restrict the import of precursor chemicals into
Mexico, because you are right, it is a serious problem. And we
are working closely with our counterparts in Mexico about this
issue. I have had several meetings with the Mexican attorney
general. He and I are attending an anti-meth conference in
Dallas in May, because he understands how serious this issue
that we can do, we can pass all the laws here at the Federal
level and at the State level which have been successful with
respect to reducing mom and pop labs, but if we do not have
some help from Mexico and the law enforcement efforts there, it
is a tough, tough battle.
And so, I share your concern. We are focused on it. I know
Administrator Tandy is working on this issue, and Mexico has
already passed legislation to--maybe not legislation; could be
regulations to deal with limiting access to precursor chemicals
as well. But you are right: the problem is that we have to put
limits or try to retard efforts to have precursor chemicals
come in from other countries, and we are doing that.
Senator Murray. Good, we do not want to miss that, because
I think it is the gorilla in the room if we are not focused on
these drug cartels and where they are getting their supplies,
so I really encourage you to do that and want to hear more
about that as we go along.
NORTHERN BORDER
Let me ask you another question, because the importance of
local law enforcement agencies having the ability to work
closely with their Federal counterparts has never been more
significant, and in my opening statement, I talked about the
concern I have about the need to increase Federal, State, and
local law enforcement partnerships.
In my State, southwest Washington is an area where law
enforcement continues to talk to me about the need for an
increased Federal presence. Vancouver, Washington right on the
border, Columbia River, is now the fourth largest city in
Washington. It is projected to be the second largest by 2010,
and as you probably know, Federal agents cannot cross over the
Columbia River, because that represents the dividing line of
Federal jurisdiction.
What that means is that southwest Washington's primary
offices for Federal assistance are located more than 100 miles
away, and there is a lot of threats we are hearing about
including organized crime and drug trafficking. So a Federal
presence in Vancouver is really essential for our State.
And I wanted to know, I know we got about six new staff a
few years ago, but I would like to ask if you would be willing
to work with my office and law enforcement stakeholders in our
region to take a look at this situation and really help us find
some solutions to this.
Attorney General Gonzales. Senator, I am told, and I do not
know how current this information is, that the Department has
769 personnel in your State. We may only have two agents in
Vancouver.
Senator Murray. Correct.
Attorney General Gonzales. Period; that may be the sole
scope of our presence.
I am not sure that that is right, and so I have asked our
folks to look at this issue, and I would be happy to work with
you on it.
Senator Murray. I would really appreciate if we could get
together and focus on that with some of the folks from
southwest Washington. I think we need to come up with some
solutions for them. It is really becoming more and more
critical.
I also wanted to talk to you about the challenges facing
our northern border States with respect to some of the
typically border related cases. You and I have talked about
this before. We are seeing increased border apprehensions for
drug smuggling, money laundering, other crimes because we have
increased the number of people on the border.
The southwestern States, as I said, have a Federal program
for reimbursement. We do not have a similar program at the
northern border, and this really puts a tremendous burden on
our local officials. I know they have talked to you. I know
Senator Cantwell and I have mentioned this many times.
I wanted to find out would you support an effort to expand
the southwest border prosecution initiative program to our
northern border States?
Attorney General Gonzales. I would be happy to talk with
you about it. I worry about the fact that 70 percent of our
immigration cases are on the southern border, and 30 percent
are on the northern border.
[The information follows:]
Northwest Border Security
The Department does not support an effort to expand the
Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative to the Northern Border
at this time. A review of the Department's statistics indicate
that 68 percent of all immigration cases occur on the Southwest
Border (12,318 immigration cases were filed in the Southwest
Border Districts out of a total of 18,147 immigration cases
filed nationwide in 2005). Furthermore, the Department did an
extensive study of this issue and determined that while both
borders share some of the same vulnerability the security of
the SW border requires significantly more resources and
personnel to address the explosion of people crossing the
border illegally.
Senator Murray. But I would remind you that Ahmed Rassam
came through the northern border.
Attorney General Gonzales. No question about it. Obviously,
we need to be concerned.
Senator Murray. I believe there was an investigation a few
weeks ago that showed that a dirty bomb could get through that
came through the northern border in my State.
Attorney General Gonzales. No question about it.
My own view of reimbursement of costs of State and local
officials is that quite frankly, the Federal Government needs
to do its job. It needs to do a better job of securing the
border so that you do not have the kinds of burdens that we see
today on municipalities and State governments. So I think that
should be our focus. In terms of focusing on reimbursement, I
think we ought to be focusing on, quite frankly, the Federal
Government doing its job, but I would be happy to talk to you
about it.
Senator Murray. Well, we had the same conversation 1 year
ago. It feels like we are in the same spot; no changes.
So I would really like to hear from you if you could get a
response back to us how we are going to deal with this critical
issue.
Attorney General Gonzales. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Attorney General, we appreciate you
appearing here today, and we appreciate your service to the
Nation. We have a number of additional questions we will submit
for the record, and we would appreciate your timely response if
you can do it as soon as you can.
Attorney General Gonzales. I will, Mr. Chairman.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
STATEMENT OF ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR
Senator Shelby. And at this time, we would like to call the
second panel of witnesses. They are Director Robert Mueller,
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Administrator
Karen Tandy, Drug Enforcement Administration; Director Carl J.
Truscott, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;
and Director John Clark, United States Marshals Service.
Director Mueller, we will start with you. If you could just
sum up briefly, because we have enough; your top points. We
welcome you to the subcommittee, and we also appreciate your
service, all of your service to the country.
Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
having me today, and thank you, Senator Mikulski, Senator
Leahy, for being here. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today in front of you. I want to thank you also for the funding
that was provided to the FBI in the Hurricane Katrina
supplemental, and I understand yesterday that the 2006 war
supplemental may also have passed through the Senate, and we
thank you for your support there.
NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH
My testimony sets forth the details supporting the budget
request of the over 31,000 positions and $6 billion, and I do
not want to spend a great deal of time on that because it is in
my written remarks. I will say, I want to spend a couple
moments at the outset first of all talking about the national
security branch that was approved in September. And the mission
of the national security branch, as you are well aware, is to
position the FBI to protect the United States against weapons
of mass destruction, terrorist attacks, and foreign
intelligence operations.
With regard to the budget for the national security branch,
we have asked for $25.8 million for resources to respond to
terrorist threats and incidents such as those posed by weapons
of mass destruction; $15 million for essential infrastructure
enhancements; and $16 million to support our core intelligence
processes.
I do want to make the point that while national security
efforts remain our top priority, we continue to fulfill our
crime fighting responsibilities as well. Public corruption is
the top criminal priority for the FBI. In the last 2 years, our
investigations have led to the conviction of over 1,000
Government employees involved in corrupt activities, to include
177 Federal officials, 158 State officials, 260 local
officials, and more than 365 police officers.
At the same time, we continue to focus on implementing the
national gang strategy along with ATF. This strategy is
designed to identify the prolific and violent gangs in the
United States and to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle their
criminal enterprises.
SENTINEL
Having made those two points, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
spend a couple of moments to focus on Sentinel, which was
raised in your opening remarks. As you are aware, as we have
discussed, on March 16, we announced the award of a $305
million contract to Lockheed Martin for the development,
operation, and maintenance of the Sentinel program. And I would
like to spend a couple of moments responding to anticipated
questions and some of the remarks you made in your opening
comments.
As you are aware, the $305 million contract cost
constitutes approximately $232 million for development of
Sentinel, and this new information management system will be
developed over a period of approximately 4 years and will be
deployed in four phases. We anticipate completion of the first
phase approximately 1 year from now. And as each phase is
completed and deployed, we will begin to incur costs for
operation and maintenance or O&M, as it is called.
After completion of the final phase in 2009, we have the
opportunity to exercise the option for Lockheed Martin to
continue providing O&M for an additional 2 years, through 2011.
With regard to these four phases, each phase will deliver a
new standalone capability and will provide greater access to
existing information and will, as importantly, facilitate the
input of information into the system and the dissemination of
information to others both inside the FBI as well as to our
partners outside the FBI. In addition, Sentinel will provide
the FBI a system that is flexible and adaptable to address
future advances in technology and changes in our mission and
the threat environment.
I know that, Mr. Chairman, you are concerned as we are
concerned about the success of this program, and to ensure the
successful and the timely completion of Sentinel within budget,
we have structured the contract with Lockheed Martin in such a
way as to provide clear requirements, deliverables, and
milestones. The contract is also structured so that each phase
is an exercisable option. And in addition, we have invited
close scrutiny of each phase of the Sentinel process through
multiple venues, both internal and external.
We have created a strong program management office for
Sentinel and staffed it with skilled technical, programmatic,
business management, and administrative subject experts. In
fact, two of our program management employees have recently
been honored by industry for their leadership and their
accomplishments.
We also have independent contractors who will conduct
verification and validation reviews of the Sentinel program, of
the management office, of the Lockheed Martin's performance and
the performance of the subcontractors in order to ensure proper
execution and delivery of Sentinel. We have asked the GAO and
the inspector general to work with us as we undertake this 4-
year program to ensure that we are on the right track.
We are aware of the GAO's recently released report to which
you averted in your remarks, and we welcome that report, and we
have established safeguards for Sentinel, as has been
recommended in that report by GAO. The Justice Department
inspector general will be conducting audits of Sentinel
throughout the development and implementation of the program as
well, and it recently released its first report on the preaward
phase of Sentinel, which in part confirms that we are
addressing the issues identified in the GAO report.
The Deputy Attorney General, the Department of Justice
Chief Information Officer, the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, the Office of Management and Budget, are
all meeting periodically with the Sentinel program manager and
senior FBI management to ensure that Sentinel is proceeding as
planned.
We have engaged as well outside experts to help us review
and assess the implementation of Sentinel, and finally,
Sentinel will be subject to close congressional scrutiny. We
are committed to keeping this subcommittee and/or other
oversight committees informed as we move ahead.
Mr. Chairman, we believe that the extensive internal and
external oversight I have just described will ensure the
successful delivery of Sentinel, and even so, we are ever
mindful of the challenges of the past, and I believe we have
learned from what went right and what went wrong with Trilogy.
And I know you have a number of concerns, and I would like to
briefly address three of those concerns, which you mentioned in
your opening statement.
VIRTUAL CASE FILE PROJECT
First, the cost to the taxpayers of the Virtual Case File
project as compared with this project: if you recall, sir, in
the beginning of 2004, we were presented with Virtual Case File
by the contractor. It did not work. We went into negotiations
with that contractor. We were told that it would take $50
million in addition to the $170 million to get a project or a
product that would work.
We employed outside independent contractors to come in and
see whether it was worthwhile spending that money. They said
no. That contract ultimately would have been around $220
million if we were lucky. This is around $232 million for the
same development, but it is a development of a product that
will put us on a firm foundation in the future.
Let me turn to the deficiencies in the GAO report. As I
mentioned briefly, we have taken, we have looked at those
deficiencies. We have established a new unit to address those
deficiencies that were identified in the GAO report, and I
believe that we, with that new unit, we will be on top of the
matters that were pointed out to us by the GAO.
SENTINEL
And last, Mr. Chairman, I know that there were concerns
about two of the subcontractors on the Sentinel project. One of
those subcontractors was involved in providing training to
employees under the Trilogy project, but that was not an issue
with regard to the successes and/or the failures of Trilogy.
The other subcontractor acquired an entity that had previously
performed work on the Trilogy project, but that division has
nothing to do with providing work on the Sentinel project.
Let me finish by summarizing and saying that we recognize
that Sentinel is a large project and a large investment for the
taxpayers of the United States.
Senator Shelby. But an important one.
Mr. Mueller. But a very important one, and it is important
to the men and women of the FBI, who need this technology
system, and I can tell you that we have learned from the
mistakes of the past. We are intent in bringing this home, and
we have, in Lockheed Martin, I believe, a partner who will get
us across the finish line.
And with that, I would be happy to respond to any questions
on this or any other issues.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller III
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
to discuss the President's fiscal year 2007 budget for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I also would like to thank you for
passing the fiscal year 2006 Katrina supplemental which included $45
million for the FBI. Our employees in the Gulf region endured great
suffering and devastating property loss in the aftermath of Katrina. In
addition to the horrific personal toll the storm took on the people of
the Gulf region, the FBI offices in New Orleans, Beaumont, Gulfport and
Pascagoula were either severely damaged or completely destroyed.
However, your funding is helping to rebuild our offices, put our
employees back to work, and enable us to bring our capabilities back to
pre-Katrina levels.
With this Committee's help, the FBI was able to establish Katrina
Fraud Task Forces, in Lake Charles and Lafayette, Louisiana, to
investigate and prosecute those unscrupulous individuals who seek to
benefit from this national tragedy. We intend to continue this
important work as the Gulf region recovers.
2007 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2007 budget totals 31,359 positions and $6.04
billion. The net fiscal year 2007 program increases total 75 positions.
Our fiscal year 2007 budget is focused on enhancing and improving our
infrastructure. Since September 11th, the FBI has undergone significant
reorganization and tremendous personnel growth. However, FBI
Headquarters (HQ) facilities and infrastructure programs have not kept
pace with our transformation from a law enforcement entity to a key
player in the Government's war against terrorism.
As an agency, we must find the proper balance between expanding our
workforce and supporting on-board employees with the technology and
infrastructure necessary to accomplish our dual mission as both a law
enforcement and an intelligence entity. I believe the fiscal year 2007
budget will go a long way in rectifying the gaps between our rapid
growth in personnel and our current infrastructure.
IMPROVING PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The FBI's space for handling and storing classified information is
currently inadequate. We are formulating a strategy to address
Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) space requirements.
The primary objective of the FBI's plan is to provide SCIF space and
SCI connectivity to key national security field facilities by the end
of calendar year 2007 which will be accomplished using resources
requested in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget.
In fiscal year 2007, the FBI is requesting $33 million in
construction funding for SCIF expansion. This funding would allow for
information sharing between the FBI and our partners within the
Intelligence Community (IC), as envisioned by the President and
Congress. Without this SCIF expansion, the FBI cannot ensure an
adequate intelligence infrastructure to achieve our strategic goals. In
the fiscal year 2006 conference report you requested that we develop a
plan to prioritize our SCIF expansion program. This report is currently
under Administration review and we look forward to discussing it with
the Committee once it is released.
We are also requesting $8.8 million to acquire additional space for
an FBI Headquarters Annex which would be located in the Washington,
D.C. metropolitan area. Most of FBI's Headquarters components operate
in fragmented and overcrowded office space. The FBI must secure an
additional 150,000 square feet of useable space in order to accommodate
the needs of new personnel coming on-board through fiscal year 2007.
The current FBI Academy training facilities located at Quantico,
Virginia are inadequate to address the training needs of our analysts
and Special Agent personnel. Most of the Academy's facilities were
designed in the late 1960s to accommodate small groups in a traditional
classroom training setting. However, given the FBI's growth and dual
mission requirements, the Academy can no longer support our expanding
needs or provide us the forum to develop a world-class cadre of
intelligence professionals.
After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the FBI developed and
implemented professional training for Intelligence Analysts (IA)
throughout the FBI. In October 2001, the Center for Intelligence
Training (CIT), formerly known as College of Analytical Studies, was
established at the FBI Academy. The CIT was established to improve the
FBI's analytical capabilities to meet our present and future
investigative responsibilities. All courses delivered by the CIT are
designed to support the FBI's Counterterrorism (CT),
Counterintelligence (CD), and analytical missions. The CIT experienced
significant growth during its first years of operation and, based on
expected hiring levels of new IAs, the FBI expects the CIT to continue
to expand its operational and training missions.
In the fiscal year 2007 budget, we are requesting $6.3 million to
upgrade our CIT facilities by beginning the process of designing the
CIT training center at the FBI Academy complex in Quantico, Virginia.
The CIT will be a major element in continuing to promote and develop
the FBI's leadership training for FBI-wide, State/local, and
international law enforcement personnel.
We are also requesting $11.9 million for interim space at the FBI
Academy for the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team (HRT). Although HRT's current
space was built to accommodate only 50 employees, there are currently
more than 200 staff members using this limited space. As with many FBI
units, HRT's responsibilities have increased enormously since the
September 11th terrorist attacks. Over the past 3 years, the HRT has
been deployed on 159 occasions, of which over 62 percent were related
to counterterrorism. The HRT was also utilized in support of search and
recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Much
of HRT's work is sensitive in nature and must be conducted in a secure
area.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
We continue to upgrade and enhance our technological
infrastructure. In our fiscal year 2007 budget, we are requesting $100
million for Sentinel. Sentinel will leverage technology to reduce
redundancy, eliminate inefficiencies, and maximize the FBI's ability to
use the information in its possession. Our objectives for Sentinel
include the following: (1) Deliver a set of capabilities that provide a
single point of entry for investigative case management and
intelligence analysis; (2) Implement a new and improved FBI-wide global
index for persons, organizations, places, things and events; (3)
Implement a paperless information management and work-flow capability;
and (4) Implement an electronic records management system.
I want to stress that the Sentinel program is not a reincarnation
of the Virtual Case File. In the past few years we have struggled with
our information technology programs. However, we have learned hard
lessons from our missteps and we are doing things very differently this
time. Each phase of the Sentinel contracting process is being closely
scrutinized by a team of FBI technical experts, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), the Office of Management and Budget, and
the Department of Justice's Chief Information Office and Inspector
General. Furthermore, at this Committee's recommendation, we have also
engaged outside experts to help us review and assess the implementation
of Sentinel.
On March 16, 2006, we announced the award of the contract for
development of the Sentinel to Lockheed Martin. Under the terms of the
$305 million, 6-year contract, Lockheed Martin and its industry
partners will use proven commercial off-the-shelf technologies to
produce an integrated system that supports processing, storage and
management of the FBI's current paper-based records system. The program
includes an incremental development and delivery of Sentinel
capabilities including $73 million for operations and maintenance
activities.
Now that the contract has been awarded, we are moving forward with
phase one of the development process. Each of the four phases will
introduce new stand-alone capabilities and will be user-focused. As
each phase is implemented, existing information will be transferred to
new systems and old legacy systems will be retired. As a result,
Sentinel will replace a number of legacy applications including:
Automated Case Management System (ACS); ASSET; Criminal Informant
Management System; Bank Robbery Statistical Application; and Financial
Institution Fraud and Integrated Statistical Reporting Analysis
Application (ISRAA).
I will continue to update this committee on the progress of
Sentinel and I expect and welcome your strong congressional oversight
of this program.
NGI AND IAFIS/IDENT INTEROPERABILITY
We are also requesting funding for major enhancements to our
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). IAFIS
is the ten-rolled fingerprint identification system that was
successfully deployed in 1999 and is used by Federal, State, and local
law enforcement and authorized non-criminal justice agencies to
identify subjects with criminal history information. While IAFIS was a
state-of-the-art system at its inception, technology has since
advanced, and we must update IAFIS in order to meet the needs of our
customers.
The FBI intends to meet these new requirements by implementing a
Next Generation Identification system (NGI). We are currently
conducting a comprehensive requirements study that will produce an
Implementation/Strategy Plan, baseline Systems Requirement Document
(SRD), Functional Requirements Document, and Requirement Traceability
Matrix.
Once we have completed the planning effort, we will design,
develop, and implement modular builds with each module providing
improved functionality, such as improved accuracy and speed. The FBI is
requesting $38 million to support development of NGI.
Along with improvements to IAFIS, the FBI is developing
interoperability with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). DHS's IDENT program
is a two-flat fingerprint identification system. Various legislative
acts have required the FBI and DHS to ensure that the systems are
interoperable and that the criminal and immigration information that
they contain is accessible to, and shared among, other Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies. In 2002, the FBI began providing
DHS with extracted, partial data from IAFIS. This is a temporary
solution until full interoperability can be achieved.
Interoperability efforts between IAFIS and IDENT are advancing. A
multi-agency Interoperability Integrated Project Team (IPT) was
established to address the problem. In June 2005, FBI Criminal Justice
Information Services (CJIS), DHS United States Visitor and Immigrant
Status Indicator Technology (US VISIT) and the Department of State
signed a charter which established cooperative guiding principles for
IPT. IPT is aggressively pursuing different interoperability models to
find a solution to the problem. For fiscal year 2007, the FBI is
requesting $33 million to purchase hardware, software, and contract
services to support this interoperability initiative.
HUMAN RESOURCES
During fiscal year 2005, this Committee provided the FBI with the
legislative authority and resources to help us compete with other
homeland security and Intelligence Community (IC) organizations who
often recruited employees away from the FBI. The funding allowed us to
provide recruitment bonuses for potential new hires, retention and
relocation bonuses to existing employees with job offers from other
government entities, and increased funding for our University Education
Program and student loan repayments. Thanks to your support, the FBI
used approximately $22 million for these purposes during fiscal year
2005, including almost $5 million on recruitment initiatives, $1.6
million on employee retention and relocation bonuses, and $14.9 million
on degree programs and student loan repayments.
The additional funding this Committee provided as an extension of
these authorities is allowing the FBI to extend relocation bonuses to
agents assigned to high cost of living offices. Each of these
incentives is providing us with the leverage to retain a high-caliber
workforce to better serve the Nation in our fight against terrorism.
Additionally, this Committee provided for the establishment of our
Sabbatical Program. Last year, the FBI sent participants to the St.
Andrews Program for International Security Studies and to Harvard's
John F. Kennedy School of Government. This year, we added several new
partners to our Sabbatical Program and are able to provide
opportunities for FBI employees to attend Mercyhurst College; the
George C. Marshall Center; the National Defense University; the Naval
Postgraduate School; the Marine Corps University; and the Naval War
College. Students will benefit from receiving various certificates and
degrees ranging from Applied Intelligence to National Resource
Strategy.
The FBI is developing programs designed to recruit, train, develop,
and retain professionals who have the skills necessary for the success
of its national security missions. Among these workforce programs are
the Special Agent career path and the Intelligence Career Service.
These programs are designed to enhance the national security workforce
and to create training and development opportunities for agents,
analysts, linguists, and surveillance specialists in the FBI's national
security programs. Last year, the FBI trained 589 new agents and over
1,000 Intelligence Career Service professionals.
The FBI will expand current in-service and virtual intelligence
training initiatives for FBI employees and our partners in other
Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. Efforts are underway to
assess our training and to develop the capabilities we need as we go
forward. Revisions to New Agents and Cohort training programs are also
underway. We are requesting $5 million in fiscal year 2007 to provide
advanced intelligence training curriculum development and $1 million to
establish our Intelligence Officer certification program.
NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH--CT/CI/DI
Over the past 4 years, the FBI has developed its intelligence
capabilities and improved its ability to protect America from threats
to national security. We have built on our established capacity to
collect information and enhanced our ability to analyze and disseminate
intelligence. Implementation of the National Security Branch (NSB) is
the next step in the FBI's transformation.
On June 28, 2005, in response to the findings of the Commission on
the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD Commission), President Bush directed the FBI to
create a ``National Security Service'' within the FBI. The FBI
implemented this directive through the creation of a new entity--the
National Security Branch (NSB)--that integrates the FBI's primary
national security programs under the leadership of a single Executive
Assistant Director, and through policies and initiatives designed to
enhance the capability of the entire FBI to support its national
security mission.
The mission of the NSB is to optimally position the FBI to protect
the United States against weapons of mass destruction (WMD), terrorist
attacks, foreign intelligence operations, and espionage by integrating
investigative and intelligence activities against current and emerging
national security threats; providing useful and timely information and
analysis to the intelligence and law enforcement communities; and
effectively developing enabling capabilities, processes, and
infrastructure, consistent with applicable laws, Attorney General and
Director of National Intelligence guidance, and civil liberties.
The FBI's NSB was established and is making significant progress in
integrating the missions, capabilities, and resources of the
Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Directorate of Intelligence
(DI) programs. The NSB builds on the success of the DI and other
initiatives already underway by helping to integrate the FBI's
intelligence mission more fully into the FBI and into the IC, so that
the IC can better understand FBI operations, while enhancing the FBI's
ability to protect the Nation.
The NSB essentially puts one face on the FBI's intelligence mission
to stakeholders, including Congress, other IC agencies, and the general
public. The FBI is currently working with the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the Administration to ensure that the NSB meets the
directives set forth by the President and is responsive to the Office
of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
A major part of our counterterrorism work has been supporting the
war on terror overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI's
responsibility there is to protect U.S. interests and persons from
terrorist attacks by conducting investigations and acquiring
intelligence that would prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist
operatives targeting America. The U.S. military and IC are partners
with the FBI in this mission.
As a result of our intelligence gathering overseas, IC reports
indicate Al-Qa'ida has declared its intent to execute a WMD attack
against the United States. A successful attack using a WMD device
consisting of a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear payload
would have catastrophic consequences. Preventing the detonation of a
WMD device through an effective, coordinated, and technically
proficient response program is an FBI responsibility defined by
Presidential Decision Directive-39. The FBI is requesting $25.8 million
to provide resources to respond to terrorist threats and incidents such
as WMD and other explosive devices.
The DI oversees the Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs). FIGs are
central to the integration of the intelligence cycle into field
operations. The FIGs coordinate, manage, and execute all the functions
of the intelligence cycle. FIGs include Special Agents and Intelligence
Analysts as well as officers and analysts from other intelligence and
law enforcement agencies. The establishment of FIGs in every field
office during October 2003, and the issuance of initial guidance for
their operations, laid the groundwork for enhancing the FBI's
intelligence capability in the field. From January 2004 through January
2006, Intelligence Analyst staffing increased on the FIGs 61 percent,
from 617 to 995. Work will continue with the implementation of a plan
to more fully integrate the intelligence cycle into FBI field
operations through standardized processes, pilot implementation
projects, specialized training, and refinement of roles and
responsibilities. We have also assessed our field-wide intelligence
collection capabilities to include human, technical, and physical
collection posture. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request reflects our
need for resources to close gaps identified in our Intelligence Program
infrastructure.
In addition to overseeing the national security operations of the
CT, CD and DI, the NSB is also accountable for the functions carried
out by the other FBI divisions that support the national security
mission, such as language translation support and Field Intelligence
Group program management.
Today's FBI linguist cadre is 69 percent larger than it was on
September 11th. The three languages with the largest growth are Somali,
Pashto, and Turkish, each with an increase of over 400 percent. This
growth was made possible by the resources provided by this Committee.
Another way we are providing support to counterterrorism and
counterintelligence investigations is through the West Virginia
Translation and Analysis Center. The Center provides field offices with
an alternative to processing their Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act audio collections. Analysts at the Center listen for pertinent
English conversation containing intelligence material and provide
English summaries and occasional full transcripts.
The National Virtual Translation Center (NVTC) is an excellent
example of the continuous transformation efforts underway at the FBI:
creative and aggressive recruiting; interagency resource sharing and
collaboration; and streamlined methods for serving agencies across the
United States government in support of the war on terrorism. The NVTC
was established with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) resources under
the authority of the USA PATRIOT Act to provide accurate and timely
translations of foreign intelligence material to the IC.
During 2003, the CIA awarded the FBI executive agency authority
over the NVTC. Together with the CIA, we have recruited translators
from the military and colleges, and secured added assistance through
civilian contract staff. We continue to benefit from the interagency
sharing of translation resources, collaborative use of human and
automated translation capabilities, and parity in translation workload
across various IC elements.
Additional fiscal year 2007 enhancements to the NSB include:
--$15 million for Intelligence infrastructure requirements. This
funding will provide essential infrastructure enhancements for
the Intelligence Program including multi-media workstations,
FALCON notebook computers for language analysts, electronic
surveillance data management system development, expanded
SIPRNET access, and IC XML application, Intelligence website
support, and non-English web page postings.
--$16 million for Intelligence Operations and Production. This
funding will support initiatives that comprise the core
intelligence processes that are aligned with the intelligence
production cycle. This would provide 5 positions for human
source validation, 52 positions for intelligence operations and
production, FBIHQ operations and maintenance funding for the
FBI's IIR Dissemination System [FIDS], a human source
validation system, and physical surveillance support.
CYBER
The cyber threat confronting the United States is rapidly
increasing as the number of people with the tools and abilities to use
computers against us is rising. The country's vulnerability is
escalating as the United States economy and critical infrastructures
become increasingly reliant on interdependent computer networks and the
World Wide Web. Large scale computer attacks on the Nation's critical
infrastructure and economy could have devastating results. The Internet
knows no boundaries. A perpetrator can sit at his computer anywhere in
the world and gain unauthorized access to systems throughout the globe
with complete anonymity. This puts law enforcement at a severe
disadvantage and we must leverage all of our existing resources to
bring cyber investigations to successful conclusions.
We must continue to increase our capability to identify and
neutralize enterprises and individuals who illegally access computer
systems, spread malicious code, or support terrorist or state-sponsored
computer intrusion operations. Since fiscal year 2001, the FBI has seen
a 906 percent increase in International terrorism, Counterintelligence,
and Domestic Terrorism computer intrusion cases. The FBI's Legal
Attaches are working closely with our international law enforcement and
intelligence partners to combat this rising threat.
LEGAL ATTACHE PROGRAM
The FBI continues to expand its Legal Attache (Legats) program.
International cases have become the rule, rather than the exception,
for the Bureau. Legats are a key component of our extraterritorial law
enforcement effort and often provide the first response to crimes
against the United States that have an international nexus. Legats also
provide a prompt and continuous exchange of information with foreign
law enforcement. But Legats are no longer just information conduits.
Rather, these offices assist our counterparts overseas on joint
investigations, intelligence-sharing, and the development of new
methods to prevent terrorist attacks. Currently, we have 53 fully
operational Legal Attaches offices, and 13 fully operational sub-
offices covering over 200 countries throughout the world.
This year we plan to open six more offices, located in Afghanistan,
Qatar, Sudan, South Africa, Algeria, and El Salvador, and convert two
sub-offices, Port-of-Spain and Jakarta, to fully operational Legats.
The San Salvador Legat office is being opened with the support and
resources provided by this Committee for the intended purpose of
working with El Salvador's law enforcement to target the MS-13 gang's
leadership in one of its Central America strongholds.
CRIMINAL PROGRAMS
Although much of my testimony has been geared toward a discussion
of the FBI's national security efforts, we continue to take great pride
in our criminal programs. As with all of our investigative efforts,
these criminal programs are in concert with the Attorney General's
priorities, as announced earlier this spring. Specifically, as I
mentioned earlier, we are aggressively pursuing any Katrina-related
criminal fraud. The Attorney General has asked the United States
Attorneys' Offices to adopt a ``zero tolerance'' policy toward all
cases involving hurricane relief related fraud. To date, over 150
investigations have been initiated and over 100 individuals have been
indicted on corruption and fraud related charges.
Public corruption is the top criminal priority for the FBI. The
FBI's highly sensitive public corruption investigations focus on all
levels of government. The heightened focus has helped increase both the
number and quality of the cases being investigated. Over the last 2
years, FBI investigations have led to the conviction of more than 1,060
government employees involved in corrupt activities, to include 177
federal officials, 158 state officials, 360 local officials, and more
than 365 police officers.
We also continue our work refining and implementing the National
Gang Strategy (NGS). Developed in 1993, the goal of the NGS is to
identify the prolific and violent gangs in the United States and to
aggressively investigate, disrupt, and dismantle their criminal
enterprises through prosecution under the federal racketeering statutes
and other appropriate laws.
I know the escalation of gang violence is an area of particular
concern to this Committee and the FBI appreciates the efforts and
resources you have provided to law enforcement to attack this growing
problem. With your help, in 2005, the National Gang Intelligence Center
(NGIC) was formed to allow State, local and Federal agencies to share
gang data across jurisdictions and identify trends related to violent
gang activity and migration.
This multi-agency center functions from the Washington D.C. area
and has coordinated information sharing with other investigative and
intelligence operations of local, State, and Federal criminal justice
agencies, and has become a national center for case coordination and
information. The gang information provided by Federal, State and local
agencies is one of the most vital aspects of this center for the
successful integration and sharing of data.
Another area of concern for the FBI's Criminal Investigative
Division is the escalating level of violence in the Southwest border
region. The recurring violence on the Southwest border revolves around
the Gulf Cartel drug trafficking organization, which has traditionally
dominated the region and commanded smuggling operations along this
stretch of the border.
The FBI is taking proactive measures to assess and confront this
threat to public safety on both sides of the border through
participation in multiple bi-lateral multi-agency meetings, working
groups, and enforcement operations. The FBI, along with DHS, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Department of State, are
working with the Mexican Attorney General's Office to identify Gulf
Cartel members and is using all available techniques to disrupt and
dismantle this dangerous organization and reduce the violence in the
Southwest border region.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the subcommittee,
today's FBI is part of a vast national and international campaign
dedicated to defeating terrorism. Working hand-in-hand with our
partners in law enforcement, intelligence, the military and diplomatic
circles, the FBI's primary responsibility is to neutralize terrorist
cells and operatives here in the United States and help dismantle
terrorist networks worldwide. Although protecting the United States
from terrorist attacks is our first priority, we remain committed to
the defense of America against foreign intelligence threats as well as
enforcing federal criminal laws while still respecting and defending
the Constitution.
This year will mark the 5-year anniversary of September 11. The FBI
has changed dramatically since the terrorist attacks and we will
continue to evolve to meet the emerging threats to our country. We have
expanded our mission, radically overhauled our intelligence programs
and capabilities, and have undergone tremendous personnel growth. With
the fiscal year 2007 budget request, in order to capitalize on these
changes and our past investments in personnel, we intend to bridge the
gap between our growth and infrastructure by focusing on updating our
technology and facilities.
Once again, I thank you for your continued support of the FBI. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Drug Enforcement Administration
STATEMENT OF KAREN TANDY, ADMINISTRATOR
Senator Shelby. Administrator Tandy.
Ms. Tandy. Good afternoon, Chairman Shelby, Ranking Member
Mikulski, and members of the subcommittee. It is my pleasure to
appear before you this afternoon to present and discuss the
President's 2007 budget request for the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA).
I want to thank this subcommittee for its support and
guidance to DEA, also for your passage of the supplemental
yesterday affecting DEA as well. Our enforcement efforts have
been successful, and they have contributed to the 19 percent
overall reduction in drug use over the past 5 years. As
Congress appreciates and certainly this subcommittee, the
devastation of drugs knows no bounds and takes an enormous toll
on both human lives and our country's economy. It takes victims
as young as the 10-month-old baby who died in January from
ingesting a massive amount of his parents' heroin to 90-year-
old nursing home patients who are hospitalized from exposure to
methamphetamine that was being cooked in their nursing home.
METHAMPHETAMINE
Meth labs have now been found in every State in this
country. Last year, about 35 percent of the meth consumed in
America was homemade. Thanks to congressional leadership and
new State laws, the number of small toxic labs in America has
decreased, but meth use still remains high.
Today, about 20 percent of meth consumed in America is made
here. The balance is manufactured and distributed by Mexican
trafficking organizations operating in the United States and
Mexico. DEA and the government of Mexico have joined together
to combat that threat by redirecting our resources to
specifically target Mexican meth manufacturing and trafficking
both here and in Mexico.
GLOBAL DRUG TRADE
The global drug trade is a continuing and serious national
security threat to Americans at home and to our interests
abroad. Colombia produces about 90 percent of the cocaine that
is smuggled into the United States. DEA is attacking that trade
at its source and transit zones. Just 2 weeks ago, we charged
50 leaders of the FARC, a State Department-designated foreign
terrorist organization. We charged those 50 leaders with
supplying more than 60 percent of the cocaine in the United
States that is valued at $25 billion.
Through our DEA operations in Afghanistan, DEA seeks to
prevent that country from returning as a major U.S. supplier of
heroin, as it was in the 1970s and 1980s and to help stabilize
the Afghanistan government. Last year, DEA-led investigations
resulted in the first ever extradition from Afghanistan to the
United States.
DRUG FLOW PREVENTION STRATEGY
DEA's drug flow prevention strategy, which targets
transportation choke points, focuses on disrupting the flow of
drugs, money, and chemicals between the source and transit
countries and America. We are requesting a budget enhancement
to fund this strategy, which already has resulted in record
seizures and disrupted trafficking in the western hemisphere,
actually forcing them to suspend drug operations, change their
modes of drug transport, and even jettison loads of drugs.
With this request, we can expand our foreign-deployed
advisory support teams, the FAST teams that are in Afghanistan,
to include one of those FAST teams in the western hemisphere
and solidify as well the base for funding of our five existing
FAST teams that are operating in Afghanistan.
DEA's drug flow prevention strategy, as I mentioned,
included a 65-day interagency operation late last year that
targeted the transit zones both in the eastern Pacific and in
the Caribbean, and it was during that 65-day operation that 46
metric tons of cocaine were seized under our strategy. It
included among those seizures the largest eastern Pacific
seizure in the history of the Joint Interagency Task Force-
South for that period. A temporary reduction in the ability of
cocaine in the United States also appears to have resulted from
this operation under this strategy.
DEA continues our assault on drug traffickers' illegal
proceeds as well, and last year, I am very pleased to say that
we stripped domestic and foreign drug traffickers of a record
breaking $1.9 billion in drug proceeds and in the denial of
drug revenue. This exceeds internal goals in DEA, aggressive
goals that were set for 2005, where we had a goal of $1 billion
to be seized in 2005; it exceeded our goal by 90 percent and
got us one step closer to the point where the risk of seizure
will begin to outweigh the financial gains for drug
traffickers.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION INTELLIGENCE ROLE
The second, the other budget enhancement, supports DEA's
recent reentry to the intelligence community in order to
provide DEA with the infrastructure required to function in the
community and to increase our contribution to national security
while at the same time protecting the primacy of the agency's
law enforcement functions.
Nearly half of all State Department foreign terrorist
organizations have ties to the drug trade. DEA is poised to
make valuable and lasting contributions in the intelligence
arena, and the President's 2006 supplemental request that you
passed last night included $5 million to enable DEA to
jumpstart that initiative this year, while the 2007 budget
requests for funding remain so that we can continue this
initiative through 2007.
The men and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration
thank you for your support as we continue to score major
victories and protect America against drugs. Thank you, and I
look forward to your questions.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karen P. Tandy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Good afternoon, and
thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the President's
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget request for the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA). I appreciate your strong and continued support for the important
work of DEA--reducing the availability of illicit drugs in the United
States. Every single day, DEA's brave men and women combat the world's
drug trafficking organizations. We wage the battle on every front. It
begins with the cultivation or manufacturing of drugs, complete with
the movement of chemicals, carries on through the transit zones and
final distribution in our Nation's communities, and concludes with the
laundering of the distribution proceeds. Furthermore, the battle
extends well beyond our borders into foreign lands and into cyberspace.
To this end, DEA continues to be an active partner in the war against
global terrorism and protecting the homeland.
While we have made great strides over the years and continue to
adapt to the increasingly complex challenges that face modern-day law
enforcement, much work remains to be done. The resources that Congress
provides are critical to our success and all of us at DEA are grateful
for the chairman's and the subcommittee members' leadership.
In my statement, I will summarize some of our important successes
of 2005, summarize the President's request for DEA, and discuss some of
the challenges that lie ahead. An attachment for the hearing record
that provides additional mission-related data also is included.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Through continuous strategic thinking and planning, DEA is able to
meet the ever-changing demands of contemporary drug enforcement. Ours
is an organization that has had to be agile and resourceful in order to
combat those whose criminal methods become more and more refined and
complicated. Our successes in fiscal year 2005 are in those areas that
are the agency's foremost priorities:
Financial and Money Laundering Operations.--DEA focuses on the
dismantlement of the financial infrastructures of drug trafficking
organizations, and the payoff has more than met expectations. In fiscal
year 2005, DEA stripped domestic and foreign drug traffickers of nearly
$1.9 billion in drug proceeds and revenue denied, which included $1.4
billion in asset seizures and $477 million in drug seizures. This, Mr.
Chairman, exceeds DEA's fiscal year 2005 $1 billion goal for asset and
drug seizures by 90 percent. Furthermore, DEA's seizures nearly match
DEA's fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriation for our Salaries and
Expenses Account. We have developed a 5-year plan with an ultimate goal
of taking $3 billion away from all drug trafficking organizations by
fiscal year 2009, and we are committed to meeting our goal. In fiscal
year 2006, DEA will transform its current temporary staffing in Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, into a permanent presence, with a commitment of
four positions (including two agents). These positions will serve as a
liaison for all drug enforcement matters, including financial
investigations. We also are in the process of standing up a financial
investigations team that will be staffed in Bogota and Cartagena,
Colombia, and we anticipate establishing a money laundering group in
Mexico City. It is our goal by adding offices in these regions, that we
will be able to bolster our efforts to take potentially billions in
drug profits away from trafficking organizations, and inflict enough
damage to leave them unable to reconstitute their operations.
Since the launch of our ``Money Trail Initiative'' in July 2005,
more than $36.2 million in proceeds that traffickers attempted to
smuggle from the United States have been seized. An investigation
during fiscal year 2005 by a DEA-led multi-jurisdictional Organized
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) of a Colombian-based money
laundering operation resulted in 81 arrests and the seizure of $7.8
million. During fiscal year 2005, DEA continued to be a key leader in
the multi-jurisdictional law enforcement effort that targeted the 45
``Most Wanted'' drug trafficking and money laundering organizations,
commonly referred to as CPOTs (Consolidated Priority Organization
Target). As a result of this critical supply reduction strategy, 6
CPOTs have been dismantled and removed from the list of 45, and the
operations of another 6 were significantly disrupted. In addition, in
fiscal year 2005, 121 CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations were
dismantled and 204 CPOT-linked organizations were severely disrupted.
Fighting Methamphetamine.--DEA has redoubled its efforts to fight
methamphetamine and continues to turn the tide against the use,
trafficking, and manufacture of the drug. DEA takes a comprehensive
approach to combating a problem that poses a unique and deadly threat
to communities across America--enforcement, domestic and international
precursor chemical control, and the identification and cleanup of the
large number of small toxic laboratories. As trafficking patterns have
changed, so has DEA. We have shifted our focus from the super labs in
the United States, to the small toxic labs that spring up as a result.
This is in addition to targeting precursor chemical control and
increasing our focus on the Mexican organizations that conduct the vast
majority of the methamphetamine trade. In fiscal year 2005, DEA spent
an estimated $176 million to combat methamphetamine, including $18.8
million to administer 8,897 clandestine laboratory cleanups.
In August 2005, DEA wrapped up ``Operation Wildfire''--a nationally
coordinated law enforcement initiative that was designed to target all
levels of the methamphetamine manufacturing and distribution chain in
the country. Two hundred cities took part in the operation and the
results were unprecedented--427 arrests and the seizure of 95 kilograms
of methamphetamine, 201,035 tablets of pseudoephedrine, 153 kilograms
of pseudoephedrine powder, and 224,860 tablets of ephedrine. In
addition, 56 clandestine laboratories were seized and 30 children were
rescued. A second operation in August, ``Operation Three Hour Tour'',
resulted in 170 arrests and the dismantlement of three major drug
transportation rings with international ties, as well as 27 United
States distribution groups. We estimate that these groups were capable
of transporting enough methamphetamine into the United States to
provide product for over 22,700 methamphetamine users every month.
1,634 kilograms of cocaine, 159 pounds of methamphetamine, 9 ounces of
crack, 7 kilograms of heroin, 216 pounds of marijuana, and 22,000
dosage units of MDMA were seized in the operation.
In addition to these large scale operations, DEA's Mobile
Enforcement Teams (METs) continued their methamphetamine focus. Since
1995, METs have significantly increased the number of methamphetamine
deployments. At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, 66
percent of MET deployments initiated targeted methamphetamine
trafficking organizations. This compares to 21.8 percent in fiscal year
2003, 27 percent in fiscal year 2004, and 41 percent in fiscal year
2005.
DEA also has continued its work with our global partners including
Canada, Hong Kong, and Mexico to target international methamphetamine
traffickers and to increase chemical control efforts abroad. For
example, the United States and Mexico have obtained a commitment from
Hong Kong not to ship chemicals to the United States, Mexico, or Panama
until Hong Kong authorities have received an import permit or
equivalent documentation. Hong Kong officials also agreed to provide
advance notice to a receiving country before a shipment is made. On the
training side, in fiscal year 2005, DEA trained 105 Mexican officials
in the areas of chemical control and clandestine laboratory cleanup. In
partnership with Mexican law enforcement, DEA targets Mexican
methamphetamine manufacturers, distributors and sources of supply based
in the western United States and Mexico. One operation that culminated
in March 2006, included the seizure of nearly 200 pounds of
methamphetamine.
Internet Drug Trafficking.--In fiscal year 2005, DEA initiated 100
new internet investigations involving the online sales of
pharmaceutical controlled substances. Over the course of fiscal year
2005, DEA arrested 62 individuals and seized $44 million in cash,
property, computers, and bank accounts from individuals who had been
selling prescription drugs via the Internet. As a result of one
internet drug trafficking investigation, Operation Cyberchase, DEA
identified approximately 200 web sites that illegally sold prescription
drugs and arrested 25 individuals who had been operating in the United
States, India, Asia, Europe, and the Caribbean. DEA also led a 21-month
OCDETF investigation that concluded with criminal charges against the
principal Mexican steroid manufacturers, whose U.S. sales totaled an
estimated $56 million annually. DEA has arrested nine individuals, one
of whom was the owner of three of the world's largest anabolic steroid
manufacturing operations. Eighty percent of the steroids seized in the
United States last year originated from Mexican manufacturers.
War on Terror.--DEA is well-placed to identify those threats posed
by international terrorism funded by drug proceeds. The case of Afghani
Bashir Noorzai, who was arrested in the United States in April 2005,
illustrates the link that exists between drug trafficking and terrorist
organizations. Noorzai was the leader of the largest Central and
Southwest Asia-based heroin drug trafficking organization known to DEA.
Noorzai is charged with providing explosives, weaponry, and personnel
to the Taliban in exchange for protection for his organization's opium
poppy crops, heroin laboratories, drug transportation routes, and
members and associates. Noorzai was also a close associate of a member
of the Taliban leadership. During fiscal year 2005, DEA operations also
included the deployment of 5 Foreign-deployed Advisory and Support
Teams (FAST) to Afghanistan and the disruption of 8 and dismantlement
of 2 terrorist-linked Priority Target Organizations (PTO).
Currently, Afghanistan is not a major heroin supplier to the United
States; only about 8 percent of the United States supply comes from
that country. However, DEA operations in Afghanistan serve a dual
purpose--preventing the country from returning as a major supplier of
heroin to the United States, as it was in the 1970s and 1980's, and
helping stabilize the Afghanistan government as it battles the powerful
drug warlords for control of portions of the country.
Mr. Chairman, I also am very proud to report that the FASTs have
played a pivotal role in protecting the lives of both our U.S. military
and our coalition partners in Afghanistan. The teams have identified
narcotics traffickers involved in targeting U.S. forces with improvised
explosive devices (IEDs) and have provided critical information
obtained from DEA Human Intelligence (HUMINT) sources to U.S. Special
Forces Teams. In fact, on several occasions after DEA shared its source
information, the Special Forces have successfully intervened and seized
IEDs, other bomb making materials, and weapons caches.
Assisting Local Law Enforcement.--This year, we had an additional
mission in our longstanding support of state and locals--rescue and
cleanup in the Gulf Region following Katrina. Our office in New Orleans
sustained some damage and our Gulfport office was uninhabitable. Our
operational assets had to be temporarily moved to Baton Rouge. With the
funding DEA was provided in the fiscal year 2006 supplemental
appropriation, repairs have been made and we have been able to return
to our New Orleans office. Currently, we are operating in temporary
space in Gulfport until repairs can be made for safe occupancy at our
permanent location. In the aftermath of the storm, 251 DEA personnel,
including Special Agents, Special Agent pilots, Intelligence Analysts,
and other technical and logistical staff were deployed to provide law
enforcement and rescue/humanitarian assistance to 13 law enforcement
agencies in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. We established and
manned mobile command posts and communications systems, and assisted
with the rescue of 3,340 stranded victims using DEA helicopters, which
included 70 senior citizens from a nursing home that had been flooded.
DEA also assisted with patrol assignments, transported medicine to law
enforcement personnel to combat hepatitis, and worked with Texas and
Arkansas pharmacy boards on emergency refill procedures to serve
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama residents. I am very proud of the
many members of the DEA community who gave so selflessly at a time of a
national tragedy. You may be sure that we will continue to support the
recovery efforts in the stricken areas in any way we can.
In addition to Katrina assistance, DEA remained dedicated to our
critical state and local partners. For example, in fiscal year 2005,
DEA led 217 State and Local Task Forces, with an on board strength of
2,096 Task Force Officers and 1,253 DEA Special Agents. We also have
provided drug enforcement training to 41,000 state and local police
officers in fiscal year 2005. DEA's Jetway Program, which instructs
state and local law enforcement officers how to address interdiction
issues in airports, bus and train stations, and hotel/motel
environments, conducted nine schools in cities across the country
during fiscal year 2005. Our Pipeline/Convoy Program, which teaches
highway patrol officers how to address commercial and passenger vehicle
interdiction issues, conducted 16 seminars in fiscal year 2005. These
two important programs trained a total of more than 3,000 officers. DEA
has trained drug unit commanders, DEA and other federal, state and
local law enforcement intelligence analysts, and international
narcotics leaders. Furthermore, we trained 1,100 police officers in the
enforcement areas of clandestine labs and diversion.
Outreach and Public Awareness.--9,000 people have received victim,
witness, and drug-endangered awareness training in fiscal year 2005. We
also launched a public website (justthinktwice.com) in fiscal year
2005, designed for young people that provides information on topics
such as methamphetamine, prescription drugs, drugged driving,
marijuana, and drug legalization. Since the launch of the site, there
have been an average of 200,000 hits per month, and many Governors have
written to the Attorney General to express how useful they have found
the website to be and have pledged to publicize the website widely in
their states.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
For fiscal year 2007, the President's Budget requests $1.9 billion
for DEA ($1.7 billion under the Salary and Expenses Account and $212
million under the Diversion Control Fee Account). A total of 9,310
positions, of which 4,066 are Special Agent positions, will be funded.
This request represents an increase of $72 million over fiscal year
2006. I would like to call attention to a few highlights of the
President's request.
Salaries and Expenses Account
The request includes a $24.8 million investment to fund two
initiatives:
Drug Flow Prevention Initiative ($12.8 million and 10 positions)
involves multiple agencies in multiple countries targeting major drug
trafficking organizations (CPOTS). This initiative is designed to
disrupt the flow of drugs, money, and chemicals between the source
zones and the United States. The strategy DEA employs is to attack the
organizations' vulnerabilities in their supply, transportation systems,
and financial infrastructures. The program supports the Department of
Justice's Strategic Goal of preventing terrorism and promoting the
nation's security and enforcing federal laws and representing the
rights and interests of the American people.
As part of this program, $7.5 million is requested for our very
valuable FAST operations. With this request, DEA has the necessary
resources, coupled with Department of Defense funds, to permanently
support the five FAST teams now operating in Afghanistan. In addition,
one new team will be created whose initial focus will be on Western
Hemisphere operations. Under the Drug Flow Prevention program, 10
positions and $5.3 million also are requested to expand a successful
multi-agency cocaine interdiction program known as ``Operation Panama
Express.'' Since its inception in February 2000, Operation Panama
Express has seized 356 metric tons of cocaine, which averages almost
4\1/2\ tons per month for the past 6 years. The Country Offices in
Venezuela, Guatemala, Honduras, and Ecuador and the Caribbean Field
Division would receive additional Special Agent positions. Resources
will be used to recruit additional HUMINT sources to provide
information to DEA regarding drug smuggling operations involving the
transit of drugs through Central America, and the Caribbean and Eastern
Pacific zones. The information from these sources will provide an early
warning against narcotics and terrorist threats, which will ensure that
our southwest border strategy has a defense-in-depth capability.
I would add, Mr. Chairman, that this initiative follows a
successful DEA 2005 international Drug Flow Prevention initiative
(``Operation All Inclusive I-2005'') that targeted the Eastern Pacific
and Western Caribbean transit zones of Central America and the Central
America land mass. By concentrating law enforcement efforts in this
corridor, multi-ton bulk drug shipments were interdicted before
reaching Mexico. All Inclusive's success with respect to seizures was
unprecedented. Over 46 metric tons of cocaine was seized in transit
zones during the 65-day operation, and included the largest EASTPAC
seizures for the month of August in JIATF South's history, 21.3 metric
tons. At the same time, DEA's domestic seizures decreased by 29 percent
compared to the 65-day period prior to the operation. DEA's domestic
cocaine seizures for the three-month period following the operation
decreased by 27 percent compared to the three-month period preceding
the operation, and by 36 percent compared to the same three-month
period in 2004. Although other explanations are possible, preliminary
analysis suggests that All Inclusive may have resulted in a temporary
reduction in the availability of cocaine in the United States. Other
All Inclusive seizures included: the largest ever cocaine seizure in
Belize--2,376 kilograms; the largest ever currency seizure in
Nicaragua--$1.2 million; 3.9 metric tons of cocaine and $5.7 million in
currency seized in Panama; 21 metric tons of marijuana seized in
Mexico. Furthermore, as a result of All Inclusive, we found that
traffickers were forced to delay or suspend their drug operations,
divert their routes, change their modes of transportation, and even
jettison loads.
Intelligence and National Security ($11.9 million and 57
positions--including one Special Agent and 42 Intelligence Analysts).
In February of this year, Director of National Intelligence John
Negroponte and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a joint
memorandum designating an element of DEA's Intelligence Division to be
a member of the Intelligence Community (IC). IC membership will allow
DEA to expand and strengthen its existing relationships with our
nation's intelligence agencies. With 86 offices in 62 countries--the
largest law enforcement presence abroad--DEA is poised to make valuable
and lasting contributions in the intelligence arena. In DEA,
intelligence drives enforcement strategies and operations. This
approach has yielded impressive results: since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, DEA's Special Operations Division has produced
26,499 counterterrorism products for United States law enforcement
agencies with counterterrorism missions; during fiscal year 2005, the
El Paso Intelligence Center responded to more than 260,000
counterterrorism inquiries from federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies, of which 12 percent were directly related to
counterterrorism. Moreover, as of December 31, 2005, DEA has identified
48 percent (21 of 44) of the organizations on the Department of State's
Foreign Terrorist Organizations list as having possible ties to the
drug trade.
This request will fund DEA's entry into the IC. $4 million and 20
positions (including one Special Agent and 9 Intelligence Analysts)
will create a National Security Intelligence Section (NN) within DEA's
Intelligence Division. Through DEA's newly designated element, DEA will
pass to the IC any counterterrorism or national security information it
obtains during the course of its Title 21 drug enforcement mission. The
NN objective will be to maximize DEA's contribution to national
security, while protecting the primacy of the agency's law enforcement
functions. $7 million and 37 positions (including 33 Intelligence
Analysts) will fund the development of a Central Tasking Management
System (CTMS)\1\ at DEA. The CTMS will track the acquisition of law
enforcement investigative information and the dissemination of this
information to other law enforcement and IC elements; establish
policies and procedures for information acquisition and dissemination;
produce acquisition plans, and establish an interface with acquisition
management elements in the law enforcement community. Finally, $1
million will establish base funding to continue the Reports Officer
Program, which began as a pilot project in June 2004. The Reports
Officers have proven beneficial in extracting and passing in a timely
manner, DEA law enforcement information that is relevant to IC
requirements. Specifically, the Reports Officers review DEA law
enforcement intelligence reporting and develop reports based on that
information which responds to IC taskings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The CTMS is formally the Collection Requirement Management
System (CRMS) as discussed in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Offsets
In order to fund the Drug Flow Prevention and Intelligence and
National Security initiatives, the President's Budget includes the
following three offsets:
Regional Enforcement Teams (RET).--DEA proposes to eliminate the
RET program, for a reduction of $9 million and 34 positions (23 Special
Agents). DEA's remaining resources would continue to target the drug
trafficking organizations having the most significant impact on the
United States. RET was seen as a program that did not tie as closely to
DEA's core focus on international drug trafficking organizations.
Demand Reduction Program.--DEA proposes to eliminate all positions
dedicated to this program for a reduction of 40 positions (including 31
Special Agents) and $9.2 million. This proposal would allow DEA to
focus on its core mission of drug law enforcement. When possible,
however, Special Agents would participate in demand reduction
activities on a collateral duty basis.
Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET).--DEA proposes to reduce by 151
(including 132 Special Agents) the number of positions dedicated to the
MET program, for a reduction of $30.2 million. The remaining $20.5
million and 83 positions (including 80 Special Agents) would continue
to support the MET program, with priority focus on methamphetamine
investigations. In addition to MET deployments targeting
methamphetamine organizations, in the areas of the county where the
number of clandestine labs has declined but methamphetamine use still
remains high, I have directed DEA's Clandestine Laboratory Enforcement
Teams (CLET) to begin investigating United States domestic networks
that are distributing Mexican produced methamphetamine. At the same
time, CLETs will continue their investigations of synthetic drug labs
and will continue to assist state and local law enforcement agencies
with laboratory, precursor, and distribution investigations. Finally,
DEA would continue to administer funds from the Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) program for clandestine laboratory cleanups.
Diversion and Control Fee Account (DCFA)
As I stated earlier, the President's request includes $212 million
under the DCFA, a $10.4 million increase over fiscal year 2006. Of the
total requested amount, DEA proposes funding of $3.4 million for DCFA
program improvements. This funding would allow DEA to boost
intelligence support (33 Intelligence Analysts) needed for diversion
investigations. This request is a continuation of the fiscal year 2006
Diversion Intelligence Initiative, whose goal is to place one
Intelligence Analyst in every Field Division Diversion group.
Base Transfer
Since 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has annually
reimbursed DEA approximately $6 million to DEA for providing
counterterrorism related information to multiple federal agencies. The
President's Budget proposes that these resources (which fund 45
positions, including 11 Special Agents) would be permanently
transferred from the FBI to DEA.
OPPORTUNITIES AHEAD
Mr. Chairman, DEA continues to make steady progress in all facets
of its mission and has seen some encouraging trends, particularly as it
relates to drug use among our nation's children. In fact, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy reports that since 2001, teen drug use is
down by 19 percent and on track to decline by a total of 25 percent by
2007 to meet the President's drug use reduction goals. We are a key
partner in the effort through the DEA mission to reduce the drug supply
in America. Drug prevention will not take hold and treatment will not
succeed if Americans are surrounded by cheap and plentiful drugs. DEA
implements the President's National Drug Control Strategy by disrupting
the supply of illegal or diverted drugs, through national and
international attacks to dismantle the entire infrastructure of the
most significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations
that supply our nation's illicit drug market.
As you know, the devastation of drugs knows no bounds and takes an
enormous toll on both human lives and our country's economy. Moreover,
we are seeing that the global drug trade continues to be an evolving
national security threat to Americans at home and to our interests
abroad. To address these disturbing facts, DEA takes a proactive and
aggressive approach. In addition to the fiscal year 2007 initiatives I
have outlined, we will use our existing resources to focus on the
following areas during fiscal year 2006:
Establishing a Methamphetamine Task Force.--The fiscal year 2006
Department of Justice Appropriations Act directs the Attorney General
to establish a Methamphetamine Task Force (MTF) within DEA. The purpose
of the Task Force will be to improve and target the federal
government's policies related to the production and trafficking of
methamphetamine. The MTF is comprised of three DEA Special Agents, two
Diversion Investigators, one Program Analyst, and attorneys from DEA's
Office of Chief Counsel, and the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Policy and the Criminal Division's Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Section. These are veteran personnel with extensive experience and
knowledge in the field, who will acquire and analyze investigative and
intelligence information from numerous sources. Their analysis will
focus on trends in: chemical trafficking and manufacturing methods;
clandestine laboratory cleanup issues; changes in trafficking routes
and patterns; regional abuse and distribution patterns; chemical and
equipment sources and methods of procurement; foreign and domestic
precursor sources, and smuggling and methods of financing. The MTF will
propose recommendations for addressing issues identified from the
analysis, and forward them to the National Synthetic Drugs Interagency
Working Group for review and action.
Implementing the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.--As
you know, President Bush recently signed the USA PATRIOT Improvement
and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which includes the provisions of the
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. These provisions provide law
enforcement with the necessary tools to address the spread of
methamphetamine manufacture and abuse across the country and the
devastating effects that this drug is having on society. With these
much needed chemical control measures, clandestine laboratory operators
will have more difficulty in obtaining large quantities of
pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products at retail outlets for use in
methamphetamine manufacture. The Act also closes a loophole that
allowed importers to sell pseudoephedrine to companies that were not
identified on the original import notice, and enhance criminal
penalties for methamphetamine traffickers. These measures are part of a
comprehensive national approach toward controlling this growing problem
and protecting our nation's children.
Increasing Internet investigations and halting the diversion and
abuse of legal controlled substance pharmaceuticals.--The Internet has
increased the opportunities for diversion and is the means by which
many abusers are now purchasing Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs.
DEA's plan to target and dismantle online pharmacies, builds on the
successes of our online pharmacy strategy, which combines enforcement,
regulatory, and technological efforts to detect and prevent diversion.
The strategy calls for DEA to coordinate its Internet investigations
with Federal, State, and local agencies, and provide training for
investigators, prosecutors, the pharmaceutical industry, and DEA
registrants. We have supported legislative and regulatory initiatives
aimed at curtailing and preventing online diversion of controlled
substances. Finally, DEA has taken a leadership role in the development
and use of new technologies as investigative tools.
Improving the measures of effectiveness for DEA programs and
operations.--DEA is developing a management information tool, the Drug
Enforcement Strategic Target Analysis Review (DrugSTAR), to establish
links between a Priority Target's disruption or dismantlement and its
impact on drug availability. It will be a key component of the agency's
overall strategic management system. Using DrugSTAR, DEA will be able
to identify our challenges and best practices, focus on performance and
accountability, and demonstrate results in compliance with the Office
of Management and Budget's management requirements.
Under DrugStar, DEA also has been piloting the Significant
Investigation Impact Measurement System (SIIMS), which collects and
analyzes enforcement, public health, and social service statistics both
before an organization is taken down and for the 6 months that follow.
This analysis will determine whether DEA targeting and enforcement
operations had real impact and, if not, enable DEA to redirect
resources and revise operations to achieve great impact. The SIIMS
system has generated assessments of three takedown operations in 2005.
For example, a SIIMS assessment of a successful New Orleans operation
involving pain clinics and pharmacies revealed that the operation had
significant impact on the availability of diverted drugs in that area,
lasting for months after the enforcement operation. Specifically, SIIMS
analysis revealed that, among other things, there were no seizures by
DEA New Orleans of three illegally prescribed medications in the two
months following the operation. This type of information can be useful
when evaluating DEA's performance in reducing drug availability and for
reporting purposes for the Attorney General, Congress, and the Office
of National Drug Control Policy.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
Attachment
DRUG THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine is the most widely abused and most frequently
clandestinely produced synthetic drug \1\ in the United States.
Methamphetamine appeals to people across all genders, ages, and socio-
economic levels. Methamphetamine has a high rate of addiction, a low
rate of sustained recovery, and is cheap to manufacture. It has become
a problem of epidemic proportions in the United States, devastating
users, their families, and local communities. According to the 2004
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 583,000 persons 12 and
older used methamphetamine during the past 30 days (a 4 percent
decrease from 2003) and 1.4 million have used it in the past year, a 10
percent increase from 2003. The estimated number of past year
methamphetamine users is three times the number of estimated past year
heroin users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``synthetic drugs'' refers to controlled substances
such as methamphetamine, MDMA ``ecstasy'' (and its analogues), GHB (and
its analogues), ketamine, and other substances, which are not of
primarily organic origin and are usually associated with clandestine
manufacture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By effectively targeting and arresting the main suppliers of bulk
precursor chemicals, DEA has successfully reduced the number of ``super
labs'' \2\ in the United States. As a consequence, operators of ``super
labs'' have shifted their production to Mexico. Current drug and lab
seizure data suggest that 80 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in
the United States comes from larger labs, for the most part in Mexico,
and that approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine consumed comes
from the small, toxic laboratories (STLs) in the United States. STLs
generally are unaffiliated with major drug trafficking organizations,
but nevertheless present enormous environmental challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Super labs'' are those labs that are capable of producing at
least 10 pounds of methamphetamine per cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, the proliferation of STLs has been fueled by the
ready availability of pseudoephedrine, the key ingredient in
methamphetamine and by the fact that the manufacturing process is
simple, inexpensive, and recipes can be found easily on the Internet.
In 1990, there were 2 States with 20 or more clandestine laboratory
seizures. In 1996, this number increased to 10 States. In 2004, there
were over 40 States where 20 or more seizures of clandestine
laboratories occurred. From 2002 through 2005, more than 55,000 STLs
were discovered and seized.
According to the Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System database
located at the DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), 11,746 labs,
dumpsites, and chemicals, glass, and equipment were seized in the
United States in calendar year 2005. Of those seized, 5,308 labs were
capable of producing only up to one pound of methamphetamine per cycle.
In fiscal year 2005, DEA domestic seizures of methamphetamine totaled
3.1 metric tons, which is the equivalent to approximately 367 million
dosage units. Fiscal year 2005 seizures increased by 24 percent from
fiscal year 2004, when 2.5 metric tons were seized.
The most promising means of eliminating STLs is to choke off the
sources for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. DEA has removed a number of
distributors of grey market drug products (those that can be purchased
at truck stops, party/liquor stores, etc.) from the marketplace.
Following DEA's success with removing grey market distributors, STLs
have become heavily reliant on obtaining precursor chemicals from cold
and asthma drug products (usually packaged in blister packs) from
traditional retail outlets, such as chain drug stores. Based on
clandestine lab seizure statistics, those States restricting the
availability of methamphetamine precursor chemicals, like
pseudoephedrine, have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of small
toxic labs. With the enactment of Federal and State legislation
limiting the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine,
further reduction in the number of STLs is anticipated.
Once a STL has been identified, it must be dismantled. DEA assists
State and local law enforcement by providing hazardous waste contractor
clean-up services administered through Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS) grant funding. In fiscal year 2005, DEA administered
8,678 State and local clandestine clean ups. This is a decrease from
fiscal year 2004 when 9,474 clean ups were administered. In addition,
DEA has trained nearly 12,000 Federal, State, and local law enforcement
personnel since 1998 to conduct investigations and dismantle seized
methamphetamine labs to protect the public from methamphetamine lab
toxic waste.
At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 298
active DEA Priority Target Organization (PTO) investigations with
methamphetamine as the primary drug type. Seven (7) of the 44
organizations (16 percent) on the fiscal year 2006 Consolidated
Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list are engaged in methamphetamine
trafficking. At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there
were 157 active PTO investigations linked to those seven CPOTs. Since
the inception of the PTO program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 427
methamphetamine PTOs.
Operational Highlight: Operations Cold Remedy and Aztec
Flu.--From March 2003 to March 2005, as part of DEA's
Operations Cold Remedy and Aztec Flu, more than 5 metric tons
of 60 milligram tablets of pseudoephedrine were seized in the
United States, Mexico, and Panama--which could have yielded an
excess of 3 metric tons of methamphetamine. The seizures were
conducted by DEA with Mexico's Organized Crime Prosecutor's
Office and Hong Kong law enforcement authorities. Operations
Cold Remedy and Aztec Flu are investigations run under the
auspices of Project Prism, an international initiative aimed at
assisting governments in developing and implementing
cooperating procedures more effectively control and monitor
trade in amphetamine-type stimulant precursors to prevent their
diversion. Participants of Project Prism include 95 countries
and 5 international organizations.
Operational Highlight: MET Case Against Street Gang ``Satan's
Disciples''.--On March 7, 2006, the DEA Dallas Field Division
MET concluded a 9 month deployment and OCDETF/PTO investigation
that resulted in the dismemberment of seven methamphetamine
trafficking organizations and two crack cocaine organizations.
The investigation targeted Rocky Salazar who headed a street
gang named Satan's Disciples, responsible for distributing
methamphetamine in the Gainesville, Texas area. The Satan's
Disciples also distributed narcotics and laundered money in
three separate casinos located on Indian Reservations in nearby
Oklahoma. The investigation culminated with the arrest of 93
individuals (81 State and 12 Federal), including priority
target Salazar, and the seizure of 0.6 kilograms of crack
cocaine, 0.2 kilograms of powder cocaine, 2.5 kilograms of
marijuana, 8.8 kilograms of methamphetamine, 0.6 kilograms of
GHB, 65 firearms, $167,000 in U.S. currency, $70,000 in real
property, and four vehicles. DEA conducted this enforcement
operation together with ATF, BIA, the Chickasaw Indian Nation,
and State and local officers from Texas and Oklahoma.
Marijuana
Marijuana continues to be a significant threat because today's
potent marijuana causes more teens to be dependent on it. This is
supported by the following data: (1) More teens seek treatment for
marijuana dependency than for all other drugs combined including
alcohol. (2) Marijuana was involved in 79,663 emergency department
visits \3\ in calendar year 2003, second only to cocaine among drug-
related visits.\4\ (3) The 2004 NSDUH found that marijuana was the most
commonly used illicit drug with 14.6 million users (6.1 percent of the
population 12 and older) during the past month in calendar year 2004--
the same as in calendar year 2003.\5\ (4) Past year use of marijuana
remained unchanged statistically between calendar year 2003 and
calendar year 2004 at 10.6 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A visit to the emergency room is referred to as an episode, and
every time a drug is involved in an episode it is counted as a mention.
\4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
\5\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana trafficking is prevalent across the Nation, with both
domestic and foreign sources of supply. The most recent supply
availability estimates indicate that between 10,000 and 24,000 pure
metric tons of marijuana are available in the United States \6\ and
that Americans spend more than $10.4 billion every year on
marijuana.\7\ Since the demand for marijuana far exceeds that for any
other illegal drug and the profit potential is so high, some cocaine
and heroin drug trafficking organizations traffic marijuana to help
finance their other drug operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Drug Availability Steering Committee, Drug Availability
Estimates in the United States, December 2002.
\7\ Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug
Control Policy. What Americans Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-1998.
December 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican drug trafficking organizations dominate the transportation
and wholesale distribution of the majority of foreign-based marijuana
available in the United States and cultivate marijuana on U.S. public
lands throughout California. High grade marijuana from Canada, commonly
referred to as ``BC Bud,'' also is available in every region of the
United States.
At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 146
active PTO investigations with marijuana as the primary drug type.
Twelve (12) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006 CPOT list
(27 percent) are engaged in marijuana trafficking. At the end of the
first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 385 active DEA PTO
investigations linked to these 12 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO
program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 208 marijuana PTOs.
Operational Highlight: Operation Falling Star.--As of the end
of 2005, this Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF)/SOD coordinated operation targeting a Detroit and
Phoenix-based marijuana drug trafficking organization (DTO),
resulted in 63 arrests, and the seizure of $13.7 million in
cash, 16.4 metric tons of marijuana, 305 kilograms of cocaine,
14 properties, 22 vehicles, and 42 weapons, leading to the
dismantlement of the drug trafficking organization. The Detroit
target, Quasand Lewis, has been targeted for approximately 10
years by State and local law enforcement agencies for his
suspected involvement in several homicides and extensive drug
trafficking and witness intimidation. The focal point of the
investigation, Giovanni Ruanova, coordinated multi-million
dollar currency transportation routes and pick-ups from
Detroit.
Non-medical use of prescription drugs
Non-medical use of addictive prescription drugs has been increasing
throughout the United States at alarming rates. In calendar year 2004,
an estimated 6.0 million \8\ Americans age 12 and older reported past
month use of prescription drugs for non-medical purposes compared to
3.8 million in calendar year 20009 \9\--a 58 percent increase in 4
years. Nationally, the misuse of prescription drugs was second only to
marijuana in calendar year 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
\9\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse: Vol 1. Summary of National Findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual users can easily acquire prescription drugs through a
variety of means, generally dependent on type of drug. DEA and other
data sources reveal that OxyContin and other Schedule II drugs are
most commonly obtained illegally through ``doctor shopping'' or are
sold illegally by registrants (e.g., doctors/pharmacists). On the other
hand, Schedule III and Schedule IV drugs (e.g., anti-anxiety
medications, hydrocodone, and anabolic steroids) are often purchased
through the Internet. Many of these e-pharmacies are foreign-based and
expose the purchaser to potentially counterfeit, contaminated, or
adulterated products.
Operational Highlight: An Advanced Pain Management Case.--In
April 2005, DEA culminated a 5 year OCDETF and Priority Target
investigation that resulted in the dismantlement of a major
prescription drug trafficking organization and the seizure of
$1.6 million in cash, $4.7 million in financial and
approximately $4.8 million in real assets. Five individuals,
including three physicians, were arrested and charged with the
distribution of pharmaceutical controlled substances,
distribution of drugs to a minor, conspiracy, and money
laundering. The physicians prescribed a cocktail of
hydrocodone, Xanax and Soma to approximately 100-300 patients
per day under the guise of ``pain management''. To date, this
investigation has resulted in Immediate Suspensions of DEA
Registrations of the doctors and four pharmacies were also
issued.
DEA, in collaboration with its State and local law enforcement
counterparts, investigates registrants and non-registrants who
intentionally divert prescription drugs. DEA has made pharmaceutical
investigations a priority and continues to focus its drug enforcement
efforts toward the most important members of the drug supply chain. In
fiscal year 2005, DEA opened 1,672 investigations focused on the
diversion of pharmaceutical controlled substances by registrants and
non-registrants, an approximate increase of 11 percent over fiscal year
2004 (1,508). DEA's fiscal year 2005 Priority Target pharmaceutical
investigations of key drug supply organizations (59) represents a
dramatic increase (168 percent) over fiscal year 2004 (22).
Combating the diversion of OxyContin remains a priority within
DEA. Of the 1,668 open investigations in fiscal year 2005, 117 were
open OxyContin investigations involving 48 doctors. Of those 117
OxyContin investigations, 25 were Priority Target investigations.
The illicit sale of controlled pharmaceutical substances, including
narcotics, anti-anxiety medications, steroids, and amphetamines, is a
serious global problem and the Internet has become one of the most
popular sources for these products. DEA targets its investigations on
domestic Internet pharmacies using data from available data bases (such
as the Automated Reporting of Completed Orders System--ARCOS) to
determine which retail pharmacies are most likely involved in
distribution of large quantities of controlled substances over the
Internet. In fiscal year 2005, 11.2 percent of investigative work hours
dedicated to open diversion cases were Internet cases. This is an
increase of 30 percent from fiscal year 2004 when Internet cases
represented 8.6 percent of the investigative work hours dedicated to
open diversion cases. In fiscal year 2005, as a result of online
pharmacy investigations, DEA seized over $32 million in financial and
property assets. This is a 184 percent increase from fiscal year 2004
when asset seizures totaled $11 million.
Operational Highlight: Operation Cyber Chase.--In April 2005,
a 1-year, multi-jurisdictional OCDETF investigation (Operation
Cyber Chase) was concluded with the dismantlement of the Bansal
drug trafficking organization and the arrest of 20 individuals
in New York, Philadelphia, India, Costa Rica, Austria, and
Hungary. Those arrested were distributing drugs worldwide using
rogue Internet pharmacies to dispense controlled substances
directly to customers without a medical evaluation by a
physician. The Bansal organization used over 200 websites to
distribute 2.5 million dosage units of Schedule II through IV
pharmaceutical controlled substances per month. Electronic mail
communications among the co-conspirators included: ``It's not
easy to get rich. My goal is towards the upper echelon of
economic independence. All things considered, it should only
take about 800 million. That's um, 3,000 packs of valium sold a
day for 5 years. Well, that's actually about 921 mill, but I'm
not sure there'll be a few costs in there somewhere.'' As of
September 30, 2005, Operation Cyber Chase has resulted in 26
arrests, the seizure of 5.8 million dosage units of Schedule
II--IV controlled substances, 105 kilograms of Ketamine, and
$8.6 million.
Cocaine
Cocaine remains a major illegal drug of concern throughout the
United States based upon abuse indicators, violence associated with the
trade, and trafficking volume. After marijuana and prescription drugs,
cocaine continues to be the most widely used illicit drug among all age
categories. The 2004 NSDUH found that 2 million people used cocaine
within the past 30 days and that over 5.6 million people used it within
the past year. According to the 2003 DAWN report, cocaine is the most
frequently reported illegal drug in hospital emergency department
visits, accounting for 1 in 5 (20 percent) drug related emergency room
visits in calendar year 2003.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Columbia is the principal supplier of cocaine to the
United States, most of the wholesale cocaine distribution in the United
States is controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organizations and
criminal enterprises. Even in areas dominated by Colombian and
Dominican drug trafficking organizations, such as the Northeast and
Caribbean regions, the influence of Mexican drug trafficking
organizations is increasing.
At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were
1,028 active DEA PTO investigations with cocaine as the primary drug
type. Thirty-nine (39) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006
CPOT list (89 percent) are engaged in cocaine trafficking. At the end
of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 514 active PTO
investigations linked to these 39 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO
program, DEA has disrupted or dismantled 1,208 cocaine PTOs.
Operational Highlight: Operations Firewall and Panama
Express.--DEA's multi-agency cocaine interdiction programs--
known as Operation Firewall and Operation Panama Express--
combine investigative and intelligence resources to interdict
and disrupt the flow of cocaine from the northern coast of
Colombia to the United States. Since the July 2003 commencement
of Operation Firewall, 29.2 metric tons of cocaine have been
directly seized. In addition, Operation Firewall has provided
assistance in Operation Panama Express seizures of 33.2 metric
tons of cocaine, and in other foreign countries with the
seizure of 25.7 metric tons of cocaine. Since the February 2000
implementation of Operation Panama Express to December 31,
2005, 356 metric tons of cocaine have been seized, 109.2 metric
tons of cocaine have been scuttled, and 1,107 individuals
arrested. As of December 31, 2005, these combined operations
have resulted in total seizures of 410.9 metric tons of
cocaine.
Heroin
The overall demand for heroin in the United States is lower than
for other major drugs of abuse such as cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamine, and MDMA.\11\ However, one cause for concern is the
recent increase in heroin use. According to the 2004 NSDUH, 166,000
people aged 12 and older (0.1 percent) reported using heroin during the
past 30 days in calendar year 2003 compared to 119,000 (0.1 percent) in
calendar year 2003.\12\ Heroin remains readily available in major
metropolitan areas and is the third most frequently mentioned illegal
drug reported to DAWN by participating emergency departments after
cocaine and marijuana, accounting for 47,604 mentions in calendar year
2003.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. (2005). Overview of Findings
from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. Detailed Emergency
Department Tables from DAWN: 2003. December 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the heroin entering the United States is produced in South
America and Mexico. Although heroin production in these areas has
decreased in recent years, the production capacity remains sufficient
to meet U.S. demand for the drug.\14\ In 2004, Afghanistan produced
more than 90 percent of the worldwide heroin produced.\15\ However,
Afghanistan is not currently a major heroin supplier to the United
States; only about 8 percent of the U.S. supply comes from that
country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
(2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 240
active DEA PTO investigations with heroin as the primary drug type.
Fourteen (14) of the 44 organizations on the fiscal year 2006 CPOT list
(32 percent) are engaged in heroin trafficking. At the end of the first
quarter of fiscal year 2006, there were 514 active PTO investigations
linked to these 14 CPOTs. Since the inception of the PTO program, DEA
has disrupted or dismantled 357 heroin PTOs.
Operational Highlight: Operation Containment and FAST.--
Through Operation Containment, DEA is working with a coalition
of 19 countries from Central Asia, the Caucasus, Europe, and
Russia, to reduce the flow of Afghan heroin into world markets,
prevent Afghanistan from becoming a major heroin supplier to
the United States, and disrupt drug related terrorist
activities that could hamper the long term stabilization of the
Afghanistan government. In fiscal year 2005, Operation
Containment resulted in the seizure of 11.5 metric tons of
heroin, 1.3 metric tons of morphine base, 43.9 metric tons of
opium gum, 14.2 metric tons of precursor chemicals, and 248
clandestine opium, morphine, and heroin conversion
laboratories. By comparison, just 3 years prior, .47 metric
tons of heroin was seized, representing a 2,300 percent
increase in fiscal year 2005. Operation Containment also
resulted in the initiation of 146 investigations and led to the
disruption of two CPOTs, including the Haji Bashir Noorzai and
Haji Baz Mohammad organizations in fiscal year 2005. DEA's
Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team (FAST) Program augments
Operation Containment. Since being deployed in April 2005, the
FAST program has trained over 100 Afghan officers who work bi-
laterally with DEA's FAST teams. One successful FAST operation
occurred on June 18, 2005, when the DEA Kabul Country Office,
FAST, United Kingdom forces, and the U.S. trained Afghan
officers raided and destroyed four fully operational
clandestine heroin laboratories. One of the four opium-to-
morphine base conversion laboratories destroyed was one of the
largest seized in Afghanistan. Approximately 4.4 metric tons of
opium, hundreds of gallons of chemicals, four opium presses,
six opium vats, and 500 kilograms of soda ash were destroyed.
Transit Zones
The Southwest Border area is the principal arrival zone for most
illicit drugs smuggled into the United States. From that area, the
smuggled drugs are distributed throughout the country.
Most cocaine is transported from South America, particularly
Colombia, through the Mexico-Central America Corridor via the Eastern
Pacific transit zone (50 percent) and the Western Caribbean zone (40
percent). Most of the cocaine transiting these two areas is ultimately
smuggled into the country via the Southwest Border. The remaining 10
percent of cocaine transported from South America mostly transits the
Caribbean zones to Florida and the Gulf Coast.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
(2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment,
methamphetamine seizures increased from 1.12 metric tons in calendar
year 2002, to 1.73 metric tons in calendar year 2003, to 1.98 metric
tons in calendar year 2004. Most of the foreign-produced marijuana
available in the United States is smuggled into the country from Mexico
via the Southwest Border by Mexican drug trafficking organizations and
criminal groups, as evidenced by calendar year 2004 seizures of 1,103
metric tons on the Southwest Border versus 9.2 metric tons on the
Northern Border.
In calendar year 2004, seizures for Southwest Border points of
entry included 22.4 metric tons of cocaine, 388 kilograms of heroin,
1,070 metric tons of marijuana, and 2.3 metric tons of methamphetamine.
By comparison, seizures in the Florida/Caribbean arrival zone for the
same time period included 10.5 metric tons of cocaine, 481 kilograms of
heroin, 4.9 metric tons of marijuana and no methamphetamine.
Operational Highlight: Discovery of Narcotics Smuggling
Tunnel.--Acting on intelligence from a confidential source, in
January 2006, a joint investigation between DEA, Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, United States Border Patrol, and the
Mexican Policia Federal Preventia culminated in the discovery
of a narcotics smuggling tunnel. The tunnel spanned the United
States/Mexican border just east of the Otay Mesa, California
Port of Entry and resulted in the seizure of approximately two
tons of marijuana. The discovery of the tunnel followed an
extensive investigation resulting from DEA and ICE confidential
source information. The tunnel, approximately 86 feet deep and
nearly three-quarters of a mile long, originated inside a small
warehouse in Otay Mesa, Mexico, and exited inside a vacant
warehouse in San Diego, California.
FINANCIAL INVESTIGATIONS
Drug trafficking organizations are motivated by one thing--money.
According to the 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment, between $13.6
billion and $48.4 billion is generated annually by wholesale-level drug
distribution.\17\ To truly dismantle drug enterprises, we must attack
the drug trafficking organizations' ability to collect proceeds from
the drug trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center.
(2006). 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA has reenergized and refocused its attack on the financial
infrastructure of drug cartels. DEA's Office of Financial Operations
and specialized Money Laundering Groups in DEA's 21 domestic field
divisions principally target the drug money laundering systems and the
drug profits that flow back to the sources of drug supply. In fiscal
year 2005, DEA established a 5-year plan with annual milestones through
fiscal year 2009. The plan calls for DEA to increase seizures until we
seize drug profits at a level each year that will actually destroy drug
networks rather than being viewed by traffickers only as an expected
cost of doing business. To do this, DEA must seize $3 billion from drug
trafficking organizations each year. In the first year under this plan,
DEA denied drug traffickers $1.9 billion in revenue in fiscal year
2005--including $1.4 billion in seized assets and $477 million in drug
seizures--exceeding DEA's first year goal of $1 billion in seizures by
90 percent.
The smuggling of large sums of cash across our borders continues to
be the primary method used to expatriate drug proceeds from the United
States to the source countries. To address this increasing threat, the
DEA has initiated a bulk currency program to coordinate all U.S.
highway interdiction money seizures. Bulk currency cash seizures in
fiscal year 2005 totaled $407 million, a 28 percent increase over the
$317 million seized in fiscal year 2004.
Operational Highlight: Arrest of Martin Tremblay.--On January
20, 2006, Martin Tremblay, a Canadian national and President
and Managing Director of the Bahamas-based investment firm
``Dominion Investments, LTD'' was arrested by the DEA and other
Federal and State law enforcement agencies. Tremblay was
indicted for conspiracy to launder narcotics proceeds in a
long-term money laundering scheme from approximately 1998
through December 2005. Tremblay conspired to launder $1 billion
in illegal drug proceeds for ``Dominion Investment'' clients in
exchange for a substantial commission. Dominion Investment was
used by Tremblay to create shell companies and fictitious
entities to launder the drug proceeds he received to offshore
accounts in the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and
elsewhere around the world. Tremblay's activities as a money
launderer were first identified in an international DEA drug
investigation targeting subjects distributing GHB over the
Internet (Operations Webslinger and Black Goblin). Other
Federal and State law enforcement agencies involved in this
case include the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigations Division (IRS/CID) the New York State Police,
and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Strike Force in New
York, New York.
Operational Highlight: Operations Dirty Dinero/Common
Denominator.--On March 2, 2006, in a joint action between the
Colombian National Police and the Drug Enforcement
Administration, Financial CPOT Ricardo Mauricio BERNAL-
Palacios, his brother Juan BERNAL-Palacios and Tier 1 Money
Broker Camillo ORTIZ-Echevi were arrested in Bogota, Colombia.
These arrests were based on provisional arrest warrants filed
against the three in relation to a February 2006 indictment in
the Southern District of Florida charging 48 counts of money
laundering, 18 USC 1956(h) and one count of conspiracy to
distribute cocaine, 21 USC 846.
GANGS
Gangs have become an increasing threat to our nation's security and
the safety of our communities. Seventy-five percent of the United
States Attorneys report that parts of their districts currently have a
moderate or significant gang problem. Gangs commonly use drug
trafficking as a means to finance their criminal activities.
Furthermore, many have evolved from turf-oriented entities to profit-
driven, organized criminal enterprises whose activities include not
only retail drug distribution but also other aspects of the trade,
including smuggling, transportation and wholesale distribution.
Criminal street gangs, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs
are the primary retail distributors of illegal drugs on the streets of
the United States and the threat of these gangs is magnified by the
high level of violence associated with their attempts to control and
expand drug distribution operations. Gangs primarily transport and
distribute cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Authorities
throughout the country report that gangs are responsible for most of
the serious violent crime in the major cities of the United States.
DEA is committed to combating the gang problem within the United
States. As of February 7, 2006, approximately 12 percent (239) of DEA's
total active Priority Target investigations target gangs. In addition,
DEA's Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) target violent drug trafficking
organizations in areas where State, local, and Tribal law enforcement
is challenged by limited resources to counter the threat. Often, these
MET deployments target violent gangs involved in drug trafficking
activity, such as the Hell's Angels, Latin Kings, Bloods, Crips,
Mexican Mafia, and Gangster Disciples. In fiscal year 2004,
approximately 27 percent (11 of 40) of MET deployments targeted gangs.
Gang related MET deployments increased to 38 percent in fiscal year
2005, when 15 of 39 MET deployments initiated targeted gangs. Through
the second quarter of fiscal year 2006, 5 of 14 deployments (35
percent) targeted gangs.
DEA also recognizes the value of an integrated, collaborative and
comprehensive approach to multi-faceted gang organizations and their
operations. DEA participates in a number of anti-gang initiatives with
other law enforcement components, including Violent Crime Impact Teams,
Project Safe Neighborhoods, Weed and Seed Program, Safe Streets and
Safe Trails Task Forces and the Attorney General's Anti-Gang
Coordination Committee.
Operational Highlight: Operation Motor City Mafia.--Operation
Motor City Mafia was a Special Operations Division-supported,
OCDETF and PTO investigation of the Black Mafia Family (BMF).
DEA and the Internal Revenue Service identified the BMF as a
major cocaine and crack cocaine distribution organization with
cells in major metropolitan cities including Detroit, Atlanta,
Los Angeles, Miami, St. Louis, Orlando, and Louisville. The BMF
uses the rap music industry to distribute hundreds of kilograms
of cocaine and to launder millions of dollars in drug proceeds.
The BMF has used intimidation, violence, and murder to maintain
their strong presence among their urban drug trafficking
organizations. As of January 27, 2006, Operation Motor City
Mafia resulted in the arrest of 53 defendants and the seizure
of 385 kilograms of cocaine, 1.2 metric tons of marijuana, $4.6
million, and other assets valued at over $16 million.
STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE
DEA provides direct assistance to State and local law enforcement
agencies through its State and Local Law Enforcement Officer Training
program, State and Local Task Force program, and Mobile Enforcement
Team (MET) program. In addition, DEA provides clandestine laboratory
clean up assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies.
State and Local Training.--DEA trained 22 percent more State and
local officers in fiscal year 2005 (41,853) than fiscal year 2004
(34,183), including training in responding to clandestine laboratories,
drug diversion, and law enforcement intelligence. Sec.
State and Local Task Forces.--DEA's partnerships with Federal,
State, local, and international law enforcement entities serve as force
multipliers in our efforts to reduce the availability of illicit drugs
in America. As of the end of first quarter fiscal year 2006, DEA's
State and Local Task Forces numbered 214 and included over 2,500
authorized Task Force Officers with more than 1,100 authorized DEA
Special Agents.
Mobile Enforcement Teams.--In April 1995, DEA created the MET
Program to assist State, local, and Tribal law enforcement in the
disruption or dismantlement of violent drug trafficking organizations
and gangs. Since March 2005, METs have prioritized deployments on
methamphetamine, targeting repeat meth offenders and clandestine
laboratory operators in areas of the United States that have a limited
DEA presence. Since the re-direction of MET, 44 percent (20 out of 45)
of new MET deployments opened in fiscal year 2005 were methamphetamine
deployments. This is nearly double the methamphetamine deployments by
METs from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2004. During this period, an
average of 24 percent of new MET deployments were focused on
methamphetamine.
Hazardous Waste Program.--Established in 1990 to address
environmental concerns from the seizure of clandestine drug
laboratories, DEA's hazardous waste program promotes the safety of law
enforcement personnel and the public by using highly qualified
companies with specialized training and equipment to perform the
removal of the methamphetamine-related wastes at seized laboratories.
In fiscal year 2005, DEA administered 8,678 State and local clandestine
clean ups. In addition, DEA has trained nearly 12,000 Federal, State,
and local law enforcement personnel since 1998 to conduct
investigations and dismantle seized methamphetamine labs to protect the
public from methamphetamine lab toxic waste. To accelerate the clean up
process and reduce costs borne by State and local governments
associated with seized sites, DEA has developed a hazardous waste
container program that will allow for the central collection of waste
products, reducing the time and expense of lab clean ups. A pilot
program in Kentucky produced savings of $800,000 in fiscal year 2005
and approximately $500,000 in fiscal year 2004.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
STATEMENT OF CARL J. TRUSCOTT, DIRECTOR
Senator Shelby. Mr. Truscott.
Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mikulski,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year
2007 budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives. I appreciate very much the support----
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Shelby. Yes, Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. And I apologize, you know, you are my
favorite chairman the way you run things. I just got called. I
have to go back for the immigration bill. Would it be possible
to ask Administrator Tandy just a couple of short questions? I
may get stuck on the floor.
Senator Shelby. Can you just submit them for the record,
where we can keep it going? If you would submit them for the
record.
Senator Leahy. Well----
Senator Shelby. I would rather you just submit them for the
record.
Senator Leahy. Okay, I will try to come back, because I
find when I submit them, I never get the answers.
Senator Shelby. We will lose our rhythm otherwise.
Senator Leahy. All right.
Senator Shelby. I appreciate it, Senator Leahy, but we've
got to keep the subcommittee going.
Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the
support that this subcommittee has given to ATF and the
interest it has demonstrated in ATF's missions and programs.
Thanks to the leadership and support of this subcommittee and
the dedication and diligence of the men and women of ATF, we
are improving the lives of Americans.
Your investments in our efforts produce real results, safer
neighborhoods where all of us can live without fear. The
statement I provided for the record goes into great detail on
ATF's programs and accomplishments, so I will use the time I
have today to briefly highlight our budget request, which
includes expansion of our violent crime impact team program,
one of ATF's most effective initiatives. I will also provide a
brief overview of our response to the recent church fires in
rural Alabama and our activities in support of the coalition
forces in Iraq.
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS BUDGET REQUEST
The President's budget for fiscal year 2007 requests $860
million and 5,030 full-time equivalent positions for ATF. The
President's request also includes $120 million from a fee on
explosive industry operations, which would bring our total
resources to $980 million. I believe these investments will
provide essential benefits to the American people.
VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAMS
Our fiscal year 2007 request includes new funds for the
VCIT program. VCIT is a focused and cooperative law enforcement
component of the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods
Initiative. Through VCIT, ATF-led teams work with local law
enforcement to identify and arrest the most violent offenders,
including gang members in specific geographic locations with
high crime rates. The program began in 15 selected communities
and since has expanded to a total of 23, and because VCIT has
proven so successful, the administration has requested $16
million and 44 FTEs to support the initiative and offer more
Americans the opportunity to enjoy safer neighborhoods.
ALABAMA CHURCH FIRES INVESTIGATION
Mr. Chairman, I want to inform you and the subcommittee of
the steps that we have taken, including my colleagues here at
the table, to respond to the church fires in rural Alabama in
early February. We view the intentional burning of a place of
worship as a violent attack on the community's well being. Upon
learning of the fires, ATF immediately activated our national
response teams to investigate the fires. The teams include
special agents, forensic chemists, fire protection engineers,
accelerant detection canines, geographic and criminal
profilers.
ATF's partnership with Federal, State, and local law
enforcement was vital to this effort. I am pleased to report
that through law enforcement's hard work, this investigation
was brought to a successful conclusion. Three individuals were
indicted in connection with the church fires and are being
charged with one count of conspiracy and nine counts of arson.
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND IRAQ
With respect to Iraq, ATF is contributing the expertise of
our special agents and our explosive enforcement officers to
the combined explosives exploitation cells. In cooperation with
the U.S. Army, we are training Army explosive units at our
National Center for Explosives Training and Research, and we
are doing that prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition,
ATF provides post-blast training for U.S. and coalition forces
in Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police. ATF-trained
explosive detection canines are also deployed there. ATF has
special agents assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office to
investigate in the investigation and the prosecution of war
crimes. ATF personnel are also working in support of the newly
established U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
I have referenced several of our activities in support of
our mission to prevent terrorism, reduce violent crime, and
protect our Nation. We are committed to working directly and
through partnerships to investigate and reduce crime involving
firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and illegal trafficking
of alcohol and tobacco products.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, ranking member Mikulski, members
of this subcommittee, on behalf of ATF, I thank you for your
support of our crucial work. I also thank you for this
opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl J. Truscott
Mr. Chairman, Senator Mikulski, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
accomplishments of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) and the President's fiscal year 2007 Budget for ATF.
As you know, ATF is a principal law enforcement agency within the
United States Department of Justice dedicated to preventing terrorism,
reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation. The men and women of
ATF perform the dual responsibilities of enforcing Federal criminal
laws and regulating the firearms and explosives industries. We are
committed to working directly, and through partnerships, to investigate
and reduce crime involving firearms and explosives, acts of arson, and
illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products.
I appreciate very much the support the subcommittee has given to
ATF and the interest it has demonstrated in ATF's missions and
programs. Thanks to the leadership and support of this committee, and
the dedication and diligence of the men and women of ATF, our efforts
are producing real results: safer neighborhoods, where all of us can
live without fear.
With your support during the fiscal year 2006 appropriations
process, ATF received funding to expand its Violent Crime Impact Teams
(VCIT), participate in the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center
(TEDAC), and plan a permanent facility for the National Center for
Explosives Training and Research (NCETR). These investments are in
direct support of ATF's core mission.
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2007 builds on your
fiscal year 2006 investments with $16 million to further enhance VCIT,
a focused and cooperative law enforcement component of the President's
Project Safe Neighborhoods (SN) initiative.
RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA
Before I give an overview of ATF programs and our fiscal year 2007
budget request, first I would like to briefly inform the committee of
the resources we deployed to the Gulf Region and the efforts we
undertook as part of the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
In the week proceeding Katrina making landfall in New Orleans, we
prepared by identifying resources and personnel to send to the affected
areas and held daily meetings and teleconferences of our Emergency
Management Working Group. On August 30, one day after Katrina made
landfall, we activated our Continuity of Operations (COOP) site in
Mandeville, Louisiana, and established an alternative division office
in Shreveport, Louisiana. At that time, we also began planning forward
command posts in Mandeville, New Orleans, and Biloxi, Mississippi, and
decided to establish a Critical Incident Management Response Team
(CIMRT) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. ATF field offices from across the
Nation immediately began moving manpower and equipment to the region,
while personnel in the affected areas made locating missing ATF
employees their top priority. In the following days, we deployed two
Special Response Teams (SRTs) to New Orleans to address, in
coordination with the New Orleans Police Department, the looting and
violence in the aftermath of the storm.
Despite catastrophic damage to our facilities, the onerous
logistics of re-establishing operations, and the severe personal
hardships endured by our personnel, I am proud to point out that ATF
was able, without interruption or a reduction in effectiveness, to
continue our mission of enforcing Federal law and safeguarding the
public. By September 22, less than 4 weeks after the levee breaches in
New Orleans, ATF had assisted with over 600 law enforcement actions.
Twelve arrests were made by ATF, including the September 5th arrest of
a suspect who was observed by ATF SRT members firing on a helicopter
conducting relief efforts. This arrest was the first of many Federal
arrests, both by ATF and other Federal partners, for firearms
violations in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
ATF was given primary jurisdiction in the 1st and 8th Police
Districts in New Orleans, responded to firearms-related calls, stopped
looting, assisted in rescue operations, provided surveillance, assisted
in the establishment of a detention center, and provided security to
Assistant United States Attorneys. During that time, ATF also
proactively reached out to all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and
Federal Explosives Licensees (FELs) in affected areas. As an extension
of those efforts, we established a toll-free number for FFLs and FELs
to contact ATF regarding the status of their premises, records, and
inventory; and we instituted a plan to systematically inspect all 742
FFLs and 182 FELs where looting and flooding occurred.
IRAQ
I would also like to provide the committee with a brief overview of
our activities in support of the coalition forces in Iraq before I move
on to a discussion of ATF programs. I would like to thank the committee
for its support for ATF's fiscal year 2006 Iraq Supplemental request.
Currently, ATF is contributing the expertise of its special agents and
Explosives Enforcement Officers to the Iraq Combined Exploitation Cells
(CEXCs). This participation has been praised by the Department of
Defense. In cooperation with the U.S. Army, we are training Army
explosives units at our National Center for Explosives Training and
Research (NCETR) prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition, ATF
provides post-blast training for United States and coalition forces in
Iraq and for the Iraqi National Police, and ATF-trained explosives
detection canines are deployed in Iraq. ATF also has special agents
assigned to the Regime Crimes Liaison Office in Iraq to assist in the
investigation and prosecution of war crimes.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST
ATF's mission supports the priorities of the administration and the
Department under the Department's Strategic Goals 1 and 2, to ``Prevent
Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security'' and ``Enforce Federal
Laws and Represent the Rights of the American People.''
The President's 2007 budget request for ATF is 5,030 FTE and
$860,128,000 for salaries and expenses and for program enhancements,
offset by a $20,000,000 reduction in the firearms decision unit and a
$120,000,000 explosives user fee.
The fiscal year 2007 request includes funds for the expansion of
the VCIT program. VCIT is one of ATF's most effectively designed
initiatives and is an important part of PSN. The President's budget
requests $16,000,000 and 44 FTE to further enhance the initiative and
offer more Americans the opportunity to live in safer neighborhoods.
This initiative would increase the number of VCIT teams from 25 to 40
in the coming fiscal year.
FIREARMS
ATF enforces Federal firearms laws and provides requested support
to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight
against crime and violence. Our agents investigate a broad range of
firearms violations that can be generally divided into three
categories:
--investigations of those persons who are prohibited by law from
possessing firearms, such as felons, illegal aliens, and drug
traffickers;
--investigations of persons possessing firearms that are generally
prohibited, such as machineguns and sawed-off shotguns; and
--investigations of firearms trafficking.
From these types of investigations, ATF agents concentrate on
firearms traffickers diverting firearms out of lawful commerce into the
hands of criminals. Firearms trafficking investigations can be complex
and time-consuming. They can involve illegal straw purchases of
firearms for those unable to legally possess firearms, illegal dealing
at gun shows or other locations, robberies of gun stores, and thefts
from interstate shipments.
We are a major participant in the administration's PSN initiative,
which began in 2001. This cooperative program builds upon the
enforcement efforts of the past, and includes the use of advanced
technology and effective sharing of intelligence and information. Law
enforcement, prosecutors, and community leaders work together on
deterrence and prevention. Agencies develop focused enforcement
strategies to investigate, arrest, and prosecute violent offenders,
prohibited possessors of firearms, domestic and international firearms
traffickers, and others who illegally attempt to acquire firearms. ATF,
local law enforcement, U.S. attorneys, and local prosecutors evaluate
cases and seek the most appropriate venue for firearms prosecution. The
Department filed 10,841 federal firearms cases in fiscal year 2005--a
73 percent increase since PSN's inception. ATF-related firearms
investigations resulted in over 8,300 convictions in fiscal year 2005.
VIOLENT CRIME IMPACT TEAMS
In June 2004, former Attorney General Ashcroft, former Deputy
Attorney General Comey, and I announced the VCIT initiative, a new
program to reduce violent crime in specific geographic locations with
high crime rates. Through VCIT, ATF-led teams work with local law
enforcement to identify and arrest the most violent offenders in each
area. The program began in 15 selected communities and has since
expanded to a total of 23. VCITs are now in place in: Albuquerque, New
Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Baton Rouge and New
Orleans, Louisiana; Camden, New Jersey; Columbus, Ohio; Fresno and Los
Angeles, California; Greensboro, North Carolina; Hartford, Connecticut;
Houston and Laredo, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami and Tampa, Florida;
Minneapolis, Minnesota; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania;
Richmond, Virginia; Tucson, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma; and the
Washington, DC/Northern Virginia area. We plan to expand to 25 cities
in this fiscal year and 40 cities in fiscal year 2007.
ATF-led VCIT teams in these cities bring the targeted area's
Federal, State, local and Tribal law enforcement officials together.
The VCIT strategy counsels each team to create an individualized
strategy, then to work together to remove those responsible for violent
crime. Civic leaders and law enforcement officials have praised VCIT's
positive impact on their communities. I am proud to note that, in
August 2005, six ATF personnel received the Attorney General's
Outstanding Contributions to Community Partnerships for Public Safety
Award, honoring them for developing, organizing, and implementing VCIT.
ANTI-GANG EFFORTS
We have developed expertise in working against criminal groups,
particularly gangs. As such, ATF played an integral role in the
development of the Department of Justice's Gang Strategy Report for the
House Appropriations Committee. This reflects our years of experience
in working against violent gangs, including outlaw motorcycle
organizations active in firearms and narcotics trafficking. In fact,
ATF oversees a comprehensive gang strategy, combining education,
prevention, training, and a variety of criminal enforcement tactics to
take violent gang members and their organizations off the streets. As
part of the strategy, ATF shares investigative information with other
law enforcement agencies on gangs nationally through its case
management system. This system allows every agent and task force member
the ability to access information about other cases in order to
coordinate efforts.
Our efforts have resulted in ATF referring more than 7,750 gang
members and their associates to Federal and State prosecutors for
prosecution during the past 5 years--3,100 of them during fiscal year
2005 alone--for charges including firearms violations, continuing
criminal enterprise violations, Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO) violations, and arson and explosives
violations. During this same 5-year period, as a result of our
investigations, more than 3,000 gang members have been convicted of
firearms offenses. In the past 2 fiscal years, we also traced more than
12,000 firearms linked to gang activity to assist in developing
investigative leads for law enforcement.
The Regional Area Gang Enforcement (RAGE) unit, an ATF led task
force, was established in June 2003 to contend with the growing Latino
gang problems in the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC
Metropolitan region. RAGE has had contact with and identified
approximately 1,000 members of various Latino gangs in this area. RAGE
is currently comprised of investigators from ATF, ICE, FBI, Prince
George's County Police, Maryland National Capital Park Police, Howard
County Police, Montgomery County Police, Hyattsville City Police,
Fairfax County (VA) Police and Maryland State Police. RAGE
investigators have identified three Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) cliques
which are the most violent and involved in criminal activity, and
consequently present the greatest threat to the public and law
enforcement. MS-13 is an extremely violent street gang with documented
involvement in homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults, carjacking,
citizen robberies, prostitution, firearm trafficking, extortion,
witness intimidation, auto theft, burglaries and other crimes.
SOUTHWEST BORDER INITIATIVE
In October 2005, the Attorney General established an ATF-led VCIT
in Laredo, Texas, to address increased violent crime along the border
between the United States and Mexico. The Laredo VCIT serves as the
focal point for ATF's Southwestern Border Initiative. This Initiative
coordinates resources from four field divisions and previously
established VCITs in Tucson, Albuquerque, and Houston. The initiative
fights regional and cross-border violence and firearms trafficking by
employing the tools of the VCIT strategy--geographic targeting,
partnership and technology. ATF is working closely with the Laredo
Police Department to identify targeted geographical areas and the worst
offenders. ATF also is working in a reciprocal partnership with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] lending support to Operation
Community Shield and Operation Blackjack while ICE supports VCIT to
ensure the full use of the expertise and resources of both agencies.
Through its International Programs Branch, ATF is working closely with
the Mexican government to ensure that U.S.-sourced firearms recovered
in Mexico are properly identified and documentation is submitted to ATF
for tracing. ATF uses the trace results to identify and investigate
firearms traffickers who illegally divert firearms to drug traffickers.
Other technologies being used include crime gun mapping and ballistic
tracing.
NATIONAL TRACING CENTER
ATF's National Tracing Center (NTC) is the largest operation of its
kind in the world. This facility conducts traces of firearms recovered
at crime scenes for any Federal, State, local, or international law
enforcement agency. In fiscal year 2005, the NTC traced over 260,000
firearms. The NTC stores information concerning multiple sales of
firearms, suspect guns, and firearms with obliterated serial numbers,
and is also the only repository for all records of FFLs that have gone
out of business. The NTC provides ATF personnel and other law
enforcement agencies with crime gun data specific to their geographic
areas, and helps them identify emerging trends and patterns in
firearms-related criminal activity.
In the conference report accompanying the Consolidated
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005, Congress expressed support for
the NTC Program known as Access 2000 and encouraged us to emphasize and
expand it. I am pleased to inform the committee that we have done so.
Under the Access 2000 initiative, which benefits both ATF and our
industry partners, servers supplied by ATF have been installed at 49
firearms manufacturers and major wholesale distributors, all of them
FFLs, who have voluntarily partnered with ATF in this effort. FFLs
enter firearms information into the servers; the NTC connects to these
servers remotely and can obtain information on a firearm's disposition
in the course of a crime gun trace. This program substantially reduces
administrative costs to the FFL and the time it takes ATF to trace a
firearm.
In order to reduce violent crime, ATF will continue to develop and
employ technology that will help law enforcement at all levels. Through
the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) Program,
ATF has installed automated ballistic comparison equipment at 230 sites
in participating forensic laboratories in the continental United States
and its territories, giving these State and local law enforcement
agencies the opportunity to identify ballistic links between crimes not
otherwise known to be connected.
EXPLOSIVES
In addition to our investigative efforts against firearms
trafficking and violent firearms crime, ATF agents investigate
bombings, unlawful distribution of explosives, thefts of explosives,
and other violations of explosives laws. ATF industry operation
investigators (IOIs) ensure that the manufacture, importation, and
commerce in explosives are conducted lawfully. Other programs combine
advanced technology with ATF's years of expertise, providing critical
intelligence for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to use in
investigating explosives incidents in their areas.
As part of the Department of Justice's efforts to ensure the
coordination of explosives investigations, explosives information
sharing, and other related explosives matters amongst its law
enforcement components, the Department of Justice reviewed the
explosive programs of ATF, FBI, and others and on August 11, 2004,
issued a policy memo outlining roles and responsibilities as they
relate to explosives issues. Former Attorney General Ashcroft's policy
memorandum regarding coordination of explosives investigation and
related matters helped to clarify the responsibilities of ATF, and a
few of the decision points are as follows:
--Mandated that ATF would control the investigation of all explosives
incidents except those related to terrorism and those where the
FBI has traditionally exercised jurisdiction [bank robberies,
organized crime, etc].
--Tasked ATF to maintain all DOJ arson and explosives databases
currently maintained by other DOJ components.
--Mandated the consolidation within ATF of all budget, curriculum,
teaching, and scheduling functions related to DOJ post-blast
explosives training for Federal, State, local, and
international entities.
--Directed ATF to establish standards to certify all explosives
detection canines used by DOJ components.
I am honored by the confidence that the Attorney General placed in
ATF when he made these decisions. Mr. Chairman, I believe that these
policies will be responsible for significant financial efficiencies.
ATF strives to investigate each and every report of theft or loss
of explosives in the United States in order to ensure that these
explosives do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. In
fiscal year 2005 alone, ATF's diligent investigative efforts have led
to the recovery of more than 15,000 pounds of high explosives, in
addition to 1,533 pounds of low explosives, 5,280 blasting agents,
14,356 detonators, and 6,859 grenades. Mr. Chairman, the recovery of
these items has made our Nation a safer place.
At the end of last year, the theft of a large quantity of
explosives and detonators garnered significant public attention. On
December 18, 2005, ATF, the Albuquerque Police Department, the
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Department, the New Mexico State Police,
and the FBI began investigating the theft of approximately 400 pounds
of explosives from a Federal Explosive Licensee (FEL) located just
outside Albuquerque, New Mexico. Five subjects have been subsequently
arrested and charged with Federal explosives- and firearms-related
violations. All of the stolen explosives have subsequently been
recovered with the exception of one or two detonators.
While all ATF special agents receive substantial explosives-related
training, special agents who qualify as certified explosives
specialists (CESs) are among the most experienced, best-trained
explosives experts in the Federal Government. They conduct explosives
crime scene examinations, lend expertise in support of security
measures implemented at special events, and assist ATF's law
enforcement counterparts at the Federal, State, local, and
international levels in their efforts to investigate explosives-related
incidents. CESs are highly trained in all aspects of explosives
handling, instruction, identification, demonstration, and destruction.
Because of their proficiency in explosives investigation, CESs are used
regularly as instructors for explosives-related training throughout the
United States and at the International Law Enforcement Academies in
Budapest, Hungary; Bangkok, Thailand; and Gaborone, Botswana.
ATF has other experts in the field of explosives. ATF's explosives
enforcement officers (EEOs) provide technical assistance and support in
explosives matters. These bomb technicians have between 12 and 35 years
of experience in explosives and bomb disposal. EEOs render explosive
devices safe, disassemble explosive and incendiary devices, prepare
destructive device determinations, and render expert testimony in
support of such determinations in State and Federal criminal court
proceedings. EEOs also provide expert analysis and onsite investigative
technical assistance at bombing and arson scenes and other scenes where
explosions of an undetermined nature have occurred. They provide
assistance and training in all aspects of explosives handling, usage,
and destruction; threat vulnerability assessments; and all other
explosives-related matters for ATF and State and local law enforcement
agencies. EEOs use a full range of bomb disposal equipment including
such robotic equipment as the All-purpose Remote Transport System
(ARTS), which is designed to remotely disrupt car and truck bombs that
are too large to disarm by traditional methods--ATF is one of the few
Federal agencies with ARTS capability.
To comply with the Attorney General's 2004 August memorandum, ATF
has transferred the Arson and Explosives National Repository (AENR) to
the United States Bomb Data Center (USBDC). The information maintained
within the USBDC is this country's most comprehensive set of data
describing fire/explosion incidents. The incidents are divided into
specific categories such as targets, locations, motives, and victims.
Trends, patterns, and criminal methodologies, as well as the identities
of known previous offenders, can be derived from the data set. Most
importantly, ATF agents or other law enforcement officials can contact
USBDC to query the construction characteristics of an explosive device,
and match the device to others with similar characteristics.
ATF is now using the latest information management technology to
make case information available to law enforcement nationwide through
the Bomb Arson Tracking System (BATS). This program facilitates and
promotes the collection and dissemination of fire, arson, and
explosives incidents and information among participating agencies. Law
enforcement agencies are able to enter their case information and query
information entered by others, both locally and across agencies. BATS
benefits its users by providing real-time incident-based information,
records management functions, and there are plans to incorporate a
feature providing spatial representation of incidents via an integrated
Geographical Information System--all within a secure law enforcement
environment. Eventually, the wealth of case information available
through the USBDC will also be accessible through BATS.
ATF is sharing its expertise by training Federal, State, local,
military, and international bomb technicians and investigators in
explosives disposal and investigation techniques at NCETR, currently
located at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. ATF offers numerous advanced
courses related to explosives disposal and post-blast investigation
techniques at NCETR, which was authorized in the Homeland Security Act
of 2002. As previously noted, we are currently training Army explosives
units prior to their deployment to Iraq. In addition, ATF provides
post-blast training to members of the Department of State, the Naval
Criminal Investigative Service, and the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations. Since ATF began holding training classes at Fort A.P.
Hill in 2000, we have provided training to more than 4,000 Federal,
State, local, and international bomb technicians and investigators. The
fiscal year 2006 conference agreement (Public Law109-108) provides $5.0
million in funding for site selection, architectural design, site
preparation for the construction of a permanent site for NCETR. In
considering site selection, ATF is directed to consider a site co-
located with other law enforcement and Federal government entities that
provides similar training and research. The dynamic of these collective
resources will provide a unique opportunity to leverage assets,
knowledge, and expertise in the field, providing Federal, State and
local law enforcement explosives expertise at a single location.
ARSON
ATF's arson investigative work includes two recent high-profile
arson cases. In December 2004, fires were set in a new housing
development in Charles County, Maryland, resulting in damage to over 30
homes--a number of which were completely destroyed. Our agents
investigated and our state-of-the-art Forensic Science Laboratory
analyzed all of the evidenced gathered. The results of our efforts were
two guilty pleas and a conviction. The second example is the District
of Columbia (D.C.) serial arsonist investigation. From June 2003
through April 2005, ATF, with other law enforcement organizations,
investigated over 50 fires in the District of Columbia and adjoining
Prince Georges County, Maryland. These fires caused considerable loss
of property for residents, and in the District of Columbia, were
responsible for the deaths of two people. We examined more than 1,000
leads and 1,300 suspects and were ultimately able to identify the
person responsible using DNA evidence. In June, the defendant pled
guilty to 50 arsons and two counts of murder. In subsequent interviews,
he has acknowledged setting as many as 350 additional fires. By
investigating and solving these crimes with our State and local
partners, we are also helping to prevent future arsons.
ATF's arson enforcement efforts are an integral part of ATF's
overall violent crime reduction strategy, and are directed toward
preventing the crime of arson, providing effective post-incident
response, and reducing the community impact of crimes involving fire.
ATF investigative efforts are generally focused on arsons of Federal
interest, including those at houses of worship, commercial buildings,
and reproductive health clinics. In fiscal year 2005, ATF opened nearly
2,000 fire investigations. I would like to address some of ATF's arson
program areas and assets, including the certified fire investigator
(CFI) program, ATF's response to animal-rights and environmental-rights
extremism, the ATF Church Arson Task Force, and the ATF Fire Research
Laboratory.
After fire departments extinguish the flames, the work begins for
cause and origin investigators who must determine whether the fire was
intentionally set and whether a crime was committed. The agents
participating in ATF's CFI program are at the forefront of fire
investigation. The special agents who participate in this program are
the only federally trained and federally certified cause and origin
investigators in the Federal Government. These CFIs are able to qualify
as expert witnesses, that is, opinion witnesses, in fire cause and
origin determinations. Each CFI has participated in hundreds of
investigations and has undergone hundreds of hours of training to
qualify in giving expert testimony. The CFI program is the only one of
its type in Federal law enforcement and has received national and
international acclaim. ATF currently has CFIs who are based in 39
States and provide support to the entire United States and its
territories.
ATF also investigates bombings and crimes of arson by environmental
and animal rights extremists, such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Because of ATF's expertise in
these areas, we have made these investigations a priority and will
continue to do so. In the last several years we have initiated about
100 explosives and arson investigations believed to be linked to ALF
and ELF. Most recently, 11 defendants were indicted by a Federal grand
jury on 65 counts including arson, conspiracy and destruction of an
energy facility for allegedly participating in a criminal campaign in
five western states on behalf of ELF and ALF. In the past, many of the
fires set by these extremists have been set utilizing a particular
methodology, and the USBDC--which has records and intelligence on these
acts spanning decades--stands ready to assist fire investigators in
determining the methodology used in future incidents, linking events,
and identifying suspects.
One of the most painful and destructive crimes that ATF
investigates is arson directed at houses of worship. In fiscal year
2005, ATF responded to approximately 223 such fires and explosives
incidents. Out of that number, 108 of the fires were determined to be
incendiary, that is, set by human hands. Those 108 arsons caused over
$23 million in damage.
In addition to the Forensic Science Laboratory, one of ATF's newer
fire investigation resources is the Fire Research Laboratory (FRL). The
FRL houses a one-of-a-kind fire test center with the capability of
replicating initial fire scenarios approaching a quarter acre in size,
to scale, and under controlled conditions allowing for detailed
analysis. This facility is the only such facility in the United States
that is dedicated to providing case support in fire investigations
using forensic fire science, and the facility will support ATF's
investigative requirements well into the future.
CRIMINAL DIVERSION OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO
ATF is engaged in ongoing efforts to reduce the rising trend of the
illegal diversion of alcohol and tobacco products by criminal gangs,
organized crime, and terrorist groups. In fiscal year 2002 we had 61
defendants, 35 arrests, and 18 convictions relating to tobacco
diversion. In fiscal year 2005, we had 314 defendants, 162 arrests, and
73 convictions, increases of 515 percent, 463 percent, and 406 percent
respectively. From the hijacking of tractor trailer loads and cargo
containers of cigarettes, to the armed robbery of tobacco retailers,
wholesalers, and distributors, to traditional smuggling conspiracies,
ATF has successfully investigated and prosecuted the criminals
involved. Current investigations have identified several instances of
terrorist groups forming alliances with tobacco traffickers to generate
funding to support their organizations and activities. We have built
complex cases against individuals and organizations that have used
proceeds from the illegal sales of cigarettes to fund organized crime
and terrorism, and these cases have been successfully prosecuted. ATF
also works in partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies
to enforce the laws under their jurisdiction. Where a terrorism nexus
is present, ATF works with the local Joint Terrorism Task Force.
Illegal trafficking of ATF-regulated commodities using the Internet
is a growing problem, particularly with tobacco products. The illicit
sale of tobacco products via the Internet is increasing and causing a
substantial loss of excise tax revenue to Federal and State
Governments. ATF utilizes laws such as the Contraband Cigarette
Trafficking Act and Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud, and money laundering
statutes to interdict illicit interstate cigarette distribution via the
Internet and the mail.
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS: ATF'S DUAL ROLE
ATF's role in Federal firearms and explosives laws, with both
regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, is unique. ATF industry
operations investigators ensure that the manufacture, import, and sale
of firearms and explosives are conducted lawfully. Through education
and industry partnerships, we work to keep firearms and explosives out
of the wrong hands.
According to the Institute of Makers of Explosives, over 5.6
billion pounds of commercial explosives are used every year in the
United States in mining and other applications. ATF ensures compliance
with explosives laws and regulations through its explosives regulatory
program. The purpose of this program is to protect interstate and
foreign commerce against interference and interruption by reducing
hazards to persons and property arising from the misuse and unsafe or
unsecured storage of explosive materials. This is accomplished through
the explosives field inspection effort; through the development,
implementation, and evaluation of regulatory enforcement procedures and
policy; through the screening of prospective and current explosive
licensees/permittees and their employees; and through regular and open
communication with the explosives industry and its representatives.
ATF's field inspection program includes the thorough review of records
and inventory to ensure product accountability, as well as the visual
inspection of explosives storage facilities to ensure safe and secure
product storage to prevent theft and misuse of explosives and
accidents. Investigators verify that explosives storage magazines meet
Federal construction and location requirements, including the required
distance from explosives storage areas to roads or residential areas.
The Safe Explosives Act (SEA) enhanced ATF's unique statutory
mission of regulating the explosives industry. With the passage of this
act in 2002, ATF assumed a significant additional workload such as
continued issuance of renewal licenses/permits for nearly 13,000
explosives-related businesses; increased inspection efforts and more
thorough license application processing, including background checks
for all employees who possess explosives. Further, the SEA decreed that
ATF physically inspect every new explosives licensee applicant to
ensure public safety. ATF's proposed explosives user fee will offset
the explosives industry inspections that are currently carried out by
ATF in furtherance of its mission.
ATF's investigators are also responsible for firearms licensee
inspections. Day in and day out, these investigators ensure that FFLs
follow appropriate guidelines and procedures. Their work helps to
prevent the acquisition of firearms by prohibited persons. Further, by
promoting proper recordkeeping and business practices, they help ensure
effective firearms tracing in critical investigations by the Nation's
law enforcement community. Cooperative programs such as ``Don't Lie for
the Other Guy,'' a joint venture between ATF and the National Shooting
Sports Foundation, provide essential education for FFLs. In addition,
our Federal Firearms Licensing Center in Atlanta screens all FFL
applicants by coordinating background checks on persons responsible for
firearms operations. I would like to note that, consistent with the
Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 (Public Law 108-
447), we are in the process of moving the licensing center to the site
of our National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. Co-
locating these facilities will result in increased efficiencies and
improved service to the public.
INTELLIGENCE/TECHNOLOGY
ATF recognized the opportunity to improve intelligence support
internally and externally, and created an Office of Strategic
Intelligence and Information (OSII) in 2003. The new directorate,
headed by an assistant director, provides timely, accurate, and focused
intelligence through the collection and analysis of information which
enhances decision-making for all Bureau customers. Thus, it ensures
that our special agents and investigators receive the necessary
information to disrupt criminal organizations and individuals that
threaten public safety. The creation of OSII was a big step toward
enabling ATF to put its information to the best possible use. The
dynamic exchange of intelligence information between headquarters and
field offices allows ATF to leverage data collection and analytical
expertise to aid in providing accurate and timely intelligence support.
I would also like to note that ATF has committed resources to all Joint
Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) nationwide. The ultimate outcome of these
efforts will be better information to investigators, which will, we
hope, help prevent future incidents.
ATF's Forensic Science Laboratories are an invaluable resource in
perfecting ATF cases and in serving as a resource for State and local
law enforcement. ATF's Forensic Science Laboratory system is composed
of the National Laboratory Center (NLC) in Ammendale, Maryland, and the
regional laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and San Francisco,
California. The laboratories are equipped with state of the art
forensic and scientific technologies. ATF laboratory personnel perform
fire debris analysis, tool mark comparisons, explosives scene evidence
examinations, searches for the presence and comparison of identifiable
latent fingerprints, and examine trace evidence from crime scenes such
as hair, paint, or fibers.
ATF is a participant in the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
Center, or TEDAC, operated at the FBI laboratory in Quantico, Virginia.
At this center, ATF and other partners analyze explosive devices from
Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to identify bombers and to prevent
further attacks. Experts work to evaluate improvised explosive device
(IED) components to identify similarities and potential bomb makers,
provide timely intelligence to military and law enforcement, and
collect latent prints and DNA from terrorist IEDs to link the same
person to similar devices. Four ATF employees work full-time at the
center--including an ATF special agent who serves as TEDAC's Deputy
Director--providing their technical expertise in identifying components
of IEDs. TEDAC has provided assistance to U.S. military and
intelligence personnel in preventing fatal detonations of IEDs and in
tracking down bombing suspects. This is an example of how we are
working within DOJ to prevent terrorism, and contributing our knowledge
to a common goal.
I have worked closely with Federal Bureau of Investigation Director
Robert Mueller to strengthen interagency collaboration on a number of
international efforts, including TEDAC. Under Director Mueller's
leadership, and with the assistance of an ATF special agent serving as
deputy director, TEDAC's device component analyses has more than
doubled. ATF is incorporating this information on terrorist IEDs in
State and local training programs to better equip local investigators
and bomb technicians in recognition and investigative skills to alert
on potential criminal and terrorist IEDs.
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
Several of ATF's programs, such as the National Response Team
(NRT), Special Response Team (SRT), and the canine program, strengthen
our efforts in firearms, explosives and arson, and alcohol and tobacco
diversion. They contribute to our missions of preventing terrorism,
reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation.
In the wake of a major fire or explosives incident, law enforcement
investigators can rely on the expertise and advanced technology of
ATF's NRT. The NRT augments the investigative expertise of special
agents in each field office and are capable of responding within 24
hours to major explosives or fire incidents. NRT members--consisting of
highly trained special agent CFIs as well as CESs, EEOs, chemists,
intelligence and audit support, legal advisors, and others--work
alongside State and local officers in reconstructing the scene,
identifying the seat of the blast or origin of the fire, conducting
interviews, sifting through debris to obtain evidence related to the
explosion and/or fire, assisting with the ensuing investigation, and
providing expert court testimony. Since the NRT was created in 1978, it
has been activated 601 times. In fiscal year 2005 alone there were 13
activations. The effectiveness of this response capability and the
expertise of the team members were evident in the NRT's responses to
incidents, such as the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City
Federal Building bombings and the 2001 attack on the Pentagon.
One of ATF's major assets in the fight against violent criminals is
our SRTs consisting of some of the bravest, most dedicated, and most
professional special agents in Federal law enforcement. The special
agents on these teams conduct high-risk tactical operations such as the
execution of arrest warrants, search warrants, and buy/bust operations.
In fiscal year 2005, the SRT planned 150 operations and executed 101 of
these high risk enforcement actions. In addition, two SRT Teams were
assigned to New Orleans for 60 days to assist in the law enforcement
response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
In September of last year, ATF had the privilege of providing a
demonstration of our explosives and accelerant detection canine program
to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Integration
and Oversight. After the demonstration, the branch chief for the canine
training program testified before the subcommittee regarding the status
of ATF's program and progress made on establishing a National Odor
Recognition Standard for all explosives canines. ATF's unique training
methodology enables its 35 explosives detection canines to find
explosives and gunpowder residue, IEDs, post-blast debris, firearms,
ammunition, bulk explosives, and spent shell casings. By breaking down
the thousands of known explosive compounds into five recognizable and
consistent chemicals, the canines can detect explosives used in up to
19,000 known explosives compounds. It is important to note that ATF is
the only agency systemically training canines on peroxide explosives
such as those used in the July 2005 terrorist attacks on the London
transportation system.
Our canine program trains and certifies explosives detection
canines for State, local, and Federal agencies as well as foreign
countries. To date, we have trained 621 canines for the use of our
agents and our domestic and international law enforcement partners. In
compliance with former-Attorney General Ashcroft's mandate, we have
established standards to certify all canines used by DOJ components
which will ensure that these components have an efficient tool to
identify and locate explosives. Because there are so many other
providers of explosives detection canines that are trained under a
variety of standards and conditions, the National Bomb Squad Commanders
Advisory Board, which represents State and local bomb squads, asked ATF
to implement a National Canine Basic Odor Recognition Standard for all
explosives canine teams domestically. While ATF shares the concern of
the advisory board that explosives detection canines used domestically
should be trained to a national odor recognition standard, this cannot
currently be accomplished within existing resource levels. ATF is
evaluating ways to further implementation of the standard within
existing resource levels. Moreover, our 60-accelerant detection canines
help to identify potential points of origin at a fire scene. In
addition to supporting local authorities, the accelerant detection
canines respond with the NRT and are used by ATF field offices on a
case-by-case basis.
Although the original goal of the explosives detection canine
program was to locate explosive devices, these canines have also proven
themselves to be a valuable asset in firearms investigations through
their ability to locate hidden firearms and ammunition. Using this
existing asset in a new way has been invaluable during search warrants
and following shootings when other means of locating firearms,
ammunition, and spent shell casings have failed. On October 20, 2002,
following a shooting connected to the District of Columbia sniper
investigation, an ATF canine team searching the woods surrounding the
crime scene found a .223 shell casing. This ballistics discovery also
led investigators to a note tacked to a nearby tree which had been
placed by the suspects in an effort to communicate their demands. The
shell casing was analyzed by the ATF National Laboratory and was
eventually matched to the Bushmaster rifle recovered at the arrest
site.
INTERNATIONAL
Law enforcement agencies worldwide use our firearms tracing
capabilities to gain additional information about crime guns. In fiscal
year 2005, Congress provided ATF's National Tracing Center with a $1
million increase to cover the cost of increased international trace
requests. In that fiscal year, ATF traced over 12,000 firearms for
foreign law enforcement representing 56 foreign countries. Our
international activities enhance public safety in many countries
worldwide, and in so doing, they protect American interests.
ATF provides extensive support to America's diplomatic activities.
Regional Security Officers from the Department of State's Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS) participate in post-blast training led by ATF.
The training focuses on explosives crime scene processing, management
and preservation, and includes explosives identification and effects.
Other countries have benefited from ATF's expertise in training
explosives detection canines: through a partnership with the Department
of State, ATF has trained approximately 375 canines for international
law enforcement agencies since the program's inception in 1990. Also,
our International Response Team (IRT) deploys in support of DSS
investigative responsibilities and foreign government requests. The IRT
has been deployed 25 times in response to fire and explosives incidents
since its inception in 1991, most recently to investigate a deadly fire
in Granada.
ATF works with agencies worldwide to prevent firearms from reaching
the hands of organized criminal gangs, drug traffickers, terrorist
organizations, and other criminals. ATF enforces provisions of the Arms
Export Control Act (AECA), and has primary jurisdiction over permanent
firearms and ammunition imports. The Department of State administers
the temporary import and export provisions of the AECA, and the
Department of Homeland Security enforces all AECA provisions at U.S.
ports and borders.
PARTNERSHIPS
At ATF, we believe that working together is not just a good idea--
it is a matter of national security. Our agency has a long history of
collaborating effectively with other enforcement agencies, industry,
and the scientific and academic communities. Our successes are directly
related to our ability to work effectively with our colleagues.
As part of our robust support for joint efforts to counter the
grave threat of terrorism, we share our expertise in firearms,
explosives, and alcohol and tobacco diversion. As noted previously, ATF
contributes to the Department of Justice's fight against terrorism
through the JTTF program. ATF personnel assigned to JTTFs function as
in-house experts on firearms and explosives violations and on tobacco
diversion act as liaisons between the FBI and ATF at the local level on
intelligence matters, and are a vital part of the joint investigative
team. ATF has 43 full-time and 17 part-time personnel assigned to JTTFs
around the country with an additional 42 personnel designated to
liaison with the remaining JTTFs not located in proximity to an ATF
field office--therefore, ATF has committed resources to all JTTFs
nationwide.
ATF works closely with other Federal agencies and with the academic
and scientific communities, to conduct research and monitor
developments in explosives research, blast mitigation, and explosives
detection. ATF representatives also serve as a subgroup co-chair and as
task managers on several research efforts funded through the Technical
Support Working Group (TSWG). The TSWG, administered by DOD under the
auspices of the National Security Council, conducts rapid research,
development, and prototyping of multiple use technologies for law
enforcement and military purposes. ATF also has collaborative research
partnerships with the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, and has partnerships with Oak Ridge National Laboratory;
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; University of Missouri, Rolla;
and University of Massachusetts, Lowell. Also, ATF closely and
regularly collaborates with representatives of foreign governments,
including the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada.
ATF leverages its resources to better inform, advise, and educate
its stakeholders and customers. For instance, ATF has partnered with
The Fertilizer Institute to launch voluntary campaigns to raise the
awareness of industry, law enforcement, and the public on the sale,
security, storage, and transportation of ammonium nitrate, the chemical
that was mixed with fuel oil in the Oklahoma City bombing.
ATF employees hold key positions in many prestigious professional
organizations. I am a member of the executive committee of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and, since 1990,
an ATF agent has chaired the IACP Arson and Explosives Committee.
Similarly, ATF has maintained outstanding relationships with the
International Association of Bomb Technicians and Investigators, the
International Association of Arson Investigators, the International
Association of Explosives Engineers, the National Sheriff's
Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Police Research Forum,
and the National Bomb Squad Commanders. Also, as stated previously, ATF
has a partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation in
conducting the ``Don't Lie for the Other Guy'' program which provides
essential education for FFLs.
MANAGEMENT
Mr. Chairman, ATF is a well-managed and effective organization, and
external evaluations of our abilities confirm this. In the last 2
years, the Office of Management and Budget has evaluated ATF's
explosives and arson programs and our firearms programs. In each
review, we received a rating of ``moderately effective,'' one of the
higher ratings received by Federal law enforcement programs. Also, as
part of the President's Management Agenda, the Office of Personnel
Management sponsored a survey of 115 Federal subcabinet agencies. On
this survey of employee satisfaction, I am proud to say that ATF ranked
15th. With the continued support of the Department and this
subcommittee, we will continue to provide innovative management and
personnel.
The ATF Headquarters building is being constructed here in
Washington, DC. The vision for this high-tech, environmentally friendly
building is threefold: it fulfills Congress' intention to move ATF
employees and mission to safer and more secure facilities; it will
serve as a landmark facility for the Federal government; and it will
support the revitalization efforts of the city. ATF is scheduled to
move to its new Headquarters this fiscal year.
CONCLUSION
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, Members of the subcommittee, on
behalf of the men and women of ATF, I thank you for your support of our
crucial work. In the last year, we have worked to stop those whose
violent and criminal behavior threatens the peace of our communities.
We have investigated explosives incidents and arsons. We have helped to
ensure that the firearms and explosives industries operate safely and
lawfully. And we have shared our knowledge with other law enforcement
personnel through extensive training programs and effective
partnerships. Yet I believe that our greatest achievements are still to
come. We have made much progress--but we know there is much more to do.
We are determined to succeed in our mission of preventing terrorism,
reducing violent crime, and protecting our Nation. We look forward to
working with you to pursue this goal.
United States Marshals Service
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR
Senator Shelby. Director Clark.
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski,
and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the United States Marshals
Service. I am also honored to appear before the subcommittee
today as the first career employee of the Marshals Service and
also with my distinguished colleagues.
UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
I just want to briefly outline some of our most recent
accomplishments to set the stage for our 2007 budget request.
Protecting the American judicial system continues to be a top
priority for the Marshals Service. Last year, we protected
2,200 Federal judges, 5,500 U.S. attorneys and their staff, as
well as numerous juries and other people associated with the
American judicial system. We provided the safekeeping for
nearly 55,000 pretrial prisoners, produced prisoners for
650,000 court proceedings, provided protection for over 200
individuals who had received threats; we analyzed and
investigated over 950 threats to those protectees.
FUGITIVE REGIONAL TASK FORCES
In the area of violent crime, we continued to use our
fugitive regional task forces. Last year, we apprehended over
77,000 Federal fugitives and 52,000 State and local fugitives.
We safely handled 673 international extraditions, a record high
for fiscal year 2005. We increased our fugitive efforts in
foreign field offices, most notably in Mexico. We conducted
several major fugitive roundups, such as Operation Falcon,
which netted an unprecedented 10,000 fugitives in a single
week. And we continue to manage over $1 billion in seized
assets.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
For the sake of time, I will move into our 2007 budget
request. Our fiscal year 2007 budget request addresses the
Marshals Service highest priority needs. In total, we are
requesting 66 additional positions and $13.6 million to address
critical needs related to judicial security, information
technology, and audited financial statements. We are also
proposing $9.4 million in program offsets.
JUDICIAL SECURITY
In the area of judicial security, in order to keep pace
with a growing workload and to improve judicial security, we
are requesting 37 positions and $4.6 million. The requested
resources will allow the Marshals Service to hire 28 additional
deputy marshals and nine administrative support staff for our
district offices as well as fund the ongoing costs associated
with the home security monitoring systems.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
In the area of information technology, in order to maximize
the agency's use of new technologies and strengthen the
information technology infrastructure, we are requesting 14
system administrators and $7.2 million. The Marshals Service
has made significant progress in the information technology
area, but more is needed to successfully accomplish our mission
and support the Department's Federal initiatives.
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
In the area of the audited financial statements, we are
requesting 15 positions and $1.8 million to correct material
weaknesses and reportable conditions identified in the 2005
financial audit and to address the increased financial
oversight and internal control workload associated with the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
With regard to the offsets mentioned previously, in 2006,
the Congress generously provided resources in addition to our
request. The Marshals Service needs to reduce the levels of
these programs by $9.4 million in fiscal year 2007 to ensure
that adequate resources are available for judicial security.
I appreciate again the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee, and I look forward to taking your questions now.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Clark
Chairman Shelby, Senator Mikulski, and Members of the subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the United States
Marshals Service.
Since September 11, the Marshals Service has had an integral role
in the Nation's efforts to combat terrorism. We were among the first
responders at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11.
Our primary mission is to protect the judicial process, and in doing
so, we have taken aggressive measures to protect courthouses and secure
courtrooms in order to handle the many high threat trials involving
suspected terrorists, violent gang members, and drug traffickers.
Most recently, the Marshals Service sent hundreds of deputies to
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas to assist in rescue,
recovery, evacuation, and law enforcement activities in the aftermath
of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I would like to thank this subcommittee
for its support of the Marshals Service and for the supplemental
funding we received to repair our courthouses and replace damaged
equipment.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The legal proceedings of Zacarias Moussaoui have been ongoing
through all of fiscal year 2005. The USMS has continued to provide
security for this high-profile trial. Thankfully, we have been
successful in producing the defendant safely and securing the judicial
proceedings. On April 22, 2005, Mr. Moussaoui pleaded guilty to all of
the charges against him. The trial is now in the penalty phase and we
expect this phase to last 2 to 3 months.
As the former U.S. Marshal in the Eastern District of Virginia, I
can speak firsthand about the planning and resource requirements
necessary to prepare for a high threat trial. The Moussaoui case is
just one example. Agency-wide, our personnel produced prisoners for
650,000 court proceedings; all without one escape or injury to a judge,
witness, or prosecutor. Last year, we investigated over 950 potential
threats to Federal judges and prosecutors. Our Deputy Marshals provided
200 personnel protective details and another 300 event protective
details. All were completed without a single incident of violence.
The increase in gang-related trials also presents many challenges
for us. For example, in Santa Ana, California, we are securing the
largest capital murder case in United States history. Forty defendants
affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood are on trial for a variety of
violent crimes including conspiracy to commit murder and drug
trafficking. At least 8 gang members face the death penalty. Not only
are the defendants part of this gang, but so are the witnesses. At
least 12 former gang members are expected to testify.
In addition to the Aryan Brotherhood gang, the Mara Salvatrucha
gang, referred to as MS-13, is expanding its influence internationally.
Last year in Alexandria, several members of the MS-13 gang were
successfully convicted of a brutal murder. That trial included
producing participants from the Witness Security Program which required
additional security precautions. Providing protection for witnesses who
testify against a gang known for its viciousness is a daunting task. I
would like to thank this subcommittee for its continued support of the
Witness Security Program and for recognizing their role in stopping
gang violence.
Outside of the courtroom, the Marshals Service is working
diligently to achieve the offsite security initiative funded through
the 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. We are grateful for the
support provided by Congress. The funds will allow the Marshals Service
and the Judiciary to install home intrusion detection systems in the
homes of federal judges. After planning the implementation of this
system, we have hired a contractor to provide and install the systems.
The four pilot sites concluded successfully and systems are being
ordered and installed throughout the country.
Over 4 days in August 2005, the Marshals Service conducted a unique
fugitive apprehension initiative, Operation Fugitive Safe Surrender, in
the Northern District of Ohio. This operation combined the efforts of
the Marshals Service, State and local law enforcement, local
prosecutors, and community leaders in creating an environment where
fugitives were encouraged to surrender under circumstances that
guaranteed their safety and the safety of the surrounding community.
This innovative, faith-based initiative resulted in the peaceful
surrender of 850 fugitives, of which 350 were fugitive felons. Later
this year, we will expand this initiative into 6 cities including:
Albuquerque, New Mexico; Camden, New Jersey; Louisville, Kentucky;
Phoenix, Arizona; Richmond, Virginia; and Washington, DC.
The Marshals Service continues to improve strategies used to
apprehend fugitives. In April of 2005, the Marshals Service conducted
the largest fugitive roundup undertaken by any law enforcement agency
in the United States. By working with law enforcement officers from
Federal, State, county, and city agencies, Operation FALCON (Federal
and Local Cops Organized Nationally) apprehended over 10,000 violent
fugitives and cleared 14,000 warrants. Agency-wide, our Deputy Marshals
apprehended over 77,000 Federal fugitives and another 52,000 State and
local fugitives.
We have also made a substantial impact on the fugitive workload in
Mexico, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic. The placement of deputy
marshals in these foreign field offices led to 673 extraditions in
2005; a record-high number for the Marshals Service. One of these
extraditions from last February involved deputy marshals working with
Mexican authorities on the return to the United States of a sex
offender who had kidnapped a 15-year-old girl and taken her to Mexico.
Once in Mexico, the offender abused the girl for 2 weeks before she
managed to escape. Criminal acts of this nature must be investigated
vigorously and immediately. We thank our Mexican counterparts for their
diligence and continued cooperation.
CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT
The protection of the nation's children from those who would prey
upon them is important to our nation's future. For that reason, I would
like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of this subcommittee
for co-sponsoring the Children's Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132). This
important piece of legislation would establish a comprehensive national
system for the registration of sex offenders. Failure to register would
make it a federal crime which in turn would generate additional federal
fugitives. We would welcome the opportunity to become involved in this
vital effort to keep our children and families safe.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST
Our fiscal year 2007 budget request addresses the Marshals
Service's highest priority needs. In total, we are requesting 66
additional positions and $13.6 million to address critical needs
related to judicial security, information technology, and audited
financial statements. We are also proposing $9.4 million in program
offsets.
JUDICIAL SECURITY
Protection of the judicial process--with a heavy emphasis on
judicial security--remains the primary mission of the United States
Marshals Service. The workload associated with judicial and courthouse
security has significantly increased in the last 5 years due to the
Nation's heightened awareness of possible threats. The murder of Judge
Lefkow's husband and mother in retaliation for her rulings demonstrates
why judicial security is vital in maintaining the Federal judicial
process. To keep pace with a growing workload and to improve judicial
security, we are requesting 37 positions and $4.6 million. The
requested resources would allow the Marshals Service to hire 28
additional deputy marshals and 9 administrative support staff for
district offices, as well as fund the ongoing costs associated with
home security system monitoring.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
In order to maximize the agency's use of new technologies and
strengthen the information technology infrastructure, we are requesting
14 systems administrators and $7.2 million. The Marshals Service has
made significant progress in the information technology area but more
is needed to successfully accomplish our mission and support
departmental and Federal initiatives. We will use the requested
resources to enhance the Justice Detainee Information System, purchase
replacement servers and software, and provide additional systems
administrators to district offices. JDIS is a critical law enforcement
tool because it marries our judicial threat data with warrant, criminal
history, prisoner scheduling, and booking information into a single
database. Our long term goal is to share this information with other
agencies, including the Federal courts, so we all can take advantage of
this law enforcement information. These resources will ensure that the
Marshals Service is working not only harder but smarter and taking full
advantage of available technologies.
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Finally, we are requesting 15 positions and $1.8 million to correct
material weaknesses and reportable conditions identified in the 2005
financial audit and to address the increased financial oversight and
internal control workload associated with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. In the 2005 financial audit of the Marshals Service, auditors
provided an unqualified opinion on our financial statements; however,
they also identified three material weaknesses and one reportable
condition. The requested program increase will ensure that the
auditors' recommendations are addressed and that we continue to provide
appropriate financial oversight, policy compliance, and delivery of
timely, accurate and reliable financial statements.
OFFSETS
In 2006, Congress generously provided resources in addition to our
request. Though appreciated, the Marshals Service needs to reduce the
levels of these programs by $9.4 million in fiscal year 2007 to ensure
that adequate resources are available for judicial security. The
proposed offsets reduce funding for courthouse renovations and fugitive
apprehension.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the Marshals Service
budget request for fiscal year 2007. We appreciate your ongoing support
and hope to prove efficient stewards of the resources entrusted to us.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Senator Shelby. Thank you. We will start with the FBI, Mr.
Director. We will have a number of questions for the record,
but we will try to move this.
SENTINEL
We are both--we all were interested in Trilogy. We wanted
it to work. We want the next one, Sentinel, to work. Last week,
I wrote a letter to you requesting answers to a lot of the
questions the staff is interested in regarding the procurement
and the FBI's new $500 million procurement of Sentinel. I have
a copy of this that we will make part of the record here, but I
know there are lots of questions here, Mr. Director.
Can you assure us you will get those answers as soon as
possible just for our information of the subcommittee?
Mr. Mueller. Again, Mr. Chairman, we are working. We are
working. I think there are something like 85 questions.
Senator Shelby. It is a lot of them.
Mr. Mueller. And a number of them go back to Trilogy.
Senator Shelby. They do.
Mr. Mueller. Which was two-thirds of it was successful,
one-third not successful.
Senator Shelby. We know.
Mr. Mueller. And what we are focusing on is making certain
that Sentinel is successful. We would be happy to brief your
staff at any time and in addition to take suggestions from your
staff or others on the Hill on how we can do it better. We have
always come up and said we are open to any suggestions that you
might have in terms of how we can make sure this is successful,
because I know we both want to make it successful.
Senator Shelby. I know you do, and I believe that you have
probably learned things. We have all learned. But we have that
responsibility on money, even if it is a dollar. But in this
case, it was a lot of money, and we know the FBI has to have
the modern technology. You know it better than I know, and
Senator Mikulski knows it very, very well herself.
Mr. Mueller. I can use your help in one area, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Yes.
Mr. Mueller. And that is we have welcomed oversight both
within Congress but also outside in terms of GAO and the
inspector general and the like. We have persons who are
dedicated to Sentinel, and to the extent that we can
consolidate requests and briefings, it would be helpful in
terms of freeing up the personnel to work on the project.
Senator Shelby. I understand.
Mr. Mueller. And so, we are working on those questions now,
but we also ask your assistance in helping us to consolidate
the requests so that our personnel can respond to the
legitimate requests but also spend time on the project.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. We want you to be successful.
And our interest in oversight is to be constructive. If we are
being critical, it is because we have a job to do. But we know
the ultimate goal is to modernize the technology that you have
at the FBI; is that correct?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. And we want to help you do that, want to
make sure.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION INVOLVEMENT IN THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY
Administrator Tandy, the 2000 budget includes $12 million
for the DEA to formally become part of the intelligence
community. How will this funding change DEA's current
contributions to the intelligence community? Do you have
sufficient intelligence sources in your foreign offices to help
with this transition? I know you have good people, but for the
record, we are interested in this.
Ms. Tandy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, DEA is reentering the intelligence community
with a lapse since 1980.
Senator Shelby. We know.
Ms. Tandy. We have the largest law enforcement presence in
foreign countries around the world, and from that standpoint,
we are extremely well positioned with our 80-plus offices in 62
countries to contribute to the community and the flow of
intelligence to protect our national security. DEA did not
receive additional authorities, so we continue with our primary
drug enforcement function. But what you should see as a
difference with DEA in the community is the flow of
intelligence. First of all, DEA has rich intelligence and
sources around the world. We----
Senator Shelby. Great resources.
Senator Mikulski. And sources.
Ms. Tandy. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. And sources; she is right, Senator
Mikulski, resources and sources.
Ms. Tandy. We have tremendous people developing those.
But as a result of that, we will now know what is important
to the intelligence community, and as we speak to our sources
during the course of our normal drug enforcement work, we will
be able to expand those areas that we are covering with our
sources to include the areas that are important to this country
in the intelligence community. I think that is the principal
benefit, and we hope there will be a two-way street as well.
Senator Shelby. I think it is something you have got to
mine. It will be very rich for the intelligence community.
Director Truscott, I want to welcome you back. You are no
stranger to the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Truscott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. You have worked here with us before.
I appreciate personally the work that you explained a few
minutes ago, the professionalism of your organization in
dealing with the church burning in my home State of Alabama.
Mr. Truscott. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. You did a good job; so did the Bureau, you
know, working there. And you are to be commended not only one
time but many times, especially by we who help fund you.
ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS USER FEE PROPOSAL
I commented earlier on my serious concerns with the $120
million fee proposal included in your budget request. I am
told, as I said earlier, that it would take nearly 2 years for
the ATF to implement this proposal if it were enacted into law
by the Congress. Is the ATF ready to implement this fee? And if
the fee does not become law, what would be the impact on your
agency?
Mr. Truscott. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your comments
regarding our efforts.
With regard to the $120 million user fee, ATF has the
statutory responsibility to regulate the explosives industry.
And there are approximately 12,000 licensed explosives entities
throughout the United States. And this user fee would be an
offsetting receipt for the work that we do.
There are approximately 6 billion pounds of explosives,
both imported and domestic, that this user fee would apply to
at the rate of 2 cents per pound. And so, the intent is that
this would serve as a mechanism to offset the expenses that we
have, the regulatory effort that we have to undertake this
requirement that we have.
In terms of if it were not able to be funded in some sort
of way, it would have a very significant impact on the agency;
$120 million is well over 10 percent of ATF's budget, so it
certainly would impact our ability to regulate the explosives
industry, but it also would roll into our ability to enforce
explosives related statutory authority as well as the Federal
firearms licensees that we also have the regulatory authority
for, because it is the same industry operations investigators
who do the explosives and the firearms regulatory work.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
JUDICIAL SECURITY
Director Clark, judicial security, that is a big issue with
the Marshals. A March 2004 inspector general review showed that
the Marshals Service assessment of threats against members of
the Federal judiciary were deficient in several respects. The
report found that the threat assessments are often untimely and
of questionable validity. Further, the Marshals Service has
limited capability to collect and share intelligence on
potential threats, so its said, the report.
The inspector general also found that the Marshals Service
lacks adequate standards for determining the appropriate
measures that should be applied to protect the judiciary
against danger.
Do you agree with the inspector general's finding? Do you
take issue with it? And second, what is the status of the
Marshals Service's efforts to protect judicial security in this
country?
Mr. Clark. Thank you, Senator, yes; as I said earlier,
judicial security remains a top priority for me and for the
Marshals Service. Since serving as the Acting Director and more
recently being appointed as Director, we have taken several
steps to improve some of the findings that were brought forward
by the inspector general's report. Most notably, we have
established a 24/7 or are in the process, I should say, of
establishing a 24/7 threat analysis and intelligence center.
This will help us speed up the process for analyzing threats
against the judiciary and investigating them.
We plan on increasing the number of staff at this center
with analysts and deputy marshals.
Senator Shelby. Will you be working with the FBI on this?
Mr. Clark. Most certainly. We in fact use their joint
terrorism task forces as one of the avenues to collect and
gather intelligence that we might need to protect the
judiciary.
We are also in the process of conducting security awareness
training for the members of the judiciary as well as retraining
a number of the members of our staff in the Marshals Service on
protective operations. We have been working very, very closely
with the Judicial Conference and the Judicial Security
Committee as an avenue to solicit their input on how we can
best serve and protect them.
Most notably recently, you may be aware that we are working
diligently to install the home intrusion alarms in many of the
judges' residences around the country.
Senator Mikulski. The what?
Mr. Clark. We have been working to install the home
intrusion alarms.
Senator Shelby. Home intrusion.
Mr. Clark. Yes, within----
Senator Shelby. No, home intrusion alarms.
Mr. Clark. That is correct, yes.
Senator Mikulski. No, it is the arm of the Marshals, but--
--
Mr. Clark. And using that as an additional security
enhancement to protect them.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
just have a few questions, but I do want to say something about
the agencies that are represented before us and truly how much
they are appreciated, Mr. Chairman, and I know you feel the
same way from your own State of Alabama, but we in Maryland are
part of the Capital region. We in Maryland, when we are
fighting drugs, are an intersect for several States, whether it
is Virginia or West Virginia, whether it is Pennsylvania or
Delaware, and we are also a high threat area.
And it is the people of my State, both its citizens and its
law enforcement as well as those around the Beltway that turn
to these people. Whether it is the sniper that is now indicted
on which the ATF and the FBI were the lead agencies, but we did
not federalize continuing to rely on local law enforcement. We
had our fires in a community where African-Americans who had
worked hard to be able to afford $500,000 saw the American
dream go up in smoke.
So we want to thank all of the people who work in these
agencies. They work 24/7; lots of times, when we are having
Thanksgiving dinner, or we are off to church to hear the melody
of ``Silent Night'', they are out there working to protect us.
And I think everybody who works at these agencies are an agent,
whether they are people like Agent Perkins, who is now at the
Budget Office, but over there in the FBI, Mr. Chairman, there
is a lady who worked for the FBI as a secretary for 50 years
who went to the same high school Nancy Pelosi and I did. She
has trained more FBI agents and could run this Sentinel program
better than anybody else, and we could go down the line.
Senator Shelby. You might need to find her.
Senator Mikulski. Yes, I think we do. So I just want to say
thank you, and I mean that very, very, very sincerely, and we
are safer because of the work that has been done.
DRUG TRADE FUNDING AND TERRORISM
Let me go on, though, to the questions, first of all, on
terrorism. Ms. Tandy, you talk about the fact that DEA is now
coming back into the intel business, and I am delighted to hear
that, because in your testimony, you talk about nearly half of
the State Department's listed foreign terrorist organizations
have ties to the--nearly half of the State Department's listed
terrorist organizations have ties to the drug trade.
That is a stunning statement, stunning. Are we saying that
it is the drug trade that is one of the primary sources of
revenue for terrorism?
Ms. Tandy. Senator, I am not sure I could say it is the
primary revenue for each of them, although it certainly is for
many of them. For others, it may be part of not just the money
flow but trading drugs for munitions.
Senator Mikulski. What do you mean by munitions? Is that
everything from a handgun to a Stinger?
Ms. Tandy. Yes, it could be a Stinger missile, an anti-
aircraft missile. It could be weaponry, ammunition, all kinds
of munitions used by terrorists.
Senator Mikulski. But what would be the range of its lethal
character? I mean, do they have it to buy an ICBM? I mean, are
they talking about weapons that would just be used in small
areas, in kind of urban guerilla terrorist attacks, or are we
talking about somebody who could take down an aircraft or
someone who could have the capability of launching a weapon of
mass destruction?
Ms. Tandy. I do not have any information about weapons of
mass destruction, but certainly, as you have noted, Stinger
missiles are capable of shooting down aircraft. That is what
they are there for. There are examples of undercover
investigations that DEA on the one hand, and the FBI on the
other, were involved in where there were two different drug
trafficking organizations, two different locations in the
United States, San Diego and Houston, where the organizations
were trading cocaine on the one hand for a Stinger missile, and
on the other, it was heroin for a Stinger missile, one out of
Colombia and one out of Pakistan. So you do have some of that
associated with those foreign terrorist organizations on the
State Department list.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I know Senator Leahy will have some
of his own questions in that area, but I think we would like
very much to be kept posted on that and also particularly on
the DEA efforts on Afghanistan.
We do not have the time to go into this, but in our hearing
with Secretary Rice, she told us at the State Department
approps hearing that literally, if we do not get a handle on
the drug traffic in Afghanistan, it would have a severely
destabilizing effect on Afghanistan's permanent move to
democracy. So we think what you are doing is really important
in that area.
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION
Director Mueller, on terrorism, you heard the questions
that I was asking the Attorney General. Can you tell us,
though, what is your new national security office, and is this
the beginning of like what the Brits have, an MI-5 agency
within the FBI? What will it do, and how is it not bureaucracy
but an antiterrorist effort?
Mr. Mueller. Well, for our national security branch, it
consolidates counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and
intelligence under one authority so that you eliminate overlap;
you make certain that we are addressing the same targets.
And one thing that cannot be lost, I do not think, when you
raise the specter of an MI-5 is the importance of our criminal
programs in terms of training, in terms of providing us the
capabilities to do an effective job in addressing terrorism or
counterintelligence. We also see that the criminal programs are
an abundant source of intelligence, because many of those who
support terrorism are involved in criminal matters in a variety
of ways and it may not be just supporters of terrorism but may
be recruiting individuals or the gaining funds that would
support terrorism through their criminal activities.
So it is my belief that it is important to establish a
national security branch so we have recruiting, training and
executive development in these specialized areas, but it has to
be part of the FBI.
Your questions directed to the Attorney General were also
directed to the establishment of the National Security Division
in the Department of Justice. And the differentiation I would
make is between our investigative responsibilities and
intelligence development and gathering responsibilities through
our collectors, agents, and analysts to, on the other hand, the
role of the Department of Justice in taking that information
and prosecuting those individuals who are found guilty of
violation of any one of the statutes.
One of the prime components of the new National Security
Division at the Department of Justice is the office that
handles the FISA process. And I do believe it is important to
focus on the FISA process to eliminate any holdups, glitches,
giving it the support that it needs so that we have an
effective, swift FISA response in that area.
So the development of the National Security Division, I
believe, replicates what is being done in the FBI but does it
in a way that focuses on the legal side of the house as opposed
to the investigative side of the house.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I think that is a very important
clarification, and we would like to look at it. They are
talking about $67 million to, I would hope, do more than the
legal side. That is a lot of money and a lot of people to
implement FISA. If FISA needs it, then, we would like to know
about it, because you, Ms. Tandy, said you have got a
supplemental here of $5 million to get your agency back in this
very important antiterrorism, and I think you are going to be
an important linchpin; exactly what the Director said. You all
are abroad. You are abroad. You are abroad, Director Truscott.
You are picking up this information as much as any intel
collection source.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY ANTI-TERRORISM
Is that going to be enough money? I mean, you have got $67
million over there at Justice to stand up a new agency. You are
talking about a supplemental--I would hope that what you are
talking about is more than $5 million.
Ms. Tandy. It is, Senator. The $5 million in the
supplemental is just to get us through the rest of 2006.
Senator Mikulski. What is it that you need, and is it in
here?
Ms. Tandy. It is in there in the 2007 budget to get us
through the 2007 fiscal year. It includes analysts to establish
the infrastructure at DEA in order to have the collection, the
intel taskings to go out from headquarters. It expands our
existing SCIF to accommodate this additional load of intel
collection and taskings from the community. So between the
supplemental for the rest of this year and the 2007 budget,
that will get us started.
Senator Mikulski. Well, you know, each one of you, we could
ask several more questions, and Director Mueller, we will be
following up to just see how this goes as well as the Sentinel
and this.
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
I am going to have one last question that really goes down
the line. You have heard from our colleagues their intense
feelings about the cut in the COPS and the Byrne program. We
feel that in addition to the superb work that you all do, it is
really the cops out there on the beat that you work with.
Certainly, we saw that in the snipers. You did not federalize
that. And we could go on.
My question is how would the cuts proposed by the President
to State and local law enforcement grant programs do you think
will affect your respective agencies? Director Clark, why do we
not start with you and just go down? But please be brief. I
know Senator Leahy returned, and he has got to return to the
floor.
Mr. Clark. Sure, thank you, Senator.
As you may know, we work very, very closely with our State
and local partners, particularly in the area of fugitive
apprehension. And we have been able to work with them and help
fund, particularly with the regional task force efforts, one of
which covers suburban Maryland, with some of the resources they
need.
Senator Mikulski. But how will the cuts affect your
operation? How do you think the cuts in local law enforcement
could impact on you? Will you have more work? Less work? Are
you going to be less effective? Thank you for your work in
Maryland.
Mr. Clark. Yes, thank you, Senator, yes. I do not see it
having a direct impact on our operations, and the funding that
we are able to provide them with regard to violent crime
initiatives I think, right now, is very adequate, as we have
used it very successfully to do a lot of our fugitive roundups,
particularly in this Capital region, for example. So I do not
think it will have a significant impact.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
Mr. Truscott.
Mr. Truscott. Senator, like the Attorney General indicated,
I have heard anecdotally from some of the State and local
representatives from law enforcement that I speak to from time
to time about their concerns. But I do not think that
necessarily, it is going to have a negative impact on their or
our ability to do our job. I think it forces us to work
smarter, to leverage our resources; certainly, the DOJ
component agencies that are represented here today, I think we
partner and share our expertises to the best extent possible to
benefit not only the Department of Justice but the American
people.
So it will just force us to work a little bit harder in
that regard.
Ms. Tandy. Senator, I think the area where it will be felt
the most is in our mobile enforcement teams with our assistance
to police chiefs and sheriffs in oftentimes remote areas.
Senator Mikulski. That is what we are hearing from Prince
Georges, yes.
Ms. Tandy. It is about a two-thirds cut to that program. We
will still have 80 agents, but it will affect the timing of our
ability to respond to requests for our mobile enforcement
teams, and we will probably have to move to a regional concept
of our MET team deployments.
On the other hand, Senator, I think it is important to add
to this that DEA shared $176 million with our State and local
partners last year. We have a very aggressive strategy, policy,
and priority to go after the money and to turn that back around
to State and local law enforcement as well as----
Senator Mikulski. That has been one of the more successful
efforts then to get money out of hard work, money goes back to
fight even more crime.
Ms. Tandy. We are very proud of the success we have had.
When I came through the door in 2003, our receipts from seized
assets were below $500 million. As I said in my statement, we
are at well over $1 billion last year and climbing.
For our participation in the HIDTA, we lead 54 HIDTA groups
with State and local law enforcement. That will not change. The
work that we do in training State and local law enforcement
will not change. We trained 42,000 State and local law
enforcement officers last year, and we will continue to do
that.
I think it really is going to be in the MET area, which is
where we serve Indian country, gangs, and methamphetamine.
Mr. Mueller. And let me reiterate what I think was said by
many. We are a small agency compared to the 800,000 State and
local law enforcement around the country. And in order to be
successful against the threats of the future, there is no one
agency that can do it alone. We have to leverage our resources
both on the Federal level as well as with our partners at State
and local law enforcement.
That said, the adverse impact for us may be down the road
if police departments are less willing to participate in task
forces because of the crunch in terms of persons. I am
sympathetic and supportive to the argument of the Attorney
General that we need to focus the funds for State and local law
enforcement. We have not seen that diminution of interest in
the joint terrorism task forces or other task forces, but that
is a possible consequence.
The only other observation I would make is, as you talk to
State and local law enforcement, they are concerned about the
grants, but they are also concerned about the balance between
funds going to first responders and funds going to law
enforcement.
The argument being made that you want to prevent the
attack, and it is the police officers on the street; it is
those that know the community that can prevent the attack, and
when you are looking at the balance between those monies going
to the first responders and those going to law enforcement, the
argument is made that perhaps we ought to be focusing more of
those funds on law enforcement as opposed to more of the
balance going to the first responders.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I appreciate all of those answers
and your candor.
Just a word about first responders. The Federal program for
first responders was created by Senator Bond and myself with
many members here at this table, and it was at $900 million. It
has now been cut down to $274 million. So it never reached over
$1 billion when Byrne grants were $2.2 billion.
But it is not meant to be a zero sum game. Each has what
they need to be needed for. But we thank you for your candor;
we thank you for your dedication. We look forward to working
with you.
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would note that as I am sure we all realize, among those
first responders are a lot of law enforcement, and we
anticipate that in many cases, they will be. I realize Homeland
Security is the first responder when we get these unexpected
emergencies like the hurricane that we expected for 1 week or
more, and I know that they are going to have their homes down
there rebuilt any year now. So it is not a zero sum game.
COCAINE TRAFFICKING
Administrator Tandy, I find interesting the successes you
have had, and all of us want you to be successful. I am just
curious: has the supply of cocaine, is it any more difficult to
get cocaine in the United States than it was, say, 3 years ago?
I am told by local law enforcement that it is not.
Ms. Tandy. Senator, I think that has varied over time with
the increase in eradication efforts.
Senator Leahy. Is it any more difficult, if someone is a
cocaine user, if they wanted to go, say, a few hundred yards
from this building or 200 yards from the State house in pick
whatever State you want, would they have any more difficulty
getting cocaine today than they would have 3 years ago?
Ms. Tandy. I have seen impact on the availability of
cocaine. I cannot tell you that it is sustained. With our drug
flow prevention strategy, which is part of our request, we saw
impact there.
Senator Leahy. I understand that, but I am told that the
prices have not gone up, and the availability is about the same
as it was 3 years ago. I realize it is a bit of a
generalization, but would you disagree with that
generalization?
Ms. Tandy. There have been some changes in areas with the
price of cocaine where----
Senator Leahy. Significant?
Ms. Tandy. It has been statistically significant. It is
measurable, and that is in certain areas of the country which
would follow from market changes with the eradication, with
record-breaking----
Senator Leahy. How about here in the District of Columbia?
Ms. Tandy. Excuse me?
Senator Leahy. What about right here in Washington, the
Nation's Capital?
Ms. Tandy. I do not know the answer to that. I would have
to get back to you on that one.
[The information follows:]
Price of Cocaine in Washington, DC
Price
DEA data reveal that cocaine prices in Washington, DC, have
remained stable over the past five years, as have cocaine availability
and abuse patterns. Cocaine price data for 2005 indicate the sale price
for cocaine powder (cocaine hydrochloride) ranged between $650 and
$1,250 per ounce in the D.C. metropolitan area. Data for 2005 indicate
the sale price for crack cocaine ranged between $550 and $1,250 per
ounce in the D.C. area.
Price data was derived from undercover buys, confidential source
information, and defendant information. Much of this information is
anecdotal, and thus the data cannot be validated by DEA through any
scientific methodology. Since DEA does not often purchase kilogram
quantities, price estimates for kilograms are less accurate than
estimates for smaller quantities. Furthermore, in DEA's experience
price data is not a completely accurate indicator of supply and demand.
The following chart provides 2001 to 2005 cocaine prices for
Washington DC, as well as the national price range for comparison.
POWDER COCAINE (COCAINE HYDROCHLORIDE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Kilogram Ounce Gram
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC PRICE RANGE
2001...................................................... $16,500-$35,000 $900-$1,250 $50-$100
2002...................................................... $17,500-$35,000 $600-$2,000 $30-$80
2003...................................................... $17,000-$35,000 $825-$1,300 $50-$100
2004...................................................... $24,000-$25,000 $900-$1,100 $100
2005...................................................... $23,000-$27,000 $650-$1,250 ( \1\ )
NATIONAL PRICE RANGE
2001...................................................... $13,000-$35,000 $400-$1,600 $20-$200
2002...................................................... $10,000-$35,000 $400-$3,500 $24-$150
2003...................................................... $10,000-$35,000 $375-$1,800 $25-$150
2004...................................................... $10,000-$35,000 $350-$1,800 $9-$200
2005...................................................... ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A.
\2\ Pending.
Source: Quarterly Trends in the Traffic Report--DEA Washington Division.
CRACK COCAINE (COCAINE BASE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Kilogram Ounce Gram
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON, DC PRICE RANGE
2001...................................................... $28,000-$34,000 $900-$1,300 $80-$100
2002...................................................... $30,000 $900-$1,750 $80-$100
2003...................................................... $28,000-$34,000 $1,000-$1,300 $80-$100
2004...................................................... $28,000-$34,000 $1,000-$1,200 ( \1\ )
2005...................................................... $28,000-$34,000 $550-$1,250 ( \1\ )
NATIONAL PRICE RANGE
2001...................................................... $13,000-$50,000 $300-$2,800 $10-$200
2002...................................................... $13,000-$35,000 $325-$2,800 $10-$130
2003...................................................... $7,500-$35,000 $325-$2,000 $10-$130
2004...................................................... $7,500-$60,000 $325-$2,000 $18-$200
2005...................................................... ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A.
\2\ Pending.
Source: Quarterly Trends in the Traffic Report--DEA Washington Division.
Availability
In determining the availability of drugs DEA looks at various
indicators, such as price and purity, defendant and confidential source
debriefings, and the professional judgment of colleagues in the law
enforcement community. Source information, such as the source of
cocaine supplied to the D.C. area, is gathered as a normal course of
investigations. For example, whenever drug traffickers are arrested,
they will be asked for information such as, ``Who hired you to pick up,
transport, deliver, and sell the drugs?''
According to the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department
(MPD), cocaine availability has remained stable over the past several
years. The MPD also reports that drug-related violence remains static,
with the exception of homicides, which have decreased over the past
four years.
Kilogram quantities of cocaine hydrochloride (HCl) continue to
arrive in the Washington, DC area. Powder cocaine sold at the mid- to
retail level remains widely available. The quantities of cocaine HCl
available in any given area greatly depend on abuse patterns and the
level of distribution at which a particular dealer conducts business.
Cocaine HCl most commonly is found in gram and ounce quantities for
resale in suburban and rural areas, but in larger quantities (i.e.,
quantities appropriate for redistribution after conversion to crack) in
urban areas of the D.C. area.
Crack cocaine is available throughout the D.C. area in quantities
ranging from small quantities up to one kilogram. Most of the crack
cocaine distributed within the D.C. area originates as cocaine HCl and
is subsequently converted to crack. Generally, significant quantities
of crack cocaine are not stockpiled and are manufactured according to
demand.
The main change in cocaine trafficking in the D.C. metropolitan
area pertains to cocaine sources of supply. Over the past years,
cocaine smuggling from the Southwest Border (especially Texas and
Arizona) to the D.C. area has increased. The flow of cocaine through
North Carolina has also increased. This mainly impacts southern
Virginia but also affects the northern Virginia area, including
Washington, DC. However, drug trafficking organizations in New York
City still appear to be the principal cocaine suppliers for the
Washington, DC. area.
Senator Leahy. I think you would be shocked to hear the
answer that the price, availability is roughly the same, the
price is roughly the same. I believe if you took a general view
of the country, you would find that the availability is roughly
the same, and the price is roughly the same. Of course, there
are fluctuations in everything. We are paying three times more
for gasoline now than we were 5 or 6 years ago.
And now, you said 2 weeks ago you charged 50 leaders of
FARC, a State Department designated foreign terrorist
organization, with supplying 60 percent of the cocaine in the
United States. In the last 5 years, how many FARC members that
your administration has indicted have actually been extradited
and brought to trial?
Ms. Tandy. There actually are two high-ranking members of
the FARC that are here in the District of Columbia who are
facing trial this year. One was a financial officer----
Senator Leahy. That is two out of how many that have been
indicted over the last 5 years?
Ms. Tandy. I would have to get you the actual numbers.
Fifty was an extraordinary number for us. And that was----
Senator Leahy. Would you agree that most of the kingpins
that we have indicted, and I certainly would want you to
indict, but most of the kingpins, we have not been able to
extradite from Colombia? Would you disagree with that
statement?
Ms. Tandy. Actually, I would differ with that statement. We
have had tremendous success with President Uribe's
administration and extraditions out of Colombia.
Senator Leahy. Of kingpins. I am talking about Major----
Ms. Tandy. Absolutely.
Senator Leahy. I had a discussion with President Uribe
about this just 1 month ago, and I want to see if your answer
in any way relates to what his is. How many of the kingpins,
some of the major paramilitary, some of the others that we have
indicted, how many have actually been extradited, have actually
been sent to the United States?
Ms. Tandy. I would have to get you the actual numbers, but
I can give you some examples that are significant. The founders
of the Cali cartel who were extradited in the time that you are
talking about are here on U.S. soil facing trial. We have, as I
recall, about 20 percent of the most wanted drug trafficking
organizations on the consolidated priority organization target
list who have been extradited.
Senator Leahy. So one out of five have been extradited to
the United States. That would be a large number. Would that not
be about 50, 60 people?
Ms. Tandy. The CPOT list, which is the one I just referred
to, is actually one that varies over the years, but it is about
44 on the list right now, and so, 20 percent, about 80 percent
of the targets, the targeted organizations have been indicted
on that list, and about 20 percent of them, as I recall, I want
to get you the exact figure.
[The information follows:]
Indictments and Extraditions From Colombia
Since 2002, 360 individuals have been extradited from Colombia to
the United States. The Department of Justice Criminal Division
estimates that approximately 94 percent of these extraditions have been
for drug charges.
EXTRADITIONS FROM COLOMBIA TO THE UNITED STATES (AS OF JUNE 2, 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraditions by Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Extradited from Colombia.................................. 40 68 91 134 27 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Colombians are indicted by grand juries in various federal
districts and a single indictment may charge multiple individuals, DOJ
does not know the exact number of Colombians indicted since 2002.
Over the past two years, several key traffickers have been
extradited to the United States from Colombia, including members of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Norte Valle Cartel,
and the Cali Cartel. Some of these key extraditions include the
following:
2006
Julio Cesar Lopez Pena
In March 2005, Julio Cesar Lopez Pena was extradited to face
racketeering and drug charges. According to a May 2004 indictment,
Lopez Pena operated a cocaine laboratory under the control of the Norte
Valle Cartel beginning in 1998.
2005
Jairo Aparicio Lenis
In October 2005, Jairo Aparicio Lenis was extradited to the United
States to face racketeering and drug charges. According to an April
2004 indictment, Aparicio Lenis was a member of the Norte Valle Cartel
responsible for laundering the cartel's cocaine proceeds.
Elias Cobos Munoz
In April 2005, Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT)
Elias Cobos Munoz was extradited from Colombia to face cocaine
conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy charges. Cobos Munoz is
allegedly responsible for importing more than three metric tons of
cocaine per month from Colombia into the United States since 2000,
which is approximately 10 percent of the cocaine available in the
United States. Cobos Munoz was extradited along with two co-defendants,
Florentino Riviera-Farfan, aka ``Tarzan,'' and Jorge Ivan Lalinde-
Lalinde, aka ``El Mono.''
Nayibe Rojas Valderama
In March 2005, FARC Commander Nayibe Rojas Valderama, aka
``Sonia,'' was extradited from Colombia to the United States to face
drug trafficking charges in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. Prior to her arrest, Rojas Valderama was allegedly the
finance officer for the FARC's 14th Front. Rojas Valderama is charged
in an indictment together with the leader of the 14th Front, Jose
Benito Cabrera Cuevas, aka ``Fabian Ramirez.'' Cabrera Cuevas is
allegedly a member of the Central General Staff, the second highest
governing body of the FARC, and he is the second-in-command of the
Southern Block which is composed of 12 fronts containing approximately
600-700 FARC members. Rojas Valderama, Cabrera Cuevas, and two
international drug traffickers were indicted in December 2003.
Rodriguez Orejuela Brothers
Colombian CPOT Miguel Rodriguez Orejuela was extradited from
Bogota, Colombia, to Miami, Florida, in March 2005. His brother, CPOT
Gilberto Jose Rodriguez Orejuela, was extradited to the United States
in December 2004. The Rodriguez Orejuela brothers were allegedly the
heads of one of the largest cocaine and money laundering organizations
in Colombia and were key figures in the establishment of a
sophisticated cocaine trafficking consortium known as the Cali Cartel,
which has operated since the 1980s. They remain two of the most
significant Colombian drug traffickers extradited to the United States
to date.
Senator Leahy. So eight or nine have been extradited?
Ms. Tandy. That is my recollection, but I will confirm
that. I was also told, Senator Leahy, that at 1:30 this
afternoon, Mexico put on the plane 1 of our top 25 fugitives
who they have extradited to the United States.
Senator Leahy. As you know, Colombia is one of the largest
recipients of U.S. aid. Of the 50 leaders that you have
charged, the most successful, of course, would be if you get
all 50 up here. What if you got 40? Would that still be a
success?
Ms. Tandy. That would be a tremendous success.
Senator Leahy. What if you got 30?
Ms. Tandy. It would be a tremendous success, and I will
tell you why.
Senator Leahy. What if you got 20?
FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA--EJERCITO DE PUEBLO--FARC
Ms. Tandy. The 50 members of the FARC who are indicted
decimate the entire leadership of the FARC. So how ever many of
those----
Senator Leahy. Only if they are in jail. But if they go
into an amnesty program and are in Colombia and are allowed to
go right back out, how does that decimate the FARC? I mean, I
can see it would decimate it if we bring them up here and put
them in jail, but that is what I am asking: of that 50, I mean,
we will probably come back to this next year, but of that 50, a
year from now, how many do you expect to actually see in the
United States?
Ms. Tandy. I cannot answer that, Senator. We certainly have
had success with our partners in Colombia of getting two major
FARC members arrested and extradited and here now facing trial.
I have confidence that we will get more, but I could not
possibly give you a number.
Senator Leahy. How many would you expect at this time next
year if you would consider it to be a success? And I will let
you designate what a success is. Of the 50, how many would you
want to see here this time next year so that you could consider
it a success?
Ms. Tandy. I would like to see all 50 of them, but I would
not anticipate that we will succeed in getting all 50 arrested
and extradited to the United States before I see you next year.
I just could not give you a number, Senator. Any one of these
50 are leaders.
Senator Leahy. Suppose we only had three or four. Would
that be a success?
Ms. Tandy. We would consider any one of these 50 leaders of
the FARC being extradited to the United States a success.
Senator Leahy. Would it be a success if a large number of
them went into the amnesty program and were returned to society
in Colombia?
Ms. Tandy. I know that those are issues that are
principally related to the other terrorist organization, one of
the other two remaining in Colombia, the United Self-Defense
Force of Columbia (AUC). Those are issues that the State
Department and the government of Colombia are addressing in
terms of the parameters of that amnesty.
Senator Leahy. Well, the parameters of amnesty is a nice
term, but the fact is every time the Appropriations Committee
tries to put any kinds of controls on our large amount of
foreign aid that we actually have to get some of these people
to come here and not just be given amnesty and turned back,
your administration objects to that.
And more and more of these people, the members of the drug
cartels, the members of the terrorist organizations, the
members involved with human rights violations, are told they
can turn over some weapons and rejoin society.
So I am trying to--and it is like Hotspur in Shakespeare.
You know, I can call them from the vasty depths; well, so can
I; so can anybody, but will they come when you call? And it is
a nice statement. It has been my experience many times with all
administrations that when law enforcement officials come here
for appropriations hearings there are usually indictments
shortly before so they can talk about success.
I want to know how many are going to come here. Now, of 50,
you indicted 50. But I wonder if only half a dozen of those 50
actually come here to face justice, because one does not see
them really facing it down there.
Ms. Tandy. Senator, I can tell you that this is not an easy
case to make. It is very complicated to penetrate the FARC and
to identify the leaders and to amass the evidence that was put
together against these 50.
The counterparts of ours in Colombia have been partners for
us in this effort, and I have a great deal of confidence that
if these members of the FARC can be located and arrested that
we will see them here. The demobilization that you are talking
about has not been extended to the FARC, to the best of my
knowledge. DEA is very pleased, very proud of this effort, as
we were with the return of the founding heads of the Cali
cartel earlier this year, not before this hearing, as well as
the other two members of the FARC who were returned and facing
trial, not before this hearing.
Senator Leahy. Well, will you have your staff keep me
informed of when they do come here?
Ms. Tandy. Yes.
Senator Leahy. I have been supportive of President Uribe. I
think he has tried very hard. I have a great deal of admiration
for him. He and I meet several times a year. But I do worry
that sometimes, the claims we make are not borne out by the
facts, and certainly, when I watch what is happening with
cocaine and meth and all, prices do not go up. Availability
does not go down, which would be the best example that this
effort is paying off with the billions upon billions of dollars
we are spending down there.
Director Mueller, you and I have discussed the case
management system. You have expressed your concern to me that
you feel I have been critical when I should not be. I get
critical of anybody spending the taxpayers dollars if I do not
see the results I think I would like to see. I have been just
as critical of a Democratic administration as a Republican
administration.
VIRTUAL CASE FILE COST
You scrap the Virtual Case File. It is not just the money
that was lost, and I realize you recaptured some of it, but it
was the time that was lost. I still think back, and this was
not your fault; this came from your predecessors, but I
remember being down there right after 9/11, and people figured
out how they could fly pictures of the hijackers around the
country, and everybody is writing down information on pieces of
paper, putting them in one file, which is written down by
somebody else and put in another file, and kids in my
neighborhood would just e-mail those pictures back and forth to
each other.
SENTINEL COST
Now, we understand your estimate is that Trilogy's
successor Sentinel is going to cost the American taxpayers $425
million to complete. It will not be ready until the end of this
decade. You set aside $97 million for it this year. You are
asking for another $100 million for fiscal year 2007. Are you
confident about the final cost estimate of this program?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, Senator; let me say at the outset that
nobody is as harshly critical as I am of the mistakes that were
made in the past. My concern is that we do not focus on the
successes of Trilogy in terms of the networks and the modern
computers that were put on the desks.
Great work has been done since September 11 in putting
together the investigative data warehouse, where you have in
excess of 250 million documents searchable by the latest tools.
Also, my concern exists because we all want to make this work
in Sentinel and we will need to have an open mind toward what
we have undertaken to assure not only the success of this but
visibility into what we are doing every step of the way.
And when it comes, then, to your question with regard to
the cost, the cost is $425 million.
Senator Leahy. Is that the FBI's estimate, or is that
Lockheed Martin's estimate?
Mr. Mueller. No, it is not. It is our estimate. But the
contract with Lockheed Martin is $305 million. Of that, $232
million is the development contract, which if you ask, if you
add the $50 million to $170 million, it is comparable to what
we were going to spend on Virtual Case File.
The other monies go to exactly what the GAO, the Inspector
General, and Congress wants us to do. Preaward was $4 million.
Program management operations, the program management that we
have to put into place to make this successful is almost $75
million. The independent validation and verification is $6
million.
Senator Leahy. Who does that?
Mr. Mueller. Risk management.
Senator Leahy. Who does that?
Mr. Mueller. Those are independent contractors who are
doing that aspect of it. That is not Lockheed Martin. We have
an independent contractor.
Senator Leahy. Do you know off hand who that is?
Mr. Mueller. I do not know off hand.
Senator Leahy. Could somebody give me that?
Mr. Mueller. Assuredly.
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Independent Verification and Validation of Sentinel's Implementation
The FBI is establishing a multi-award Independent
Verification & Validation (IV&V) contract. At the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) request, this contract will be made available
DOJ-wide. The FBI's Financial Division is currently managing
the preacquisition effort and eventual contract award.
Until this DOJ-wide contract award is in place, the Office
of Information Technology Program Management's (OIPM) Program
Oversight Unit will provide interim IV&V services.
Mr. Mueller. And so, the package will cost down the road
$425 million, but the pieces of it are that which we have put
into place to make certain that it will be successful down the
road.
Senator Leahy. So will there be additional funding or
reprogrammed funds that the FBI will need to complete it?
Mr. Mueller. Yes, down the road, 2008-2009.
Senator Leahy. If a reprogramming is required, do you have
any idea which programs you would shift funds out of?
Mr. Mueller. No, and my problem last year is that you had
asked what is the cost of the Sentinel going to be? I could not
tell you until we had the contract, until we had the bids in
and identified the ultimate cost for that bid. Now that we have
the bids in, now that we have the monies, we put aside $97
million for this year that we had to reprogram. We are asking
for $100 million next year, and we will be asking in 2008 for
those sums we need to complete this package.
Now, the other point I make as well is that we are now part
of the intelligence community. We are not just law enforcement;
we are part of the intelligence community. That which we are
putting together, whether it be Sentinel or any number of our
other programs that are meant to develop the domestic
intelligence capacity of the Bureau should be treated as part
of the intelligence community and perhaps looked to for dollars
in terms of supporting our intelligence side of the house.
And so, we will be looking for additional funds for
Sentinel down the road, but we will also be asking for the
Congress and others to look at us as not just a law enforcement
entity but also as an intelligence entity.
CHOICEPOINT
Senator Leahy. There has been a great deal of criticism up
here by both Republicans and Democrats in both bodies about
ChoicePoint, and you have entered into a multimillion dollar
contract with them to handle sensitive investigative data about
criminal enterprise systems. Did you or anyone in the FBI have
any discussion with any of the Members of Congress who had been
raising these concerns, the various chairmen and others, about
ChoicePoint before entering into that contract?
Mr. Mueller. I do not believe so, but let me, if I could,
clarify exactly what we have from ChoicePoint.
At the outset, let me say that I share your concerns about
any breaches of privacy by ChoicePoint. As you point out in
your recent press release, ChoicePoint has been fined by the
FTC. I have no doubt that the fine was appropriate, that to the
extent that ChoicePoint----
Senator Leahy. Trust me, they would have fought it like
hell if they thought it was too much.
Mr. Mueller. All I have to say is that to the extent that
ChoicePoint is liable for those fines or breaches privacy,
then, they should be treated like any other corporation.
What we have bought from ChoicePoint is a software package
that will help our analysts do their jobs. It is a software
package that has been used not by us but by other
organizations. It is not a data package. It is a software
package. It helps our analysts do the job. We would be remiss
if we did not look at this software package, evaluate it along
with other software packages and use it if it was the best
software package----
Senator Leahy. Who services that?
Mr. Mueller. I will have to get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
Purchase of Software Package From ChoicePoint
The FBI awarded a 5-year, fixed-price contract with i2,
Inc., a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, on 12/1/05. The contract is
serviced by ChoicePoint.
Senator Leahy. Would it be ChoicePoint?
Mr. Mueller. I do not know. I would have to get back to you
on that. But let me give you another aspect----
Senator Leahy. You understand the reason I am asking that
question.
Mr. Mueller. I do not know, and I will have to get back to
you on that.
But let me also indicate that we do seek data from
ChoicePoint because ChoicePoint has public source data that it
accumulates, and it is one of those entities that we would be
remiss if we did not use that capability in certain
circumstances to identify persons whom we need to locate within
the United States.
Go back to the 9/11 Commission report. I have this vague
memory of it. Midhar and Alhamzi were in the United States, and
if I am not mistaken, when the 9/11 Commission said we should
have been on them and utilized tools such as ChoicePoint to
identify those persons in the United States before they
undertake this attack. So to the extent that we use ChoicePoint
or other data accumulation companies, we would again, I would
say, be remiss if we did not utilize those tools when they are
accumulating public source data, not private data.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, both the Administrator and the
Director are going to get back to me on a number of things, and
I will have, if you do not mind, I will have follow up
questions for them once I have heard their answers.
Senator Shelby. We will leave the record open.
I think what the Director is saying, and I believe he is
right on this, ChoicePoint did have a big breach, but they are
also known for doing some good things in some certain areas. Is
that not what you are basically saying?
Mr. Mueller. They along with other companies----
Senator Shelby. Right, absolutely.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Have consolidated open source
data----
Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
Mr. Mueller [continuing]. That gives us an easy way to
obtain information that comes from open sources relative to
particular investigative leads that we have.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Shelby. We appreciate your cooperation from the
subcommittee today. I know it has been a long afternoon, but we
will have some other Senators, Senator Leahy and others, who
will be asking questions for the record, and we hope you could
respond to them by May 5.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Alberto R. Gonzales
Question Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
NATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE TITLE INFORMATION SYSTEM
Question. We know that by congressional direction the Justice
Department has funded the NMVTIS (National Motor Vehicle Title
Information System) program in the past but the funding stream stopped
in 2004 leaving the majority of states unconnected to a system which
could dramatically assist law enforcement in their efforts to track
stolen vehicles. This is a mission which again is gaining attention as
stolen U.S. cars have surfaced in terrorist bombings in Iraq, a
particular concern when it comes to protecting our troops in the Green
Zone.
NMVTIS could also be helpful in tracking more than a half million
vehicles, including school buses, flooded or damaged by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. Some of these have been driven to other states, re-
titled as ``clean vehicles'' and sold to unsuspecting customers.
Has the Justice Department given any thought or consideration to
reviving the NMVTIS program in order to connect all the states, so we
have a better way to stop these vehicles from falling into the wrong
hands?
Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) shares your concern
regarding the continuing problem of auto theft. This past March, the
Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) convened a focus group
to discuss this issue. The group, which was comprised of
representatives from federal, State, and local law enforcement,
insurance corporations, and NMVTIS staff, agreed that the NMVTIS
program is an important asset in reducing auto theft.
While the Attorney General delegated responsibility to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to oversee the implementation of the
NMVTIS system, BJA has provided over $12 million in funding for NMVTIS
since fiscal year 1997. BJA has been working closely with anti-fraud
components within DOJ and with the FBI to assess the status and need
for NMVTIS. Additionally, BJA engaged the Integrated Justice Systems
Institute (IJIS) to assess NMVTIS' current technological architecture
and has discussed with States how the system could be improved to
encourage greater participation. These discussions and reviews are now
complete and BJA will be working closely with the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administration, the FBI, and other law enforcement
entities to make any necessary changes to the system, to improve the
administration of the overall title information sharing effort, and to
increase State and local law enforcement participation. A key aspect of
any new approach will be to implement the ``self-sustaining'' aspect of
the original authorizing legislation, which called for the States to
support the system through user fees.
BJA will also continue to address the costly problem of auto theft
through various other efforts. This month, the FBI and BJA are
convening a meeting of southwestern federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies to discuss the problem of vehicles being stolen in
the United States and taken to Mexico. Intelligence and recent arrests
indicate that Mexico is a prime location for cloning (replacing vehicle
identification numbers of stolen vehicles with those of legal vehicles
for resale), chopping (vehicles dismantled for parts), and foreign
order fulfillment. We anticipate that this meeting will foster closer
working relationships among agencies working the Mexico border and
identify areas where the Department can provide assistance.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Pete V. Domenici
JUDICIARY NEEDS ON INTERNATIONAL BORDERS
Question. Federal Judges serving in districts located on the
southern international border have caseloads with an increasing number
of immigration related matters. According to the Administrative Office
of the Courts, for fiscal year 2004 my home state of New Mexico had
1,502 immigration filings and 2,497 total criminal filings. Compare
that to a northern border district--the Western District of Washington
had 78 immigration filings and 539 total criminal filings.
As we continue to work to secure our nation, we must be sure that
we adequately equip all of the agencies involved in this fight,
including the federal courts that must prosecute immigration related
charges. I fear that we are not focusing on agencies outside of the
Department of Homeland Security and their need for funding, as I have
heard from New Mexico judges that their resources are insufficient to
meet their increasing immigration-related caseloads.
Additionally, I am afraid our Southwest border district courts will
be unable to handle the increased immigration caseload that is sure to
result from increased enforcement efforts without new judges.
Can you speak to the crisis southwest border courts like Arizona
and New Mexico face?
Answer. The five judicial districts that comprise the Southwest
border make up a significant percentage of the total workload for
Department of Justice components such as the U.S. Marshals Service
(USMS) and the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs). In the USAOs, 68
percent of all immigration cases occur on the Southwest border--12,318
immigration cases were filed in the Southwest border districts out of a
total of 18,147 immigration cases filed nationwide in 2005.
In fiscal year 2005, 31 percent of all prisoner productions
(transporting a prisoner to a judicial proceeding) by the USMS were in
the five Southwest border districts; there are 94 districts nationwide.
Ten percent of all USMS prisoner productions were in Arizona and New
Mexico in fiscal year 2005. In addition to court proceedings, the
Southwest border districts have an enormous warrant workload. In fiscal
year 2005, 21 percent of all Class I fugitive warrants (federal felony
warrants and DEA warrants) were issued by federal judges working in
Southwest border districts. Six percent of all Class I fugitive
warrants were issued by federal judges in Arizona and New Mexico in
fiscal year 2005.
Question. What resources are being marshaled by the Department of
Justice to assist federal courts faced with increasing caseloads due to
our successful efforts to secure our country?
Answer. Judicial security is one area where the Department of
Justice can directly assist federal courts. The USMS strives to place
its personnel in those districts with the greatest amount of workload.
In fiscal year 2005, the USMS received 94 new Deputy U.S. Marshals for
judicial security work in the districts. Of this amount, 34 percent (or
32 Deputy U.S. Marshals) were allocated to the five Southwest border
districts. The Department of Justice is providing significant
resources, in the form of judicial security, to assist federal courts
along the Southwest border. The Department has approved significant
resource allocations to the United States Attorneys Offices along the
Southwest border in recognition of increasing workload demands in a
number of areas, most notably antiterrorism (border security),
immigration and narcotics enforcement.
Question. What other needs does the Department of Justice have on
our international borders--is there a need for more Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, Deputy U.S. Marshals, and/or Bureau of Prisons personnel?
Answer. The 2007 President's Budget for the Department of Justice
requests resources to fund additional Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs)
and Deputy U.S. Marshals:
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requested Fiscal Year 2007 Program
Increases Positions FTE Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Attorneys......................... 149 75 $23,205
U.S. Marshals Service.................. 66 33 13,619
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the budget request for the USAOs and USMS include
$58.6 million and $57.7 million respectively for adjustments-to-base
increases to cover rising pay, benefits and overhead costs. These
additional resources, if fully funded, will be allocated based on
Departmental priorities, and the latest workload and budgetary data
available at the time of enactment.
By way of background, the USAOs in the five districts along the
Southwest Border are at the forefront of the Department's efforts to
stem the tide of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Between
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2005, a total of 97 new Assistant
United States Attorneys positions were allocated to the five Southwest
Border districts. These additional resources have helped to play a part
in increasing the number of criminal immigration cases filed in the
five Southwest Border districts by over 55 percent between fiscal year
2000 and fiscal year 2005--from 7,942 to 12,318 cases filed.
Question. Besides creating new district judgeships for border
courts and providing more funding for these courts, what else can
Congress do to assist the federal border courts that are in a situation
the Judicial Conference has called a crisis?
Answer. From time to time, the Department of Justice submits
legislative proposals to the Congress that address a wide range of
legal issues including those affecting the courts. Those proposals are
the most effective avenue for responding to such a question. However,
it is clear that as the judicial staffing and workload of the courts
expand, the space, personnel and funding resources needed for
Department of Justice components such as the USMS, USAOs and Bureau of
Prisons also expands.
MENTAL HEALTH COURT NEEDS
Question. The Department of Justice has estimated that 16 percent
of all inmates in local and State jails suffer from a mental illness,
and the American Jail Association estimates that as many as 700,000
persons suffering from a mental illness are jailed each year. In New
Mexico, we know the impact that such persons can have; on August 18,
2005, a diagnosed schizophrenic shot five people to death in the space
of 16 hours, including the two police officers who were sent to pick
him up for a mental evaluation.
In response to cases like this, America's Law Enforcement and
Mental Health Project Act created Mental Health Courts with separate
dockets to handle cases involving individuals with mental illnesses.
Bernalillo County's Mental Health Court in New Mexico was created in
2003 and ninety-two percent of its graduates are not arrested again.
The $500,000 Congress provided for this court in fiscal year 2006 is
expected to double the number of people the Bernalillo County Mental
Health Court serves over the next two years.
With success rates like this for such small sums of money, I
believe this is an innovative approach to address the needs of those
individuals suffering from mental illnesses that come into contact with
the judicial system.
How much does the Department of Justice propose spending on mental
health courts in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. There is not a dedicated funding line for Mental Health
Courts in the fiscal year 2007 budget. The Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) is working with federal partners, including the National
Institute of Corrections, to develop a coordinated strategy for the $5
million appropriated in fiscal year 2006 for the Mentally Ill Offender
Act.
Question. Do you have any suggestions on how we might otherwise
help individuals who are charged with a non-violent crime and who
suffer from a mental illness?
Answer. Partnerships with criminal and juvenile justice agencies
provide mental health agencies unique opportunities for early
identification, diversion from prosecution to treatment, enhanced
supervision and case management. Recent innovations in collaborative
approaches, the use of assessment tools, targeted approaches, and
appropriate interventions have shown promise in the areas of law
enforcement, courts, and corrections. Mental health courts, an example
of this innovative and collaborative approach, provide the voluntary
opportunity for non-violent offenders to participate in court-
supervised, community-based treatment. As in Bernalillo County, these
efforts include continued judicial supervision and the coordinated
delivery of health and social support services. Initial evaluations of
mental health courts have shown that they result in fewer jail bookings
and jail time, a greater number of treatment episodes, an increase in
the frequency and volume of treatment services, and a reduction in drug
use and psychological distress in participants, as compared to
traditional misdemeanor defendants.
During the last few years, OJP has been engaged in collaboration
with other federal agencies to coordinate activities related to
offenders with mental health issues. Many activities have been
consistent with the recommendations of the President's New Freedom
Commission and have also been formed in relation to the recommendations
developed in OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Mental Health
Consensus Project. Current areas of collaboration include coordination
of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Targeted
Jail Diversion program and BJA's Mental Health Courts Program. In
fiscal year 2005, OJP expanded efforts into training law enforcement to
assess and build partnerships in mental health.
In fiscal year 2006, BJA received a $5 million appropriation to
begin implementing the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Act (Public Law 108-414). This funding supports critical
efforts to build State, local and tribal capacity to better understand
and address individuals with mental illness, who also often face
substance abuse and other public health issues. This program is
designed to increase public safety through innovative cross-system
collaboration for individuals with mental illness who come into contact
with the criminal and juvenile justice systems. It will encourage early
intervention for system-involved individuals with mental illness;
provide new and existing mental health courts with various treatment
options; maximize diversion opportunities for non-violent offenders
with mental illness and co-occurring disorders; promote training for
justice and treatment professionals on court processes and mental
health and substance abuse issues; and facilitate communication,
collaboration, and the delivery of support services among justice
professionals, treatment and related service providers, and
governmental partners. These efforts will help individuals who are
charged with a non-violent crime and who suffer from a mental illness.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS
Question. It is my understanding that some of the local West Texas
communities, who stand to lose their contracts under the CAR 6 Project,
issued long term municipal bonds to pay for expansion of their jails
when the DOJ's sought additional bed-space years ago. It is also my
understanding that Texas law required these local communities and then
Texas Attorney General--my Senate colleague Senator John Cornyn--to
first perform a ``due diligence'' review of the need for the issuance
of these bonds. Did the DOJ assure these local communities that the
Federal government's need was long term?
Answer. Each Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is for three years
only. There has been no contractual commitment by the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) beyond the IGA terms.
Question. Further, it is my understanding that this Subcommittee,
the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, directed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) in the fiscal year 2006 CJS Appropriations
Report to conduct a cost benefit study of agreements with local
governments to house federal inmates. Has that study been completed? If
not, why is it not more prudent to renew the agreements with these West
Texas communities pending the results of the GAO cost study?
Furthermore, the 2006 Appropriations Conference Report encouraged the
Bureau of Prisons to expand the use of Intergovernmental Agreements.
Why is DOJ moving to eliminate these large Intergovernmental Agreements
in Texas, contrary to the directives of Congress and the President?
Answer. The GAO study has not begun. All four agreements expire in
early 2007 (January-April), and provide the opportunity to conduct a
full and open competition for contracts in order to provide for the
best value for the BOP and taxpayers. The BOP uses IGAs when
appropriate and when the need exists. As of April 2006, BOP has 68 IGAs
with State, county, and local governments throughout the country to
provide about 800 beds. The fiscal year 2006 Conference Report also
states: ``The BOP is encouraged to solicit proposals in a manner that
allows for an optimal level of competition so that BOP's [bedspace]
requirements can be met and the best value achieved.''
The four agreements with the Texas local governments differ from
other IGAs in that they are for the entire facility and are all managed
by private companies; in one case the private company owns the prison
facility. The private contractors hire and fire staff and are
responsible for the daily operations of the prison. Each local
government is like a ``silent partner'' generally removed from the
daily operations at the facilities.
Question. It is also my understanding that the CAR 6 Project will
not result in any new bed-space for the DOJ, is this correct? As a
follow up, if the CAR 6 Project will not result in new bed-space, why
is the CAR 6 Project a prudent use of federal tax dollars?
Answer. The CAR 6 Project will not result in any new BOP bed-space.
However, by conducting a full and open competition, the BOP
requirements can be met and the best value achieved including price and
quality of service. In addition, the contracts will be for up to ten
years which allows the BOP to ``lock-in'' pricing for the next ten
years, thus assisting with budget projections and avoiding
renegotiation of terms every three years. Full and open competition
provides for a competitive market that assists in controlling prices.
Question. Finally, has DOJ considered the long-term impact of the
CAR 6 Project? Other agencies in your Department, including the U.S.
Marshals Service, as well as the Department of Homeland Security
utilize local governments agreements for correctional or detention
purposes. If the CAR 6 Project causes these local Texas communities to
go bankrupt or suffer significant financial hardship, I imagine other
local governments will avoid partnering with the Federal Government,
for fear of suffering the same fate as these West Texas local
governments.
Answer. Yes, the DOJ has considered the long-term impact of CAR 6
and its benefits to both the Bureau and the taxpayers. All current
providers under the Texas IGAs have the opportunity and have been
encouraged to submit competitive proposals under the CAR 6
solicitation. The BOP will consider multiple awards under the CAR 6
solicitation. The BOP has an outstanding relationship with state and
local governments throughout the United States using their available
bed space for short-term needs, and we plan to maintain that working
relationship.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
COMPETITION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Question. There is a great deal of concern across the country that
some of our trading partners don't always play fair, and that the U.S.
Government needs to do more to protect the interests of U.S. businesses
and workers. One issue that is of growing concern is the prospect of
foreign countries using their competition laws to advance industrial
policy goals in ways that prevent U.S. companies from competing fairly,
or penalizing U.S. firms for conduct that is entirely legal under U.S.
law. This problem is only going to grow as countries such as China ramp
up their antitrust enforcement while looking for new ways to insulate
local industries from U.S. competition.
I know the United States has antitrust cooperation agreements with
a few of our trading partners, but problems persist, and I don't see
things getting any better without a more active role by your
Department. Is the Antitrust Division prepared to step up its efforts
to dissuade foreign governments from pursuing competition policies or
imposing penalties that create barriers to trade? Do you agree that the
time has come for the Administration to establish a standing
interagency committee to address these problems as they arise?
Answer. The Department, through its Antitrust Division, advocates
around the world for antitrust enforcement based on rigorous legal and
economic analysis, with the goal of promoting consumer welfare by
preserving competition. We oppose any agency misusing antitrust to
defend a country's own home companies or exclude competitors from other
nations. The Division aggressively pursues international coordination
and cooperation and substantive and procedural convergence around these
principles, and these efforts will continue to be an important
priority. The Division is working in international fora, including the
International Competition Network and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, as well as on a bilateral level with many
foreign antitrust authorities, including the European Commission, both
generally and on specific matters.
The Department also takes an active role in negotiating free trade
agreements. Beginning with NAFTA in 1994, the United States has
negotiated provisions relating to antitrust enforcement and to conduct
of official monopolies and state enterprises in a number of free trade
agreements--including those with Chile, Singapore, and Australia--where
we have taken the lead role in negotiating such provisions. These
provisions help to ensure that the opportunities created by trade
liberalization are supported by competitive domestic markets. The
Department of Justice works with other parts of the Administration,
including the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the
Departments of State and Commerce, on these agreements and other
competition issues as appropriate, and at this stage I believe that it
is the most effective way to handle these competition issues.
Question. I am aware that the Department of Justice has competition
comity agreements with several of our trading partners, including the
EU. Nonetheless, it remains the case that EU authorities sometimes
reach results or impose penalties that conflict with our own--the
proposed GE/Honeywell merger and the Microsoft case are two recent
examples. Beyond the immediate impact on U.S. companies operating in
Europe, I worry that competition authorities in other countries, such
as China, will view this divergence as a justification to pursue even
more radical measures against U.S. multinationals, particularly if they
can give a helping hand to their own industries by doing so.
Can you assure this Committee that the Department will put more
effort into promoting U.S. antitrust policies around the globe and
avoiding situations where U.S. companies are subject to one set of
rules or remedies here, and an entirely different set elsewhere? Is the
Department prepared to engage more energetically with the European
Commission to resolve ongoing disputes and divergence in this area?
Answer. With the globalization of markets, it is increasingly
important that antitrust enforcers around the world base their
enforcement decisions on sound legal and economic analysis. Antitrust
laws should protect competition, not competitors. Antitrust laws should
not be used to defend a country's own home companies or to try to
exclude competitors from other nations. We are working with many
foreign antitrust agencies in a variety of contexts, including the
International Competition Network and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, to achieve international consensus on
sound antitrust enforcement. Those efforts are important, and we will
continue to devote significant resources to those efforts.
The Department also works closely with foreign antitrust agencies,
particularly the European Commission, in order to achieve the greatest
possible coordination with them on particular matters. Divergent
outcomes can sometimes occur due to different legal regimes or
different factual circumstances in different countries. When divergent
outcomes do occur, we work with our foreign counterparts to minimize
that divergence and to lessen the possibility of divergence in the
future. The Department will continue to place a high priority on
pursuing greater coordination and substantive and procedural
convergence on antitrust issues with foreign antitrust agencies, at
both the staff and policy levels, to limit the risk of significantly
divergent outcomes in particular cases.
Much of the work of minimizing duplication and divergence will
continue to be done bilaterally, often on a case-specific basis. Cases
like GE/Honeywell and Microsoft, though rare, understandably attract
public attention and concern. But in most instances, we are succeeding
in working very well with dozens of antitrust agencies around the world
on particular merger and cartel matters with the goal of getting sound
and consistent results. In the particular case of the European
Commission, close collaboration has enabled us to achieve consistent
results in several recent matters on both the determination of a
violation and, where necessary, the remedy.
In fact, there has been considerable convergence in recent years in
both civil and criminal antitrust enforcement around the globe. Many
jurisdictions are now making increasing efforts to combat cartels,
which the U.S. Supreme Court has called ``the supreme evil of
antitrust.'' Many jurisdictions have revised their merger process and
enforcement policies, reducing complexity and business costs and
bringing them into closer harmony with the U.S. merger review
practices. These are good starts, but this is an ongoing effort, and it
will remain a high priority for the Department.
Question. U.S. antitrust policy is one of the principal tools used
to promote free and open markets. Antitrust law should play the same
role internationally by opening markets and removing barriers to trade.
In nations where free market principles are not as fully developed as
in the United States, however, competition law can play a more
equivocal role--sometimes opening markets, but sometimes protecting
local firms from U.S. competition. I understand that U.S. industry has
raised precisely this concern with respect to Korea, where the
competition authority has been aggressive in pursuing leading U.S.
firms, even while local Korean conglomerates, or chaebol, continue to
restrict competition in certain markets. Similar concerns have been
voiced with respect to China, which is well on its way to adopting an
anti-monopoly law that many fear will be used as a weapon against U.S.
exports, technology, and investment.
American companies and workers need the Department of Justice's
help to prevent our trading partners from using competition law as a
trade tool. Is the Department prepared to become more active in
advancing U.S. interests in this area? Will the Department support
adopting stronger competition commitments in U.S. free trade
agreements?
Answer. Antitrust laws should promote competition; they should not
be used to defend a country's own home companies, or to try to exclude
competitors from other nations. That is why it is critical that we work
to ensure that other enforcers around the world rely on sound economics
as the basis for antitrust enforcement. This is a priority in building
our relationship with the South Korean antitrust agency, as in all our
international competition policy efforts. It is important that burdens
and inefficiencies that divergences in competition policy and antitrust
enforcement create for United States companies operating in
international markets be as low as possible, and the Department is
working hard to achieve that end. Coordination and substantive and
procedural convergence on antitrust must continue to be a high priority
for the Department. The Department has been working with many foreign
antitrust agencies in a variety of contexts, including the
International Competition Network, the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, and bilaterally, both generally and on
particular matters.
The Department also supports strong competition commitments in free
trade agreements. The United States has negotiated provisions relating
to antitrust enforcement and to conduct of official monopolies and
state enterprises in a number of free trade agreements, including those
with Chile, Singapore, and Australia. These provisions help to ensure
that the opportunities created by trade liberalization are supported by
competitive domestic markets in foreign countries. The Department of
Justice works cooperatively with other parts of the Administration,
including the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the Department
of State, and the Department of Commerce, on these agreements.
office of the inspector general cops methamphetamine initiative audit
Question. In March 2006, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) released its final audit report on the
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Methamphetamine (Meth)
Initiative grant program. One of the targets of the audit was the
Vermont State Police and the Vermont Drug Task Force. I am deeply
concerned that DOJ is now attempting to contest how the Task Force used
funds from the grants.
The COPS Office has consistently approved the Vermont State Police
grant applications to the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative grant program
each year since 2001 with explicit knowledge that the money would be
used primarily for fighting heroin abuse. I therefore object to DOJ now
contesting how the funds were used and requesting that the contested
sum be returned. The loss of $1.2 million would have a devastating
effect on a small state such as Vermont and undo the progress and
successes that have been accomplished in the last five years.
I request that the Department of Justice stand behind its grant
decisions and allow funds that have been used in the way the COPS
Office approved them to be used to remain in the state. I further
request your cooperation in resolving this situation.
What are your suggestions for reaching a satisfactory solution?
Answer. The COPS Office has been working closely with the Vermont
State Police to obtain additional documentation surrounding the
contested costs. The Vermont State Police have not been asked to return
any grant funding, and COPS currently has no intention of making such a
request. The COPS Office will continue to work with the Vermont State
Police to close all audit recommendations as quickly as possible and
work to ensure that expenditures made by the agency have been
consistent with guidance issued by the COPS Office. If any expenditures
are ultimately determined to be unallowable, whenever possible the COPS
Office remedies such situations by allowing the grantee to use the
funds in a manner which furthers the purposes of the grant, rather than
through repayment of grant funds.
Question. What steps will you take to work with the Vermont State
Police and my office in achieving this goal?
Answer. The Vermont State Police is currently in the process of
compiling information requested by the COPS Office to demonstrate the
expenditures under their grants. Once documentation has been submitted,
the COPS Office will work closely with the agency to remedy the current
situation, and will always remain available to address any questions or
concerns regarding this audit. The COPS Office will be sure to inform
your office of any significant developments that may arise during the
process.
JUSTICE FOR ALL ACT
Question. In the fiscal year 2006 CJS Appropriations conference
report, Congress appropriated $1 million for improving the quality of
representation in state capital cases authorized under the Innocence
Protection Act (IPA), which was including as Title IV of the Justice
for All Act, Public Law 108-405. The final authorizing language for the
IPA reflects nearly five years of work--there were multiple hearings in
both Houses, we studied the problem, we considered the alternatives, we
agreed on a result. The program is aimed at helping states establish
effective systems for appointing counsel in death penalty cases, and
incorporates essential elements of the ABA's guidelines.
What has the Justice Department done to date to administer this
program, as authorized?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $1 million for
capital litigation-related programs. Given this level of funding, it
was not possible for OJP to enact the full range of activities outlined
in the Innocence Protection Act (which provides authorization for up to
$75 million to carry out the programs outlined in these sections).
The Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),
which administers the Capital Litigation Improvement Program, convened
a multi-disciplinary focus group of national, state, and local
practitioners in early 2005 to develop a program plan for more
effective systems for death penalty cases. This group identified a
substantial need for sound curriculums, training, and technical
assistance as an important priority for any effort to improve capital
case litigation at the State and local level.
Based on these findings, BJA determined that the most effective way
to advance the goals underlying the Innocence Protection Act in regard
to capital case litigation was to focus the limited resources available
on the development of model training programs for capital case
prosecutors, defense counsel and judges. Accordingly, awards were made
to three organizations--the National District Attorneys Association
(NDAA), National Judicial College (NJC), and National Legal Aid and
Defenders Association (NLADA)--to develop appropriate training programs
for prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys (respectively).
Program deliverables completed include: (1) the development and
implementation of curriculums at the State level, one for each of the
three disciplines (prosecution, judiciary and defense); (2) sub-grants
for curriculum delivery; and (3) technical assistance at the national
level for death penalty inquiries from the states. The curricula--
adaptable to incorporation of state statutes and death penalty
constitutional law--focus on investigation techniques; pretrial and
trial procedures, including the use of expert testimony and forensic
science evidence; advocacy in capital cases; and capital case
sentencing-phase procedures.
During fiscal year 2006, the NDAA has provided training to
approximately 125 prosecutors in Arkansas, Florida and Georgia; an
upcoming training for 30 prosecutors will be held in Nevada. The NJC
has trained approximately 150 judges in Arkansas, Virginia, North
Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania. The NLADA has sponsored training
events in California, Texas, South Carolina, and Illinois which have
reached approximately 140 defense attorneys. NDAA, NJC, and NACDL will
continue to support the delivery of additional state trainings in
fiscal year 2006. The program will also help maintain clearinghouses
and websites offering capital case litigation materials.
Question. If the Justice Department has not yet acted to administer
this program, then what is the delay? Is the Department trying to
reinvent the wheel with a new training program rather than following
through on the bipartisan program that Congress worked out and
President Bush signed into law?
Answer. Implementation of the full capital litigation improvement
program outlined in the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) is not possible
without a significant increase in funding or the diversion of
significant resources from other high-priority OJP programs through
reprogramming. With only $1 million available, BJA determined that
development of model training programs was the most realistic and
practical option for advancing the goals of the IPA.
Question. Secondly, on several occasions when you have testified
before both this subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee, you assured
me that you would work to ensure the successful implementation of the
Justice For All Act. However, in the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2006 and again for fiscal year 2007 the President has
proposed funding a capital litigation program vastly different than
that authorized by law.
So once again I must ask the following: Will you pledge to work
with me and the Appropriations Committees to ensure not only adequate
funding but also the successful implementation of the Innocence
Protection Act, as authorized by the Justice For All Act?
Answer. The President and the Department share the goal of behind
the Justice For All Act of ensuring that the best possible lawyers are
available to litigate capital cases, but we believe the President's
training initiative is more cost-effective, better at building
capacity, and far less expensive than the authorized program. Under the
authorized program, before any training could take place, States would
have to qualify for the program, and to do so most would have to enact
changes to their laws, delaying the onset of training. In addition,
because of the burdens imposed by the law on States in order for them
to receive the funds, we do not believe many States would opt to seek
the funds, especially given the relatively modest sums that would be
available to each participating State. While the sums available to each
State would be relatively modest, the overall authorize level of
funding under the Justice For All Act is beyond the Department's
budgetary capacity at this time. Therefore, the Department will
continue to seek to implement the capital-counsel training program
announced by the President.
Question. A report issued by the Government Accountability Office
on April 4, 2006, found that the Justice Department, which uses private
information services for law enforcement, counterterrorism and other
investigations, often does not follow federal rules to protect
Americans' privacy. According to the report, the Justice Department,
and three other federal agencies examined by the GAO spent about $30
million last year on companies--such as Choicepoint--that maintain
billions of electronic files about adults' current and past addresses,
family members and associates, buying habits, personal finances, listed
and unlisted phone numbers, and much more.
Do you agree with the GAO's findings in this report?
Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) recognizes the important
issues presented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
and agrees that additional measures could be taken regarding its use,
in the form of revised or additional guidance and policy. However, the
DOJ already places great importance on compliance with existing federal
rules aimed at protecting Americans' privacy, namely the Privacy Act of
1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
When Congress enacted the Privacy Act, it recognized the fact that
government operations are widely varied (including such activities as
law enforcement and intelligence). Therefore, the Privacy Act
incorporated some, but not all, of the Fair Information Practices by
allowing agencies to exempt themselves from certain requirements of the
Privacy Act. (The Fair Information Practices were first proposed in
1973 by a U.S. government advisory committee and were widely accepted
as including collection limitation, data quality, purpose
specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness,
individual participation, and accountability.) For example, pursuant to
regulations, criminal law enforcement records may be exempted from the
Privacy Act's requirement that an agency make reasonable efforts to
assure that a record is accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for
agency purposes before disseminating that record to someone other than
an agency or pursuant to FOIA. Therefore, the GAO should not have
focused on whether agencies were satisfying all of the Fair Information
Practices, because not all of the Fair Information Practices are
incorporated into the Privacy Act. The more appropriate metric should
be whether an agency has met the requirements of the Privacy Act.
For this reason, DOJ believes that prior to the issuance of any new
guidance or policy, a careful analysis and assessment of the degree of
need for any new guidance should be conducted. That assessment should
take into account agency resources, competing mission priorities, and
the privacy protections already in place as a result of DOJ's
compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Question. What steps is the Justice Department taking to address
the privacy concerns raised in this report and to protect the privacy
interests of law-abiding Americans?
Answer. As indicated in response to subpart A, above, DOJ complies
with the requirements of the Privacy Act, which prohibits the
disclosure of protected information in the absence of a statutorily
provided exception. In addition, DOJ has appointed its own Chief
Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer (CPCLO) and the CPCLO has
established a Privacy and Civil Liberties Board with three
subcommittees: Outreach; Data Collection, Aggregation, and Maintenance;
and Law Enforcement and National Security. The Data Collection
Subcommittee has held its first meeting and established its initial
task, which is to survey the Department's use of reseller data and then
to develop a policy for the DOJ that will be informed by the
Department's use of that information and by existing legal protections.
Such a policy will include appropriate oversight mechanisms. The CPCLO
has also mandated DOJ-wide compliance with the Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA) process established by the E-Government Act and will
be the final approving authority for PIAs on all major record systems.
The CPCLO recently issued guidance to the DOJ regarding PIAs. This
guidance requires components to consider the privacy concerns of all
information in identifiable form, including information received on a
systematic basis from data resellers, in developing and maintaining
computer systems that collect such information.
The FBI has also appointed a Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
and uses the E-Government PIA process to evaluate privacy in major
record systems prior to system implementation. The PIA process requires
that the system sponsor or developer conduct a thorough, written
analysis of the impact on privacy that will result from the creation of
a proposed system prior to the system's implementation. The FBI
assesses both impacts attributable solely to the proposed system and
the cumulative impacts arising from the proposed system's interface
with existing systems. The PIA provides senior FBI management officials
with an assessment of a major new system's impact on privacy before the
system becomes operational. The FBI PIA process includes a review of
major systems by the FBI Privacy Council, a group composed of
representatives from several FBI divisions, as well as the FBI Senior
Privacy Official.
CUTS TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
Question. States, counties and communities nationwide continue to
be overwhelmed by increasing homeland security mandates from the
Federal government. The President often says that he wants to ensure
that our State and local police receive the resources necessary to do
the job the American public expects them to do, but then he goes and
proposes a $1.309 billion, or 52 percent, in overall cuts to funds for
assistance programs that have a proven track record and are primarily
designed to assist state and local law enforcement agencies carry out
their day-to-day public safety duties.
The Administration proposes to slash funding for Community-Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) by $161.2 million, or 61 percent, leaving it
at $102.1 million. Programs targeted for elimination included the COPS
Law Enforcement Technology Program, as well as drastic reductions in
equipment and support staff grants that State and local police
departments depend on to carry out their crime-fighting duties. This
budget would also reduce by $23.3 million, or 37 percent, COPS
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up for state and local law
enforcement programs to combat methamphetamine production and
distribution, to target drug ``hot spots,'' and to remove and dispose
of hazardous materials at clandestine methamphetamine labs.
The President's proposed budget would eliminate all Byrne JAG
funding. This grant program, which Congress funded at $327.2 in fiscal
year 2006, provides vital funding to States to improve the functioning
of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on violent crimes and
serious offenders, and to enforce State and local drug laws. In the
recently enacted Violence Against Women and the Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), which the President
signed into law on January 5, 2006, Congress codified the Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program, and authorized funding for it
at over $1 billion.
Given the President's rhetoric expressing support for our State and
local law enforcement, how does DOJ justify cutting funds to the highly
successful and effective COPS Program and the Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grants?
If the President's budget were followed, how would the Justice
Department propose to address the needs of State and local police
departments that are currently met by the COPS Program and the Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grants?
Answer. In order to focus departmental resources on
counterterrorism, which is and must be the Department of Justice's
(DOJ) overriding priority, the Administration was required to make
difficult choices in this budget proposal.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal recognizes the
Federal government's responsibilities in regard to supporting effective
law enforcement and improving the nation's criminal justice system. If
approved as proposed, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget will
provide over $1.2 billion to State, local, and tribal law enforcement
through the U.S. Department of Justice. This includes $66.6 million to
strengthen communities through programs providing services such as drug
treatment; $88.2 million to combat violence, including enhancements to
Project Safe Neighborhoods; and $209 million to support drug
enforcement, including funding to continue and expand the Southwest
Border Drug Prosecution Program. The initiatives included in this
proposal were selected by concentrating scarce resources on the highest
priority criminal justice issues; promoting effective, evidence-based
approaches to improving law enforcement and criminal justice system
capabilities; and eliminating funding for programs that could not
demonstrate results.
Drug enforcement continues to be one of the most significant
criminal justice priorities of both the Administration and the
Department of Justice. In addition to supporting drug enforcement and
treatment initiatives, the fiscal year 2007 President's budget includes
$706 million for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF) program and $208 million for the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs support drug
enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of Federal,
State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance the
coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related crime
at all levels of government.
The Administration applied the same principles it used to select
initiatives for inclusion in the fiscal year 2007 budget to make
decisions regarding reductions in or elimination of funding for
existing programs. While these choices are often difficult, they are
unquestionably necessary. Due to the fiscal pressures resulting from
the need to fund an effective response to terrorism at home and abroad,
reduce the Federal deficit and address the growing financial burdens
created by Social security and health care entitlement programs,
discretionary spending must be reduced.
The proposed elimination of the JAG Program in fiscal year 2007 is
based on this program's inability to clearly demonstrate its
effectiveness. During the fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the JAG
Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that these programs
have not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
performance measures that they had achieved nor were making progress
toward their goals. Concerns were also raised about the broad range of
the 29 purpose areas allowed under the JAG Program, making it difficult
for the program to develop meaningful performance measures or focus its
efforts on priority concerns. In light of the broad array of assistance
offered to State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies through
OJP, the Administration determined that the funds currently devoted to
the JAG Program could be used more effectively elsewhere.
While the COPS grant programs have achieved a number of noteworthy
successes, the primary mission of the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services--to hire 100,000 community policing officers to serve
in law enforcement agencies throughout the nation--has been achieved.
COPS has dedicated $12 billion to add 118,000 community policing
officers to America's streets and schools. The Administration's
decision to restructure the COPS grant programs and reduce overall COPS
funding reflect the policy of directing Federal resources to the areas
of greatest need.
In fiscal year 2007, the President's budget request redirects COPS
funding toward training and technical assistance in support of efforts
to implement community policing strategies and provide increased grant
assistance to tribal law enforcement agencies to meet the unique needs
of Native American communities. Funding for interoperable
communications technology, provided through the COPS Program in past
years, is now requested in the budget of the Department of Homeland
Security to ensure efficient coordination throughout the first
responder community. Training, technical assistance and funding to
support the clean-up of methamphetamine labs by State, local and tribal
law enforcement agencies will be administered in partnership with the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the recognized leader in this
area. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request seeks $40 million
for methamphetamine lab clean-up efforts, doubling the level of funding
appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2006.
Consistent with its standing policy of not requesting continued
funding for earmarked projects, the administration is not requesting
funding for the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program administered by the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) or the Crime Identification Technology
Act (CITA) and Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-up (Meth Hot
Sports) Grants administered by the COPS Office.
Communities and law enforcement agencies receiving grants under the
programs being proposed for elimination will be encouraged to look to
other OJP and DOJ programs to fund their ongoing efforts. For instance,
an interagency drug task force receiving funding from a JAG grant may
be eligible for funding from a number of other OJP and DOJ programs,
such as Project Safe Neighborhoods or the Organized Crime and Drug
Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program. The Department will continue
to work closely with Congress to ensure that State, local, and tribal
law enforcement and criminal justice agencies receive appropriate
Federal support for efforts to protect America's citizens from crime
and terrorism and strengthen the criminal justice system.
VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT CRIME VICTIMS FUND
Question. I am greatly troubled by the Administration's proposal to
raid at the end of fiscal year 2007 all amounts remaining in the Crime
Victims Fund, projected to be more than $1.25 billion.
Year after year, the Crime Victims Fund--financed by criminal
fines, forfeitures and assessments; not the American taxpayers--plays
an essential role in helping thousands of agencies provide critical
services annually to nearly four million victims of domestic violence,
sexual assault, child abuse, drunk driving, elder abuse and all other
crimes.
Despite the fact that Congress blocked this same proposal last year
and has continued to express its intention that all deposits remain in
the Fund to ensure its future, the Administration has once again
proposed in its fiscal year 2007 budget proposal to siphon off all
amounts remaining in the Fund at the end of the coming fiscal year to
help offset the budget deficit that it has created. Such a move would
leave the Fund with a balance of zero going into fiscal year 2008,
jeopardizing the ability of thousands of agencies to staff and operate
programs vital to victims' well-being.
Attorney General Gonzales, how can the Administration justify
expunging amounts from the Crime Victims Fund?
Answer. The cap enables Congress to determine the appropriate level
of expenditures required to maintain viable victims' programs. Excess
balances above the cap remain in the fund and ``roll over'' from year
to year. Significant rollover balances have existed in the fund since
2000, creating what has been characterized as a perpetual float in the
account well in excess of $1 billion. This float is not required to
fund the enacted level of victims' programs, nor is it money that can
be made available for other use. These balances have become fodder for
temporary scoring proposals. This tactic undermines the budget process
because the same offset is counted each year. As the fiscal year 2007
President's budget proposes to rescind and permanently cancel the
excess balance, returning the funds to the general fund of the
Treasury, as a more straightforward approach to budgeting.
Question. Just how does the Administration expect victims and
victims' services to sustain themselves in the interim while the Fund
is replenished in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. While we do not believe that the proposal included in the
President's budget would create an interim funding problem, we would be
happy to work with you to develop language that both eliminates the
budget gimmick and ensures uninterrupted funding availability for crime
victims.
Question. How long do you estimate it will take for the Fund to be
replenished in any given year after the remaining monies are drained?
Answer. Given recent history, our expectation is that the crime
victims programs will be self-financing based on the fines and
penalties paid into the Crime Victims Fund in any given year.
Question. How will the Office for Victims of Crime determine how
much money would become available in the course of any given fiscal
year to allocate to each of the 50 states?
Answer. The Department of Justice has not proposed to modify the
formulas under which the bulk of the funds are distributed to the
states each year for victims' compensation and crime victims programs.
The amount of money distributed would be determined by the amount
collected in the fund at time of disbursement.
Question. Additionally, how could local agencies apply for funds
when each state would have no idea how much money would come to them
that year?
Answer. Funding made available in the President's budgets and via
the appropriations process has remained markedly stable in recent
years. We are not anticipating at this point any dramatic departures
from past funding levels. The Administration's fiscal year 2007
proposal is intended to preserve $625 million in spending for crime
victims programs while ending the budget gimmick that allows $1.3
billion in balances to roll forward each year to be used as an offset
for other spending. We certainly are willing to have some flexibility
in working with the Congress to meet both of these objectives.
Question. When faced with times when collections from fines and
forfeitures are low or if we are faced with a national victims
emergency, such as we were with the September 11 terrorist attacks or
Hurricane Katrina, where do you propose to find the funds for victims'
services and compensation, seeing how the Administration will have
drained the Fund?
Answer. If criminal fine collections decline in future years, the
Administration would request additional appropriations, or in the event
of a catastrophe, such as 9/11, request emergency supplemental funding
to help offset those costs and restore the balance to sustainable
levels.
BULLETPROOF VESTS PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM
Question. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Program has
been vital to distributing lifesaving bulletproof vests to law
enforcement officers serving in the front lines across the country.
However, DOJ's budget for fiscal year 2007 proposes to slash funding
for this program by almost $20 million, or by 63 percent. On January 5,
2006, the President signed into law the Violence Against Women and
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162),
which reauthorized the BVP Grant Program with funding levels at $50
million per year through fiscal year 2009.
Compounding the usual funding demand for help to purchase vests,
concerns from the law enforcement community over the effectiveness of
body armor surfaced over two years ago when a Pennsylvania police
officer was shot and critically wounded through his relatively new
Zylon-based body armor vest. In August 2005, DOJ announced that test
results indicate that used Zylon-containing body armor vests may not
provide the intended level of ballistic resistance. Unfortunately, an
estimated 200,000 Zylon-based vests have been purchased--many with BVP
funds--and now need to be replaced. The Justice Department has adopted
new interim requirements for its body armor compliance testing program
and also provided an additional $10 million at the end of fiscal year
2005/beginning of fiscal year 2006 to assist agencies in their
replacement of Zylon-based body armor vests.
Vests cost between $500 and $1,000 each, depending on the style.
The extra $10 million released by the Justice Department, while
appreciated, is only a drop in the bucket when compared to the need.
Across our nation, law enforcement agencies are struggling over how
to find the funds necessary to replace defective vests that are less
than five years old with ones that will actually stop bullets and save
lives. How does DOJ justify cutting the BVP grant program by 63 percent
in the face of needing to match costs for new vests, as well as to
assist in the replacement of defective vests in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The Administration continues to support the Bullet Proof
Vest Partnership (BVP) program administered by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA), which utilizes federal funds to assist State and
local law enforcement to purchase stab- and bullet-resistant vests that
meet National Institute of Justice (NIJ) standards.
The Attorney General, recognizing the crisis in the law enforcement
community, added an additional $10 million to the $24.6 million
appropriated for BPV in fiscal year 2005. This additional funding was
made through a special BPV solicitation and resulted in 1,343 awards to
State and local law enforcement agencies to replace 72,711 vests made
with Zylon. In addition, through BJA's regular BPV process, in fiscal
year 2005, BJA made $23.6 million in BPV payments to over 4,000
agencies. These funds supported the purchase of more than 181,000 vests
(over the next four years) for law enforcement officers across the
country. In fiscal year 2006, $29.6 million is appropriated for BPV.
Currently, there is over $70 million available for the BPV program,
including the fiscal year 2005 appropriation of $24.6 million; $7.8
million in reprogrammed funds; $10 million at the request of the
Attorney General; and the fiscal year 2006 appropriation of $30
million. The fiscal year 2007 President's budget request of $9.82
million will sustain the program and should adequately fund the
anticipated demand for new vests.
Funding for BVP is also being allocated to support NIJ research on
ballistic materials and armor performance under the Attorney General
Body Armor Safety Initiative. The NIJ voluntary compliance testing
program for bullet-resistant body armor has been revised to take into
account performance of used armor.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE POLICY AND REVIEW
Question. Do you believe this increase is sufficient to meet OIPR's
needs? What information can you provide us with to demonstrate that
this number will be sufficient to meet the needs of OIPR? Is this what
OIPR told you they needed? Is that what they requested?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes an
increase of 30 positions, of which 21 are attorneys, for functions
performed by OIPR. This increase--20 percent over the 2006 position
level--will help allow the Department to address the growth in Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications that are a key
element in our fight against terrorism. If FISA-related workload
continues to grow, additional resources for OIPR may be necessary.
These additional needs would be reflected in future budget requests.
eliminating the byrne grant program in the face of a meth epidemic
Question. Local law enforcement officials back in Wisconsin have
warned us that the meth epidemic could get even worse as the drug moves
into our urban areas. Instead of being home-made in rural labs, meth is
increasingly being mass-produced and trafficked by large drug cartels.
What this all means is more meth will be on the streets and law
enforcement is very worried that we may experience a meth epidemic even
worse than the crack epidemic of the 1980s.
In order to better combat the spread of crack cocaine which
devastated our cities some 20 years ago and fight drug trafficking in
general, Congress created the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Grant Program.
The Byrne Grant Program provided federal funds to State and local
police agencies to form regional drug task forces which coordinated law
enforcement's efforts to fight drug crimes. By several accounts, the
Byrne Grant Program was and remains successful--and it has become the
backbone of federal aid for local law enforcement.
We created the Byrne Grant Program twenty years ago to fight the
rising tide of drugs in this country. Why now--when law enforcement is
warning us that meth will be the new crack epidemic in our cities--is
the Administration eliminating this program? We did not eliminate, we
created, a federal program to help our local police fight drugs when
crack exploded in the 80s. We should not be eliminating the Byrne Grant
Program when we face the challenge of meth.
Answer. Due to the limited resources available to the Department of
Justice (DOJ), both the Administration and the Department have been
forced to make many difficult choices while preparing the fiscal year
2007 President's budget proposal. The decision to eliminate funding for
the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG) was a difficult choice
necessitated by the Department's need to focus available resources on
its top priorities, such as antiterrorism efforts, and ensure that
existing programs make the best possible use of the federal funds
dedicated to them. We are actively working with Congress and State and
local officials to help ensure that law enforcement needs are addressed
nationwide.
In fact, a number of critical and important investments for state
and local law enforcement exist in the fiscal year 2007 budget--areas
where funding is requested to target specific priority problems. In
recent years, both the President and Congress have tended to focus
funding on initiatives in key priority areas, where we have the best
chance of making a difference, in lieu of funding large, broad-based
programs that are not targeted and have not been able to show the same
level of results. JAG represents less than one percent of all State and
local spending in law enforcement.
If the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request is approved,
over $1 billion will be available to State, local and tribal law
enforcement through the U.S. Department of Justice for many of the same
purposes that JAG funded, such as training and equipment that logically
cross-cut crime and drug issues. The DOJ fiscal year 2007 President's
budget request includes $66.6 million to strengthen communities through
programs providing services such as drug treatment; $88.2 million to
combat violence, including enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods;
and $209 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
During its fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the Byrne JAG
Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that the JAG Program
has not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
performance measures that it is achieving its goals. Concerns were also
raised about the broad range of purpose areas allowed under the JAG
Program; JAG funded efforts in a total of 29 different purpose areas,
making it difficult for the program to develop meaningful performance
measures or focus its efforts on priority concerns. Much of the
justification for such assistance has diminished in comparison to other
priority needs, such as increasing federal counterterrorism efforts.
The Administration and the Department of Justice are committed to
supporting interagency drug enforcement efforts. The fiscal year 2007
President's budget includes $706 million for the Organized Crime and
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program and $208 million for the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs
support drug enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of
Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance
the coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related
crime at all levels of government. The Department will continue to work
with Congress and State and local officials to address the many threats
that methamphetamine and other illegal drugs pose to America's
communities.
JUVENILE JUSTICE FUNDING
Question. Once again, juvenile justice and delinquency programs are
cut in half in the President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposal. These
programs, housed at the Office for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), are allocated $176 million, which is about half of
what was appropriated last year (nearly $343 million).
Juvenile justice programs have suffered during the Bush
Administration. Just four short years ago, these programs received
approximately $556 million, with more than $94 million for the Title V
Local Delinquency Prevention Program and nearly $250 million for the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program. The
Administration's proposed level of $176 million for juvenile justice
programs represents more than a two-thirds cut from fiscal year 2002.
The downward spiral of juvenile justice funding is a disturbing budget
trend with ugly real world implications. Juvenile crime is an ongoing
challenge and it is not a problem that is going to solve itself.
Boosting funding for successful juvenile justice programs is the first
step in addressing this challenge.
Though we were able to increase that funding here in Congress last
year, we wonder why this Administration targets reductions for juvenile
justice programs year after year? Can you provide us some idea of
whether or not this sort of funding will be a priority of yours, as it
is to many of us here?
Answer. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) proposes the elimination of the Juvenile Accountability
Block Grant (JABG) Program, which received a ``results not
demonstrated'' rating due to the lack of key information required by
the Office of Management and Budget Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) in fiscal year 2002. In an effort to increase accountability
without undermining State juvenile justice programming, the OJP budget
requests $33.5 million for the recently-authorized Part C: Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention Block Grants Program from which State and local
governments can fund similar activities.
Funding for the Title V Incentive Grants Program is proposed for an
overall reduction due to the elimination of two initiatives whose
funding is carved out of this program at approximately $25 million
each--Underage Drinking and Gang Resistance Education and Training.
However, OJP is requesting an increase of $14.7 million in
discretionary funding compared to the fiscal year 2006 enacted level
for the Title V Program. Beginning in fiscal year 1995 (the second year
of the Program), Congress allocated an increasingly larger portion of
total Title V funds to earmarked programs which has resulted in fewer
dollars being allocated to communities to formulate, implement, and
evaluate comprehensive delinquency prevention plans through the
Incentive Grants, the original intent of the Program.
In addition, the fiscal year 2007 budget request includes an
increase of $14.2 million for the Formula Grants Program which supports
State and local efforts to develop and implement comprehensive State
juvenile justice plans. Funds may be used for research, evaluation,
statistics and other informational activities, and training and
technical assistance. Funding is also available for training and
technical assistance to help small, non-profit organizations, including
faith-based organizations, with the federal grants process.
WHIRLPOOL-MAYTAG MERGER
Question. Last week many of us were surprised when the Antitrust
Division decided not to challenge Whirlpool's acquisition of Maytag. It
was widely reported in the press that the Antitrust Division staff had
recommended that the Justice Department should file suit to block this
deal, because of the possibility that the deal could lead to injury to
competition and higher prices for consumers. The merger will result in
the combined company controlling about 70 percent of the washing
machine market.
The Justice Department's decision on this deal was contrary to the
predictions of many antitrust experts. Diana Moss of the American
Antitrust Institute argued that the combined company's market power
would ``substantially lessen competition by impairing the ability of
rivals to compete effectively.'' Even the Wall Street Journal--usually
not an advocate of aggressive antitrust enforcement--reported that
``under traditional antitrust analysis, the deal would probably be
rejected or reshaped because of the combined companies' majority share
of the U.S. market for washers and dryers.''
Why did you ignore the recommendation of the Antitrust Division
staff in approving this merger?
Answer. After thoroughly investigating Whirlpool's proposed
acquisition of Maytag, the Antitrust Division determined that the
proposed transaction was not likely to reduce competition
substantially. We came to this conclusion because Whirlpool will likely
achieve large cost savings and efficiencies, which would allow the
combination of strong rival suppliers not to harm consumer welfare.
Based on the evidence obtained during its extensive investigation,
the Division found that this merger is not likely to give the merged
entity market power in the sale of any of its products in the United
States. The Division found that, despite the two companies' relatively
high share of laundry appliance sales in the United States, any attempt
to raise prices likely would be unsuccessful. Whirlpool and Maytag
represent two well-known brands in the industry, but rival appliance
brands such as Kenmore, General Electric and Frigidaire are also well
established, and newer brands such as LG and Samsung have quickly
established themselves in recent years. LG, Samsung, and other foreign
manufacturers could increase their imports into the United States;
rival U.S. manufacturers have excess capacity and could increase their
production. Further, the large retailers through which the majority of
these appliances are sold--Sears, Lowe's, The Home Depot and Best Buy--
have alternatives available to help them resist any attempt by the
merged entity to raise prices. Also, the parties substantiated large
cost savings and other efficiencies that should benefit consumers.
TUNNEY ACT REVIEW
Question. Two years ago I sponsored an amendment to the Tunney Act,
the law which governs the manner in which the courts review government
antitrust settlements with the government. My amendment was enacted
into law. This amendment heightened the scrutiny that courts must give
to such settlements. We intended to halt the practice of courts merely
``rubber stamping'' these settlements, but instead to ensure that the
courts scrutinized these consent decrees to insure that the settlements
were in the public interest.
In the Justice Department's recent court filings in the SBC/ATT
merger Tunney Act proceedings, the Department has asserted that these
amendments ``did not materially affect the scope or standard of review
courts are to apply in reviewing antitrust settlements.'' This
assertion is contrary to the plain words and legislative intent of our
Tunney Act amendments.
Why has the Justice Department taken the position that our Tunney
Act amendments have not changed the standard of review that courts are
to follow in reviewing antitrust settlements? What basis do you have
for ignoring the plain language and legislative history of our
amendments that was intended to strengthen the court's review?
Answer. The text of the 2004 amendments to the Tunney Act modified
the list of factors a court is to consider in making its public
interest determination and made judicial consideration of each factor
mandatory rather than discretionary. The quotation in the filing you
cite was in the context of that case, in which it was claimed that the
2004 Tunney Act amendments somehow gave the court the authority to
review a consent judgment on the basis of allegations that were not
included in the underlying complaint. The 2004 Amendments do not in any
way suggest that they altered the Tunney Act's fundamental purpose or
standard in that respect.
Section 221(a) contains a ``finding'' that ``it would misconstrue
the meaning and Congressional intent in enacting the Tunney Act to
limit the discretion of district courts to review antitrust consent
judgments solely to determining whether entry of those consent
judgments would make a `mockery of the judicial function.' '' Antitrust
Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-
237, 221(a)(1)(B), 118 Stat. 661, 668 (2004). Senator DeWine stated
that ``this bill makes clear that the Tunney Act requires what it has
always required, and that mere rubber-stamping is not acceptable.'' 150
Cong. Rec. S3610-02, *S3618 (Apr. 2, 2004) (statement of Sen. DeWine).
The Department agrees. Both the statute and the case law make clear a
court's Tunney Act role: far from applying a rubber-stamp, the court is
to examine the proposed antitrust consent decree and determine whether
that judgment addresses the harms alleged in the complaint and
therefore falls within the reaches of the public interest based on the
factors enumerated in the statute.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
ANTITRUST MODERNIZATION COMMISSION
Question. The Antitrust Modernization Commission recently held a
hearing that discussed the risks that U.S. businesses face as a result
of the growing number of competition authorities around the world.
These authorities can impose requirements or remedies on U.S. companies
that conflict with our own. As one witness testified, this situation
``has created the potential for a variety of adverse consequences,
including increased transaction costs and heightened uncertainty for
businesses, and instances of friction and conflict across
jurisdictional boundaries.''
Would the Department support efforts to deal with these issues, so
that foreign antitrust authorities are more likely to defer to the
rulings of the Department and FTC where the United States' interests in
a transaction or conduct are paramount?
Should the United States also seek to strengthen existing antitrust
cooperation agreements to address this issue?
Answer. The potential for foreign competition authorities to impose
burdensome conflicting requirements and uncertainties on companies from
other nations, or even to misuse enforcement to bolster a country's own
home companies, has been an ongoing concern of the Antitrust Division
for a number of years. The Division has actively worked to promote
antitrust enforcement around the world based on sound economic and
legal analysis. In this regard, one of the principles we have urged as
part of international comity in antitrust enforcement is that, where
appropriate, deference be given to the enforcement authorities in the
country with the most significant relationship to the transaction or
conduct.
At the same time, the Department recognizes that there are numerous
instances in which both the United States and a foreign antitrust
authority have a significant interest in a particular course of conduct
or a particular transaction. It is therefore critical that the
Department work closely in a variety of contexts to achieve
international consensus on sound antitrust enforcement, thereby
limiting the risk of significantly divergent outcomes in particular
cases. In recent years the Department has actively engaged antitrust
enforcers around the world through the International Competition
Network, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
competition working groups, and bilateral and trilateral meetings. Our
goal is to strengthen international cooperation, minimize unnecessary
burdens on companies doing business globally, and promote convergence
on sound antitrust principles. This will continue to be a priority for
the Department.
SEX OFFENDER DATABASE
Question. Mr. Attorney General, I met with you in February of 2005,
and urged you to implement a national sex offender database that the
public could access through the internet, along the lines of what I
have proposed in Dru's Law. I appreciate the fact that the Justice
Department has begun implementation of such a database.
The database currently allows users to search for offenders by
multiple zip codes, but not by a radius defined by users, as proposed
by Dru's Law. I think the database would be far more useful if it
allowed the user to ask for a list of offenders within, say, a 10-mile
radius--rather than having to sit down with a map and figuring out the
intricacies of the zip code system. Would you be willing to look into
that?
Answer. A zip code radius search has been a sought after function
of the National Sex Offender Public Registry (NSOPR) since the
inception of the program. After the initial release of NSOPR, the
original zip code function was modified from single zip code search
capability to the current search capability that allows users to search
multiple known adjacent zip codes. With the final two states scheduled
to participate in the program this summer, work is underway to develop
zip code radius style searches.
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANTS (JAG) PROGRAM
Question. The President's fiscal year 2007 budget would eliminate
funding for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program
that was developed to help states and local law enforcement control
violent crime and drug-related crime as well as improve operations and
coordination.
The Byrne grant program helps to fund the South Sakakawea Narcotics
Task Force that services the southwest counties of North Dakota. Prior
to having this task force, the Dickinson Police Department and Stark
County Sheriff's Department combined to investigate narcotics. It was
on a part time basis because it utilized detectives who had to work
criminal cases as well and it was not effective enough to deter the
dealers moving into our area.
According to the Dickinson Chief of Police, the task force this
past year handled 181 cases and made a total of 233 arrests. They also
have confiscated about $29,000 in asset forfeitures.
In eliminating funding, the Administration says the Byrne program
is ``unable to demonstrate results'' and that there is ``little
justification for continued funding.'' How can you justify cutting this
program? What methods did the Department of Justice use to evaluate
this program? Did you reach out directly to local law enforcement
officials in North Dakota to gather facts and results?
Answer. Due to the limited resources available to the Department of
Justice (DOJ), both the Administration and the Department have been
forced to make many difficult choices while preparing the fiscal year
2007 President's budget proposal. The decision to eliminate funding for
the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program (JAG) was a difficult choice
necessitated by the Department's need to focus available resources on
its top priorities, such as antiterrorism efforts, and ensure that
existing programs make the best possible use of the federal funds
dedicated to them. We are actively working with Congress and state and
local officials to help ensure that law enforcement needs are addressed
nationwide.
In fact, a number of critical and important investments exist in
the fiscal year 2007 budget--areas where funding is requested to target
specific priority problems. In recent years, both the President and
Congress have tended to focus funding on initiatives in key priority
areas, where we have the best chance of making a difference, in lieu of
funding large, broad-based programs that are not targeted and have not
been able to show the same level of results. JAG represents less than
one percent of all state and local spending in law enforcement.
If the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request is approved,
over $1 billion will be available to State, local and tribal law
enforcement through the U.S. Department of Justice for many of the same
purposes that JAG funded, such as training and equipment that logically
cross-cut crime and drug issues. The DOJ fiscal year 2007 President's
budget request includes $66.6 million to strengthen communities through
programs providing services such as drug treatment; $88.2 million to
combat violence, including enhancements to Project Safe Neighborhoods;
and $209 million to support drug enforcement, including funding to
continue and expand the Southwest Border Drug Prosecution Program.
During its fiscal year 2005 PART assessment of the Byrne JAG
Program and its predecessors (the Byrne Formula Grant Program and the
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant), OMB concluded that the JAG Program
has not been able to clearly demonstrate through quantifiable
performance measures that it is achieving its goals. Concerns were also
raised about the broad range of purpose areas allowed under the JAG
Program; JAG funded efforts in a total of 29 different purpose areas,
making it difficult for the program to develop meaningful performance
measures or focus its efforts on priority concerns. Much of the
justification for such assistance has diminished in comparison to other
priority needs, such as increasing federal counterterrorism efforts.
The Administration and the Department of Justice are committed to
supporting interagency drug enforcement efforts. The fiscal year 2007
President's budget includes $706 million for the Organized Crime and
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program and $208 million for the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. These programs
support drug enforcement efforts undertaken by task forces made up of
Federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies and enhance
the coordination of efforts against drug trafficking and drug-related
crime at all levels of government. The Department will continue to work
with Congress and State and local officials to address the many threats
that methamphetamine and other illegal drugs pose to America's
communities.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
NSA'S DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND ITS POSSIBLE UNDERMINING AFFECT
ON COUNTERTERRORISM EFFORTS
Question. The Administration has been very vocal about its disdain
for the information leaked concerning domestic wiretapping program. Is
it possible, that by ignoring FISA, as well as the FISA court, the
Administration has encouraged intelligence gatherers and analysts to
engage in constitutionally-suspect activities, and that the leaks that
have resulted have come about not through any dereliction of duty, but
from a real concern that individuals have been asked to conduct
domestic surveillance outside the rule of law?
If this is in fact true, then not only has the NSA's domestic
surveillance program been conducted illegally, it has placed
counterterrorism agents beyond the law, and possibly caused the leaks
it now condemns. What is the Administration's response to its possibly
undermining counterterrorism efforts by its brazen indifference to FISA
and the Constitution?
Answer. Thank you for the opportunity to address these questions,
which I believe reflect several misunderstandings. We hope our response
will allay your concerns.
First, the care that the Administration has taken in establishing,
implementing, and overseeing the Terrorist Surveillance Program
described by the President bears emphasis. The Administration has gone
to extraordinary lengths to ensure that, even while it protects the
American people from another catastrophic terrorist attack, it observes
the constitutional protections that we, as a Nation, cherish. For this
reason, the Administration sought and received the legal advice of the
Department of Justice and of the career attorneys who specialize in
this area of law at the National Security Agency (NSA) before the
program was first authorized, and it continues to seek such advice when
appropriate. The Program is narrowly focused, targeting only
international communications for which a trained intelligence
professional concludes there is probable cause to believe at least one
of the parties is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated
terrorist organization. The need for the Program is reevaluated
approximately every 45 days to minimize the risk of any unnecessary
interception of communications. Finally, from the very beginning, the
Administration has kept Congress informed through appropriate briefings
of the Intelligence Committees and leadership.
Second, the Administration has not ``circumvent[ed] procedures
required by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the
Constitution,'' nor has it ``ignored'' FISA. As explained in the
Department's January 19, 2006 paper, the Terrorist Surveillance Program
is fully consistent with FISA. FISA expressly recognizes that
electronic surveillance can be authorized by statutes other than FISA.
See 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)(1) (providing that electronic surveillance is
not prohibited if it is ``authorized by statute''). The Authorization
for the Use of Military Force of September 18, 2001 (``Force
Resolution'') is just such a statute. The Supreme Court has explained
that the Force Resolution must be understood to have authorized
``fundamental and accepted'' incidents of waging war. Hamdi v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 518 (2004) (plurality opinion); see id. at 587
(Thomas, J., dissenting). As explained at length in the January 19th
paper, the use of signals intelligence is a fundamental incident of the
use of military force. Consistent with this traditional understanding,
other Presidents, including Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, have
interpreted general force authorization resolutions to permit
warrantless electronic surveillance to intercept suspected enemy
communications. Cf. generally Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith,
Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev.
2048, 2091 (2005) (explaining that, with the Force Resolution,
``Congress intended to authorize the President to take at least those
actions permitted by the laws of war''). The Force Resolution thus
authorizes the President to conduct the Terrorist Surveillance Program
against al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist organizations, and does so in
a way explicitly contemplated by FISA. At the same time, as we have
explained repeatedly, the Administration understands and appreciates
FISA's value. It and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have
been of enormous assistance in protecting the Nation from terrorist
attacks and other threats to the national security. The Administration,
accordingly, makes full use of the FISA.
Third, we do not agree that concerns about the legality of the
Terrorist Surveillance Program caused the unauthorized leak that
publicly revealed the existence of the Program. Even if an employee
were concerned about the legality of the program, although the program
has been, from the beginning, subject to legal review at several
levels, there has long been a mechanism in place--the Intelligence
Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998--that would allow an
employee to bring such concerns to the attention of the relevant
Inspector General and, if that did not resolve his concerns, the
Intelligence Committees of Congress. This act provides a mechanism to
address concerns while protecting sensitive intelligence sources and
methods. No concern for the legality of the Program could have impelled
someone to break the law and cause irreparable harm to the national
security by leaking highly classified information when this alternative
was open.
Finally, the Terrorist Surveillance Program has been critical to
protecting the Nation from a subsequent al Qaeda attack and is in no
way ``undermining counterterrorism efforts.'' We hope these
clarifications allay your concerns.
______
Questions Submitted to Robert S. Mueller III
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
FBI ANALYSTS
Question. Director Mueller, since 9/11, you have tried to transform
the FBI into an intelligence agency, one that actively prevents
terrorist attacks instead of just responding to them. Last year, we
talked about an Inspector General report that criticized the FBI for
its inability to recruit, train, and retain qualified intelligence
analysts. Connecting the dots, of course, is crucial to that
transformation. The FBI fell well short of its analyst hiring goals in
2004, but you assured me that you would get that back on track in 2005,
and that you would meet your goals. What goals did the FBI set for
2005, and were they met? What sorts of people did you hire as analysts?
Are you fully satisfied with the qualifications of the applicants?
Answer. The FBI has worked hard to recruit the best possible
candidates to move us forward during our transformation. This work is
exemplified by our effort to hire intelligence analysts (IAs); through
an extremely aggressive recruiting effort, we have increased our total
on-board IA complement over the 9/11/01 level by 108 percent.
Throughout this period, we have set very high IA hiring goals, and
achieving these goals has been quite challenging. The FBI's goal in
fiscal year 2005 was to hire 780 analysts and, with the benefit of
streamlined pre-employment procedures and a hiring ``blitz,'' we hired
678 analysts. (Of these, 170 IAs counted against our fiscal year 2004
goal, so that the total IAs hired against our fiscal year 2005 goal of
780 was 508). Both our efforts and our challenges are continuing; in
the first two quarters of fiscal year 2006, we hired 233 IAs.
While the hiring of skilled and motivated federal employees in such
large numbers is always challenging, the hiring of IAs in adequate
numbers is made more challenging by the fact that the same backgrounds
and expertise we are seeking are also being sought by other
intelligence organizations. In order to close the gap created by hiring
shortfalls, the FBI has established a team that consists of
representatives from the Directorate of Intelligence, Administrative
Services Division, Security Division, and Training and Development
Division, who meet weekly to address hiring and training needs
throughout the FBI. We will sustain our vigorous hiring effort until we
meet our hiring goals.
The FBI has established policies and procedures designed to ensure
we have the highest quality IAs, and the qualifications of the IAs
hired in fiscal year 2005-2006 have been outstanding. For example, 48
percent of the recent hires have advanced degrees and, of those with
baccalaureate or advanced degrees, 25 percent possess critical skills
in such areas as Islamic studies, international banking, analytical
studies, or computer science.
SENIORS INVESTMENT FRAUD
Question. Since 9/11, the FBI has focused on protecting our
homeland and rightfully so. But the FBI also has other law enforcement
priorities. Recently, I chaired an Aging Committee hearing that focused
on the growing issue of securities fraud that seniors are facing. One
of the messages from that hearing was that law enforcement must focus
on both prosecuting fraud complaints and investigating potential scams
before they ensnare seniors' life savings. I understand that the FBI
has begun working on this, but can you tell us what additional
resources you need to step up your efforts in this area?
Answer. Securities fraud is a priority of the FBI's White Collar
Crime Program. During fiscal year 2005, the FBI had more than 1,500
pending securities fraud cases. These investigations resulted in 479
indictments or informations, 479 convictions, over $4.9 billion in
court-ordered restitution, and approximately $25 million in
forfeitures. The FBI will work with DOJ and Congress to identify any
additional resources needed to increase our securities fraud program as
it relates to senior citizens.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
CHOICEPOINT
Question. On April 3, 2006, the FBI announced that it was entering
into a $12 million, 5-year licensing agreement with ChoicePoint to
expand the use of software that helps the FBI analyze criminal
organizations. During the Committee's April 5, 2006, hearing, you
stated that the FBI did not consult with Congress before entering into
this agreement.
Given the well-publicized problems that ChoicePoint has had with
maintaining data security, how can the Justice Department possibly
justify entering into a multi-million dollar contract with ChoicePoint
to handle sensitive investigative data about how criminal enterprises
operate?
Answer. The FBI awarded a 5-year, fixed-price contract to i2, Inc.,
a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, on 12/1/05. ChoicePoint issued a press
release announcing this contract on 4/3/06, which created some
confusion as to whether the contract was for ChoicePoint data services
or for i2 analytical tools. In fact, this contract is solely for i2's
software applications and analytical tools, and not for ChoicePoint
data services. These i2 applications and tools include software
licenses, software upgrades, technical support for the ``Analyst's
Notebook'' (i2's primary product), a scaled-down version of i2's
``Visual Notebook,'' and related tools. The ``Analyst's Notebook'' is a
link-node analysis tool that has proven highly useful in
counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal investigations that
involve large volumes of data.
Like private investigators, paralegals, and others who subscribe to
such services, the FBI continues to use commercial databases, such as
ChoicePoint, that contain public-source information as well as
proprietary information that is privately owned and commercially
available at the owner's discretion. This information is available to
the FBI from the same sources that provide it to the commercial
databases. What these commercial databases offer their customers,
including the FBI, by contract is a consolidation of this information
so that, rather than going to multiple databases for this information,
it can be obtained through one or two searches.
The FBI contracts with commercial data providers, such as
ChoicePoint, in order to access the information they maintain. We do
not provide FBI information, including FBI investigative data, to these
organizations, and neither they nor their other clients have any access
to FBI information as a result of our contract or our access.
Question. Given the well-publicized problems that ChoicePoint has
had with maintaining data security, why did the FBI choose to not
consult Congress before entering into this licensing agreement?
Answer. As indicated in the response above, the recent contract did
not concern ChoicePoint's data services, but was instead a contract for
i2's software applications and analytical tools. Furthermore, the FBI's
spending with regard to contracts with ChoicePoint and other data
brokers has always been consistent with resources appropriated for such
matters.
Question. Did the FBI conduct a review of ChoicePoint's data
security procedures and privacy policy before entering into this
licensing agreement? If so, please describe that review process.
Answer. Because the recent contract with i2, Inc., was for software
applications and analytical tools, rather than for data services, it
did not raise any concerns regarding data security procedures or
privacy policy. These tools were evaluated as part of the FBI system's
security certification and accreditation process, in accordance with
FBI data security procedures and privacy policy.
VIRTUAL CASE FILE/SENTINEL
Question. Director Mueller, you are well aware of my ongoing
interest in getting a fully functional case management system into the
hands of agents. Last year, after consultants pronounced it obsolete
and riddled with problems, the FBI scrapped its $170 million Virtual
Case File component of the Trilogy program, which was supposed to
create an instantaneous and paperless way for FBI agents and analysts
to manage all types of investigations.
We recently learned that the FBI estimates that Trilogy's
successor, Sentinel, will cost the American taxpayers $425 million to
complete. Additionally, Sentinel will not be fully deployed until 2009.
The FBI has already set aside $97 million for Sentinel this year and
you are asking for an additional $100 million for this project for
fiscal year 2007.
How confident are you about the final cost estimate for the
Sentinel program?
Answer. The FBI is confident that the approved contract will meet
the requirements specified in the statement of work at the contracted
price. Should modifications be required, we will make the proper
notifications within the FBI and to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
OMB, and Congress. The total value of the contract with Lockheed Martin
is $305 million over 6 years, including both development and Operations
and Maintenance (O&M). The FBI estimates that the total cost for the
Sentinel program, including program management, systems development,
O&M, and independent validation and verification (IV&V), will be $425
million over 6 years.
Question. Based on this cost estimate, how much additional funding
or reprogrammed funds will the FBI require to complete this program? If
reprogramming is required, what programs do you anticipate will lose
funds?
Answer. The funding requested in the President's fiscal year 2007
budget will fund O&M for Phase 1 and a portion or all of the system
development, training, and program management costs for Phase 2. Final
funding requirements for Phase 2 are dependent on the completed
contract negotiations and other factors. Funding for Phases 3 and 4 and
for the remainder of O&M for all Phases will be requested in future
year budget submissions. If additional Phase 2 costs are identified in
fiscal year 2007 beyond the $100 million in the President's budget, the
FBI will work with DOJ, OMB, and Congress to redirect existing funds
where available or request additional funding as needed.
Question. I am trouble[d] by reports that two of the companies that
are part of the Sentinel contract team--Computer Sciences Corp. and
CACI International Inc.--also played roles in the earlier failed
Trilogy effort. How do you justify entrusting these companies with
taxpayer funds again?
Answer. Although it is true that two of the 11 companies partnering
with Lockheed Martin are common to both Trilogy and Sentinel (Computer
Science Corporation (CSC) and CACI), these companies were associated
with the Transportation Network and Information Presentation components
of the Trilogy contract rather than with the Virtual Case File portion,
which was led by SAIC.
The FBI believes both CSC and CACI will make significant
contributions toward Sentinel's success. CSC will provide subject-
matter expertise regarding legacy systems, system design, commercial
off-the-shelf software selection, and O&M support. CSC will also
provide information technology security services, a business line in
which they have excelled while working with the FBI's information
assurance program during the past three years. CACI will provide
subject-matter expertise in support of case management, records
management, development and testing, and implementation and
integration.
The FBI has strengthened its internal controls to avoid a
repetition of prior problems. For example, we have improved our
contract oversight in four significant ways. First, this contract has
clear reporting requirements and clear, defined deliverables at each
contract phase (each of the four phases delivers capability to the end-
user), and the contract can be terminated at any point should these
results be unsatisfactory. Second, those responsible for contract
management have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, and the
management function is structured so as to ensure that accountable
personnel review all documentation and expenses. This contract
management function will be supplemented by internal financial
management audits. Third, an IV&V specialist who reports directly to
the Chief Information Officer will independently assess the efficiency
and progress of the Program Management Office (PMO) and the work of the
Sentinel contractors. Fourth, to eliminate the likelihood of ``scope
creep,'' any significant requirements changes must first be approved by
the Executive Steering Council chaired by the FBI's Deputy Director.
The FBI has implemented measures to verify the FBI's receipt of the
contract's deliverables and to validate their costs when invoiced.
Unlike Trilogy, these measures include the creation of a PMO that
includes personnel with the expertise to ensure proper contract
administration. The Sentinel PMO includes a contracting officer and a
dedicated unit that is specifically assigned to track, monitor, and
control all program and development costs. This dedicated unit, which
includes a business manager, budget analyst, Earned Value Metrics
analyst, cost estimator, and full-time contracting officer's technical
representative, will used detailed invoicing procedures developed by
the PMO to validate all internal and external costs. As recognized in
the recent GAO and IG reports, the FBI has conveyed to Lockheed Martin
the importance of detailed cost tracking and adherence to established
policies and protocols. Lockheed Martin has assured the FBI that they
understand and concur in our requirements and will implement
appropriate policies and processes to ensure compliance.
Generally a government entity has no direct relationship with
subcontractors, who instead work for prime contractor, submitting
invoices to the prime contractor for approval and payment. While this
is true of the FBI's relationship with subcontractors in this case, as
well, the FBI has requested greater transparency of subcontractor
activities and charges with respect to the Sentinel contract, and
Lockheed Martin's monthly reports will be required to include
subcontractor costs in the same manner as their own costs.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. We will review the 2007 budget request for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on Wednesday,
April 26 in this room, and at that time, the NASA
Administrator, Dr. Michael Griffin, will be here to discuss the
budget for the programs under his jurisdiction. Until then, the
subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 4:38 p.m., Wednesday, April 5, the
subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday,
April 26.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:07 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby and Mikulski.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR
CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order. Today
we welcome the NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, who has
joined us to testify on the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA).
The proposed budget for NASA is $16.8 billion. After
accounting for one-time supplemental funds provided for
Katrina-related expenses, the increase to NASA-based programs
becomes $519 million, an increase of just over 3 percent. The
requested increase can be attributed to nearly $900 million to
fund the Vision and Exploration Program. While this is a
significant increase, there are a number of programs slated for
decreases that are troubling. Specifically, funding for
aeronautics and education have been cut, and science has been
shortchanged with little hope for funding in future years that
I see now.
Dr. Griffin, I feel that fulfilling NASA's goals including
returning to the Moon are important and will take more than
just plans for rockets and research missions. It will also take
a sound financial structure, as we've talked about, a skilled
workforce, and capable management. One of the greatest
challenges that I believe NASA faces is building and retaining
a technical workforce that we have talked about. NASA is one of
the most publicly recognized agencies within the Federal
Government. Such high visibility can be a powerful tool for
aspiring future scientists, engineers, and explorers. The
success of NASA programs in science and exploration seen by
students today is the inspiration needed to attract the young
people of this Nation to the careers of tomorrow.
Further investment in education is the direct link to
future generations. I believe we agree that we must continue to
encourage young people to explore these educational avenues and
endeavor to carry on the important research and exploration
capabilities for which NASA is so well known. It is a serious
issue that must be addressed in order to ensure that future
exploration in space can occur, and one that I do not believe
should be sacrificed.
Dr. Griffin, this budget before us reflects the process of
implementing the Vision for Space Exploration, and I understand
that the path was laid out in the exploration systems
architecture study. I believe that the intent of the study is
commendable in its aim to reach the goal of returning to the
Moon in a fiscally prudent, and safe manner. However, it is my
hope that such implementation can be accomplished while
maintaining the capabilities that NASA has developed in other
areas of its mission. I do not believe that we should sacrifice
important capabilities that will be vital to future missions
and efforts at NASA in trying to attain this goal. I believe
that we can and should find a balance, and I believe you will.
The path laid out for returning to the Moon is contingent
on several factors. However, we are both keenly aware that any
unexpected bump in the path could pose significant challenges
to NASA's long-term plans. Today we can point to the sizable
funding requirements of the space shuttle, as well as the
ongoing construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
as hefty fiscal burdens on NASA's ability to continue down the
path laid out in the Vision for Space Exploration.
The evident strain on funding in the science missions and
aeronautics budgets for NASA are indicators that we are
traveling down a tenuous path. Return to Flight and the
implementation of the Exploration Vision are a significant
financial strain on NASA, and, therefore, require other aspects
of NASA to remain relatively flat or decline over the next 5
years. It is all important.
I also believe that we will have an ongoing dialogue over
the course of the year about NASA's ability to achieve the
President's vision for space exploration. I am very interested
in discussing how NASA will preserve its ongoing programs and
how it will modernize its institutions and facilities which are
critical to NASA's success in the coming years. Again, I
believe that we can, and we have to, strike an appropriate
balance.
The Vision laid out by the President in 2004 calls for a
return to the Moon, and building upon that foundation to
eventually set foot on another planet. I am excited by the
opportunities that lay ahead with the Exploration Vision at
NASA, but I must point out that there are fiscal realities that
may affect the vision.
Dr. Griffin, I believe that this subcommittee has made
every effort to work with you, and we will continue to do that,
to provide NASA with the appropriate level of funding in an
effort to ensure that roles and missions are protected and
preserved. Along with that funding comes a fair amount of
direction, but the subcommittee has provided NASA with
reprogramming flexibility to react to those bumps in the path
that I discussed. However, in return, there is the expectation
that NASA will be a wise steward of taxpayers' dollars. I am
concerned that the financial systems for NASA have earned the
worst rating possible from the administration with little
progress toward correcting the problem over the past 3 years. I
realize that you have not been there all that time. Even more
troubling is a recent report of NASA having violated the anti-
deficiency laws. These reports come at a time when NASA is
holding an unprecedented amount of unobligated funds while
claiming to need every additional dollar in order to accomplish
the missions they have set out before them. Such reports have a
tendency to erode confidence in NASA's ability to responsibly
manage the funds that have been appropriated. Dr. Griffin, I
appreciate, as I said a minute ago, that you have only been in
your position for about 1 year, and I trust that you are
working diligently, and I want to work with you to correct
these problems, and ensure that there will be no further issues
in complying with anti-deficiency laws. In addition, I expect
that we will continue to discuss the unobligated balances that
NASA has accumulated over the years and how those best can be
utilized toward moving forward.
I look forward to hearing your insights on how NASA can do
better, your views, and the challenges ahead.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
RANKING MINORITY MEMBER MIKULSKI OPENING REMARKS
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
again I, too, wish to welcome Dr. Griffin.
It has been a very busy and in many ways successful year
for NASA, and I believe it is today that we celebrate the 25th
anniversary of the first shuttle flight, in which we thought
the shuttle was going to do wonderful things, and it did, but
now the shuttle is getting old and we need to be able to look
ahead.
There have also been an amazing set of accomplishments in
science. Dr. Bennett, of my very own Johns Hopkins, saw the
first light, and actually almost the beginning, of the Big Bang
through a gamma ray burst. We are looking at how we can
successfully launch the mission to Pluto by a team at APL;
Cassini, the probe that gave us the best pictures on Saturn;
and of course, the Hubble telescope and many other things.
Despite what we have been able to do, and despite the
successes of NASA, it has been a difficult year for NASA. The
cost of running the space shuttle to flight has run into delays
which are absolutely crucial to ensure our number one priority,
the safety of the astronauts, but it has also increased by $2.4
billion. Hurricane Katrina caused over $600 million of damage
to two NASA centers, and hats off to how the employees saved so
much of the facility, and know even slept on floors, but
nevertheless, will be a tremendous cost to rebuild, and the
years of flat budgets have put great stress on all of NASA's
programs.
In looking at areas ahead, we know that we are facing new
external challenges; a challenge from China. We know China
wants to go to the Moon. We know that they want to be the first
to go back to the Moon. We cannot let China be the first back
to the Moon. I know we have to go to the Moon and go in a way
that we can stay there for a variety of reasons.
At the same time, the President has challenged us and
worked with us on a bipartisan basis to be competitive, to
promote innovation and discovery, to focus on education and
research, innovation-friendly government. But we are concerned
as we have responded to the call raised in the excellent report
``Gathering Storm,'' that NASA was left out of that. I felt so
strongly about that in a bipartisan meeting at the White House,
to talk with the President about how his bold vision of
returning to Mars was exactly what could inspire people,
promote the development of incredible technology and
breakthroughs that would help inspire the next generation of
scientists, engineers and technologists, but also the kinds of
new technologies that end up in the marketplace and help us be
an economic superpower.
What we have seen though is a fairly flat budget, a modest
increase, but we are deeply concerned about the consequences of
what we see here. NASA's role in promoting science is not
included in the budget in the way we had hoped. Science is cut
over $2 billion; Mars; solar system research; aeronautics
research which is cut by $100 million which is so crucial. We
need a robust science program, we do need human exploration, we
do need a crew return vehicle (CRV), but we know that we have
enormous stresses in our own appropriations.
I'm going to work with my colleague, Senator Shelby, to
find a balanced space program, to get that shuttle flying again
and fix that shuttle, so as to move on to our next generation
of science, technology, and aeronautics. But I am concerned
that we are doing too much with too little money, that we have
an aging workforce, we have aging technology, and that, quite
frankly, I believe we have to find a way to do more, and we
cannot continue to do more with less.
So we look forward to your ideas. We thank you for your
leadership and we thank you for your candor. I particularly
want to express my appreciation for the way you have handled
the question of the ability to speak your scientific views and
so on, truth through power, and so we look forward to hearing
your testimony today.
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, your written testimony will be
made part of the record without objection, and you may proceed
as you wish. Welcome to the subcommittee, sir.
OPENING REMARKS OF MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator Shelby and Senator
Mikulski. I am pleased to be here to discuss our fiscal year
2007 budget request and how we are carrying out our missions of
space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
research, within the resources provided. With a 3.2 percent
increase over last year's appropriation, this budget does
represent the President's commitment to our Nation's civil
space program, and especially so in view of the many pressures
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the war on terrorism.
As we begin, I want to thank this subcommittee for its
leadership over the past year in providing emergency
supplemental funds for NASA's recovery and repair efforts after
Hurricane Katrina. We are also very appreciative of the action
taken by the Committees on Appropriations, and by the Congress
as a whole, in providing $16.5 billion in fiscal year 2006
appropriations to the agency, and essentially the level of the
President's fiscal year 2006 request before the application of
rescissions, as well as the strong endorsement of the Vision
for Space Exploration, timely development of the crew
exploration vehicle (CEV) and the crew launch vehicle (CLV),
and support for NASA's other core programs. We need the help of
this subcommittee now, and will continue to need it in the
future. Senator Shelby, I want specifically to address the
concerns you raised, because I think they are very fair.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
With regard to NASA's financial management, we delivered to
the Congress this past February an integrated cross-NASA
corrective action plan to address the findings and
recommendations to which you referred that were made by Ernst &
Young in the 2005 financial audit. Through this plan we are
working toward resolution of those audit issues by the third
quarter of this fiscal year, fiscal year 2006. NASA does not
control the opinion delivered by its auditors, but we fully
expect that resolution of the issues they raised by the third
quarter of this year will allow the auditors to perform a
complete audit of NASA's 2006 financial statements. We will
know when their opinion is released on November 15 of this
year. I could not take your concerns more seriously, nor be
more personally concerned about them myself.
ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT VIOLATIONS
You mentioned the ADA violations, Anti-Deficiency Act
violations. Two of these did occur as a result of the agency's
failure to file apportionment requests in fiscal 2004. The
first was of magnitude $1.6 billion that was obligated in 2005,
and a smaller one, $30.4 million, obligated in 2004. The funds
were not willfully or knowingly obligated or overly expended,
but that does not excuse the fact that it was done. We did
catch it ourselves, and we brought both instances to OMB's
attention. Again, that does not excuse the behavior, but we
sought to mitigate it to the maximum extent possible. We
addressed both of those issues without the need for
supplemental funds, and we have implemented corrective actions
in our financial accounting chain of command to see to it that
they do not happen again. I am certain that our auditors will
explore those issues as well.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
With regard to the point you made about unobligated
balances, it is true that as we sit here today we have $625
million presently unobligated. Ninety-six percent of funds have
been obligated. Of the $625 million, $108 million is for
construction, and $517 million is for nonconstruction
activities. We have definite plans for all of these funds. All
of them will be obligated, and all of the funds are required or
programs that have been approved by this Congress. I say again,
I am happy to work with your staff or with you as Members to
convince you that these statements that I am making today are
true. I have been here but a year, however, I fully accept and
in fact require ownership of these problems that you have
raised. They became my problems on April 14 of last year when
the Senate confirmed me, I do own them and we are working
toward a resolution.
In many ways, Mr. Chairman, NASA is a victim of its own
success. Our can-do attitude toward the Nation's greatest
technical challenges has left many people believing that NASA
can do anything and everything. I hate to say it, but I am here
to testify before you that NASA cannot do everything that our
many constituencies would like us to do within our proposed
$16.8 billion budget. I am truly sorry that this is so, but it
is a fact. Given this fact, I believe that the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget request before this Congress strikes a
careful, disciplined approach to meeting congressional
priorities and Presidential priorities for the Nation's civil
space program within the resources we have. NASA must go as we
can afford to pay across our entire mission portfolio of human
space flight, science, and aeronautics.
To gain a sense of perspective, I think it is useful to
recall that at the peak of the Apollo Program, NASA's budget
represented 4.4 percent of Federal outlays. Today, NASA's top
line is six-tenths of 1 percent of the Federal budget. During
Apollo, NASA funding employed over 400,000 contractors, civil
servants, technicians, scientists, and engineers across all of
its programs, and more than that. Today, NASA employs about
75,000 full-time equivalent employees throughout the aerospace
industry. NASA cannot and should not in this fiscal environment
try to do everything. We need to set priorities carefully, and
we need to execute our programs to match the resources
available with incredible schedules.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES
The national priorities that we have that have been agreed
upon by this Congress are, to fly the space shuttle as safely
as possible while using it to complete the assembly of the
International Space Station, using the minimum number of
flights necessary to do that, and to fulfill our commitments to
international partners. To conduct a space shuttle servicing
mission if technically possible to the Hubble space telescope,
pending outcome of the next Return to Flight mission. To retire
the space shuttle in 2010, and to bring on-line a new crew
exploration vehicle and crew launch vehicle not later than
2014, and possibly sooner. To develop a space shuttle derived
heavy lift launch vehicle to enable lunar missions not later
than 2020, and later missions to Mars and other destinations.
To develop a balanced program of space and Earth science, along
with aeronautics research, that appropriately leverage the new
direction of NASA's Human Space Flight Program. To pursue
appropriate commercial and international partnerships,
especially with the International Space Station.
These priorities require a careful balance of time, money,
and energy within the overall agency budget. Thus, our budget
request shifts resources to the space shuttle and the
International Space Station from both science and exploration,
to ensure that our highest priorities have the resources
necessary to accomplish them between now and 2010. NASA's
science missions remain one of our Nation's greatest
achievements, but we must defer some missions that we would
prefer to do sooner but simply cannot afford at this time. We
will continue to maintain a robust portfolio of missions and
research within the $5.33 billion science budget requested for
fiscal year 2007. NASA is listening to the priorities of the
science community in this process, and we will keep this
subcommittee informed if we believe that any adjustments in
mission or research priorities within that planned total
funding are necessary.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
In aeronautics research, NASA is developing a national
policy and plan in concert with the White House, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and other Federal agencies,
including the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), a policy which dedicates us to
the mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core
competencies of aeronautics in all of its flight regimes. This
plan will focus our research efforts on those areas appropriate
to NASA's unique capabilities. We hope to provide this plan
which will inform future budget resource decisions to the
Congress by December as required in our authorization act.
BALANCING THE BUDGET
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, NASA's fiscal
year 2007 budget request represents a careful balance,
conscientiously apportioned. We will need your help to maintain
that balance. As this subcommittee proceeds to mark up our
appropriation for fiscal year 2007, I most strongly urge you to
avoid the temptation to rob Peter to pay Paul by taking funds
from NASA's replacements for the space shuttle, the CEV and
CLV, to pay for science missions beyond the $5.33 billion
requested. Doing so will delay the CEV beyond 2014, and will
exacerbate problems in safety, workforce, and, frankly,
perceptions of a loss of U.S. leadership in space during this
gap in human space flight.
Likewise, it is important to fly out and retire the space
shuttle in a safe and orderly manner. The next several years
are critical as we effect this transition from the space
shuttle to the crew exploration vehicle. Indeed, this is NASA's
greatest management challenge, and we will need your help to
meet it.
The Space Shuttle Program is dealing with many technical
issues today, not least of which is fixing the external tank
foam shedding problems. I believe we have a grasp on those
issues, and I invite Members and staff of this subcommittee to
their next launch which will be space shuttle Discovery STS-
121. The launch window opens in July, and we are making
preparations for it, but we will fly only when we are ready.
I must also ask your help in considering limits to
redirection of funds to pay for congressional interest items.
Back in fiscal 1997, specific direction for NASA constituted
only $74 million for six specific projects. In fiscal year
2006, NASA was earmarked at a total of $568.5 million for 198
projects and programmatic increases. We and I fully acknowledge
the prerogative of the Congress to direct and appropriate
funds, but we desperately need your help and that of your staff
to minimize impact on our proposed programs and activities. We
simply cannot afford everything that everyone would like us to
do.
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS
We are also asking for this subcommittee's help in
providing some flexibility to use as much as $60 million in
emergency supplemental funds to reimburse our space shuttle and
space station programs for the funds used last fall to pay for
immediate Hurricane Katrina damage recovery. We are still
refining estimates of the total cost for the repair,
refurbishment, and hardening of our facilities at Michoud
assembly facility and the Stennis Space Center, but our most
recent estimate is a little bit less than $500 million. As you
consider the pending emergency supplemental appropriations
bill, I ask that you favorably consider this legislative
provision enabling flexibility for NASA. As we continue to
refine our total estimates for Katrina recovery, we will keep
the subcommittee fully informed as to how we would use this
flexibility. I look forward to working with you to address this
matter, and I think at this point it is good to thank the
subcommittee for the help you have provided within the last two
hurricane seasons which have been especially tough on NASA's
facilities in Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. I regret to
say that I will probably be counting on your help in the
future.
HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
Space flight remains a dangerous endeavor. Following the
loss of space shuttle Columbia, the Nation's leadership in both
the White House and the Congress recognized that the broader
goals of human space flight must be worth the cost and risk
involved. The Vision for Space Exploration articulates just
such goals, goals which are worthy of pursuit by a great
nation. Our purpose is not to impress others, or merely even to
explore the Moon and Mars, but, rather, to advance U.S.
scientific, security, and economic interests through leadership
in the grandest expression of human imagination of which we can
conceive. Put simply, human space flight is today one of those
strategic capabilities that define a nation as a superpower.
Other nations and societies aspire to this capability and have
achieved it, or will. The United States once surpassing command
of this arena has vanished, but international cooperation
leavened with a healthy dose of competition is what makes the
United States the greatest country in the world. The pursuit of
this vision requires technical excellence, hard work,
sacrifice, and the necessary resources, but we also need
leadership and we need the help of this Congress.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman and ranking member Mikulski, we have a long
journey ahead of us. We need your help. I look forward to
working with you and the members of the committee. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Dr. Griffin.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael D. Griffin
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's plans as represented in
the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for NASA. I will
outline the highlights of our budget request and discuss the strategic
direction for NASA in implementing the priorities of the President and
Congress within the resources provided. The President's fiscal year
2007 budget request for NASA of $16,792 million demonstrates his
commitment to the Vision for Space Exploration and our Nation's
commitment to our partners on the International Space Station. The
fiscal year 2007 budget request is a 3.2 percent increase above NASA's
fiscal year 2006 appropriation, not including the $349.8 million
emergency supplemental for NASA's recovery and restoration efforts
following Hurricane Katrina. However, let me put NASA's budget into
perspective. NASA's budget is roughly 0.7 percent of the overall
Federal budget. This is a prudent investment to extend the frontiers of
space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. With
it, we enhance American leadership, our safety and security, and our
global economic competitiveness through the technological innovations
stemming from our space and aeronautics research programs. Our Nation
can afford this investment in NASA.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
for Space Exploration to advance U.S. scientific, security, and
economic interests through a robust space exploration program. NASA is
very appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations and
Congress in providing regular fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the
Agency totaling $16,456.8 million--essentially the level of the
President's fiscal year 2006 request before application of
rescissions--including a strong endorsement for the Vision for Space
Exploration, timely development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and support for NASA's other core
programs. NASA is also grateful to the Congress for endorsing this
Vision last December in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-155) and providing guidance and expectations for us in carrying out
the Agency's missions of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research. To that end, NASA is implementing the priorities
of the President and Congress within the resources available. NASA
carries out its missions with a ``go as you can afford to pay''
approach where we assume NASA's top line budget will grow at the
moderate rate laid out in the President's 2007 budget request. NASA's
Strategic Plan and fiscal year 2007 Congressional Budget Justification,
provided to the Congress in February, reflect those priorities and
describe how NASA is implementing those policies into practice by
describing our programs, projected resources, and workforce needs.
As part of his fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress, the
President proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative, or ACI, to
encourage American innovation and strengthen our Nation's ability to
compete in the global economy. Many have asked why NASA is not a part
of the ACI. My response is that it is the mission of NASA to pioneer
the future of space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
research, while the ACI is focused on bolstering the Nation's economic
competitiveness in areas such as information technology and
nanotechnology. NASA contributes to the Nation's competitiveness
through all of the cutting-edge exploration, science, and aeronautics
investments accomplished by our Mission Directorates. As part of the
President's Vision for Space Exploration, NASA expects to spawn entire
new industries in this Nation. Furthermore, NASA's education and
training initiatives are designed to enhance math and science
education, as well as to provide research opportunities at the
university level. We are currently reviewing our portfolio of education
programs to assess opportunities for potential collaboration at the
invitation of the Department of Education, National Science Foundation,
and other Federal agencies. NASA can offer opportunities and
inspiration to students as no one else can. For example, a University
of Colorado-Boulder student-built experiment on the New Horizons
mission is currently being activated and will be operated by university
students all the way to Pluto and beyond.
IMPLEMENTING THE VISION
Later this year, NASA will continue the assembly of the
International Space Station (ISS) with the minimum number of Space
Shuttle flights necessary to fulfill our commitments to our
international partners before the Space Shuttle's retirement in 2010.
The commitment of resources in the President's budget has shown our
international partners that NASA and the United States are good
partners through thick and thin and this commitment will encourage them
to team with us in future endeavors of space exploration and scientific
discovery. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the crew size and logistics necessary during this assembly period as
well as the period following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The
heads of space agencies from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and the
United States met at Kennedy Space Center on March 2, 2006, to review
ISS cooperation and endorse a revision to the ISS configuration and
assembly sequence. The partners reaffirmed their agencies' commitment
to meet their mutual obligations, to implement six person crew
operations in 2009, and to conduct an adequate number of Space Shuttle
flights to complete the assembly of ISS by the end of the decade. The
partners also affirmed their plans to use a combination of
transportation systems provided by Europe, Japan, Russia, and the
United States in order to complete ISS assembly in a timeframe that
meets the needs of the partners and to ensure full utilization of the
unique capabilities of the ISS throughout its lifetime. The fiscal year
2007 budget request provides the necessary resources to purchase Soyuz
crew transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as needed
Progress vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Federal
Space Agency. Likewise, the fiscal year 2007 budget request provides
necessary funds for U.S. commercial industry to demonstrate the
capability to deliver cargo and/or crew to the ISS. If such cost-
effective commercial services are successfully demonstrated, NASA will
welcome and use them.
The next return to flight test mission, STS-121 commanded by
Colonel Steve Lindsey, will confirm that we can safely return the Space
Shuttle to its primary task of assembling the ISS. We have continued to
reduce the risk associated with the release of foam debris from the
external tank by eliminating the liquid hydrogen and the liquid oxygen
protuberance air load ramps. We are now working toward a July launch,
which is the next available lighted launch window as mandated for STS-
121. The window is open from July 1 through July 19. NASA will launch
when ready. Pending the results of this test flight, I plan to convene
my senior management team for space operations as well as my Chief,
Safety and Mission Assurance and my Chief Engineer in order to
determine whether the Space Shuttle can safely conduct a fifth
servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope in 2007-08. NASA's
fiscal year 2007 budget provides the necessary resources to conduct
this mission.
In previous budget requests, NASA reported only placeholder budget
estimates for the Space Shuttle for fiscal year 2008-2010. The Agency's
management focus on return to flight efforts of the Space Shuttle
resulted in NASA deferring this analysis until the fiscal year 2007
budget. As I testified before Congress last year, NASA's estimates of
the budget shortfall required to safely fly out the Space Shuttle with
the minimum number of flights necessary to complete ISS assembly and
meet our international partner commitments were $3-$5 billion. With the
fiscal year 2007 budget runout, NASA has added $2.4 billion to the
Space Shuttle program and almost $1.5 billion to the International
Space Station in fiscal year 2008-2010 compared to the fiscal year 2006
budget runout. There is no ``new money'' for NASA's top line budget
within the budget projections available given our Nation's other
pressing issues, so, working with the White House, NASA provided
sufficient funds for the Space Shuttle and ISS programs to carry out
their missions by redirecting funds from the Science and Exploration
budgets.
There are several strategic implications behind this decision.
Foremost among them is that our Nation will keep its commitment to our
international partners on the ISS. Thus, with limited resources, we
made some difficult decisions. Leadership means setting priorities of
time, energy, and resources, and I have tried to make these decisions
with the best available facts and analysis. The plain fact is that NASA
simply cannot afford to do everything that our many constituencies
would like the Agency to do. We must set priorities, and we must adjust
our spending to match those priorities. NASA needed to reallocate
budgeted funds from the Science and Exploration budget projections for
fiscal year 2007-2011 in order to ensure that enough funds were
available to properly support the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Thus, NASA
cannot afford the costs of starting some new science missions at this
time. It is important to know that NASA is simply delaying missions,
not abandoning them. With the limited resources available, I believe
that fulfilling our commitments on the International Space Station and
bringing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) online in a timely manner,
not later than 2014 and possibly much sooner, is a higher priority than
these science missions during this period.
There are several reasons not to delay the CEV farther. First and
foremost is increased risk to the Vision due to an extended gap in our
Nation's ability to launch humans into space after we retire the Space
Shuttle in 2010. I experienced first-hand the stagnancy in the
aerospace industry that existed during the gap in human spaceflight
between the end of the Apollo program and the first flight of the Space
Shuttle in 1981, and I know that our Nation's space program suffered
greatly from the unintended loss of critical expertise. Our Nation's
space industrial base withered. A longer gap in U.S. human spaceflight
capabilities will increase risk and overall costs and lead to even more
delays in pursuing the Nation's vision. Equally important, the United
States may risk a perceived, if not a real loss of leadership in space
exploration, if we are unable for an extended period to launch our
astronauts into space when other nations are establishing or building
on their own abilities to do so. An extended gap in U.S. human
spaceflight capabilities also increases our risk posture to adequately
maintain and utilize the ISS and, unless a commercial capability arises
to transport our astronauts, NASA would continue to be reliant on the
Russian Soyuz.
Thus, further delays in the CEV are strategically more damaging to
our Nation's space program than delays to these other science missions.
I stand by my decision regarding how to implement the priorities of the
President and Congress within the resources provided, and I will work
closely with our stakeholders in Congress and the scientific community
to make sure they understand my rationale. Some of our stakeholders
will not agree with my position, but it is important for everyone to
understand the rationale. These are difficult decisions, but we must
balance the competing priorities for our Nation's civil space and
aeronautics research endeavors with the limited resources available.
If the funds budgeted for Exploration Systems were to be used to
provide additional funds for Science missions, additional Aeronautics
Research, or other Congressionally-directed items, I must advise the
Congress that such redirection of already-budgeted funds will directly
impact NASA's ability to effectively and efficiently transition the
workforce and capabilities from the Space Shuttle to the new CEV
systems. Funds available to carry out this transition are already lean,
with little management reserve or margin for error. This transition
from the Space Shuttle to the CEV is NASA's greatest management
challenge over the next several years, and we will need everyone's help
within NASA, industry, and our stakeholders to make the transition
successful.
Beyond fulfilling our existing commitment, NASA's fiscal year 2007
budget provides the necessary resources to carry out the next steps of
the Vision for Space Exploration. The fiscal year 2007 budget provides
$3,978 million for Exploration Systems. Last summer, NASA defined the
architecture for the exploration systems that will be necessary in
carrying forth that Vision, and we notified the Congress of NASA's need
to curtail several research and technology activities not directly
contributing to the near-term priorities of timely development of the
CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) based on the results of that
exploration architecture study and the limited funds available. I want
to thank the Congress for its endorsement of the general architecture
plans in the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act for NASA (Public Law
109-108) as well as the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-
155).
The fiscal year 2007 budget request is sufficient to bring the CEV
online no later than 2014, and potentially much sooner. Given the
analysis I have today and the need to balance budgets with proposed
development work for the CEV and launch vehicles along with the cost
estimates for that work, I cannot be more specific for our stakeholders
in the White House and Congress at this time about the specific point
between 2010 and 2014 when NASA will be able to bring the CEV online.
NASA requested industry proposals for the CEV, and we have considerable
incentives for an industry bidder to propose a planned development for
the CEV as close to 2010 as possible. NASA has begun to evaluate those
industry proposals, with a planned contract award in late summer/early
fall 2006. NASA plans to select one industry contractor team for the
design and development of the CEV. Concurrently, NASA will refine its
independent cost estimates for the CEV and launch systems as well as
find cost savings through workforce synergies and contract efficiencies
between the Space Shuttle and CEV launch systems within the budget
profile projected in fiscal year 2007. We believe we can find synergies
and contract efficiencies by sharing or transferring subsystems,
personnel, resources, and infrastructure between the Space Shuttle
propulsion elements and the CEV, CLV, and Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle. I
believe that with the fiscal year 2007 budget, NASA and industry have a
real opportunity to make the CEV operational sooner than 2014. I should
be able to report a more definitive date for bringing the CEV online by
the time we award the CEV contract. Until then, NASA is in the midst of
source selection for the CEV procurement, and we are limited in our
ability to provide information in this competitive environment
involving a multi-billion dollar procurement.
For the CLV, NASA has directed two industry teams to begin initial
development of the vehicle's propulsion systems, and to develop designs
for the CLV upper stage. The Agency also plans to award design,
development, test, and evaluation contracts later this year. NASA is
planning a systems requirements review for this project in the fall
with a preliminary design review in 2008 in order for this new launch
vehicle to be ready for when the CEV comes on-line.
While NASA needed to significantly curtail projected funding for
biological and physical sciences research on the ISS as well as various
research and technology projects in order to fund development for the
CEV, the U.S. segment of the ISS was designated a National Laboratory
in the NASA Authorization Act. Thus, NASA is seeking partnerships with
other government agencies like the National Science Foundation,
Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department
of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology as
well as the commercial sector to conduct research onboard the ISS.
However, the research utilization of the ISS is impacted due to limited
cargo and crew transportation. For this reason, NASA's need for
investment to spur a commercial cargo and/or crew transportation
service is even more compelling.
SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
In 2005, NASA's science missions enjoyed a year of significant
achievements. Deep Impact traveled 268 million miles to meet comet
Tempel 1, sending its impactor to collide with the comet and providing
researchers with the best-ever comet data and images. The Mars twin
rovers continue studying the harsh Martian environment, well beyond
their expected mission life. Cassini may have found evidence of liquid
water erupting from below the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus. The
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter successfully launched and went into orbit
around Mars, to help us better understand the history of water on Mars.
The Voyager 1 spacecraft entered the vast, turbulent expanse of the
heliosheath, 8.7 billion miles from the Sun, where no human-made object
has traveled before. The Hubble Space Telescope continues its
successful mission of discovery and exploration. Among its many
achievements was the discovery that Pluto may have three moons,
offering more insights into the nature and evolution of the Pluto
system and Kuiper Belt. Through coordination of observations from
several ground-based telescopes and NASA's Swift and other satellites,
scientists solved the 35-year old mystery of the origin of powerful,
split-second flashes of light called gamma-ray bursts. The Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) provided data to aid our
understanding of the changes inside a hurricane, helping scientists re-
create storms on computer forecast models, which can assist in the
forecasting of future tropical cyclone transformations. On January 19,
2006, we successfully launched the New Horizons Mission, beginning its
nine year journey to Pluto for scientific discovery. In the near
future, we will launch CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared
Pathfinder Satellite Observations) and Cloudsat from Vandenberg Air
Force Base. Together, they will provide new perspectives on Earth's
clouds and aerosols, answering questions about how they form, evolve,
and affect water supply, climate, weather, and air quality. Truly, this
has been a successful year of science achievements--a trend I expect to
continue.
NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget request provides $5,330 million for
the Agency's Science portfolio to explore the universe, solar system,
and Earth. My decision to curtail the rate of growth for NASA's Science
missions is not intended in any way to demonstrate any lack of respect
for the work done by NASA Science. On the contrary, NASA's science
missions remain one of the nation's crowning achievements, and NASA is
a world leader with 54 satellites and payloads currently operating in
concert with the science community and our international partners. My
decision to slow the rate of growth for NASA's Science missions is
simply a matter of how the Agency will use the available resources
within the overall NASA portfolio. In fact, the Agency's Science budget
has grown much faster than NASA's total budget since fiscal year 1993.
In 1992, the Science budget represented only 24 percent of the overall
NASA budget while it represents 32 percent of the Agency's budget in
fiscal year 2007. NASA's Science budget is moderated to 1.5 percent
growth in the fiscal year 2007 budget request compared with the amount
appropriated for NASA in fiscal year 2006 (in accordance with NASA's
Initial Operating Plan provided to the Committee) and then 1 percent
per year thereafter through fiscal year 2011.
In the fiscal year 2007 budget, there are some additional budget
shifts within the Science portfolio to rebalance the program to better
reflect our original science priorities and consistent with the fiscal
year 2006 Budget Amendment. Within the Science budget, the Solar System
Exploration budget provides $1,610 million to fund missions to all
solar system bodies and to maintain the Deep Space Network. Mars
exploration is kept at roughly its current level of funding which
allows missions every 26 months when the Earth and Mars are in
planetary alignment. Mars will be the most thoroughly studied planet
besides our own Earth. NASA continues a series of openly competed
missions for Discovery, New Frontiers, and Scout missions to various
planetary bodies in the solar system. Juno, a competitively-selected
mission to study Jupiter, is slated to be the next New Frontiers
mission, following the New Horizons mission on its way to Pluto after
its successful launch in January.
After extensive reviews, NASA has extended the mission operating
life of several Earth Science missions including TRMM and Terra,
Heliophysics missions such as both Voyager spacecraft, and Astrophysics
missions including Chandra and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
NASA's fiscal year 2007 request for the Aeronautics Research
Mission Directorate is $724 million. Proper stewardship of this funding
requires a coherent strategic vision for aeronautics research, which we
are working to develop. While I am concerned that our Nation's aviation
industry not lose market share to global competitors, NASA's research
must benefit the American public by supporting a broad base of
aeronautics research. NASA's aeronautics research cannot and will not
directly subsidize work to specific corporate interests. There are
fundamental questions in aeronautics research needing to be answered,
and NASA will focus its aeronautics research on those issues. NASA will
take responsibility for the intellectual stewardship of the core
competencies of aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes, from
subsonic through hypersonic flight. We will also conduct the
fundamental research that is needed to meet the substantial challenges
of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS), and we intend
to work closely with our agency partners in the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO).
Across our aeronautics portfolio, NASA is taking a long-term,
strategic approach to our research plans to ensure that we pursue the
cutting-edge across the breadth of aeronautics disciplines that will be
required to support revolutionary capabilities in both air vehicles and
the airspace in which they fly. NASA's commitment to technical
excellence requires a commitment to rigor and discipline and will not
focus on demonstrations that lack the traceability and scalability
required for true scientific and engineering advancement. Hence, we are
turning away from the four-demo approach proposed last year under the
Vehicle Systems Program. Instead, our Fundamental Aeronautics Program
will focus on fundamental research that addresses aeronautics
challenges in areas such as aerothermodynamics, acoustics, propulsion,
materials and structures, computational fluid dynamics, and
experimental measurement techniques. The Fundamental Aeronautics
Program will generate data, knowledge, and design tools that will be
applicable across a broad range of air vehicles in subsonic (both fixed
and rotary wing), supersonic, and hypersonic flight.
In the Aviation Safety Program, NASA is developing strategic
research plans, ensuring that the research conducted will lead to
capabilities and technologies for improving safety consistent with the
revolutionary changes anticipated in air vehicles foreseen in the
future. The focus will be vehicle-centric, with areas of research that
include vehicle health management, resilient aircraft control, aging
and durability challenges, and advanced flight deck technologies.
In the Airspace Systems Program, NASA will conduct the fundamental
research required to bring about the revolutionary capabilities
articulated in the JPDO's vision for the NGATS. Our research will focus
on the development of future concepts, capabilities, and technologies
that will enable major measurable increases in air traffic management
effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency.
In addition to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate's three
research programs, NASA is committed to preserving as national assets
those aeronautics test facilities which are deemed mission critical and
necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the Agency and the
Nation. NASA has established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), a
component of the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), as a long-
term, funded commitment by NASA to retain and invest in test
capabilities that are considered important to the Agency and the
Nation. ATP's purpose is to ensure the strategic availability of the
requisite, critical suite of wind tunnel and ground test facilities
which are necessary to meet immediate and future National requirements.
As part of our overall portfolio, NASA program managers and
researchers will work closely and constructively with industry,
academia, and other Government entities to enhance our Nation's
aeronautics capability. In this vein, as a principal member of the
interagency JPDO, NASA has established investment priorities that
directly address the research and development needs of the NGATS which
will enable major increases in the capacity and mobility of the U.S.
Air Transportation System. NASA also plans to collaborate closely with
industry and academia through the use of competitive research awards
and Space Act agreements on prospective research work in line with the
critical thrust areas of the Aeronautics program that will enable
numerous commercial aviation and scientific applications. Our goal is
to focus our total research investments on fundamental aeronautics
questions that need to be answered, and that will benefit the broader
community of academia, industry, and Government researchers. We will
transition the achievements from NASA's Aeronautics research and
technology for use by both Government and industry. Additionally, and
in line with the refocused program's priorities, NASA will leave to
others work more appropriately performed or funded by other Agencies or
the private sectors.
In accordance with the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-108),
NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy have been jointly
developing a National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy which
will establish a long term policy and guidance for future aeronautics
research and development activities. This policy will establish the
appropriate role for Federal investment in U.S. aeronautics research:
near- and far-term, high-priority objectives; roles and
responsibilities of the multiple agencies involved; and, guidance on
related infrastructure and workforce challenges.
CROSS-AGENCY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
In the fiscal year 2007 budget, NASA proposes a new direct budget
category for programs that cut across NASA's portfolio of space
exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. These
Cross-Agency Support Programs include: NASA's Education programs funded
at $153.3 million; Advanced Business Systems, or more commonly known as
the Integrated Enterprise Management program, is called out as a
separate program rather than being budgeted from within Corporate and
Center General and Administrative accounts and is funded at $108.2
million; NASA's Innovative Partnership Program, including Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR), has been transferred from Exploration Systems so that
these partnerships may better address Agency-wide needs and is funded
at $197.9 million. Also, the Shared Capabilities Assets Program is
funded at $32.2 million (with additional funding located in the Mission
Directorates) and will ensure that NASA's unique facilities (e.g., wind
tunnels, rocket engine test stands, high-end computing, thermal vacuum
chambers, and other capital assets) are adequately managed with agency-
level decision-making to address NASA's and the Nation's needs.
NASA's Education budget request sustains our commitment to
excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education to ensure that the next generation of Americans can accept
the full measure of their roles and responsibilities in shaping the
future and meeting the workforce needs to implement the Vision for
Space Exploration. NASA will continue to provide innovative programs
that use STEM resources (NASA content, people and facilities) to
inspire the next generation of explorers and innovators. I have
outlined three primary goals for our education investments: (1)
strengthening NASA and the nation's future workforce; (2) attracting
and retaining students in the STEM pipeline; and, (3) engaging
Americans in NASA's mission through partnerships and alliances. The
greatest contribution that NASA makes in educating the next generation
of Americans is providing worthy endeavors for which students will be
inspired to study difficult subjects like math, science, and
engineering because they too share the dream of exploring the cosmos.
These students are our future workforce. Our education investment
portfolio is directly linked to our overall workforce strategy.
NASA WORKFORCE STRATEGY
The Vision for Space Exploration is a unique endeavor that will
last many generations. The NASA management team has been working to
build NASA as an institution having ten healthy field Centers known for
technical excellence. We continue to define program management and
research roles and responsibilities for each Center in order to carry
out NASA's missions of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research. All of our centers must contribute to NASA's
primary missions. We are beginning the process of assigning specific
research programs and projects to appropriate NASA Centers. We are not
done, but we are taking the necessary steps to make it happen.
We have many challenges in the Agency, but none more important than
the technical excellence of NASA's workforce. Likewise, we are
beginning to address the problems posed by the aging of NASA's
facilities and physical assets. The overall objective is to transform
the composition of NASA's workforce so that it remains viable for the
long-term goals of NASA's missions. We have a lot of work cut out for
us in the coming months and year ahead in assigning these program
responsibilities and re-building the Agency's technical competence in
performing cutting-edge work. NASA has been addressing the challenge of
mitigating the number of civil service employees in the Agency that are
not currently assigned or supporting NASA programs (the so-called
``uncovered capacity'') through a number of means, which were addressed
in a draft report, shared with the Subcommittee in February in
compliance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The final workforce
report, reflecting input from our unions, was provided to the
Subcommittee earlier this month. NASA will conduct a reduction in force
of our civil servants only as an action of last resort consistent with
our statutory constraints. Instead, NASA is focusing its efforts to
solve its uncovered capacity workforce problems through a number of
other actions, including the assignment of new projects to research
Centers that will strengthen their base of in-house work, the Shared
Capability Assets Program that should stabilize the skills base
necessary for a certain specialized workforce; the movement of certain
research and technology development projects from certain centers not
suffering from uncovered capacity problems to centers that are;
retraining efforts at field centers so that the technical workforce can
develop new skills; and the pursuit of reimbursable work for projects
and research to support other government agencies and the private
sector through Space Act Agreements.
NASA'S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Earlier this month, NASA notified the Committee that it had two
violations of the Antideficiency Act. The violations resulted from the
Agency's failure to request from the Office of Management and Budget
timely reapportionment of Congressionally-approved fiscal year 2004
funds and timely apportionments of unobligated balances carried over
from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005. The Agency has corrected the
errors without the need for additional appropriations. The Agency has
also identified the root cause of these errors and has addressed them
through its aggressive staff training and process improvements.
NASA has continued to make progress in addressing its other
financial management and reporting challenges. The Office of Management
and Budget has recently provided feedback to NASA affirming the
Agency's progress. The Agency finalized a Corrective Action Plan
addressing financial weaknesses identified in NASA's 2005 financial
audit. The plan was delivered to the Congress, specifically at the
request of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee
on Science and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and
Accountability of the Committee on Government Reform, on February 15,
2006. It incorporates the expert advice of NASA's Inspector General. In
addition, we have reviewed the plan with the Office of Management and
Budget. This Corrective Action Plan provides an integrated, cross-NASA
approach to resolving the Agency's outstanding deficiencies.
Implementation of these corrective actions is reviewed regularly by the
NASA Deputy Administrator. While these corrective actions will require
some time to implement, NASA remains committed to improving its
financial management and reporting.
IMPACT OF EARMARKS ON NASA'S MISSION
NASA pioneers the future in space exploration, scientific discovery
and aeronautics research. In order to carry out this mission, NASA
awards peer-reviewed science grants and conducts competitively-selected
procurements to select research and development projects to benefit the
public based on the priorities of the Congress, President, and
scientific community. NASA is implementing these priorities within the
resources provided. NASA's fiscal year 2006 appropriation totals
$16.623 billion, including $349.8 million in emergency supplemental
appropriations for Hurricane Katrina recovery at NASA facilities in
Louisiana and Mississippi. Within this fiscal year 2006 appropriation
is a total of $568.5 million in directed funding for 198 discrete site-
specific and programmatic Congressional interest items, a record high
in both dollar amount and number of individual items. These
Congressional interest items are offset by reductions within NASA's
budget, to ongoing and planned NASA programs. Earmarks have increased
by a factor of more than 30 in number and almost 8 in dollar value
since fiscal year 1997, when NASA was earmarked $74 million, for 6
discrete items. The growth of these Congressional directions is eroding
NASA's ability to carry out its mission of space exploration and peer-
reviewed scientific discovery.
In formulating our budget, NASA prioritizes activities to achieve
an integrated package of programs and projects to best achieve the
priorities that have been provided us by both the President and the
Congress. The redirection of funding erodes the integrity of our plans,
has resulted in delays and/or cancellation of planned activities, and
may conflict with timely development of the CEV. In fiscal year 2006,
as a result of earmarks, NASA had to redirect a significant portion of
many planned budgets. Fully 50 percent of the planned Education program
required redirection, 16 percent of the Innovative Partnerships
Program, 5 percent of the Exploration Systems budget, and 4 percent of
the Science budget. Further, the scientific community bases its
research priorities on a peer-review process. Congressional site-
specific earmarks circumvent this process for setting research
priorities within the science community and erode the integrity of that
process. Site specific earmarks to institutions outside of NASA
exacerbate the problems of NASA's ``uncovered capacity'' workforce,
where NASA civil servant scientists and engineers do not have funds for
their own research and development projects. As stated in the
President's ACI, ``The rapidly growing level of legislatively directed
research funds undermines America's research productivity.'' NASA seeks
the assistance of this Committee and Congress in reducing earmarks in
the fiscal year 2007 budget process.
NASA'S NEXT STEPS
For the last three decades, NASA and the Nation's human spaceflight
program have been focused on the development and operation of the Space
Shuttle and the ISS. In its final report, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) was very forthright in its judgment that
these goals are too limited to justify the expense, difficulty, and
danger inherent to manned spaceflight, given the limitations of today's
technology. The CAIB was equally forthright in calling for a national
consensus in the establishment of a program having broader strategic
goals. The Vision for Space Exploration is that endeavor. The Congress
has endorsed it, and NASA is working to implement it. But to effect
these changes, NASA must engage in a major transformation--taking the
capabilities we have throughout the Agency and restructuring them to
achieve a set of goals for the 21st Century that we have outlined
earlier this month in our 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. This is an enormous
challenge, but we have begun to transform our entire organization to
foster these changes and to enhance a positive, mission-driven culture.
The CAIB was also clear in its assessment that the lack of open
communication on technical and programmatic matters was a direct cause
of the loss of Columbia. We have understood and embraced this
assessment, and are absolutely and completely committed to creating an
environment of openness and free-flowing communication. However, NASA
still has to make a number of improvements in its internal
communications as well as how we communicate externally to our
stakeholders, the scientific community, and the public. NASA is making
a concerted effort to address all problems in this area.
For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is
necessary for us also to lead in space exploration, scientific
discovery, and aeronautics research. It is equally true that great
nations need allies and partners. The spirit of innovation and the
muscle of government and industry are needed to turn the Nation's
Vision for Space Exploration into reality. These journeys to the ISS,
the Moon, Mars, or even Pluto are the most difficult things our nation
does. June Scobee Rodgers, the widow of Dick Scobee, Commander of the
Space Shuttle Challenger on that ill-fated day twenty years ago,
recently noted, ``Without risk there's no discovery, there's no new
knowledge, there's no bold adventure . . . the greatest risk is to take
no risk.'' We must continue our journey. America, through NASA, leads
the way.
INTERNAL WEAKNESSES IN INTERNAL CONTROLS
Senator Shelby. Can you be a little more specific on
addressing the material weaknesses in internal controls that
have been reported for several years?
Dr. Griffin. I can be.
Senator Shelby. Could you do that for the record?
Dr. Griffin. I will do that for the record.
[The information follows:]
Internal Weaknesses in Internal Controls
NASA's independent financial auditors identified three
material weaknesses and one reportable condition through its
fiscal year 2005 financial audit. The weaknesses are repeat
findings from prior financial audits. NASA submitted a
Corrective Action Plan in February 2006 to Congress, OMB and
NASA's Office of Inspector General that addresses each of the
recommendations made by the independent financial auditors.
NASA has been executing this plan throughout fiscal year 2006.
For your convenience, we have attached NASA's Financial
Management Corrective Action Plan, which provides a complete
list of in-process actions to address each material weakness.
ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT VIOLATIONS PREVENTIVE STEPS
Senator Shelby. And the next question, what steps have you
taken to prevent this type of ADA violation from occurring
again? Do you want to do that for the record?
Dr. Griffin. We will do it for the record to get the
details right and proper.
Senator Shelby. That will be fine.
[The information follows:]
ADA Violations Preventive Steps
NASA agrees with each of the OIG's specific recommendations:
--OIG Recommendation #1.--We recommend that the Administrator report
the ADA violations for the funds carried over from fiscal year
2004 to fiscal year 2005 for each affected account and for the
$30,413,590 to the President of the United Statues through the
OMB Director, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the
Government Accountability Office, as required by the ADA and by
OMB Circular A-11, section 145.7
--OIG Recommendation #2.--We recommend that the Administrator request
a comprehensive demonstration by the OCFO that the
appropriations available to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be
traced from appropriation to apportionments to allotments to
commitments and to obligations to help ensure that NASA is not
violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006
In addition to accepting and acting upon NASA's OIG two specific
recommendations, NASA has implemented specific correction actions in
the OCFO. These corrective actions include:
--Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
management personnel. Both the Directors of Accounting and
Budgeting reconcile NASA appropriations to OMB apportionments.
They jointly certify apportionment requests to OMB. This
ensures that the operations of each organization, the budget
and execution of the budget, are appropriately reflected in
NASA financial systems. In addition, a manual of all related
apportionment transactions is maintained;
--Met with the NASA OIG to demonstrate that the core financial system
has effective system controls that prevent obligations from
exceeding apportionment control totals;
--Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006,
and 8 in March 2006;
--Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
An additional course is currently being scheduled;
--Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch from 7 to
14; and
--Documenting enhanced internal controls, to include: Logging and
tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and approvals; and
reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally
approved Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
centralized financial system.
Dr. Griffin. But, basically, we have put additional cross-
checks in. We are working on training staff, and we have put
additional cross-checks into the system so that it, frankly,
does not happen again.
Senator Shelby. We think that that is important, but I want
to say again, Dr. Griffin, you may have inherited a lot of
this, and you are strong to say it is your deal now, and it was
not always your deal, but it does have to be addressed, as you
know.
Dr. Griffin. I thank you for that observation, Senator. You
hired me to fix the problems, and we will fix them.
INTEGRATED ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Senator Shelby. What is NASA's current estimated cost to
develop, implement, and maintain the Integrated Enterprise
Management Program including those costs incurred to resolve
data integrity issues resulting from the initial implementation
of the core financial system?
Dr. Griffin. Sir, again, I do not have those figures.
Senator Shelby. Will you do that for the record?
Dr. Griffin. I will be happy to provide that for the
record. We do have that data. I just don't have it right here.
[The information follows:]
Integrated Enterprise Management Program
The development and implementation costs for NASA's
Integrated Enterprise Management Program, including all the
hardware, software, civil service labor, contractor labor,
travel, and overhead costs associated with re-engineering
business processes and implementing business systems for human
capital management, financial management, asset management, and
procurement and contract management are estimated at $842
million for the development years 2000 through 2011, consistent
with the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request.
Of this total development estimate, $82.6 million is being
expended to update NASA's financial system, which, among other
benefits, helps resolve data integrity issues identified with
the initial core financial system implementation. Approximately
$50 million per year is expended operating and maintaining this
business systems environment.
ROBOTIC LUNAR EXPLORATION PROGRAM (RLEP)
Senator Shelby. I know it is a complicated question. The
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Let's get into that. Last December, NASA
announced that the Marshall Space Flight Center would be the
project lead for the second mission under the Robotic Lunar
Exploration Program (RLEP-2). The intent of the announced
mission is to land on the lunar surface and search for deposits
of water and ice as a precursor to later human missions.
Unfortunately, no funding for this mission was included in the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2007, and there are
concerns that RLEP-2 is no longer a priority for NASA. Could
you provide us an update on the overall RLEP program and the
current projects under the program, and is the RLEP-2 mission
still proceeding as announced, and so forth?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. The concern that you cite that the
RLEP Program is not a priority is not a well-founded concern.
Indeed, it is a priority. As you know, sir, in order to meet
our unfunded obligations for the space shuttle and space
station, we had to remove from the Science Program $2.2 billion
over the 5-year run-out, and $1.6 billion from exploration, the
crew launch vehicle and crew exploration vehicle, and those
budget hits to the tune of almost $4 billion have resulted in
deferring some missions. We probably will not start RLEP-2 in
fiscal year 2007. We will do that mission. Marshall Space
Flight Center will continue to retain the project lead for that
mission.
Senator Shelby. You are committed to the mission?
Dr. Griffin. I have committed to the mission. In the wake
of difficult funding decisions, I cannot commit to the date,
but I have committed to the mission, and to the leadership of
the mission and to do so in a timely way to provide precursor
information for returning humans to the Moon, but it probably
will not start in fiscal year 2007.
Senator Shelby. Would you give us a status of each of the
elements for the next manned spacecraft, specifically focusing
on the crew exploration vehicle, the crew launch vehicle, and
the launch operations aspect of the program? I know it is early
in the program.
Dr. Griffin. It is, but I can give you a top-level status.
If you want more when I am done, I will be happy to provide it
for the record.
Senator Shelby. Sure.
Dr. Griffin. At the top level, since I last met with you in
this formal setting, we have refined and issued the request for
proposals for the crew exploration vehicle. There are two
bidders on that. They have completed and submitted their
proposals. The Source Evaluation Board is considering those
proposals as we sit here at this moment. Later this spring we
will enter into negotiations and oral presentations by those
bidders, and this summer we will make a selection for the crew
exploration vehicle which will represent a real milestone. It
will be the first new development of a piloted space vehicle by
this Nation in 35 years.
The crew launch vehicle is the launch side of that. In
fact, Marshall Space Flight Center has the lead for that. The
crew launch vehicle is coming along slightly behind the crew
exploration vehicle. The folks down there are actually led by
Program Manager Steve Cook under the management of Center
Director Dave King, and are doing a great job pulling together
the concept design for that vehicle. We expect to have a
request for information out on the street shortly. It will be
followed by a request for proposals to industry. That program
is on track.
Launch operations modifications down at the Cape are at
this point I can only say under study. We have asked for bids
from construction contractors to begin work on those systems.
Of course, the launch operations infrastructure has to follow
from the nature of the launch vehicle and the crew vehicle that
it serves, and so it necessarily follows a bit behind. But I
am, frankly, real pleased with where we are on that.
Senator Shelby. I understand progress has been made in the
overall Constellation architecture by establishing project
offices for the various elements involved. What is the time
line for establishing the project offices for the remaining
elements of the architecture such as the lunar lander?
Dr. Griffin. The lunar lander is not the current first
thing on our plate. We don't need that until starting out
around 2012. As I think I just mentioned, Johnson Space Center
has the crew exploration vehicle, Marshall Space Flight Center
has got the launch vehicles, both the crew launch vehicle and
the heavy lift launch vehicle. Kennedy Space Center, of course,
will be the site for launch operations. Within those broad
assignments of responsibility are our other seven centers. Each
will have pieces because the effort overall must occupy all of
NASA. By mid-May we will be I think prepared to say at the next
level of detail down which elements of the system are going
where.
VISION FOR SPACE EXPLORATION
Senator Shelby. The Vision for Space Exploration is an
initiative that will last a long time. While a lot of interest
is paid on how much the exploration initiative will cost, an
area that must also be addressed is the current state of NASA
facilities. Many of the centers that will play significant
roles in the Vision have aging infrastructures, we have talked
about this before, and in many cases, buildings that were
inherited from other agencies when we last went to the Moon.
How does NASA address the need for facilities in this budget?
What are the actual funding requirements to truly address the
shortfalls in facilities? And do you believe that a worthwhile
use of the billions in unobligated balances would provide the
agency with the facilities? How do we attack this, I guess is
what I'm saying.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir, I understand the intent of the
question. I must lead by saying that whatever the problem, the
source of those funds cannot and should not be the unobligated
balances, because although those are unobligated, in the sense
that the fiscal accounting people go off in a corner and talk
about unobligated funds, yes, they are unobligated.
Senator Shelby. You have specific plans for them?
Dr. Griffin. Precisely, sir. They are not unspoken for.
Senator Shelby. That is a good phase, unspoken.
Dr. Griffin. They are not unspoken for. You raise a very
important point. NASA's physical infrastructure like many of
the other bridges, roads, and buildings that are important to
this country's public life, is an aging infrastructure, much of
it in our newest buildings in our overall NASA infrastructure,
all 10 centers. The newest buildings, the newest centers, by
and large are approaching 50 years old, and many go back to
World War II, and some are pre-World War II. They are aging,
they are expensive to heat, and expensive to maintain. In a
perfect world, we would have plenty of money to fix all those
buildings. We do not. We have to set priorities.
If I must be made to choose between executing missions,
being run out of old buildings, or having new buildings and not
being able to execute missions, then I'm going to choose the
former. We replace buildings or modify or upgrade them in ones
and twos as the need expresses itself, but we simply do not
have the funding to embark on a substantial building campaign.
I wish that we did.
With regard to the buildings, infrastructure, and
facilities needed for the Vision for Space Exploration, just
exactly as the launch operations infrastructure at the Cape
must follow the definition of the launch vehicle and the crew
vehicle, so, too, must the buildings to support the mission
follow the definition of all these things. I do not today have
a plan for you regarding which of our NASA infrastructure we
need for the future and which should be mothballed or
demolished. I do not have that plan today.
Senator Shelby. I agree with you to some extent that the
mission must go on and just brick and mortar will not do it, it
has to be beyond that, but sometimes you have to have a little
brick and mortar to cover the roof.
Dr. Griffin. You do, indeed. We try in our construction of
facilities as compared with our mission priorities to set a
reasonable balance and to make sure that this subcommittee and
your staff knows where we are on that balance.
PROPULSION RESEARCH
Senator Shelby. On propulsion, the Vision for Space
Exploration will require many new technologies and systems to
be developed in order to maximize our investment in returning
to the Moon. One of these areas that will require ongoing
research and development is in the area of, as you have told me
before, propulsion. The Marshall Space Flight Center has
expertise in this area and has worked on propulsion systems
from the time of the last missions to the Moon and to the
present. As research and development on Vision-related vehicles
and systems begins, what do you anticipate we will need for
propulsion research and development this year and in the
future? In other words, where are we going and what do we need
to get there?
Dr. Griffin. That is an excellent question, and with all
respect, the propulsion research needs to implement the Vision
for Exploration are at this point rather minimal, and likely to
remain so for a little while. One of the things that I tried
very hard to do in crafting our exploration architecture was to
utilize the technology and infrastructure for which the Nation
had already paid in past years and decades. We have available
or can restore to production the rocket engines that are needed
for the Vision for Space Exploration. We have those today, by
and large. That is not the most critical need. In some cases,
we may need to resume or restore production on certain units,
we may need to make modifications, but it is not in the nature
of propulsion research.
If we look much further out to when we are really ready to
go to Mars in another 20 years, I would like to believe that
the Nation will allocate funding for new propulsion research. I
would like to believe that the decisionmakers of those later
times will be able to restore research in, for example, nuclear
thermal propulsion, one of my highest interest items. We do not
need that technology for the Moon which means we do not need it
anytime in the next 15 years, and certainly we do not in the
next 15 years have the money for it. So what we need to do is
we need to restore in this Nation's space program basic
capabilities and basic infrastructure that we once owned and we
have allowed to atrophy.
Senator Shelby. When would that research you are talking
about begin?
Dr. Griffin. Sometime in the next decade. The research
levels would begin sometime in the next decade.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S SCIENCE BUDGET
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, in order to address the budget
needs for the exploration program, NASA has reduced the rate of
growth of the agency's science budget from about 6 percent to
about 1 percent. I understand that the science budget at NASA
is on a growth path, although at a reduced rate than previously
projected. I also understand that the science activities at
Marshall are actually taking a 10-percent cut over the next
fiscal years. Would you provide us some insight into that
reduction?
Dr. Griffin. I can provide the specifics of that 10-percent
reduction at Marshall Space Flight Center for the record.
Senator Shelby. That would be fine.
[The information follows:]
Science Reductions at the Marshall Space Flight Center
In the fiscal year 2007 budget request, there is a reduction of
approximately 10 percent for Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)
Science activities compared with fiscal year 2006. This is due, in
part, to the fact that some projects are ending as planned. However,
since release of the fiscal year 2007 budget, additional work for MSFC
has been defined in several Science projects, and additional funding is
likely, particularly in projects with pending competitive selections.
Additional funding is likely in New Frontiers, James Webb Space
Telescope, Chandra, Solar Terrestrial Probes, and other areas. When
this new work (actual and likely) is factored in, fiscal year 2007
Science funding to MSFC is expected to be equal to or higher than
fiscal year 2006.
At the same time, it should be noted that, as one of NASA's premier
space flight centers, MSFC has been given project management
responsibility for the new Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and Cargo Launch
Vehicle (CaLV), both critical elements to our Nation's plans for humans
to explore the frontiers of space. These responsibilities are supported
by the President's fiscal year 2007 request from Exploration Systems.
Specifically, Marshall's responsibilities include:
--Responsible for achieving all CLV and CaLV objectives for the
agency.
--Lead associated systems engineering and integration activities, all
CLV and CaLV safety and mission assurance activities.
--First stage design and upper stage engine development contracts
management, as well as leading or otherwise overseeing CLV
associated demonstration testing.
--Responsibility for advanced development flight test-0 and other
flight demonstrations.
--Support responsibilities for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.
--Support for launch abort systems, service module, and abort test
booster.
Level II or project tasks include:
--Safety, Reliability & Quality assurance (SR&QA)--Support integrated
hazards analysis and probabilistic risk assessment; represent
SR&QA at assigned systems integration groups; support quality
assurance, risk management, and safety software system
development; support Constellation SR&QA panels.
--System engineering and integration: Co-Lead for several system
integration groups including thermal and environmental control
and life support, environments, human factors/human rating,
loads and structures.
--Test and verification lead for loads/structures and environments
system integration group.
In support of lunar exploration, Marshall will:
--Establish a Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program Office, which
includes the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar Crater
Observation and Sensing Satellite.
--Establish a Lunar Lander Project Office, under the Constellation
Program, responsible for performing early trade studies and
developing requirements for the Lunar descent stage.
--Plan to use the Michoud Assembly for CLV and CaLV tank
construction.
Dr. Griffin. But do understand, please, that Marshall Space
Flight Center is receiving, and will receive substantial
increases as we embark on the Crew Launch Vehicle Program. So
although the skill mix of those employed at Marshall Space
Flight Center may change, the overall employment base at
Marshall Space Flight Center is and will continue to be quite
healthy. Yes, it is true, prior to my tenure the science
community had been promised growth rates of 5, 6, or 7 percent
in science, but NASA's growth rate as a whole is only 2.4
percent, averaged over the next several years.
Senator Shelby. I agree with you that we need more money.
Dr. Griffin. I did not say that.
Senator Shelby. I can say it.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. Within the amount of money that the
administration has chosen to allocate to the program, I cannot
have science growing at 6 percent while the agency is growing
at 2.4 percent and the science program at NASA is a full one-
third of our overall program, and in my judgement, sir, it is a
very robust program.
SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT RATE SCHEDULE
Senator Shelby. Dr. Griffin, assuming a successful shuttle
launch this summer, NASA will begin a very aggressive flight
schedule for construction of the International Space Station
and the Hubble space telescope servicing mission. We pray you
will be successful there. In order to accomplish the 16 to 18
flights necessary for these missions and to retire the shuttle
by 2010, as you mentioned earlier, would require a flight rate
that has not been achieved for many years. How much
flexibility, Dr. Griffin, is there in the schedule for the
remainder of the flights of the space shuttle? Is there any
room for unexpected delays that will not compromise both the
retirement date of the shuttle and the completion of our
agreements on the ISS? And how does NASA intend to balance the
need for such a sizable workforce to maintain the shuttle
program until it is retired and at the same time to build up
Moon missions and so forth? I know it is a tough question.
Dr. Griffin. But it is a good one, and I understand the
question, so let me try to answer. First of all, I must simply
say it is not correct that the fight rate required of the
shuttle to complete the International Space Station by the
shuttle's retirement date is something that we have not seen.
In fact, the required flight rate is nothing more than our
average flight rate over 25 years of history, and that
includes, as I know you recall because you have been here, that
includes basically 6 years of down time due to shuttle
accidents and other technical problems. So even factoring in
all of that down time, our average flight rate for the shuttle
program over 25 years has been 4\1/2\ flights per year. If we
fly successfully in July or if we fly successfully in September
and then merely execute our average flight rate for the balance
of the program, we will finish with margin to spare. So I
believe we can do it.
WORKFORCE TRANSITIONING
Now with regard to your question about transitioning the
workforce, you are correct, and I have said this in many
forums, our biggest challenge over the next 5 years is to
develop a plan that allows us to fly the last shuttle mission
as safely as the next one. At the same time, to be able to have
the appropriately skilled workforce involved with the design
and development of the replacement vehicle, the CEV, and to not
damage either program in the process of doing so. We are
working on that. We spend time on that at every Management
Council meeting I have in NASA. We care about that problem a
lot. I have top-level plans that I can share with your staff,
and are those plans in their detail, we will be happy to share
those plans with your staff as well.
Senator Shelby. Thank you very much. I am going to go vote.
Senator Mikulski has voted, and she is recognized.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir.
AGING AND DAMAGED FACILITIES
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
know Administrator Griffin, you probably have covered some of
these issues. We know that you and the NASA budget is under a
lot of stress.
Let me go to the question about aging facilities and
damaged facilities. I know that Senator Shelby talked about the
aging facility issue. You talked about some of these go back to
Apollo.
Dr. Griffin. Or before.
Senator Mikulski. Yes, sir. But let's go to what was
damaged because of Katrina, again, acknowledging the
magnificent efforts of the NASA staff and local responders, et
cetera. The subcommittee provided $300 and some million last
year toward this. The President's supplemental request had
nothing in it. We had $35 million which is just a chunk of
change. You estimate that it is going to be $500 million to
really restore these facilities properly. Where are we, and
where is this money going to come from?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am. Yes, Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. You need to know I was very disappointed
that there was not money in the President's budget to do this,
and it's beyond the scope of an individual Member, for example
like myself, to find a $500 million offset, and we could not
take it from the troops.
Dr. Griffin. Of course not. I'm sorry, the damage estimate
that we have is just under $500 million, $484 million to be
specific. As we have continued to refine our estimates, we have
kept you and your staff current on what those are. And you are
right, last year the subcommittee, of course, appropriated
roughly $330 million in supplemental funding to repair the
damage. The balance of the money must come out of program funds
which is shuttle and station unless we move money across
accounts, and that would require special permission from our
oversight committees.
Senator Mikulski. How much would you need this year?
Dr. Griffin. Pardon me?
Senator Mikulski. No construction occurs at once.
Dr. Griffin. At once, right.
Senator Mikulski. What do you think for both Stennis and
Louisiana would be required for this year?
Dr. Griffin. I will answer for the record on the phasing of
the money. The total that we know we need is $484 million at
this point.
Senator Mikulski. And that would take care of both?
Dr. Griffin. That would take care of all years.
Senator Mikulski. But it would take care of both Stennis
and Louisiana?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator.
[The information follows:]
Aging and Damaged Facilities
After a detailed review by the Katrina Headquarters Recovery Team,
as of April 25, 2006, the Agency reduced its total estimate of all
costs for responding to Katrina and for catastrophic risk mitigation
projects that would protect against future hurricanes to $483.8
million. This estimate includes the following:
--Michoud Assembly Facility--$220.2 million;
--Stennis Space Center--$208.7 million;
--NASA Shared Services Center--$7.7 million;
--Other NASA Centers/HQ Support--$8.1 million; and
--Program Contingency/Reserves--$39.2 million.
Review of the content of this estimate is ongoing and will continue
to be revised; NASA will keep the Committee informed of future
adjustments to the estimate.
As has been discussed during hearings and in briefings with
Committee staff, NASA borrowed $100 million in fiscal year 2005 funds
from the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) crew/cargo
programs to provide immediate support of hurricane recovery efforts in
the Gulf region before any supplemental funds were provided. The intent
was to eventually repay these programs for this initial outlay of
funds, and NASA repaid $20 million of the amount borrowed in the May
update to the fiscal year 2006 Operating Plan.
NASA currently has available $384.8 million in fiscal year 2006
funding from two emergency supplemental appropriations and $80 million
in fiscal year 2005 funding that was borrowed from the Shuttle and ISS
crew/cargo programs. NASA may repay approximately $20 million in
additional borrowed fiscal year 2005 funds that are not yet spent in a
future Operating Plan update. The Agency continues to require transfer
authority to use up to $60 million in available fiscal year 2006
supplemental funding to repay the balance of funds borrowed and
expended in fiscal year 2005 to allow the Agency to adequately fund the
requirements of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs.
Hurricane-related Center recovery and operations costs, along with
real property repairs and programmatic recovery requirements are
accommodated within the current funding availability. Catastrophic loss
mitigation projects will be addressed on a priority basis depending on
the availability of funding.
The following Center recovery operations, real property repairs,
and programmatic recovery activities are likely covered within
available funding:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STENNIS SPACE CENTER
Center Recovery Operations Support...................... 17.0
IT/Communications/Environmental/Other................... 6.0
Programmatic Recovery................................... 3.0
===============
Real Property Repairs................................... \1\ 82.61
Repair Site wide Electrical Distribution System..... 7.79
Repair/Replace Roofing Various Administration 7.95
Buildings..........................................
Replace Bldg 2204 Roof.............................. 7.91
Repair Administration Building 1100................. 7.65
Repair and Replace Perimeter Fencing................ 7.95
Replace Bldg 1100 North Wing & Bldg 1105 Roof....... 1.03
Repair Bldg 2205 High Bay Roof (complete)........... .73
Repair Building 1100 North Wing--Interior........... 2.70
Site wide Mold Remediation and Asbestos Abatement... 2.44
Replace Bldg 2201 Roof.............................. 3.50
Repair/Replace Roofing Various Industrial Complex 1.74
Buildings..........................................
Repair/Replace Roofing Various Test Complex 1.99
Buildings..........................................
Site wide Debris Cleanup............................ 1.59
Replace Bldg 8100/8110 Roofs........................ 3.04
Site wide Lightning Protection Repairs (Multiple .80
Projects)..........................................
Relocate Roads and Grounds Building................. .87
Repair and Pave Roads for Heavy Vehicles............ 2.88
Education Center (Replacement for Bldg 1200)........ 1.93
Site wide Electrical Panel Enhancements and Database 1.06
Local Projects (<$500,000) and Maintenance Items.... 7.06
MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY
Center Recovery Operations Support...................... 20.9
IT/Communications/Environmental/Other................... 2.4
Programmatic Recovery................................... 42.5
===============
Real Property Repairs................................... \2\ 69.00
Hazardous Materials Investigation................... .05
Repairs of B103, Phase 1............................ 2.50
Repairs of B451, Phase 1............................ .75
Repairs of B114..................................... .60
Repairs to Damaged Elevator B110.................... .10
B303 Temporary Roof Repair.......................... .09
TBD Projects during test and checkout............... .50
MSFC--COSS Contractor Support for damage assessment. .04
MSFC--M1 Yard Roof Repairs.......................... .01
MSFC--Remove Damaged Trees and Repair B4707 Tower .02
Roof...............................................
Work Plans for B420, 110, 114, 103, 303, 451, 220, .94
101, 102, 173, 175, 320, 404.......................
Local Projects (<$500,000) and Maintenance Items.... 5.21
Repairs of B110, Phase 2............................ 6.40
Repairs of B173..................................... 2.02
Repairs of B175..................................... .68
Repairs of B220..................................... 1.37
Repairs of B303..................................... 6.60
Repairs of B320A.................................... 1.54
Repairs of B320B.................................... .94
Repairs of B404..................................... 1.49
Repairs of B420..................................... 5.63
Repairs of B103, Phase 2............................ 4.77
Repairs of B451, Phase 2............................ 1.50
Repairs of B101..................................... 5.04
Repairs of B102..................................... 8.22
Repairs B75, 105, 106, 107, 109, 113, 119, 127, 130, 12.00
131, 135, 140, 171, 176, 177, 178, 179, 201, 203,
206, 207, 221, 232, 239, 301, 302, 304, 305, 307,
308, 318, 321, 327, 329, 359, 351, 360, 361, 406,
409, 421, 423, 424, 419, 450, 480, 485.............
NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER
Recovery/Workarounds.................................... 7.7
OTHER NASA CENTERS/HQ SUPPORT/RESERVE
Center Recovery Operations Support...................... 2.2
Other General Support................................... 4.0
FEMA Volunteers......................................... 1.9
Program contingency/Reserves............................ 39.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $13.7 million in program manager reserve.
\2\ Does not include $10 million in program manager reserve.
The following potential catastrophic loss risk mitigation projects
been identified. Unless noted, the majority of these projects have not
yet been approved for funding. Projects for each Center are listed in
order of priority.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STENNIS SPACE CENTER
Hurricane Proof Emergency Operations Center............. \1\ 14.90
Replace and Enhance Backup Generator Capability Site- 3.00
wide...................................................
Enhance Site-Wide Electrical Distribution System 18.65
Hardening..............................................
Add Additional Bulk Diesel Storage...................... .50
Enhancement to Potable Water Pump Houses................ .10
Emergency Communications and EMCS Enhancements.......... .90
Hurricane Proof Record Retention Facility............... 2.50
Relocate Electrical Equipment Building 1200............. 1.00
Expand and Enhance Communication Ductbank............... 3.00
Inspect Bridge and Locks................................ 1.00
Dredge Canal............................................ 3.00
Enhance Administration Building 1100.................... 3.00
Test Complex High Pressure System Uninterruptible Power. 30.00
Design Cost (6 percent)................................. 4.89
---------------
Total............................................. 86.44
===============
MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY
Upgrades to Pump House.................................. \2\ 11.00
Install levee floodgate at barge dock................... .70
Upgrades to Emergency Operations Building............... \2\ 3.30
Rewire security cameras to operate on emergency power... \2\ .70
Replace electrical feeders on poles below ground........ 5.00
Reconfigure computer servers to provide critical ops 5.00
during severe weather..................................
Replace main manufacturing building exterior siding..... 7.00
Levee improvements (requires Corp of Engineers 5.00
coordination and app)..................................
100 percent increased labor, materials, and 37.7
transportation costs...................................
---------------
Total............................................. 75.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Project is approved for funding. The total project cost is $21.4
million; the remaining $6.5 million will be funded with fiscal year
2005 Institutional CofF funds.
\2\ $1.7 million in funding has been approved for MAF projects as
follows: $300,000 for designs and studies, $600,000 for remote
controls for the existing Pump House, $500,000 for relocating the MAF
Emergency Operations Building, and $300,000 for security cameras. The
``Install levee floodgate at barge dock'' project will be approved for
funding as soon as design is complete.
CUTS IN SCIENCE
Senator Mikulski. As we look ahead to our own mark up, I
have not had a chance really to confer with Senator Shelby in-
depth until we complete all of our hearings. We have heard from
Justice, the Byrne grants and COPS Programs have been cut. This
is not to lay this on you. In just looking at NASA and know
that it was flat-lined now and it has been flat-lined under
this administration and the previous one, President Clinton, I
feel we need more money. One of the things that I am going to
suggest to Senator Shelby is that we look at the repair related
to the Katrina damage in some kind of an emergency way so that
it does not add further stress to the NASA budget. I don't even
know if it is possible, but I am looking for legitimate ways to
bring other revenue into our subcommittee, so just know that.
That is why the sequencing of how much, so that we do ask for
or even ponder appropriate amounts. You need to have your
facilities, dedicated people have to work somewhere, and we
have to be dedicated in restoring it as they did to protecting
it.
Your comments were don't rob Peter to pay Paul, don't go
after the science budget, to some back to the other priorities,
but in some ways I feel that is what we are doing. We are
juggling and rearranging, and that you robbed Paul to give it
to Peter, and you are telling us don't rob Peter to give it
back to Paul. We don't see it as robbing, we see it as a give-
back.
Could you tell us about the consequences of this deferral
in science? I know you are committed to science programs, but
we are troubled about the cuts in science. Could you tell us
what you think the consequences are in this deferral? We are
particularly concerned about all science. We are concerned
about the impact on big science as people talk about it, the
Webb telescope mission, like Earth science and some of the
others? Could you share with us?
Dr. Griffin. At the top level I can, and, again, as always
I am happy to coordinate details with your staff at your
discretion.
Yes, I did propose and I am proposing taking money from
both exploration and science in order to pay our bills for our
nearer-term priorities to finish out the station and fly out
the shuttle. The shuttle and station accounts as we both know
when I took this job in the out-years had placeholder amounts
in them. We did not have realistic amounts. Those were in the
out-years at the time. The out-years have arrived, and if we
are going to fly the shuttle and finish the station, then those
bills had to be paid, and the only other source of money was
exploration and science. So that is why I did what I did.
As to the impact of deferrals, first of all, James Webb
telescope mission as I think everyone knows is the National
Academy's highest priority in their decade-old survey plan for
astronomy, and that priority continues to be respected. James
Webb telescope mission may be delayed a bit, but only because,
I exaggerate to make a point, about 15 minutes after I was
confirmed, the folks on the James Webb Program brought to me a
$1 billion plus overrun on the program which is presently in
its formulation stages. So we are currently in the middle of
re-baselining that program not, to alter its priority within
the queue. But I do not have over that time period an extra
billion dollars laying around to fix it. So it will slip a
little bit in schedule, not because of anything going on with
the shuttle and station, but just because it is overrun.
With regard to Earth science, before I took office, Earth
science had been I would say damaged in the budgetary planning,
and I have acted to restore that. It is not all the way back,
but I know that you know, and that your staff will tell you,
that I have acted to restore that as I have with heliophysics,
but I cannot do it instantaneously.
Senator Mikulski. They have shared that with me, and I
appreciate it.
Dr. Griffin. Other missions that we believe are very
important to do like the space interferometry mission will be
delayed for a couple of years.
Senator Mikulski. So could I say what you are saying is
though that they have not been eliminated, they have been
deferred?
Dr. Griffin. Correct.
Senator Mikulski. But given where we are, do you think is
deferral going to become a de facto elimination in some
categories? I am not going to ask you to enumerate.
Dr. Griffin. There may be smaller missions which just will
not make the cut, but the major mission priorities that had
been established and were on the table when I took office will
continue to be respected. We must defer something. We will
either defer the CEV, the Nation's replacement for the shuttle,
or we will defer some of these science missions. In truth, I
have delayed both of them a bit and I would be very
uncomfortable delaying the CEV any more.
SPACE SHUTTLE
Senator Mikulski. This brings me back to, first of all,
Senator Shelby and me, and the whole committee, we are
absolutely committed to the shuttle mission. The safety of the
astronauts is a committee obsession that we share with you, so
we know that is the priority. Second, I appreciate your
willingness to consider a Hubble rejuvenation mission.
Dr. Griffin. If we can possibly do Hubble, we will do
Hubble.
Senator Mikulski. And I understand now that it is up to the
technical matters, but I appreciate your commitment to analyze
as we progress, so we know what that is going to take, but we
do not know how much more it is going to take. Am I correct?
And it has cost $2 billion more to do the shuttle and return to
flight than we had originally anticipated. And that is not a
fault-finding. It is just a fact-finding.
Dr. Griffin. Of course. I understand. I just want to answer
accurately. We needed $3.8 billion more to fly out the shuttle
and finish the station; $3.8 billion more was needed for those
accounts than was bookkept in those accounts in the fiscal year
2006 run-out. So as we prepared the fiscal year 2007 run-out,
we had to fix that problem, so the total was $3.8 billion.
Senator Mikulski. I am glad we are getting this out in the
sunshine, quite frankly, because the only way we can truly get
the proper national priorities, and the framework is there, but
in other words, you inherited something that you have had to
straighten out and get real life-cycle costs and accounting
into it. Am I correct?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator. The way that I would phrase it
is to say that, in having decided a couple of years ago that we
would retire the shuttle, there was considerable uncertainty as
to how much the run-out costs would be in retirement. As we
have analyzed it as carefully as we can, we have concluded that
the run-out costs to retire it do not drop off as rapidly as--
--
Senator Mikulski. We are committed to this, and, again, I
think I feel secure in saying this, I liked what you said when
you said the next shuttle flight is going to be as safe as it
possibly can be made, but that the last shuttle flight will be
as safe. So we have a big kind of shaking-hands commitment that
we need to make with you to ensure that safety of the next
astronauts or the last astronauts to fly that shuttle, so we
are in agreement with that. Then that is like a fixed cost that
we have to almost be neurotic about. Am I correct?
Dr. Griffin. Exactly, Senator. Exactly, and I have been
neurotic about it, and the amount was $3.8 billion.
INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Senator Mikulski. I say that, because, again, it is the
safety of our people.
That takes me then to the station itself. Having done that,
completed it, do all those things along the questions that
Senator Shelby has raised, the 16 flights, et cetera, are we
going to use the station? And how are we going to get to the
station to use the station? Soyuz has been a lifesaver, but it
is little, it cannot do cargo.
Dr. Griffin. You are right, Senator.
Senator Mikulski. We have this fantastic machinery at
tremendous cost to build and maintain.
Dr. Griffin. Let me try to answer.
Senator Shelby. Is this going to be a techno-whoops? Then
what will that take if we are talking about science and Webb
and going to the Moon and so on? Or is this going to be one of
those, well, now we have it, but we cannot afford to use it?
Dr. Griffin. I certainly hope not. For the station for the
next few years, the choices which confronted us were, given the
available shuttle flights, that we could use the station
approximately as it exists today, which is fairly stable but
does not have much power and does not have a lot of research
facilities, we could use it to a very limited extent. Or we
could finish assembling it but not use it. I do not have enough
shuttle flights to assemble it and utilize it at the same time.
We have talked about this, we have committed to finishing the
assembly.
As the assembly is finished, it will be the full-up station
that you have come to know and love with substantial research
capability and a crew of six. In the period between retirement
of the shuttle and deployment of the CEV, we will have no
choice but to depend on international partner logistics and
resupply. Or if our COTS initiative, our commercial initiative,
works well, we hope that we may be able to bring some U.S.
commercial capability on-line with seed funding from NASA. But
the CEV, which is, of course, intended to service the station
as well as go to the Moon, will not be available for
operational use until, at this point, 2013-2014.
Senator Mikulski. Then my question is, why should we do
this now if we are not going to use it? We thought we are going
to build it and they will come, but we are going to be building
it but we cannot get there. I have not been harsh or sarcastic,
and yet we are making a tremendous investment for the shuttle
to go up there, for the safety of our astronauts, only then to
complete an assembly of something.
Dr. Griffin. We can use the station in concert with our
international partners, and we can use it as soon as the CEV
becomes available, and this, of course, addresses the gap that
you have been so forceful about, and we can use it if we can
get some commercial capability in space flight.
Senator Mikulski. There are a lot of ifs.
Dr. Griffin. But with our existing budgetary resources,
there will be a gap between retirement of the shuttle and
deployment of the CEV.
Senator Mikulski. I think this is a dilemma.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, it is.
INTERNATIONAL PARTNERS
Senator Mikulski. Within the scope of the hearing it is
difficult to discuss, and I am not advocating what we should
do, but I am advocating that we need to come to grips with this
dilemma, and a tremendous cost to finish our commitment. What
do our international partners say about this, Dr. Griffin?
Would they be able to use it? They have been very patient and
steadfast, I think, in their ongoing commitment, and the
Russians have proved to be a fairly reliable partner.
Dr. Griffin. All of that is true. You, I believe,
understand the situation perfectly. The international partners
are appreciative of the renewed United States commitment to
finish the station, because unless it is finished, the
laboratory modules that they have worked on for many years will
not fly. So they are appreciative of that. They, we, and I are
concerned about what we will do in the period following
retirement of the shuttle and prior to deployment of the CEV.
We, as you say, are very grateful to our Russian partners for
the reliability with which the Soyuz and Progress systems have
worked, but they have, frankly, very minimal capability to
really utilize the assets of the station and other partner
capabilities.
Senator Mikulski. So it will be hard for our international
partners to get up there to use it.
Dr. Griffin. Until we have the CEV deployed, right.
Senator Mikulski. Let me try to get a timeframe. If
everything works the way we hope and anticipate, when will the
completion of the assembly of the station be done?
Dr. Griffin. 2010.
Senator Mikulski. Then at the same time, that is when you
hope to retire the shuttle upon the completion?
Dr. Griffin. Correct.
CREW VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT
Senator Mikulski. Then with hopefully the new crew vehicle,
with your time table, that would be 2013?
Dr. Griffin. The first test flight, which is not the same
as an operational flight, of course, of the CEV, at this point
with the resources we believe we have to bring to bear on it,
we project for 2012, and then operational use would be in the
2013-2014 timeframe.
Senator Mikulski. So there will be 4 years in which the
United States of America will, number one, have a space gap?
And, number two, 4 years where the station will be up there but
will not be utilized, and I presume could even begin to
deteriorate. Space, as you would share with me, is a harsh and
demanding environment. I wonder where we are going here with
the station.
Dr. Griffin. That is, on the face of it, correct. I remind
you again that we have the ISS Crew Cargo Program, our
commercial orbital transportation or COTS initiative, where we
are making available as seed funding to industry $500 million
over the next few years to bring on-line, hopefully, a
capability to ferry cargo and later crew to and from the
station. If that works and industry invests, they stand to make
a good profit, and we stand to be able to buy services.
Senator Mikulski. First of all, we have been through the X-
Plane, and X-Planes have not come out too well. I would hope
that the private sector could develop a cargo vehicle.
Dr. Griffin. I hope they can. I hope they can. I consider
it be a good gamble. It is well past time for NASA to do
everything it can to stimulate commercial space transportation
capability, and I am trying to do that. But you raise an
excellent point, we cannot count on it.
Senator Mikulski. And we will not know until 2012 whether
it is going to happen. Is there any way you can accelerate in a
prudent way, prudent, again, meaning always the safety factors,
and prudent in fiscal reality, the development of a crew
vehicle?
Dr. Griffin. Again, Senator, not without moving money from
other things which we all also like.
Senator Mikulski. What do you think from a technological
and engineering standpoint, and you are the expert in this?
Dr. Griffin. From a technical and engineering standpoint, I
could have a crew vehicle deployed in 2011, following right on
the heels of the shuttle, from a technical and engineering
standpoint.
Senator Mikulski. What would it take to do that?
Dr. Griffin. Fiscally I will have to take that for the
record. I do not have that in my head because that is not a
program we have been studying. We know we do not have that
money, and so we are funding limited, as you have said.
Senator Mikulski. Again, I do not know if we could even
contemplate that. I know our colleague, Senator Hutchison has
raised that with you yesterday at the Commerce hearing in which
you testified.
Dr. Griffin. She did.
Senator Mikulski. I know we are troubled by the gap, and
yet we do not want to take from Peter to pay Paul, and we do
not want to take from Paul to pay Peter.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, if you would yield, it is
obvious that we need more money to fund NASA.
Senator Mikulski. I think that that is it, Mr. Chairman,
and that is where I was trying to ponder as we went through
this.
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. You are absolutely right.
Dr. Griffin. From a technical point of view, the crew
vehicle could be delivered to you in 2011. Anything after that
is controlled by the funding.
Senator Mikulski. Why don't you share with us what you
think would be a realistic option?
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
One last point which goes to the aeronautics issue when we
talk about commercial cargo in space. I really do not want us
to lose ground aeronautically in the international marketplace,
and I know we have declined an aeronautic research at 18
percent. What do you think we can do about this? Again, I am
concerned about the consequences, not only in futuristic sonic,
hypersonic flight, but even aviation safety. We have a
consortium in Maryland that is working on cockpit safety. One
is at our historically black college, Morgan, the largest
producer of African-American engineers in the State, and maybe
even in the country. They are so enthusiastic. They feel they
are working on things that are going to spur our economy, and
working on cockpit safety. That is the next generation. They
will be sitting there 20 years from now. So what can we do?
Dr. Griffin. I am ready to give it to them sooner if you
would like. With regard to aeronautics research, I share your
concern. I think when you look at the loss of competitiveness
in aeronautics to which you refer and that you see about you
today, I believe that in actuality that is a consequence not of
funding decisions, but of strategic decisions, what the money
is spent on, that go back a decade or two.
We have not in my opinion been doing in some areas the
right things with our aeronautics funding. We are recrafting
our Aeronautics Program to focus on basic aeronautical science
which underlies the entire discipline of all flight regimes to
learn new things and to be out at the frontiers of the state of
knowledge in aeronautics. That, I believe, is in past decades
what provided the kind of capability that allowed American air
frame manufacturers to be second to none.
When we started focusing on demonstrations and point
designs and things that were off the beaten track for NASA's
research skills, I believe that is when we started to lose
ground. So I am trying to recraft and put into place----
Senator Mikulski. Is that what we will get in the December
report?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, ma'am, that is what you will get.
Senator Mikulski. What I would hope we could try to do,
Senator Shelby, is stay the course or do a bit better, but that
we really join hands and focus on this, because I think we are
going to win the international markets not because we are going
to be the most subsidized like other countries, but because we
are going to be the smartest and the best, and we want to help
you get there.
Dr. Griffin. We have to be the best.
Senator Mikulski. Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone over my
questions.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVE INITIATIVE
Senator Shelby. No, you have asked some good questions. Dr.
Griffin, I will get into the American competitiveness
initiative. I was surprised to see that NASA was not included
as part of the American competitiveness initiative, ACI. The
goal of ACI, as I understand it, is to ensure that the United
States prominence in technology and our continued
competitiveness in an ever-evolving global economy and ensure
that we are there. Your stated goals for the education
component of NASA's budget are to strengthen the Nation's
future workforce, attract and retain students in science and
engineering, as in your own background, and to engage Americans
in NASA's missions, coupled with high public visibility and
recognition that NASA enjoys. It seems that NASA would be a
natural fit for such an initiative. Why was not NASA not
included in this initiative in your judgment? I was surprised.
Dr. Griffin. Senator, I have spoken with Dr. Marburger on
precisely that issue, and the point that I would make is that
the ACI was designed to target those agencies or portions of
agencies such as physical science within the Department of
Energy, which have not received good support in the recent past
and which need significant help to get back to even. NASA
received a 3.2 percent increase even without being part of the
ACI in an environment where overall domestic nondefense
discretionary funding is down by one-half of 1 percent. So NASA
was treated by the President 3.7 percent better than the
average domestic discretionary nondefense agency.
It is hard to do better than that. I believe that we were
well treated within the context of the overall administration,
and to be part of the American competitiveness initiative was
not really on point.
Senator Shelby. I think it was not either.
Senator Mikulski.
Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby, I just want to comment
and share this with Dr. Griffin. I was part of a group at the
White House with Senators Alexander and others talking about
this, and I asked the President the same thing in a very
cordial way because I thought his Mars statement was to inspire
the next generation, and they said that they were going to give
it more consideration. I wanted to follow-up with some of the
staff.
Senator Shelby. I think you are absolutely right.
Senator Mikulski. Perhaps that is something that you and I
could follow-up with.
CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Shelby. We could work together because we think it
is important, and Dr. Griffin is a product of it himself of
many years.
If I could, Dr. Griffin, I want to thank you on behalf of
the subcommittee for your appearance here. We both are
committed to NASA and we want to continue to work with you. I
personally believe that NASA is still underfunded, as Senator
Mikulski does.
Senator Mikulski. Yes.
Senator Shelby. We know that it is a tough environment, but
we have some, I think, lofty goals out there and we want you to
implement them, and you have the capability to do that.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We appreciate your appearance before the subcommittee
today. There are a number of Senators, and we have been voting,
and I keep the record open where they can submit questions for
the record. I am going to ask you to, if you could, respond to
them no later than June 9, which is a month or so.
Dr. Griffin. We absolutely will do that, sir.
[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 Richard C. Shelby
financial management
Question. NASA was recently cited for violation of the
Antideficiency Act (ADA). According to the Inspector General, a lack of
internal controls within the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) was a major cause of the violations. It is also troubling that
the Inspector General was unable to determine the exact size or number
of ADA violations due to the unreliability of the agency's financial
management system.
What are the Agency's plans for addressing the material weaknesses
in internal controls that have been reported for several years?
Answer. NASA's independent financial auditors identified three
material weaknesses and one reportable condition through its fiscal
year 2005 financial audit. The weaknesses are repeat findings from
prior financial audits. NASA submitted a Corrective Action Plan in
February 2006 to Congress, OMB and NASA's Office of Inspector General
(OIG) that addresses each of the recommendations made by the
independent financial auditors. NASA has been executing this plan
throughout fiscal year 2006.
For your convenience, we have attached NASA's Financial Management
Corrective Action Plan, which provides a complete list of in-process
actions to address each material weakness.
Corrective Action Plan Fiscal Year 2005 Financial Audit--February 15,
2006
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER'S MESSAGE
I am pleased to present the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) financial audit corrective action plan.
Achieving financial management excellence is essential to achieving
NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. Efficiently managing all of our
precious resources will maximize the opportunities for creative and
safe programs and projects. In the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, from Headquarters to Field Centers, we are working hard to
improve the financial management of our Agency.
Reviewed by NASA's Office of Inspector General, the plan represents
the collaborative efforts of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
the Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP), and the Office of
Infrastructure and Administration. The plan articulates NASA's strategy
for eliminating the root cause(s) of the four reportable conditions
(three of which are material) identified in the 2005 financial audit:
--1. Financial Systems, Analyses and Oversight (material weakness)
--2. Fund Balance with Treasury (material weakness)
--3. Property, Plant and Equipment (material weakness)
--4. Environmental Liabilities
For each of the four reportable conditions and related
recommendations, the plan defines NASA's goals, objectives, strategies,
activities, due dates and responsibilities for execution. Progress will
be monitored throughout the execution of this plan.
Our ability to improve the quality of the Agency's financial
information, to better manage our assets, and to achieve business
efficiencies is dependent on the successful execution of this plan with
the support of the entire NASA community. NASA has always had a well-
deserved reputation for successfully meeting challenges head on, and
this effort will be no different.
Gwendolyn Sykes,
Chief Financial Officer.
introduction to the financial audit corrective action plan (cap)
This corrective action plan addresses the material and significant
weaknesses identified through NASA's 2005 financial audit. Those
weaknesses reflect process, system and internal control issues that
cross NASA functional areas, including procurement, infrastructure and
administration, systems management, and financial management.
Accordingly, this plan was developed through a coordinated effort with
all NASA organizations that have a critical role and primary
responsibility in the execution of it. In addition, the NASA Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) reviewed and provided comments to this
plan. The OIG's comments were considered in the final product.
For each noted weakness, this plan documents the goals, objectives,
strategies and planned corrective actions determined to be the most
effective and efficient means for mitigating or eliminating those
weaknesses. Through the course of implementation, changes to strategies
or corrective actions may be either required or advisable given new
information or events. The implementation approach and progress toward
plan goals and objectives will be monitored, and plan adjustments made,
by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer on a regular and ongoing
basis until the those goals and objectives have been met. Status
reviews will be conducted with NASA's Deputy Administrator.
The weaknesses addressed in this plan are not new to NASA's 2005
financial audit. They have, in fact, been noted in previous NASA
financial audits. Significant work has already been performed to
address them. The repetition of the recommendations is an indication of
the technical complexity and organizational breadth of the issues. This
corrective action plan reflects the work planned by NASA organizations
over the next year, and highlights the work performed in previous years
to address the audit recommendations. The integration of strategies and
plans from multiple NASA organizations is an important success factor
and reduces the risk of potentially disjointed, non-complementary
solutions to common issues. Several other challenges to the successful
accomplishment of plan goals have been identified and will be managed
throughout plan implementation. These include:
--Resource constraints. Sufficient resources to appropriately staff
the corrective action implementation teams have not yet been
fully secured. Authority for additional Office of the Chief
Financial Officer staff at both Headquarters and Field Center
locations was provided by NASA's Administrator in 2005. The
OCFO is in the process of hiring additional staff to support
NASA's financial management improvement initiative efforts.
While additional resources are being secured, there is a
familiarization and training lag before these resources are
fully able to contribute. Other areas of NASA, such as asset
management, which are critical to the success of this plan,
have identified additional staffing needs for which staffing
plans will be developed. These plans will identify staffing
shortfalls and associated options.
--Change management. The anticipated process changes necessary to
resolve NASA's identified weaknesses, particularly in the area
of Property, Plant & Equipment (PP&E), will impact the way
business is conducted at NASA. These changes will require a
significant portion of NASA's workforce, both institutional and
programmatic, to change the way they currently perform their
daily activities. Communicating the need for change,
documenting new procedures and delivering training are key
elements embedded in each of the corrective action initiatives.
Additionally, initiative owners will work with NASA leadership
to build buy-in and support at the most senior levels of the
organizations for the changes that must take place. The strong
commitment provided by NASA's Executive leadership will be a
major factor in overcoming this challenge.
--External support. Some of the proposed strategies--such as those
for PP&E and Environmental Liabilities--include changes to
policy or procedures that will require support from NASA
vendors and contractors. Just as process changes will impact
employees' daily activities and procedures, so will they impact
the activities and reporting requirements of NASA's vendors and
contractors. Contract changes, procedural changes, reporting
changes; all will take time and money to implement. Through the
course of executing the improvement initiatives, the OCFO will
be evaluating the risk, cost, benefit and trade-offs of each of
the changes that may be required to ensure the actions taken
are the most cost effective.
While the challenges and risks are considerable, the strategies and
plans presented in this corrective action plan are designed to achieve
NASA's goals and objectives within the targeted timeframes.
CHAPTER 1: FINANCIAL AUDIT IMPROVEMENT
WHY NASA NEEDS A CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
NASA's vision for Space Exploration is an ambitious and bold
journey into areas of space that man has never visited and into areas
of science and research that man has yet to fully comprehend or master.
Complex research and development projects, like those at NASA, require
effective project planning and management to meet quality, schedule and
budget requirements. Having ready access to accurate and reliable
financial information is critical for NASA's program and project
managers to achieve their own technical goals. Budget constraints
combined with the uncertainties inherent in primary research and
development further highlight the need for effective program and
project financial management information.
While NASA's program and project managers are the ultimate users of
financial information, NASA management and external stakeholders have
an important need for information that helps them to prioritize the
allocation of scarce Federal dollars. Congress and the White House must
be assured that NASA is using its resources in the most effective
manner to achieve the goals they have set for the Agency. Only through
well designed and implemented processes and systems, effective internal
controls and well trained and disciplined staff will the Agency be able
to deliver the fidelity of financial information that is required.
Today it is clear from audit reports and the OCFO's own analysis of
its processes, systems and data that improvement is necessary before
the required fidelity is achieved. This comprehensive and integrated
financial audit corrective action plan is an important tool for
organizing and efficiently managing NASA's financial audit
improvements. The problems cited in IG audit reports did not appear
overnight; nor will they disappear quickly, either. This plan is a
realistic reflection of the time and effort required to make the
necessary improvements.
This plan takes a holistic view of the financial management
challenges at NASA. It recognizes the interrelatedness of process
across the organization; how problems in an operations process can
ultimately contribute to problems with how costs are captured and
reported in financial management processes. With that perspective, this
plan identifies and resolves the root causes of NASA's financial audit
weaknesses.
WHAT THE CAP IS AND WHAT IT DOES
NASA's financial audit corrective action plan (CAP) is NASA's
response to the financial audit recommendations made by IG auditors in
the 2005 financial audit. The CAP is organized around the reportable
conditions contained in the auditor's Report on Internal Control (NASA
Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report, pages 190-212).
For each reportable condition, the plan is further organized by the
specific recommendations contained in the Report on Internal Control.
For each recommendation, NASA has developed, and has begun
implementation of, logical, interdependent sets of specific actions
that directly address that recommendation. The CAP lays out how NASA
will address each recommendation made by the IG auditors. The
graphicdepicts the layout of the plan for one sample reportable
condition.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The CAP is designed to provide NASA's framework for resolving the
internal control and management weaknesses identified by the IG
auditors. These extend beyond financial accounting into the operations
of the agency. Effectively resolving the identified weaknesses will
take a coordinated and integrated effort involving the support, buy-in
and ownership of many NASA offices and directorates. Affected
organizations have been involved in the creation of this plan, and, in
many cases, have been assigned the primary responsibility for taking
the necessary actions to resolve the identified weaknesses.
The financial audit CAP is a living document. Performance against
the plan will be monitored on a regular basis and initiatives will be
adjusted as needed to ensure that results continue to meet the goals
and objectives of the plan. The plan projects actions and target dates
for resolving the issues. All projections are based on currently known
information and may change over time.
linking the cap to nasa's financial leadership plan (rp)
In 2004, NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer published a
four-year Financial Leadership Plan. This plan lays out the vision for
financial management at NASA through three comprehensive goals:
--1. Provide the Agency's Mission Directorates and Mission Support
Areas with the financial knowledge, information and tools
required to effectively manage programs, projects, institutions
and overall NASA resources.
--2. Ensure that all stakeholders have a clear understanding and
accurate assessment of how NASA resources effectively and
efficiently support NASA's vision.
--3. Enable the OCFO workforce to provide world-class management and
processes in support of the Agency's Mission Directorates and
Mission Support Areas.
Each of these four-year goals is supported by a set of one to two-
year objectives. Each objective, or set of objectives, has associated
with it initiatives intended to help NASA achieve that objective.
Financial Leadership Plan initiatives are solution sets to known issues
or improvements to current operations that contain specific activities
scheduled, sequenced, and assigned in documented project plans. These
initiatives are led by staff members from headquarters or one of the
NASA Field Centers, and staffed by appropriate subject matter experts
from across NASA. The graphic depicts the relationships throughout the
planning process.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
This corrective action plan represents one set of initiatives that
specifically addresses NASA's ability to provide accurate, reliable and
timely financial information to decision-makers and external
stakeholders. The Financial Leadership Plan includes other financial
management improvement initiatives not directly linked to NASA audit
recommendations.
MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT
NASA's commitment to making financial management improvements is
evident at all levels of the organization, not just in the Office of
the Chief Financial Officer. This plan was developed through a combined
effort of the owners and operators of both the financial and those non-
financial processes that are contributing to the identified weaknesses.
Through the sponsorship of NASA's Administrator and Deputy
Administrator, the Agency is clear about the importance of resolving
these outstanding management and internal control weaknesses. Several
infrastructure elements are in place to help ensure the plan's success.
OCFO Governance Structure
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has developed a
governance structure that will help to guide and speed information flow
during the implementation of the corrective action plan.
Recommendations for change that result from implementation of the plan
will be presented to either the OCFO Financial Steering Group or the
Financial Executive Roundtable, depending on the scope and magnitude of
the anticipated changes, for approval and disposition. These groups are
made up of OCFO headquarters and Field Center leadership who will have
the ultimate responsibility for implementing changes in NASA financial
processes and systems. The use of the governance structure will add
discipline to the corrective action process, and speed communications
and implementation.
Monthly and Quarterly Oversight
Measuring progress against the corrective action plan begins with
regular status reports from the initiative owners. The OCFO's program
management function will asses progress, make project management
recommendations, and suggest changes to specific initiatives, as
necessary. Progress is measured both in terms of completed activities
and assessments of work products.
The OCFO will report on overall corrective action plan progress
monthly to the Agency's Deputy Administrator. The Deputy Administrator
has the authority to determine Agency improvement priorities and to
address resource needs.
The OCFO will provide regular updates to NASA's Inspector General
and, as needed, with IG auditors.
Enhanced Human Resources
Having the necessary resources to implement the plan is a
recognized challenge. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has
received the authority to hire the staff and engage the contractors it
needs to execute its responsibilities against the plan. The challenge
lies in finding the right people at the right time, quickly
familiarizing those people with the current issues, processes and
systems, and doing all of this while managing the day-to-day operations
of the office.
CHAPTER 2: THE ELEMENTS OF THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED BY THE NASA INSPECTOR GENERAL
Each year the Inspector General (IG) conducts financial audits
assessing NASA's operations and facilities as required by the Chief
Financial Officers' Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-576) as amended. In
2005, as in 2004 and 2003, the IG's independent public auditors
determined that the scope of their work was not sufficient to enable
them to express an opinion on NASA's financial statements.
From the work that the independent public auditors were able to
perform, they identified four reportable conditions, three of which
they considered to be material. Each of these reportable conditions is
a repeat condition from the fiscal year 2004 financial audit. A
material weakness is an identified problem that may impact the accuracy
and reliability of financial information. NASA is committed to
implementing solutions that best resolve these weaknesses.
The reportable conditions and NASA's goals, objectives and
strategies for resolving them are contained in this section of the
plan.
Initiative Overviews
Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight
Fund Balance With Treasury
Property, Plant & Equipment
Environmental Liabilities
1. Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight. (Material Weakness)
``Although progress was made [since the 2004 audit], significant
financial management issues continue to impair NASA's ability to
accumulate, analyze, and distribute reliable financial information.''
(Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
(PAR), Part 3, page 193)
Background
The implementation of NASA's Core Financial system in fiscal year
2003 represented a major transformation in NASA's financial management
systems and processes. Immediately following the completion of the
system's implementation, challenges were identified in system
processing, configuration and capabilities. While challenges from this
major change were anticipated, it has taken longer than expected to
stabilize the financial environment. The current version of NASA's
automated financial system has capability limitations which have
required the definition and implementation of compensating controls.
Examples of these limitations include:
--Audit trails within the system do not distinguish between source
documents of original entry and correction transactions
--Lack of fully automated support for adjustments to prior year
obligations
The independent public auditors specifically noted that
documentation regarding significant accounting events, recording of
non-standard transactions, and post closing adjustments, as well as
corrections and other adjustments made in connection with data
conversion issues must be strengthened. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page
211)
Future versions of the Core Financial system promise to provide
capabilities to improve the integrity of budgetary ledger postings and
to further automate accounting processes. NASA has scheduled a system
update early in fiscal year 2007 that is intended to address many of
these issues through enhanced system capabilities and process
improvements.
Implementation of a Commercial Off-the-Shelf Software (COTS)
package in the federal government has presented its own set of
challenges. The alignment of NASA processes and its enterprise resource
planning (ERP) system is an ongoing activity.
Goal
NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to improve
NASA's financial management system and processes to achieve accurate,
reliable and timely financial information.
Objective
Supporting that goal is the objective of developing core standard
agency-wide procedures and tools to review and validate that financial
data and processes are consistent with authoritative guidance issued by
FASAB, Treasury and OMB.
Strategy
The strategy for achieving that objective is to develop and
implement procedures to identify and validate financial data and
processes in IEMP, to strengthen internal controls to ensure
consistency with authoritative guidance, and to implement automated
financial system enhancements to complement process changes.
Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
NASA made progress in 2005 towards resolving this material
weakness, which was also identified in 2004. Highlights of these
accomplishments are provided below, grouped by categories identified in
the 2004 financial audit.
``Lack of Integrated Financial Management System'' (2004 Audit
Finding Category)
--NASA eliminated noted weaknesses in its Integrated Enterprise
Management (IEM) information technology control environment
(NASA's financial system is one component of IEM). The
weaknesses were identified in three control areas: access
controls; systems software; and, segregation of duties.
--NASA implemented compensating controls and improved system
capabilities to improve its ability to identify and document
correction activities within the Core Financial system. With
these improvements, audit trails have been established by
identifying and linking certain system transactions between
original, reversal and re-post transactions.
--Through systems configuration analysis and modification, and
through the reconciliation of remaining data anomalies from
conversion in 2003, NASA generated fully supported year-end
financial statements directly from the Agency's Core Financial
system. Year-end balances are now supported by the Core
Financial system.
``Financial Statement Preparation and Analysis'' (2004 Audit
Finding Category)
--Through policies and procedures established in NASA's Financial
Management Requirements (FMR), Volume 19, Periodic Monitoring
Controls Activities, all NASA Field Centers are performing 23
financial reconciliations or verifications on a scheduled
basis. Field Center CFOs are providing certifications for each
reconciliation or verification to Headquarters, where they are
tracked and reviewed.
--NASA Field Center CFOs and Deputy CFOs reviewed and certified the
year-end financial management data from their Centers, and
included a statement that all corrections were fully
documented, for audit trail purposes, in NASA's official audit
tracking system.
--NASA developed and adopted enhanced financial statement validation
procedures and checklists for use at all Field Centers and
Headquarters. Through the preparation of extensive crosswalks
between NASA and Treasury financial data, the Agency has
validated that both the data and the business rules for posting
data into specific accounts are accurate. Also, checklists are
now in place for the preparation of financial statements. These
checklists are reviewed and certified by Field Center
management.
``Additional Controls Need to be Strengthened'' (2004 Audit Finding
Category)
--NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) increased
staffing to support financial management activities. In May
2005, NASA's OCFO received relief from a NASA-wide hiring
freeze and approval to increase its headcount in fiscal year
2006 at Headquarters by 34 positions (including 2 Senior
Executive Service leadership positions) and at Field Centers by
50 positions. As of February 1, 2006, 90 percent of these
positions have been filled.
--NASA published the first volumes of the NASA Financial Management
Requirements (FMR) to ensure complete and consistent
application of NASA financial management policy. The FMR has
been distributed to appropriate Headquarters and Center staff.
--NASA established a financial quality assurance function to provide
direction and focus for NASA Internal Control activities. This
function has developed an agency-wide Policy Compliance Review
Plan, a corporate quality assurance strategy, and a
comprehensive internal control strategy to ensure that the
agency is positioned to successfully meet OMB A-123
requirements. In addition, all Centers have received internal
control training in conjunction with quality assurance visits.
--Other noted weaknesses have been addressed through compensating
controls for subsidiary ledgers and systems, including
property, to ensure the quality of data entered into the
official accounting system. A new system was created for
Contractor held assets, Contractor-Held Asset Tracking System
(CHATS). CHATS implementation has provided additional
validation and checks and balances for property data input.
Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
actions to further address each of the financial audit recommendations.
Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
to the recommendations in the financial audit report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Weakness or Reportable
Condition with Recommendation Number Planned Corrective Action (PCA) Target Date for PCA Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, Perform a review and verification to ensure that information presented 11/15/06
and Oversight (1a-g) in the Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) is accurate and
Recommendation 1a: Continue to consistent with OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements.
improve its financial reporting PCA 1 Submitted fiscal year 2005 PAR to AGA for feedback on the construction, Complete
and internal quality review content, and applicability of the report, as part of the CEAR Award
procedures to reasonably assure PCA 2 process. 3/31/06
that information presented in PCA 3 Review results of CEAR review process.................................. 3/31/06
the Performance and PCA 4 Gather feedback on PAR from OMB and Mercatus........................... 2nd Quarter
Accountability Report is Review latest revision of OMB Circular A-136 and incorporate required
accurate and consistent with the PCA 5 updates for fiscal year 2006 PAR. 3/31/06
requirements of OMB Circular A- Review PAR's from other Federal Agencies to identify potential areas of
136, Financial Reporting PCA 6 improvement for NASA. Draft by 7/31/06. Final by 11/15/
Requirements. Incorporate improvements in the Management Discussion and Analysis 06
PCA 7 (MD&A) section of the PAR as appropriate based on feedback received. Volume to accompany Draft MD&A
Verify accuracy of the MD&A portion of the PAR and compile supporting by 7/31/06. Volume to accompany
documentation. Final by 11/15/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, Modify the statement of net cost (SONC) to provide a breakdown of net To coincide with 2nd quarter
and Oversight (1a-g) costs consistent with strategic plan and in the Management Discussion financial statements
Recommendation 1b: Configure the and Analysis (MD&A) section by major line of business. ................................
Core Financial Module to provide PCA 1 Defined the requirements and breakdown for the SONC; submitted a Complete
a breakdown of net costs Service Request (SR) to initiate the development of the report in SAP;
consistent with programs and reviewed the requirements with IEMP Competency Center (CC).
identified in NASA's strategic
plan and in the Management's
Discussion and Analysis (MD&A)
section of the financial
statements.
PCA 2 Developed the report in SAP based on the requirements submitted by OCFO Complete
and coordinate with OCFO as needed.
PCA 3 Test (jointly) the report to ensure the report meets the requirements, 2/21/06
with OCFO approval required for production client.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Generate monthly financial statements and review prior to interim and Monthly
and Oversight (1a-g) year-end reporting dates to ensure completeness. Produce monthly
Recommendation 1c1: Ensure that financial statements from SAP.
systems used to prepare the PCA 2 Establish a cross-Agency task team to develop monthly schedule with due 3/1/06
financial statements are dates for data processing, reconciliations, verifications, feedback,
complete and have been and reports.
sufficiently tested prior to
interim and year-end reporting
dates.
PCA 3 Distribute monthly schedule to Centers................................. 3/3/06
PCA 4 Implement monthly schedule............................................. 3/31/06
PCA 5 Established procedures to ensure that all system configuration changes Complete
are subject to regression tests and year-end test procedures which
validate that changes made to the Core Financial System are valid,
appropriate, and do not adversely impact end-to-end business
processes, including external reporting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Update Center workplans to capture remaining data anomalies from fiscal 2/10/06
and Oversight (1a-g) year 2003. ................................
Recommendation 1c2: NASA should PCA 2 Coordinate corrective actions with Centers and IEMP Competency Center 3/31/06
continue to validate its data to determine necessary steps. ................................
within the Core Financial Module PCA 3 Monitor progress until remaining data anomalies are resolved........... 6/30/06
to resolve issues with data
integrity that date back to the
system conversion in fiscal year
2003 to ensure that date is
accurate and complete.
PCA 4 Perform monthly reconciliation of financial data residing in the core Monthly
financial system.
PCA 5 Verify that Centers and IEMP Competency Center are executing standard Monthly
reconciliation procedures.
PCA 6 Review results of Center and IEMP Competency Center reconciliation Monthly
procedures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Establish and implement an error correction and prior period adjustment 2/28/06
and Oversight (1a-g) procedure consistent with the FASAB (SFFAS #7) standards that allows
Recommendation 1c3: In addition, for the tracking of these items within SAP.
NASA should continue to develop
a long-term solution within IEMP
to identify, support, and track
adjustments made to general
ledger accounts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Established safeguards to ensure that system does not pay cost in Complete
and Oversight (1a-g) excess of obligation. ................................
Recommendation 1d: Continue to PCA 2 Develop compensating procedures to analyze Business Warehouse on a 3/31/06
devise short-term and long-term quarterly basis to ensure that liabilities are appropriately recorded. ................................
resolutions to IEMP systematic PCA 3 Formed cross-functional task team to review current process and Complete
and integration issues. Lack of identify opportunities for reengineering.
internal controls surrounding
costs in excess of obligations
and downward adjustments.
PCA 4 Conducted benchmarking sessions with Dept. of Education, Dept. of Complete
Agriculture, and others to identify best practices and lessons learned
for funds control, cost collection, and accrual processing.
PCA 5 Drafted proposed process design and high level requirements............ Complete
PCA 6 Obtained OCFO and Center CFO approval of SAP Version Update Project Complete
Scope Document which incorporated requirements from task team efforts.
PCA 7 Incorporate process design into Core Financial System Update Version 3rd Quarter Fiscal Year 2006
proj- ect.
PCA 8 Implement Core Financial System Version Update project, including 10/1/06
improved process designs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Developed an Operational Level Agreement (OLA) for the IEMP Competency Complete
and Oversight (1a-g) Center and Agency CFO to operate under that prescribes their ................................
Recommendation 1e1: Formally respective responsibilities pertaining to master data management and ................................
document roles and periodic closing processes. ................................
responsibilities of PCA 2 Finalized the OCFO Governance Structure, which encompasses the decision Complete
Headquarters, IEMP Competency making process within the financial management community and its ................................
Center, and center financial communications with IEMP. ................................
management personnel across all PCA 3 Developed performance metrics for Center CFOs to monitor compliance Complete
levels to ensure that with OCFO priorities, strategies, and objectives, as documented in the
appropriate responsibilities are Financial Leadership Plan.
aligned with job functions and
that accountability is achieved
at each level.
PCA 4 Shared performance metrics with Center CFO's........................... 2/1/06
PCA 5 Begin capturing metric information..................................... 2/28/06, utilizing 1st Quarter
data
PCA 6 Conduct quarterly evaluations or progress with Center CFO's............ Quarterly beginning 4/26/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Continue to hire as expeditiously as possible up to allocated ceiling.. On-going
and Oversight (1a-g)
Recommendation 1e2: Additionally,
we recognize that resource
limitations may constrain NASA's
ability to execute its mission.
Management should continue to
focus on filling key vacancies
within the financial management
organization.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Issued quarterly report documenting all training conducted during the Complete
and Oversight (1a-g) 1st quarter of fiscal year 2006. ................................
Recommendation 1f: Provide PCA 2 Utilize a needs assessment and develop a training plan for providing 3/31/2006
additional ``hands-on'' training the following training: Processing transactions, Performing account
for financial personnel--at analyses and reconciliations, Maintenance of supporting documentation,
headquarter and center levels-- and Financial reporting requirements.
to ensure that they understand
their roles in processing
transactions, performing account
analyses and reconciliations,
maintaining supporting
documentation, and updating
their knowledge of financial
reporting requirements.
PCA 3 Execute and monitor the plan on a quarterly basis...................... 9/30/2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Financial Systems, Analyses, PCA 1 Produce a series of management reports to facilitate financial Monthly 15th working day
and Oversight (1a-g) management oversight and analysis; e.g. aging, delinquencies, prompt
Recommendation 1g: Develop payment, etc. Suite of reports will be continually enhanced based on
reports from the Core Financial management requests.
Module to facilitate reviews and
ensure that aging of
transactions and open items, un-
liquidated obligations, grants,
and other key areas are
periodically assessed,
researched, and resolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Further Research Required to Resolve Fund Balance With Treasury
Differences. (Material Weakness)
``Although we were informed that many errors from fiscal year 2003
were resolved, significant errors within the accounting system were
still being identified by NASA in fiscal year 2005. Fund balance with
Treasury reconciliation processes were ineffective in fiscal year 2004
and much of fiscal year 2005, through the date of our visits to
centers, but it is our understanding that steps taken by NASA in the
last quarter of the year are believed by NASA management to have
substantially improved the effectiveness of such reconciliations.''
(Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
(PAR), Part page 201)
Background
NASA's Fund Balance with Treasury represents monies the agency can
spend for authorized transactions. Each month, NASA is required to
reconcile the difference between the amount of money it reports to be
in its Fund Balance with Treasury with the amount that Treasury reports
to be in the account. The 2005 audit identified FBWT as a material
weakness due to unreconciled discrepancies between Treasury's balance
and the balance represented in NASA's Core Financial system.
IG auditors indicated that documentation to support the application
of rigorous reconciliation processes was not available for their
review. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
Goal
NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to fully
reconcile the agency's Fund Balance with Treasury and to process any
future corrections in a timely manner.
Objective
Supporting that goal is the objective of monitoring Fund Balance
With Treasury on a regular basis to ensure compliance with NASA and
Treasury policies, procedures and practices.
Strategy
The strategy for achieving that objective is three-fold:
--1. Center CFOs will perform monthly reconciliations and certify
their completion with Agency OCFO.
--2. Agency OCFO will perform monthly reviews of Center
reconciliations to ensure compliance with reconciliation
policies and procedures.
--3. OCFO will institute management reviews and monitor compliance
with the following metrics:
--a. Reconciliations performed every 30 days
--b. Corrections processed within 120 days of discovery
Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
In fiscal year 2005, NASA enhanced its funds distribution process
through policy and procedural changes to minimize manual and repetitive
process steps. The Agency will continue to refine and implement
enhancements.
In addressing previous year differences in NASA's Fund Balance with
Treasury, the OCFO reduced the out of balance condition through the
following actions:
--Developed and implemented a standard process that requires a review
and approval process be followed to correct errors, supported
with appropriate documentation.
--Implemented across all Field Centers standard reconciliation
procedures and associated templates to monitor FBWT status on a
monthly basis. These procedures will help to ensure timely
resolution of variances. The procedures make up the Periodic
Monitoring Controls Activities handbook, Volume 19 of NASA's
Financial Management Requirements (FMR). Policy was also
implemented requiring each Field Center CFO to review and
certify to Headquarters monthly that the reviews and
reconciliations were performed, and are complete and accurate.
--Developed and implemented a standard process to review and approve
the write-off of unsupportable differences.
--Established teams to resolve identified FBWT issues at targeted
NASA Field Centers.
--Implemented monthly Agency cash monitoring procedures and
guidelines to track reconciliations and the timely resolution
of differences.
--Implemented across all Field Centers an automated cash
reconciliation tool to identify differences and augment timely
processing of transactions.
Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
to the recommendations from the financial audit report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Weakness or Reportable
Condition with Recommendation Number Planned Corrective Action (PCA) Target Date for PCA Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 Further Research Required to PCA 1 Status Center CFOs to ensure monthly reconciliations are performed..... Monthly
Resolve Fund Balance with PCA 2 Review and monitor compliance with Fund Balance with Treasury policies, Monthly
Treasury Differences (2a). procedures, and practices. ................................
Recommendation 2a: We recommend PCA 3 Perform a CRCS to SAP reconciliation and resolve differences........... 6/30/06
that NASA continue to improve PCA 4 Established Fund Balance with Treasury metrics......................... Complete
its current procedures to ensure PCA 5 Assess compliance with Fund Balance with Treasury policies, procedures, 3/31/06
that all reconciling items are and practices.
thoroughly researched, timely
resolved, and reviewed by
appropriate center and
headquarters OCFO personnel. In
addition, NASA should retain all
reports and documentation used
in performing its fund balance
with Treasury reconciliations to
ensure that detailed, documented
explanations and resolution
actions are maintained for a
sufficient audit trail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Enhancements needed for controls over Property, Plant and Equipment
(PP&E) and materials. (Material Weakness)
``Consistent with prior year audit reports, our review of property,
plant, and equipment (PP&E), totaling approximately $35.0 billion,
identified serious weaknesses in internal control that, if not
corrected, could prevent material misstatements from being detected and
corrected in a timely manner.'' (Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005
Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), Part 3, page 203)
Background
NASA Mission-related products are designed, built and deployed to
carry-out the agency's exploration and research objectives. Given the
unique scientific nature of the agency's work, these programs, such as
Hubble and the International Space Station, are highly specialized, and
to develop and maintain them, NASA contracts with industry. Often
multiple contractors participate in the design and creation of these
products in a cycle that, in some cases, has taken as long as forty
years from concept through deployment.
The primary issues related to NASA property, plant and equipment
are threefold:
--1. the accuracy and completeness of the financial records--meaning
the classification (expense or asset) and valuation--of project
property, plant and equipment, as well as the coding of
documents at obligation that carry through expenditure
--2. the accountability for the materials and equipment used in the
construction of physical products
--3. the accuracy and timeliness of contractor provided financial
information--including the classification (expense or asset)
and valuation--related to the status of contractor-held
property, plant and equipment and materials
First, given the complex and unique nature of its research and
development work, NASA and its respective auditors and GAO
representatives, have struggled over the years to define and agree upon
an approach, and related policies, for reporting program and product
costs in a manner consistent with FASAB guidelines. This impacts the
classification of PP&E costs (asset or expense), the valuation of
interim and finished products, and, ultimately NASA's financial
statements.
Second, as contractors develop parts and components of an overall
product, they ship them from the manufacturing location to various NASA
Centers across the country in preparation for assembly into a finished
product. NASA has been working to ensure proper control over these
components.
Finally, preparation of NASA's financial statements is dependent
upon contractors and their NASA program counterparts reporting costs
associated with developing these parts. The accuracy, completeness and
timeliness of this reporting must be improved.
IG auditors specifically noted that controls relating principally
to contractor-held PP&E and materials and NASA-held assets in space
(Theme Assets) need improvement, and that headquarters oversight needs
improvement. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
Goal
NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to improve the
agency's internal controls over its property, plant and equipment
(PP&E).
Objective
Supporting that goal are the objectives to:
--1. Develop core standard agency-wide procedures and tools to review
and validate that financial data and processes are consistent
with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for
Federal reporting entities.
--2. Provide relevant, accurate, reliable, and timely financial
property information to stakeholders.
Strategy
The strategy for achieving that objective has six elements:
--1. Define Asset Categories (NASA-Held vs. Contractor-Held and
Program Related vs. Non-Program Related), based on published
accounting guidance (e.g. SFFAS #'s 6, 8, & 11 and SFAS #2)
--2. Define appropriate accounting treatment of an asset based upon
its use (Alternative vs. No Alternative Future Use), based on
published accounting guidance (e.g. SFFAS #'s 6, 8, & 11 and
SFAS #2);
--3. Review NASA's revised capitalization policy with OMB, OIG, GAO,
FASAB, and E&Y;
--4. Review and revise, as necessary, the PP&E policy regarding the
accounting treatment;
--5. Engage the entire NASA community (OCFO, Project/Program
Managers, Procurement, Logistics and Facilities) in improving
PP&E financial management and internal controls;
--6. Define, Communicate, Train and Implement procedures for
effective Property, Plant & Equipment Lifecycle Management, to
include valuation of Assets.
Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
NASA has made great strides toward enhancing its internal controls
and addressing the weaknesses in NASA's accounting for its Property,
Plant and Equipment and Materials.
NASA successfully implemented a system to account for assets held
by contractors, Contractor Held Asset Tracking System (CHATS) to
address the potential concern of inadequate supervisory reviews of the
Contractor submitted data and have a data base for the costs of these
fixed assets. The system is currently being used and was in place when
DCAA conducted its audit of agreed upon procedures on NASA's largest
contractors. As a part of the audit, DCAA reviewed whether Contractor
policies and procedures provide for detecting and correcting errors
reported on the Monthly CHATS reports.
The DCAA reviews were conducted closer to the end of the fiscal
year than had previously been the case in order to support the asset
balance on NASA's Balance Sheet at year-end. DCAA was also tasked with
reviewing contractor compliance in resolving prior year reported
deficiencies. Preliminary feedback from the draft reports indicates
that progress has been made during fiscal year 2005 toward resolving
these deficiencies.
NASA now performs the following activities to ensure
reconciliations of asset transfers between contractors:
--Completion of a monthly validation checklist requiring that all
transfers of $1 million or more be supportable with appropriate
documentation.
--Preparation monthly of a Transfer Matrix report by the NASA Center
property accountants. This report, using the data in CHATS,
lists all transfers made between and among contractors or with
NASA Field Centers. This reporting will assist NASA
Headquarters with readily identifying inter-contract transfers.
In keeping with the auditors' recommendation to fundamentally
revisit its approach to capitalizing property, NASA developed a
proposed change in accounting policy for the capitalization of Theme
Assets--the largest portion of NASA's PP&E. This policy would require
NASA to expense all costs as incurred for projects that are exploratory
in nature, that have no alternative future uses and are not reusable or
repairable (i.e. research and development type costs). The change would
more accurately reflect the nature of program and project expenditures.
NASA also implemented the Project Management Information
Improvement (PMI\2\) initiative in 2005. PMI\2\ is a project work
breakdown coding structure that tracks a project from obligation
through expenditure. PMI\2\ benefits include:
--Alignment of the Agency's technical WBS with the financial coding
structure
--Data standardization and configuration management
--Consistent and standardized tool for project management reporting
--Timely, consistent and reliable information for management
decisions
--Program and Project managers gain the ability to view detailed
costs and obligations at the project level
Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
to the recommendations from the financial audit report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Weakness or Reportable
Condition with Recommendation Number Planned Corrective Action (PCA) Target Date for PCA Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3. Enhancements Needed for PCA 1 Defined Asset Categories based on published accounting guidance and Complete
Controls Over Property, Plant, NASA's business environment--Finalized how property will be classified
and Equipment and Materials. (e.g., NASA Held and Contractor Held Program Related vs. Non-Program
Recommendation 3a1: We recommend PCA 2 Related, etc.). Draft Complete
that NASA continue to focus on Completed draft defining appropriate accounting treatment per Asset Final Complete
resolving prior year issues and category and use (based on published accounting guidance and NASA's
completing its implementation of PCA 3 business environment). 2/28/06
suggested recommendations and PCA 4 Provide OMB, GAO, FASAB, and OIG NASA's revised capitalization policy.. 3/15/06
developing detailed corrective PCA 5 Adjust capitalization policy as necessary.............................. 3/31/06
action plans. Flowchart and document desired business processes and procedures, and
Recommendation 3a2a: In addition, define roles and responsibilities for effective PP&E lifecycle
we once again place further management, to include valuation of Assets. ................................
emphasis on recommending that Incorporate OIG comments in the flow charts as appropriate and ................................
NASA fundamentally revisit its PCA 6 disposition. 3/31/06
approach to capitalizing Identify and coordinate changes that must be made to existing policies
property. Agency-wide.
Recommendation 3a2b: Documenting, Meet with HQ Mission Support Offices (Procurement, Office of Chief
analyzing, and implementing Engineer, Institutions & Management, etc.).
robust control changes from end Develop a list of potential associated policy impacts
to end to all categories of PP&E. Coordinate with HQ Mission Support Offices to obtain draft policy
Recommendation 3a3: We also updates.
recommend that all NASA
obligation documents and
expenditures be coded to
identify whether they relate to
a property acquisition to create
a control for comparison to
recorded property transactions
and subsidiary ledgers, be they
NASA activities or contractors.
PCA 7 Assign cross-functional teams to participate in Working Groups to re- 4/3/06
engineer, as necessary, NASA's current processes and procedures.
PCA 8 Engage working groups to: 5/31/06
Identify process and system(s) gaps between current processes and
desired processes, as well as, identifying solutions. Specifically,
teams will focus on the following areas of PP&E Lifecycle
management:
Planning
Acquisition
Management Control and Accountability
Disposition
Ensure that OIG comments regarding specific corrective actions are
incorporated in the flow charts as appropriate and dispositioned.
Review Compensating Control Team recommendations and other relevant
material.
Establish single points of accountability within the PP&E Lifecycle.
Establish a certification requirement (Center Director for Real and
Personal Property/Chief Engineer or Mission Director for Program
Assets).
Establish format for new RSSI disclosure reporting requirements.
PCA 9 Develop Process Implementation Plan for Changes Agency-wide............ 6/16/06
PCA 10 Complete interim policy and process changes, as necessary, to include 9/29/06
the following:
Program/Project Management policies
Procurement policies
Financial policies
Logistics policies
Facilities policies
Conduct focused communication forums with accountable parties to
discuss their roles and responsibilities within the PP&E lifecycle.
Prepare analysis and record changes to reported fixed assets and
expenses based upon revised policies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Internal controls in estimating NASA's Environmental Liabilities
require enhancement.
``During our review of NASA's environmental liability estimates
totaling $825 million as of September 30, 2005, and related disclosures
to the financial statements, we continued to note weaknesses in NASA's
ability to generate an auditable estimate of its unfunded environmental
liabilities (UEL) and to identify potential financial statement
disclosure items because of a lack of sufficient, auditable evidence.''
(Reference: NASA Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Accountability Report
(PAR), Part 3, page 207)
Background
Due to the highly complex scientific and technical nature of NASA's
work, the Agency's scientific and engineering community develops the
actual estimates for environmental liabilities. The OCFO provides
accounting expertise in the form of policy and guidance to the
Environmental Liabilities staff responsible for developing these
estimates. Once estimates have been developed, they are then delivered
to the OCFO accounting staff, who records them in NASA's Core Financial
system.
IG auditors specifically noted weaknesses in NASA's ability to
generate auditable unfunded environmental liability estimates and to
identify disclosure items. (Fiscal Year 2005 PAR, page 211)
Goal
NASA's goal for resolving this material weakness is to validate the
tools and methodology used to prepare the unfunded environmental
liability estimates.
Objective
Supporting that goal are the objectives to:
--1. Develop standard agency-wide procedures to be applied by all
Environmental Liability staff on the preparation, reviewing,
validation, and processing of environmental liabilities, in
agreement with guidance from statutory agencies (OMB, FASAB,
Treasury, and State and local Governments).
--2. Ensure that all staff involved in the development of the
environmental liability estimates and in the review, analysis,
and processing of those estimates in the financial system are
properly trained.
Strategy
The strategy for achieving that objective is to improve existing
environmental liability procedures and implement needed internal
controls to assure the improved procedures are adhered to and followed.
NASA will also provide proper training to all staff involved in the
development of the environmental liability estimates and the review,
analysis, and processing in the financial system.
Accomplishments in Fiscal Year 2005
The OCFO and the Environmental Management Division (EMD) developed
a close working partnership to coordinate policies, processes and
controls for estimating NASA's environmental liabilities. Members from
both offices met weekly to identify and resolve issues, and determine
the most appropriate steps toward improved estimates.
NASA has developed and conducted training in conjunction with the
EMD for staff that provides guidance and policy for estimating
environmental liabilities. The training outlines the process for
estimating environmental liabilities, explains Federal accounting
standards and guidance, defines quality review processes, and addresses
existing audit findings.
NASA has developed and published documented procedures for
estimating environmental liabilities. These procedures have been
distributed to all Centers.
Approach for Fiscal Year 2006
NASA has developed a comprehensive set of planned corrective
actions to address each of the financial audit recommendations.
Following is a set of tables that track each planned corrective action
to the recommendation from the financial audit report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Material Weakness or Reportable
Condition with Recommendation Number Planned Corrective Action (PCA) Target Date for PCA Completion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Internal Controls in PCA 1 Update the plan developed in response to the 2004 management letter 2/28/06
Estimating NASA's Environmental comments.
Liability Require Enhancement. PCA 2 Host the second joint, OCFO and Environmental Management Division 3/31/06
Recommendation 4a1: We recommend (EMD), training course to expedite the overall resolution of the
that NASA expedite the progress action plan.
on the action plan it developed
in response to our fiscal year
2004 audit.
PCA 3 Develop and have available for auditor review, the Environmental 5/31/06
Liability estimates based on 2nd quarter data.
PCA 4 Conduct review of Environmental Liability estimation process........... 7/15/06
PCA 5 Complete final liability adjustments based on current information...... 9/15/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Internal Controls in PCA 1 Update 2004 plan to include action and timeframes for addressing and 2/28/06
Estimating NASA's Environmental resolving center and facility specific findings.
Liability Require Enhancement.
Recommendation 4a2: In addition,
we recommend that NASA include
in the action plan the center
and facility specific findings
that were identified during the
fiscal year 2004 audit as
opposed to the current work plan
steps which address only those
fiscal year 2004 observations
that were thought to be common
across all centers or apply to
headquarters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Internal Controls in Jointly assess the effectiveness of UEL internal controls, cost
Estimating NASA's Environmental estimation process and data gathering procedures. ................................
Liability Require Enhancement. PCA 2 Develop review/internal control checklist.............................. 3/1/06
Recommendation 4a3: We also PCA 3 Conduct site visits utilizing checklist................................ 7/15/06
recommend that NASA's OCFO PCA 4 Generate report for management review and disposition.................. 8/30/06
perform a self-assessment of the PCA 5 Incorporate changes as necessary based on joint assessment............. 9/15/06
Unfunded Environmental Liability
(UEL) estimation and aggregation
process. This assessment should
focus on identifying additional
weaknesses in NASA's UEL system
that went undetected because no
final estimates were available
for our review at the time of
our audit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Internal Controls in PCA 1 Assess utilization of IDEAL parametric model........................... 8/30/06
Estimating NASA's Environmental PCA 2 Incorporate changes as necessary....................................... 9/15/06
Liability Require Enhancement.
Recommendation 4b: NASA should
also continue to validate the
tools (including IDEAL) and
methodology used at the center
and facility level to prepare
the UEL estimates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chapter 3: initiative workplans
Initiative Workplans
--Financial Systems, Analyses, and Oversight
--Fund Balance With Treasury
--Property, Plant & Equipment
--Environmental Liabilities
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
APPENDIX
ACRONYMS
CAP--Corrective Action Plan
CC--Competency Center
CEAR--Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting
CFO--Chief Financial Officer
COTS--Commercial off-the-shelf
CRCS--Central Resources Control System
DCFO--Deputy Chief Financial Officer
EMD--Environmental Management Division
E&Y--Ernst and Young
FASAB--Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
FBWT--Fund Balance With Treasury
GAO--General Accounting Office
HQs--NASA Headquarters
IDEAL--Integrated Data Evaluation and Analysis Library
IEMP--Integrated Enterprise Management Program
MD&A--Management Discussion and Analysis
NASA--National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OCFO--Office of the Chief Financial Officer
OIG--Office of the Inspector General
OLA--Operational Level Agreements
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
PAR--Performance and Accountability Report
PCA--Planned Corrective Action
PP&E--Plant, Property and Equipment
RSSI--Required Supplementary Stewardship Information
SAP--Systems, Applications, and Products
SFAS--Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
SFFAS--Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
SONC--Statement of Net Cost
SR--Service Request
UEL--Unfunded Environmental Liability
Question. Given this state of affairs, how can the Agency oversee
the expenditure of its appropriated resources and ensure that its
programs and operations are efficient and effective?
Answer. NASA relies upon an integrated system of management
controls to oversee the expenditure of its appropriated resources.
These controls span multiple phases of resource management from the
planning, programming and distribution of appropriations through to the
application and use of those resources across the entire program and
project lifecycle.
With respect to oversight of appropriated funds, as appropriations
are received and distributed, the Agency tracks them from appropriation
to apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to
help ensure that NASA is tracking resource allocation through the
program lifecycle.
Efficient and effective programs and operations begin with planning
and budgeting. NASA's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution
(PPBE) is NASA's four-phased methodology for aligning resources in a
comprehensive, disciplined approach that supports NASA's Mission and
directs Agency resources toward the priorities set forth by Congress
and the President. PPBE also enhances financial management quality and
accountability by linking the Agency's financial, programmatic, and
institutional communities for mission success. PPBE provides Agency
leaders with timely, accurate, and useful information about where
initiatives are and are not succeeding. This process helps to ensure a
budget that supports the Agency's strategic priorities and that is
traceable to outcomes.
As NASA's Mission Directorates use these funds to accomplish their
goals, NASA's three-Council governance structure helps to ensure that
they are doing so efficiently and effectively. The Strategic Management
Council serves as NASA's senior decision-making body for strategic
direction and planning by determining NASA's strategic direction and
assessing Agency progress in achieving NASA's Mission and the Vision
for Space Exploration. The Operations Management Council oversees
Center, or institutional, operations and performance while the Program
Management Council (PMC) serves as NASA's senior decision-making body
for base-lining and assessing program/project performance to ensure
successful achievement of NASA Strategic Goals and outcomes.
Below the PMC-level, NASA enforces the Agency's governance
principles of ``Checks and Balances'' and ``Balance of Power'' by
balancing and integrating the activities and authorities of the Chief
Engineer, the Independent Technical Authority, Program Managers, and
the Office of Safety and Mission Assurance.
Funding requirements are set by law for government programs. The
Independent Technical Authority not under program direction sets
technical requirements. And, schedule requirements are set by a variety
of factors, usually external and outside the Program Manager's control.
In NASA, the Chief Financial Officer ensures funding compliance.
Appropriate third parties monitor funding and schedule compliance. The
Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) ensures compliance with
the established critical technical requirements. Schedule compliance is
assured by third parties depending on the source of the schedule
requirements. For these reasons, the Chief Financial Officer, the IG,
the Independent Technical Authority, and OSMA are not in the Program
Manager's chain of command.
Three independent inputs give the NASA Administrator the confidence
that the Agency has exercised appropriate checks and balances of
Authorities, Responsibilities, and Accountabilities.
Below these governing structures, NASA employs financial management
and programmatic staff at each of its centers. These individuals have a
thorough knowledge of each of the Agency's programs and projects,
including the resources budgeted and expended to support those programs
and projects. The processes and procedures employed to monitor program
and project spending and performance were in place before the
implementation of NASA's new financial management system in fiscal year
2003. As the Agency continues to stabilize its centralized financial
management system, our center financial management staff, as well as
programmatic staff, continue to monitor and analyze the financial
health of the Agency's programs and operations.
Question. What steps has NASA taken to prevent this type of ADA
violation from occurring again?
Answer. NASA agrees with each of the OIG's specific
recommendations:
--OIG Recommendation #1.--We recommend that the Administrator report
the ADA violations for the funds carried over from fiscal year
2004 to fiscal year 2005 for each affected account and for the
$30,413,590 to the President of the United States through the
OMB Director, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
President of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the
Government Accountability Office, as required by the ADA and by
OMB Circular A-11, section 145.7.
--OIG Recommendation #2.--We recommend that the Administrator request
a comprehensive demonstration by the OCFO that the
appropriations available to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be
traced from appropriation to apportionments to allotments to
commitments and to obligations to help ensure that NASA is not
violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.
In addition to accepting and acting upon NASA's OIG two specific
recommendations, NASA has implemented specific correction actions in
the OCFO. These corrective actions include:
--Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
management personnel.
--Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
from exceeding apportionment control totals.
--Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
and 8 in March 2006.
--Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
An additional course is currently being scheduled.
--Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
--Documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
--Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
approvals; and
--Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
centralized financial system.
Question. What is NASA's current total estimated cost to develop,
implement, and maintain the Integrated Enterprise Management Program,
including those costs incurred to resolve data integrity issues
resulting from the initial implementation of the Core Financial system?
Answer. The development and implementation costs for NASA's
Integrated Enterprise Management Program, including all the hardware,
software, civil service labor, contractor labor, travel, and overhead
costs associated with re-engineering business processes and
implementing business systems for human capital management, financial
management, asset management, and procurement and contract management
are estimated at $842 million for the development years 2000 through
2011, consistent with the fiscal year 2007 President's budget request.
Of this total development estimate, $82.6 million is being expended
to update NASA's financial system, which, among other benefits, helps
resolve data integrity issues identified with the initial core
financial system implementation. Approximately, $50 million per year is
expended operating and maintaining this business systems environment.
ADA VIOLATION
Question. The NASA Office of Inspector General reported that NASA,
as a result of actions by officials in the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer violated the Antideficiency Act (ADA). According to
the IG report, the ADA violations occurred because of the lack of
internal controls within the OCFO and OCFO personnel's misunderstanding
of OMB apportionment requirements.
The NASA Administrator agreed to report the ADA violations to the
President of the United States through the OMB Director, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the President of the Senate, and the
Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office, as
required by the ADA.
Question. When will NASA provide its report on the ADA violations?
Answer. By letter dated June 23, 2006, the Administrator informed
the Committee of activities initiated regarding recommendations
concerning two ADA violations identified by the NASA Office of
Inspector General (0IG) in a report dated April 10, 2006. The
Administrator outlined his commitment to ensuring that the root causes
of the violations are addressed and that effective remedies are
instituted for all of NASA's financial management processes and
systems. As part of those efforts, and in conformance with the
requirements of OMB Circular No. A-11 and NASA Policy Directive
9050.3E, Administrative Control of Appropriations and Funds, the
Administrator received a determination from NASA's Office of the Chief
Financial Officer regarding the identification of the alleged
responsible party for the violations. That individual, no longer
employed with the Agency, in response to notification and the
opportunity to comment, has raised matters that the Administrator
determined require further investigation.
Accordingly, the Administrator directed an intra-Agency team, to
include representatives from the NASA Offices of Program Analysis and
Evaluation, Human Resources, and General Counsel, to conduct a de novo
review of the situation. That review is now expected to be completed by
July 31, 2006, and is expected to provide the requisite information for
the Administrator to accurately and comprehensively meet reporting
obligations per OMB Circular No. A-11 and complete formal
notifications.
Question. Who was responsible for the ADA violations?
Answer. As indicated above, the Administrator has directed an
intra-Agency team to conduct a de novo review that is expected to
provide the requisite information to enable him to accurately and
comprehensively meet reporting obligations per OMB Circular No. A-11
and complete formal notification, including identification of
responsible party/parties.
Question. Has disciplinary action been considered as required by
OMB Circular No. A-11?
Answer. This determination will be an outcome of the review
currently underway.
Question. The IG's report noted that the OCFO was unable to
determine the exact amount of the ADA violations because of the
unreliability of NASA's financial management system. Given this state
of affairs, how can the Agency oversee the expenditure of its
appropriated resources and ensure that its programs and operations are
efficient and effective?
Answer. The ADA violations occurred because of NASA's failure to
file timely reapportionment requests with the Office of Management and
Budget and not as a result of NASA's financial management system.
NASA has implemented corrective actions to ensure that
reapportionment requests are filed in a timely manner and that internal
controls are in place. These actions include:
--Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
management personnel.
--Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
from exceeding apportionment control totals.
--Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
and 8 in March 2006.
--Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
An additional course is currently being scheduled.
--Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
--Developing and documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
--Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
approvals; and
--Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
financial system.
Question. In committing the ADA violations, did NASA expend any
funds beyond those appropriated by Congress or, in a way that was
inconsistent with Congressional direction?
Answer. NASA did not expend funds beyond those appropriated by
Congress or in a way inconsistent with Congressional direction. NASA's
violations were the result of its failure to file timely
reapportionment requests with the Office of Management and Budget. The
first violation occurred during fiscal year 2005 when NASA authorized
and obligated in fiscal year 2005 the unobligated balance of
congressionally appropriated two-year funds from fiscal year 2004
without requesting an fiscal year 2005 reapportionment as required by
OMB Circular A-11. The second violation occurred when NASA failed to
submit a timely reapportionment request to OMB in August 2004 to match
congressionally approved Operating Plan changes.
Question. Were any NASA programs or operations adversely impacted
financially or operationally as a result of the ADA violations?
Answer. No programs were impacted as a result of the first
violation and no funding adjustments were necessary. To correct the
second violation, NASA de-obligated $30 million of fiscal year 2004
funds and used fiscal year 2005 funds to correct the overobligation.
These de-obligated funds remain available to the impacted Mission
Directorate to make any future upward adjustments to contracts awarded
in fiscal year 2004.
Question. What has NASA done to assure itself that it has not
committed any additional ADA violations?
Answer. NASA's Office of the Inspector General has recommended, and
NASA has agreed, that NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer
demonstrate to the NASA Administrator that the appropriations available
to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be traced from appropriation to
apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to help
ensure that NASA is not violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.
Question. What steps has NASA taken to prevent this type of ADA
violation from occurring again? Will there be any independent analysis
to affirm that the measures implemented by NASA will prevent future ADA
violations, in any form?
Answer. NASA has implemented corrective actions to ensure that the
weaknesses that led to the violations have been addressed. These
actions include:
--Certification of reconciliations by responsible financial
management personnel.
--Demonstrated effective system controls that prevent obligations
from exceeding apportionment control totals.
--Conducted Appropriations Law training for 30 staff in January 2006
and 8 in March 2006.
--Conducted OMB Circular A-11 training for 24 staff in February 2006.
An additional course is currently being scheduled.
--Increased the staff size in the Funds Distribution branch.
--Developing and documenting enhanced internal controls, to include:
--Logging and tracking of all OMB apportionment requests and
approvals; and
--Reconciliation of OMB apportionments to Congressionally approved
Operating Plans to the funds loaded into the Agency's
financial system.
NASA's Office of the Inspector General has recommended, and NASA
has agreed, that NASA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer
demonstrate to the NASA Administrator that the appropriations available
to be spent in fiscal year 2006 can be traced from appropriation to
apportionments to allotments to commitments and to obligations to help
ensure that NASA is not violating the ADA for fiscal year 2006.
NASA CENTERS
Question. One of the dilemmas that NASA faces is that some centers
are better positioned to have future work on missions than others at
NASA. It has been mentioned that an option NASA would entertain is to
move the work to centers that will be having difficulty in the next few
years in order to keep skilled workers at NASA. While NASA should do
all it can to keep the skilled employees at NASA, I am concerned that
this option could marginalize all of the centers.
How do we ensure this does not occur? Could you please provide this
Committee with an update on how NASA has eliminated, or is eliminating,
the uncovered capacity related to facilities? Could you please explain
how moving research projects from a Center with low uncovered capacity
to a Center with high uncovered capacity reduces NASA's total uncovered
capacity?
Answer. As the NASA Administrator testified to both the House and
Senate, ``NASA is focusing its efforts to solve its uncovered capacity
workforce problems through a number of other actions, including the
assignment of new projects to research Centers that will strengthen
their base of in-house work, the Shared Capability Assets Program that
should stabilize the skills base necessary for a certain specialized
workforce; the movement of certain research and technology development
projects from certain centers not suffering from uncovered capacity
problems to centers that are; retraining efforts at field centers so
that the technical workforce can develop new skills; and the pursuit of
reimbursable work for projects and research to support other government
agencies and the private sector through Space Act Agreements.''
None of the above actions marginalizes any one Center. NASA's goal
is not to make all Centers equally unhealthy, nor to transfer work
packages so that all Centers end up with equal or near-equal amounts of
future work on NASA missions. Such an expectation is not realistic.
Rather the goal is to increase the future work at Centers currently
having difficulty sustaining workforce skills, while not damaging the
ability of the other Centers to maintain their workforce skills that
are critical to NASA's future. NASA Centers cannot grow in size, but
must effectively use other field Centers to get programs done. Work
moving between Centers will be done with assurances that it does not
aggravate an existing or potentially problematic situation. The
decisions associated with work transfers, however, will not be based
solely on numbers, but also on skills' availability and mismatches. For
example, NASA may seek to place additional scientific work at a Center
with uncovered scientists, but may move a limited number of engineering
tasks (where its engineering workforce is saturated with work) to
another Center that has uncovered engineers with the necessary skills
to complete those tasks. Such transfers allow the Agency, ``to do all
it can to keep skilled employees at NASA.''
Regarding facilities and related workforce, NASA continues to pare
the infrastructure wherever we can do so without compromising our
mission. This is an ongoing process. To date, the workforce has been
reduced by over 900 people through buyouts. Eligible employees for
buyouts included those associated with excess infrastructure.
PROCUREMENT
Question. This Committee has consistently noted their concern about
NASA's lack of transparency in contracting practices as well as
significant cost overruns. These issues have also been recognized by
the GAO and the NASA IG.
What is the Agency doing to improve its management of these
programs in order to reduce its vulnerability to additional cost
overruns?
Answer. Over the past three years since the GAO and IG reports were
issued, NASA has implemented a number of initiatives aimed at improving
its cost estimating performance. These include an overarching
initiative called Continuous Cost Risk Management, which requires the
NASA project management, and cost estimating community to identify
elements in projects, which have the potential to induce high cost and/
or schedule risk. CCRM goes on to include methods for tracking these
risks throughout the life cycle and methods for applying cost risk
dollars toward risk mitigation. The proper use of cost risk analysis
itself has been greatly emphasized by the Agency as a new tool in its
programmatic planning process. All major projects are now required to
perform a cost risk analysis to identify the range of cost that is
indicative of the risk of projects. Based on the cost risk analysis,
the Administrator is requiring projects to budget to an independent
cost estimate (ICE) that generally achieves a 70 percent level of cost
confidence.
Other improvements in NASA cost estimating includes the
institutionalization of a new cost data collection system, the Cost
Analysis Data Requirement (CADRe) which takes ``snapshots'' of each
project's technical, programmatic and cost status at 5 key milestones
across the project life cycle. The CADRe forms the basis of estimate
for ICEs, which are being performed by the Independent Program
Assessment Office within the Program Analysis and Evaluation
organization at NASA Headquarters. All CADRe submissions are being
maintained in a new NASA cost estimating data base, ONCE (One NASA Cost
Engineering Data Base) for the use of the NASA cost estimating
community.
All of the above efforts should lead to a vastly improved ability
to estimate projects more accurately at their outset and at the time
the Agency makes a formal commitment to OMB and Congress, which is at
Preliminary Design Review (PDR). After PDR, Earned Value Management
(EVM) systems are being set up and used by ongoing projects to manage
cost throughout the balance of the life cycle.
It must be remembered that NASA projects often include cutting edge
technology, which makes accurate cost estimation much more difficult.
But better initial cost estimating and the use of EVM to manage the
fiscal health of projects once underway, should significantly reduce
the Agency's vulnerability to cost overruns.
NASA'S UNOBLIGATED BALANCE GROWTH
Question. The Committee recognizes that NASA is authorized to
obligate funds over a 2-year period, and that a research and
development agency like NASA is expected to carry over some unobligated
funds at the end of each fiscal year. While the Committee recognizes
that NASA can use unobligated funds to help transition from one fiscal
to the next, there is no firm guidance on how much NASA should carry
over from year to year. NASA's balance of unobligated funds has more
than tripled from $616 million at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $2.1
billion at the end of fiscal year 2005.
Please explain to the Committee why these balances have built up at
NASA?
Answer. First and foremost, let us assure you that all of these
funds will be obligated within the assigned Mission Directorate or
Office and all of these funds are needed to carry out NASA's missions.
These are not ``extra'' funds that can be used to offset potential
reductions to NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget request or to support
unrequested activities. All of NASA's unobligated funds are needed to
carry out the Agency's planned activities, and our multi-year resource
planning strategy requires all of these funds. Unobligated funds are
simply not yet committed under a binding agreement (e.g., grant or
contract). Thus, the Agency has plans in place and needs all of its
appropriated funds.
There are several reasons why the unobligated balances have been
increasing over the last few years. There has been a tremendous amount
of change at NASA over the last several years, and many factors
associated with those changes have contributed to an increasing
unobligated balance. Effective in fiscal year 2004, we began
implementation of a new financial system, and also implemented full
cost management, budgeting, and accounting. As a result of these
changes, unobligated balances increased for several reasons. Labor
dollars embedded in the programs initially caused the slowing of
funding allocation and distribution throughout the Agency. Providing
the Mission Directorates (MDs) with full cost funding resulted in
increased funding being held at Headquarters. The new funds
distribution process slowed down the release of funding to the Centers,
which led the centers to seek more forward funding at the beginning of
the fiscal year in order to cover labor and other expenses.
In addition, there were several programmatic changes that
contributed to this instability. The Columbia accident required a major
shift in resources, curtailing many planned activities. The Vision for
U.S. Space Exploration announced January 2004, required redirection of
about $11 billion over five years. The Exploration Systems Architecture
Study identified some major shifts in budgetary resources, curtailing
many technology activities to provide more funding for major
development projects. Increasing levels of earmarks for NASA have had
the effect of slowing program definition and the release of funding.
Overall, through all these major changes over the last few years, there
has been less program definition at the start of the fiscal year for
guidance to be distributed down to the NASA Centers, and Centers have
been slower to obligate given the rate of change and the uncertainty
surrounding all these changes, and maturing definition of major
programs such as Constellation.
NASA recognizes this increasing trend over the last several years,
and is working to reverse the trend. As of May 19, 2006, NASA had
obligated 97 percent of our fiscal year 2005 appropriations ($535
million is not yet obligated), and approximately 50 percent of our
fiscal year 2006 appropriations ($8.1 billion is not yet obligated).
NASA has definite plans for all of these unobligated funds. The funds
include a total of $304 million for construction of facilities.
While NASA does not consider the levels of fiscal year 2005 and
fiscal year 2006 unobligated funds to be unreasonable, we are working
to expedite the obligation process where possible, and, as required in
the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 109-108), have begun reporting
prior year, unobligated balances to the Committees on Appropriations on
a quarterly basis.
Question. What is the minimum amount of unobligated funds that NASA
needs to transition from one fiscal year to the next? How much in
unobligated funds does NASA believe it needs for other reasons?
Answer. There is no general minimum amount of unobligated funds
that can be applied generically. Over the past 2 months, NASA has
performed its standard midyear ``phasing plan review'' that has
consisted of an in-depth review of its expenditures down to the project
and Center levels at all NASA installations. Both the current status of
obligations and forecasts for expenditures has been scrutinized and
monthly spending plans throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2006
have been developed. Note that our 61 programs involve thousands of
contractual actions for obligating funds across the Agency and at all
Centers. In developing our spending plans, these procurements were
viewed for each of the 555 projects within their respective program.
The purpose of this standard in-house review was to ensure that we are
allocating and spending our resources in the most efficient manner, and
to ensure that we have the correct level of apportioned funding at the
appropriate points in time for our programs. Projections for
unobligated balances are about 9 percent at the Agency level, and range
from a low of 2 percent for the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate, to a high of 16 percent for the Science Mission
Directorate. Program management at all levels at both NASA Headquarters
and the Centers have participated in this expenditure review, and agree
that these levels of unobligated balances are appropriate in order to
ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year to the next without a
lapse in funding that could prompt potential work stoppages.
Question. Has NASA ever submitted a request for more new budget
authority than it can realistically use?
Answer. No. NASA has never submitted a request for more new budget
authority than it can realistically use.
BANKING FUNDS FOR CREW EXPLORATION VEHICLE (CEV)
Question. At a House Science Committee hearing in February, Dr.
Griffin acknowledged that NASA is ``banking'' funds to smooth the
funding profile for the CEV.
Is NASA using a portion of past unobligated balances to bank
funding for CEV? For how many additional fiscal years will NASA
continue this practice? Is NASA banking funds to smooth the funding
profiles of other major development efforts?
Answer: The development profile for the Constellation program
requires a funding curve that peaks in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010.
This is the normal profile for hardware development efforts that
maximizes the chances of Program success and provides the basis for any
cost confidence evaluation.
Confronted with a flat Agency budget, Constellation's management
strategy is to carry unobligated fiscal year 2006 funds into fiscal
year 2007 and use uncosted funds from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2008 to cover the peak requirements in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
2010 (the years that the funds will be costed).
These carry-in funds will be used to smooth the overall
constellation development funding curve for all the Constellation
development projects, including Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), Crew
Launch Vehicle (CLV), Launch and Mission Systems (LMS), and Exploration
Communication and Navigation Systems (ECANS).
Current plans are to obligate money on the CEV contract that will
be signed early this fall and on the CLV and LMS contracts that will be
signed in 2007. As much as 90 percent of these funds will be obligated
by the end of the fiscal year.
NASA's strategy of using carry-in to smooth out the peak funding
requirements is prudent use of multi-year funding to maintain schedule
and reduce total costs.
LUNAR ROBOTIC ORBITER (LRO)
Question. NASA recently announced that a small secondary payload
has been selected to accompany the Lunar Robotic Orbiter mission in
2008. NASA noted that the secondary mission should cost no more than
$80 million.
What is the current cost estimate for this secondary LRO mission?
Answer. NASA has decided on the Lunar Crater Observation and
Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) as its secondary payload on the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission. Per NASA's original request for
information requirements, the LCROSS vehicle should cost no more than
$80 million. Integration for flight will cost an estimated $15 million.
The total cost of LCROSS is therefore estimated to be $95 million.
Question. Where is the funding coming from to pay for this
secondary mission?
Answer. The Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program (LPRP, formerly
Robotics Lunar Exploration Program) has an existing funding line for
``Future Missions'', specifically designed to accommodate missions like
LCROSS.
Question. Did NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget or Initial Operating
Plan specifically include the requirement or justification for this
secondary mission?
Answer. The LRO mission is still in formulation, and as a result,
did not have an established life-cycle cost and program content at the
time of either the fiscal year 2006 or the fiscal year 2007 budget
submission. Critical Design Review (CDR) is scheduled for this fall.
In NASA's fiscal year 2007 budget submission, NASA rebaselined LRO
for launch on an EELV (from a Delta II). This change decreased risk to
the LRO development by reducing pressure to retain large design
contingencies and by eliminating a spacecraft spin stability issue
related to its original Delta II launcher.
As a result of the rebaselining to an EELV, NASA issued a request
for information, in January 2006, to industry to provide secondary
payload concepts to take advantage of the additional capacity afforded
by the launch vehicle. NASA's requirements for the secondary payload
were that it benefit the robotic lander program, cost no more than $80
million for development, and not exceed 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms).
After a competition involving NASA centers and industry, LCROSS was
selected as a secondary payload in April 2006.
The secondary payload is a cost-effective component of the overall
LRO mission. It will provide an important capability to help determine
whether water-ice is present in the Moon's polar cold traps. Total cost
of the secondary payload is estimated at $80 million, to be funded
within LPRP through fiscal year 2009. The secondary payload supports
LPRP LRO Level-1 Requirements (RLEP-LRO-M70), which state that, ``The
LRO shall identify putative deposits of water-ice in the Moon's polar
cold traps at a spatial resolution of better than 500m on the surface
and 10km subsurface (up to 2m deep).''
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
UPPER MIDWEST AEROSPACE CONSORTIUM (UMAC)
Question. The Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium (UMAC) is a
collaboration of eight universities in a five state region that
partners with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
to take data gathered from NASA satellites and makes it available in
everyday applications to educators, farmers, ranchers and residents in
the Upper Great Plains.
The group is headquartered at the University of North Dakota in my
state. I was proud to help connect the University to NASA in the 1990s
and have worked with NASA and my colleagues in Congress to support
funding to continue this important work.
Do you agree that UMAC and other groups like it play an important
role in connecting more Americans to the work and breakthroughs at
NASA?
Answer. Groups that connect Americans to NASA's research increase
the return the public receives on its investment in NASA. Features
common among such groups are: use of data provided by NASA satellites,
ties to the NASA-sponsored research community in academia and industry,
and direct connection to providers of goods and services to the public
and the organizations that serve the public. To the extent that UMAC
and other groups exhibit these features, they can perform a valuable
function.
Question. What role do you see for groups like UMAC in the future,
especially as it relates to new space and exploration missions?
Answer. NASA is dependent on the university community for the
successful implementation of its new space and exploration missions.
Opportunities to participate in NASA's missions will be openly
competed, and peer review will be used to identify the most outstanding
opportunities for participation by the university community.
Opportunities to participate will span the entire array of mission
activities including development of flight hardware (instruments and
full missions), development of data processing and data archiving
systems, participation in science teams including science operations,
and analysis of data returned from NASA missions.
WINDOW OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH FACILITY (WORF)
Question. NASA once intended to install a facility, Window
Observational Research Facility (WORF), on the International Space
Station (ISS) within which various earth-observing instruments could be
operated. The University of North Dakota has been developing AgCam, a
sensor intended to operate on the WORF.
Is the Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) scheduled to
be installed on the International Space Station? If so, when?
Answer. NASA has assessed its plans for the utilization of the ISS,
and focused its research and technology development goals toward those
activities that most closely support the Vision for Space Exploration.
In this environment of limited opportunities for the launch of
facility-class payloads, it is critical that utilization planning align
as closely as possible with the needs of the human exploration planning
effort. The only missions for which specific payloads have been
manifested on the Space Shuttle are the first two Return to Flight
missions. Consistent with the Vision, the Space Shuttle will be retired
by 2010. Prior to its retirement, it will be utilized primarily for the
assembly of the ISS. Our top priority will be to make each flight safer
than the last. As we noted in our November 2004, correspondence to you
on this topic, in the event that an appropriate future flight
opportunity does become available, the WORF facility will be considered
for delivery to the ISS.
Question. If not, will it be possible to install small instruments,
such as AgCam, on the ISS that make use of the optical quality window
but do not use the WORF rack?
Answer. The AgCam hardware has been designed and built to be
operated in the WORF. The WORF would provide resources such as power,
thermal control, data and mounting positions for operations of the
AgCam. The hardware as designed could not operate independently of the
WORF. It might be possible to redesign the AgCam hardware and its
operations concepts, but it would require additional funding, testing,
and development time. Even with such a redesign, it is unclear whether
the redesigned hardware could achieve the expected scientific value
without the WORF.
DC-8
Question. The University of North Dakota (UND) recently signed a 5-
year agreement to operate the NASA DC-8 research flying lab. The
transfer of the DC-8 from an in-house NASA operation to a UND operation
has set a new precedent. To date, UND, on behalf of scientists
everywhere has operated two missions, Stardust and INTEX-B with total
success. I believe this approach has benefited education and public
outreach.
Does NASA see benefit in transferring some of its activities from
NASA centers to universities and other research organizations?
Answer. The success of the NASA program relies on partnerships with
universities and other research organizations. It also relies on NASA
maintaining core capabilities within the NASA Centers. In addition to
the operations of the DC-8, NASA also relies on universities and other
research organizations for activities such as the operation of the
Hubble Space Telescope, operation of the Earth Science Distributed
Active Archive Centers, and operation of the NASA Infrared Telescope
Facility. NASA will consider proposals that offer benefits to both the
science community and NASA.
The NASA Centers have unique capabilities that are critical to the
nation's preeminence in space science as well as to the successfully
carrying out the NASA mission. In order to maintain ten healthy
Centers, and in order to maintain critical core capabilities at the
NASA Centers, it is necessary that certain activities remain at NASA
Centers.
GLOBAL EARTH OBSERVATION SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS (GEOSS)
Question. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an
international program in earth-observing designed to inform decisions
that benefit all humanity.
What will be NASA's role in providing societal benefits in the
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)?
Answer. NASA's Earth science activity is closely coordinated
through interagency and international activities such as the Climate
Change Science Program, US Group on Earth Observations, and Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, as well as their
international counterparts. The majority of NASA's space-based
observations of Earth involve such international partnerships on the
instruments and flight missions that comprise the space-based
contribution to the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
NASA Earth system science results in research and development of
space-based observations and improved modeling capability are
recognized as contributing nearly 46 instruments on 16 spacecraft for
the international Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
NASA Earth science applications are recognized for collaborating with
partners to benchmark integrated system solutions to each of the nine
societal benefit areas highlighted in the Strategic Plan for a U.S.
Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) and the 10-Year Plan for a
Global Earth Observation System of Systems.
NASA develops and uses innovative remote sensing approaches to
provide new views of the Earth to improve predictive capabilities for
weather, climate and natural hazards and benchmarks the capacity to
contribute to societal benefits through decision support. As an
example, NASA collaborations with EPA, USDA, and the FAA have resulted
in benchmarks for integrated solutions for air quality Nowcasting,
global crop assessments, and de-icing assessments for aviation safety.
The observation and Earth system modeling techniques NASA develops
and tests are a basis for future operational systems carried out by
other organizations (most notably NOAA and USGS). Through
collaborations, NASA observations are tested to determine their
capacity to contribute to policy formulation and resource management
through decision support systems.
Question. Will there be a role for universities to develop and
deliver benefits to the residents of their regions?
Answer. In implementing its Earth science program, the NASA Applied
Sciences Program conducts solicitations for ``Decision support through
Earth Science Research Results'' to provide universities, private
sector and others an opportunity to participate in extending the
benefits of NASA sponsored observations and predictive capabilities
through decision support tools. NASA involves the broad research
community through solicitation of principal investigator-led satellite
missions, technology and applications development, and a basic research
program as well as focused research efforts tied more specifically to
the results of our satellite programs. In particular, the university
community is very strongly represented in these areas, and the research
carried out at universities is critical to the education and training
of the next generation of Earth and environmental scientists.
Question. How seriously do the reductions in Earth Science limit
the U.S.'s role in the international program?
Answer. The International GEOSS and the U.S. IEOS include framework
architectures that can accommodate and benefit from the observations
and predictions/forecasts resulting from NASA research and development
of space-based Earth observation systems; including the ground
segments, data handling capacity, modeling, computing, knowledge, and
applied sciences and system engineering.
NASA's Earth Science budget contributes to GEOSS and fluctuations
in NASA Earth Science funding have a corresponding effect on
contributions to GEOSS. NASA's plans for research and development of
Earth observation systems include support for national and
international priorities and goals, including the U.S. IEOS and
international GEOSS. The GEOSS is architected to benefit from the full
scope of the results of NASA research and development programs, flight
missions and applied sciences partnerships on benchmarking enhancements
to integrated system solutions for the nine societal benefit areas.
Reductions in NASA's Earth Science flight program budget in recent
years directly impact the U.S. Earth Observing space-based capabilities
and therefore the U.S. contributions to that aspect of GEOSS. An
example is the delay of the Global Precipitation Measurement mission
(GPM) that is based on an international collaboration and has been
viewed as a prototype satellite constellation for GEOSS. Reductions in
the R&A budget have an indirect and non-immediate impact on system
contributions to GEOSS, by effectively delaying the utilization of
Earth observations in research and, further on, the development of
products and services.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
Question. There has been significant publicity about the ``muzzling
of scientists'' by the Administration when their conclusions do not
match the policies of the Administration. Because science requires
freedom of thought and discussion, we are concerned that this muzzling
could have a chilling effect on the critical work that scientists
pursue, as they will be afraid to undertake work that may lead to
conclusions that clash with Administration policy. Since it is in the
national interest to ensure that scientific discovery is free and
unconstrained by political ideology, we would like you to explain the
efforts you are making to ensure that NASA scientists are free to
present their findings both publicly and to the media, without any fear
of public affairs oversight that could limit their speech.
Answer. Earlier this year, NASA's Administrator assembled a policy
development team comprised of NASA employees with science, legal, and
public affairs backgrounds to review existing policies, identify ways
to improve them, and develop Agency practices to maintain our
commitment for full and open discourse on scientific, technical and
safety issues. The team recently concluded their review of the existing
NASA policies and has produced a substantially revised document: http:/
/www.nasa.gov/pdf/145687main_information_policy.pdf
In addition, the NASA Administrator issued an agency-wide statement
on his views of Scientific Openness last February: http://www.nasa.gov/
about/highlights/griffin_science.html
The revised policy and the personal commitment by the NASA
Administrator reaffirm the Agency's commitment to open scientific and
technical inquiry and dialogue with the public.
Question. Around the world, governments are taking aim at our
aeronautics industry--increasing their investment and making
aeronautics R&D a top priority. Meanwhile the United States continues
to deemphasize aeronautic research. For example, while NASA continues
to downsize and internalize its aeronautics program, implementation of
the European Union's Vision 2020 is accelerating. This trend will have
a serious impact on the nation's competitiveness, national security,
and our position as the world's leader in aeronautics research. How
does the fiscal year 2007 budget request address this trend?
Answer. To address this question, one must first ask, what is
NASA's role in helping to ensure that the United States maintains its
``edge'' in aeronautics? The answer is simply this: NASA's most
important role in aeronautics is to provide technical leadership. And
that is true regardless of budget.
Over the past several years, many independent reviews by the
National Research Council (NRC), the Aerospace Commission, and the
National Institute of Aerospace (NIA) have all raised the concern that
NASA needs to get back to the pursuit of long-term, cutting-edge
research. Historically, that is what NASA aeronautics has been known
for and that is what the Nation has relied upon NASA to provide. These
concerns were raised independent of the budget, and the concerns were
valid.
The Aerospace Commission Report of 2002, commonly referred to as
the ``Walker Report,'' stated that Government investment in long-term
research will be essential for the United States to maintain its global
leadership in aerospace. The report concluded that long-term research
enables breakthroughs in new capabilities and concepts and provides new
knowledge and understanding, often resulting in unexpected
applications, and the creation of new markets. It also noted that
industry has the responsibility for leveraging Government research and
for transforming it into new products and services.
NASA's Aeronautics program is currently undergoing a comprehensive
restructuring to ensure that we have a strategic plan in place that
enables us to pursue long-term, cutting-edge research for the benefit
of the broad aeronautics community. A commitment to the pursuit of the
cutting-edge, coupled with an unwavering commitment to technical
excellence, will ensure a strong, positive impact on the U.S. aviation
community.
Question. Though I am concerned with the level of NASA funding for
aeronautic research and development, I am equally concerned that a
national aeronautics policy be created that is consistent with the
government's historic role, to promote continued United States'
leadership of civil and military aeronautics research. How will these
cuts influence the national aeronautic policy? What progress has NASA
made on the policy? When will a draft be released for comment? What
input has NASA received from industry, academics and/or user groups on
the national aeronautics policy?
Answer. Work is currently underway on the creation of a National
Aeronautics Science and Technology Policy. In anticipation of the call
for a policy, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Committee on Technology chartered an Aeronautics Science and Technology
(AS&T) Subcommittee in September 2005. The AS&T Subcommittee is co-
chaired by NASA's Associate Administrator for Aeronautics Research and
OSTP's Transportation and Aeronautics Representative. The AS&T
Subcommittee is comprised of members from NASA, DOD (OSD, Air Force,
Navy, Army), DOT (FAA), JPDO, DOE, DHS, DOC, EPA, NSF, NSC, and the EOP
(OSTP, OMB, OVP, DPC and CEA). The development, publication, and, to
some extent, execution through governance of the policy called for by
statute, have been tasked to the AS&T Subcommittee. Round-table
outreach discussions with industry and academia occurred in April 2006
to ensure input from the stakeholder community. The policy is planned
for completion by December 2006. A detailed implementation plan will
follow completion of the National policy.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Shelby. For the information of the Senators and
people in the audience on the subcommittee, we will review the
fiscal year 2007 budget request for the Department of Commerce
on Wednesday, May 3, in room S-146 of the Capitol. At that
time, the Secretary of Commerce will be with us to discuss the
budget for the programs under his jurisdiction. Until then, the
subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Wednesday, April 26, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Wednesday,
May 3.]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:04 p.m., in room S-146, the
Capitol, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Shelby and Mikulski.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS GUTIERREZ, SECRETARY
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. The subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome all of you to the third hearing of the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee.
We are pleased to have with us today the Secretary of the
Department of Commerce. Mr. Secretary, the subcommittee
appreciates your willingness to appear as a witness and discuss
the needs of your Department.
Overall, the Department of Commerce budget request for the
2007 fiscal year is $6.1 billion. This is a decrease of nearly
$300 million from the Department's fiscal year 2006
discretionary funding level. The Commerce Department contains
some of our Nation's most important economic development,
economic analysis, and science and research agencies, including
the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Department is staffed by some of the most dedicated and
distinguished experts in their fields, including three Nobel
Prize winners. These scientists, engineers, and economists are
in high demand inside and outside of the Government, and I hope
we can hold onto them, Mr. Secretary.
The subcommittee is concerned, Mr. Secretary, about your
Department's ability to maintain the level of qualified
personnel required to provide such needed services to the
Nation. I hope that you can provide us some assurances today
that this budget request will not require reorganizations or
restructuring that will put your ability to support these
important personnel at risk.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--or
NOAA--remains one of our Nation's preeminent science agencies
and represents nearly two-thirds of the Department's budget at
$3.7 billion. NOAA provides important support for our Nation's
fisheries, severe weather prediction, and navigation of the
waters surrounding our country.
Up-to-date and accurate maps of our navigable waters are
critical to the shipping industry as well as the fishing
industry, and I am hopeful that the budget before us today will
allow NOAA to continue their work in this area.
Some here today may be surprised to learn that nearly 90
percent of our world's oceans remain unexplored. In fact, we
have higher resolution maps of the entire surface of Mars than
we do of the ocean floor. I am concerned about the lack of
leadership and direction on ocean policy.
Recent reports from the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy indicate that we are not doing
enough to manage and preserve our ocean resources. As a Senator
from a coastal State whose economy is strongly linked to our
commercial ports, the fishing industry, and tourism, I am
concerned about the health of our oceans, our fisheries, and
the future of marine research.
I would like to commend the Department for their efforts
surrounding the recent hurricanes. Particularly, I would like
to thank the men and women of the National Weather Service
(NWS) and the NOAA corps.
In an upcoming hearing, we will talk with Admiral
Lautenbacher and Max Mayfield in more detail about hurricane
preparedness and response. But I wanted you, Mr. Secretary, to
know how much the entire gulf coast appreciates your
Department's efforts. They have been on time in their
predictions and accurate.
We look forward to your testimony today. Your written
testimony will be made part of the hearing record, and I hope
you summarize whatever you care to.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI
Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I, too, would welcome Secretary Gutierrez for his
second hearing before the subcommittee. And just want to echo
your statements in terms of concerns about NOAA and the
outstanding contribution that it does in oceans and some of the
others.
When we think about the Department of Commerce budget, we
really think about what it needs to keep America competitive
and what we need to do to be able to innovate. We know that the
President has outlined an innovation strategy, as well as our
own colleagues, with the famous report now called ``Gathering
Storm.''
But when I think about the Commerce Department, we do think
about innovation, where there will be new technologies
developed that will lead to new products. The National
Institute of Standards and Technology will create jobs and also
set the standards so that the private sector can create jobs,
manufacture or develop products or processes that then can go
around the world.
Our own Patent and Trademark Office, which is under your
administration, also is the key first step to protecting an
inventor's intellectual property.
So, as we look at this year's budget, I want to look at
what is it we are going to do to sponsor innovation and also to
have an innovation-friendly government that protects patents
and promotes free enterprise and the American know-how around
the world.
We have fantastic agencies within the Commerce Department.
Several are located in Maryland. NOAA is headquartered in
Silver Spring. And we have talked about how they focus on
saving lives and saving property through their weather
declarations, and also the very important role that they play
in oceans management and fisheries management.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is in
Gaithersburg and, again, sets those standards for reliability,
security, doing important research, and then our census.
So, but what we are concerned about, and I will discuss
this, is the cuts. When we look at NOAA, the National Ocean
Service is cut by 30 percent. Marine fisheries by 8 percent.
NOAA research by 8 percent. We are grateful that the NOAA
satellites are getting an increase because that is the bread
and butter of forecasts. But we are afraid that we could get
out of kilter there.
In terms of NIST, we are very grateful to the fact that the
President wanted to increase the National Institute of
Standards and Technology budget, but it seems to be robbing
Peter to pay Paul, taking out of the advanced technology
program and manufacturing extension partnership. And we will
talk about that.
And last, but not at all least, among the many things we
could talk about, I and, I know, my colleagues are concerned
about the backlog of patents and what we can do in partnership
to make sure that they are standing in line to buy American
products. They are not standing in line to patent those
products that are going to keep us a global force.
So we look forward to your testimony and working with you.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we welcome you again. You
may proceed as you wish.
SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CARLOS GUTIERREZ
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Mikulski.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, before I get started on my written
statement, I would like to let you know that all tsunami
warnings and watches have been cancelled. There was an
earthquake this morning in Tonga, and we just got word that all
the warnings and watches have been cancelled.
So it looks like it wasn't a tsunami in the making. That is
good news.
Senator Shelby. Earthquake?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Was the magnitude as high as----
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, they took it from 8.1 to 7.8,
which is still very high. But----
Senator Shelby. So you think things are going to be okay?
Secretary Gutierrez. That is what we are hearing.
Senator Shelby. What you are hearing.
Senator Mikulski. Praise the Lord.
Secretary Gutierrez. I will probably give you the----
Senator Mikulski. Praise the Lord and our sensors.
Senator Shelby. That takes care of my first question.
Secretary Gutierrez. Again, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Mikulski, I am pleased to present President Bush's fiscal year
2007 budget request for the Commerce Department. It is a tight
and targeted budget. It reflects the President's commitment to
reducing the deficit while maintaining America's economic and
competitive leadership.
At the Commerce Department through each of our agencies, we
promote economic opportunity for the American people. To
support this vital mission, the President's total budget
request for our Department is $6.1 billion, and I will briefly
highlight some of the key components.
For our NIST laboratories, which, as you rightly mentioned,
Mr. Chairman, have produced three Nobel Prize winners, we are
requesting $581 million. This includes an increase of $104
million for research and development (R&D) in the physical
sciences to begin to implement the President's 10-year American
competitiveness initiative (ACI).
The ACI funding will help advance innovative NIST research.
It will also be used to start renovation at our NIST campuses.
The Boulder facility especially is in desperate need of repair.
For the International Trade Administration, the request is
$409 million. These funds will support programs to ensure that
U.S. companies and workers have access to international
markets, can compete on a level playing field, and have their
intellectual property rights protected.
For NOAA, which did an outstanding job in providing
warnings during the busiest hurricane season on record, the
request is $3.7 billion. This includes $19.7 million to support
robust fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and part of the
administration's rebuilding effort in the gulf region.
The budget proposal for the Economic Development
Administration is $327 million, including $297 million for
grants to economically distressed areas.
We are requesting $878 million in discretionary funds for
the Census Bureau, which is ramping up their 2010 census. In
order to meet new fiscal priorities, no new funds are requested
for the Advanced Technology Program.
We are requesting $46 million for the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). This will maintain
an effective network of MEP centers around the country.
To ensure the security, health, and safety of our
employees, we are requesting $5.9 million to begin installation
of blast mitigation windows and $18 million to correct basic
code deficiencies and modernize the 73-year-old Hoover
Building.
Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you and the subcommittee for
your support of Commerce programs. We look forward to working
with you to provide the best and most efficient services to the
American people.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And I welcome, as always, your comments and questions and
would like to submit my written testimony for the record.
Senator Shelby. Your written testimony will be made part of
the record in its entirety, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Gutierrez. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carlos Gutierrez
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to present the President's Budget request for
economic, scientific, technological, and environmental programs of the
Department of Commerce. Our request of $6.1 billion in discretionary
funds reflects both the Administration's commitment to promote and
sustain economic growth and opportunity, and the need to restrain
discretionary Federal spending. Enactment of this budget will enable
the Department to effectively support its diverse mission, including
programs that promote strong and equitable trade relationships; improve
our scientific and technological capabilities; protect intellectual
property rights; upgrade our capabilities for weather observations and
forecasting; and, ensure the long-term economic and ecological
sustainability of our natural resources.
I would like to highlight some of the work our bureaus have planned
in the fiscal year 2007 President's Budget. Each bureau within the
Department supports one of three strategic goals; I will address each
bureau within its relevant goal.
Foster science and technological leadership by protecting intellectual
property, enhancing technical standards, and advancing
measurement science.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a high-
leverage Federal research agency that performs high-impact basic
research and contributes to the development of economically significant
innovations in areas such as new materials and processes, electronics,
information technology and advanced computing processes, advanced
manufacturing integration, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and new
energy sources such as hydrogen. In his State of the Union Address,
President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI),
which provides an agenda for maintaining our leadership in intellectual
and human capital, two areas that significantly contribute to our
nation's innovation capacity. A centerpiece of the ACI is the
President's strong commitment to double investment over ten years in
the key Federal agencies that support basic research in the physical
sciences--the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's
Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST). The President's fiscal year 2007
Budget requests $581 million for NIST. To start implementation of the
ACI, the request includes an increase of $104 million for NIST core
activities (laboratory programs and facilities, less congressionally-
directed projects).
NIST accomplishments in high-impact basic research are evidenced by
the three Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to its scientists in the
last decade. NIST research has led to innovations that we can see
today, from the high-density magnetic storage technology that makes
devices such as computer hard drives and mp3 players so compact, to
protective body armor for law enforcement officers and diagnostic
screening for cancer patients.
NIST also plays a critical role in developing standards that are
used by the private and public sectors. In fiscal year 2007, NIST will
seek to focus 3,900 scientists and engineers from government, industry,
and universities--an increase of 600 researchers over fiscal year
2006--on meeting the Nation's most urgent measurement science and
standards needs to speed innovation and improve U.S. competitiveness.
Also in the NIST budget, the President is requesting $46.3 million
to fund the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program.
This is a reduction from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level that would
be made in order to address the Nation's most pressing funding needs in
this austere fiscal environment. NIST will focus the fiscal year 2007
MEP funding to maintain an effective network of centers with an
emphasis on activities that promote innovation and competitiveness in
small manufacturers.
No fiscal year 2007 funds, however, are requested for the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP). The fiscal year 2006 appropriations for ATP
and estimated recoveries will be sufficient to meet all existing
obligations and to phase out the program.
The Technology Administration (TA), which includes the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS), seeks to maximize technology's contribution
to economic growth, high-wage job creation, and the social well-being
of the United States. In fiscal year 2007, the key administrative and
policy operations within the Office of the Under Secretary will be
streamlined. TA will remain an effective advocate for technology within
the Department of Commerce. TA, for instance, was the lead office at
the Commerce Department responsible for working on the recent
competitiveness summit hosted at the Department.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) promotes the research,
development, and application of new technologies by protecting
inventors' rights to their intellectual property through the issuance
of patents. The PTO also enables businesses and consumers to clearly
identify specific products through the issuance of trademarks. In the
United States, intellectual property-intensive industries--the
biotechnology and information technology sectors, for example--account
for over half of all U.S. exports, represent 40 percent of our economic
growth, and employ 18 million Americans whose wages are 40 percent
higher than the U.S. average. PTO has launched a vigorous reform effort
aimed at enabling the Office to examine patent and trademark
applications in a more timely manner, without compromising quality. The
President's fiscal year 2007 Budget request of $1.84 billion in
spending authority for the PTO includes increases for both patent and
trademark processes. By hiring additional examiners, refining the
electronic patent application filing and processing system, improving
quality assurance programs, and implementing higher standards for
examiner certification and recertification now, the PTO will
significantly reduce application processing time and increase the
quality of its products and services in the out-years. Consistent with
recent years, the Department proposes to fund the PTO budget
exclusively through offsetting fee collections.
The National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA)
develops telecommunications and information policy, manages the Federal
radio spectrum, and performs telecommunications research, engineering,
and planning. The Department's request for NTIA supports its core
activities and eliminates all new funding for Public Telecommunications
Facilities, Planning & Construction, as funds for those activities are
available from other sources.
The Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Fund, created
by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, funds a number of programs with
the auction proceeds of electromagnetic spectrum recovered from
discontinued analog television signals. Programs supported by this Fund
in fiscal year 2007 will provide consumers with vouchers to aid in
their purchase of digital-to-analog television converter boxes, assist
public safety agencies in acquiring interoperable communications
systems, and support an interim digital television broadcast system for
New York City. In 2007, most activity will be related to planning for
these programs, with actual grant making expected to begin in 2008.
Observe, protect and manage the earth's resources to promote
environmental stewardship.
The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the busiest on record and
extended the current period of increased hurricane activity which began
in 1995--a trend likely to continue for years to come. This season
shattered records that have stood for decades--the most named storms,
most hurricanes, and most category five storms. Arguably, it was the
most devastating hurricane season the country has experienced in modern
times. The devastation along the Gulf Coast from Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma is like nothing I have witnessed before. It is
catastrophic. Words cannot convey the physical destruction and personal
suffering in that part of our nation.
The Department, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA),
NTIA, and Census, has served a critical role in the repair and recovery
of the region. I am committed to utilizing the tools and expertise of
the Department to facilitate the resurgence of the Gulf Coast region. I
would also like to recognize the efforts of the professionals at NOAA
for their timely and accurate predictions, which prevented further loss
of life. Hurricane forecasts for Katrina and Rita were more accurate
than ever for storm track, size, intensity, surge, and warning lead
time, allowing for evacuation of 80 percent of New Orleans and 90
percent of Galveston. This is a key component of NOAA's mission to
understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment, as well as
to conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA continues to
apply its scientific and technological expertise to a wide range of
issues that serve to expand our knowledge of the world around us and
strengthen our economic prosperity.
Data from NOAA's satellites are essential to public safety and the
economy. Weather and climate-sensitive industries, both directly and
indirectly, account for approximately $3 trillion of the U.S. Gross
Domestic Product. Average annual damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and
floods is $11.4 billion. The Geostationary Operational Environmental
Satellites (GOES) serve as some of the key sentinels that observe
hurricanes and other severe weather. The President's fiscal year 2007
Budget request includes an increase of $113 million to continue the
GOES-R series system acquisition, which will have key enhancements over
the GOES-N platform.
In addition to the geostationary satellites, NOAA is also a
participant in the National Polar-Orbiting Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS), which will replace the current Polar-Orbiting
Environmental Satellite (POES) program. The Department requests an
increase of $20 million for NOAA's share of this tri-party system (Air
Force, NOAA, NASA), which will deliver more accurate atmospheric and
oceanographic data to support medium- to long-range weather forecasts
and severe storm warnings, further reducing loss of life and property.
The NPOESS request is based on the funding profile from last year's
Budget. As you know, the NPOESS program has experienced schedule
slippage and higher costs than we expected. We are currently
participating in the Nunn-McCurdy review being conducted by the
Department of Defense, which will be completed in June. In addition,
the Government Accountability Office and our Office of Inspector
General are reviewing the program. We will keep the Committee informed
of the results of these reviews and our plans going forward, including
any impact on our fiscal year 2007 request or out-year estimates. Our
goal will be to ensure the best possible approach for meeting the
Nation's civilian and military meteorological needs and protecting the
taxpayer.
As part of the National Weather Service's overall plan to improve
the timeliness and accuracy for all weather-related hazards, the
Department requests $12.4 million to sustain our commitment to the U.S.
Tsunami Warning System. This funding level will be used to operate and
maintain the equipment and networks created following the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami. I wish to thank this Committee for its support of the
Administration's tsunami warning initiative in the fiscal year 2005
supplemental and the fiscal year 2006 appropriation.
Construction will continue in fiscal year 2007 on the NOAA Center
for Weather and Climate Prediction, which just had its groundbreaking.
With the requested increase of $11 million, the facility will be ready
to start operations in 2008. This project is a key component of the
NWS' effort to improve its weather and climate modeling performance, to
accelerate the transfer of newly developed scientific information into
operations, and to improve the use of global environmental satellite
data.
NOAA also serves as the lead coordinating agency for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which integrates a broad range
of climate-related observations, field studies and computer model
projections sponsored by 13 federal agencies. CCSP has a goal of
substantially improved understanding of both the causes and the
potential effects of climate variability and change, on time scales
extending from weeks to decades. NOAA's mission also includes the
implementation of climate predictive and interpretive services for a
wide range of applications, thereby providing significant benefits to
users in several sectors of the economy.
Through the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the
Department proposes an increase of $19.7 million for activities in the
Gulf of Mexico. As the Gulf region rebuilds, these programs will ensure
that adequate science and management resources are available to promote
and support sustainable and robust fisheries. Also within NMFS, the
Department requests $6 million for the Open Rivers Initiative (ORI).
ORI will remove obsolete river barriers in coastal states, thus
enhancing populations of key NOAA trust species and supporting the
President's Cooperative Conservation Initiative.
Provide the information and tools to maximize U.S. competitiveness and
enable economic growth for American industries, workers, and
consumers.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) supports the federal
economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness
and preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide
economy. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget expands EDA's Economic
Development Assistance Programs by $47 million to $297 million and
streamlines the program to reflect the Administration's emphasis on
regional development strategies, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
Regions and communities can achieve significant competitive advantage
by identifying and then aligning research, educational infrastructure,
and private activities around fields in which they have unique
strengths. Four of EDA's programs, representing the majority of EDA's
funding, will be merged into a new Regional Development Account that
will administer their competitive grant component, including support
for University Centers.
The Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) promotes the
understanding of the U.S. economy and its competitive position. ESA's
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides key objective data on the
Nation's economic condition, including the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Department requests
$80.5 million to maintain the level of funding ESA Headquarters and BEA
need to efficiently and accurately provide these statistics, as well as
research and policy analysis, that are critical to public and private
sector decision-making.
The Census Bureau serves as the leading source of quality data
about the Nation's people and economy. The President's fiscal year 2007
Budget requests $878 million in discretionary funds for the Census
Bureau, of which the largest component is the 2010 Decennial Census
Program. The re-engineering of the decennial census has made great
strides: the annual American Community Survey has been fully
implemented to replace the once-a-decade long form, the modernization
of the geographic database of all U.S. counties is over halfway
complete, and the technological developments for the short-form-only
decennial census are progressing on schedule.
In 2007, only three years out from Census Day 2010, the extensive
planning, testing, and development activities related to the short form
consume the majority of the decennial budget--a trend that will
continue through 2010. In addition to continued preparation for the
2010 Decennial Census, fiscal year 2007 will see increased activity for
the Economic Census and the Census of Governments, the five-year
snapshots of our economy that provide critical data.
The rapid world-wide development and transfer of technology present
great opportunities and risk to the United States' economic and
national security. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) regulates
the export of sensitive goods and technologies, striking a balance
between those economic opportunities and the security of the United
States. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $78.6 million
to enable BIS to effectively carry out this mission. The proposed
budget includes a $0.3 million increase for modernization of the Export
Control Automated Support System, which is the tool used to process
export licenses.
The International Trade Administration (ITA) supports U.S.
commercial interests at home and abroad by strengthening the
competitiveness of American industries and workers, promoting
international trade, opening foreign markets to U.S. businesses, and
ensuring compliance with domestic and international trade laws and
agreements. ITA conducts domestic and international analyses to ensure
that the U.S. manufacturing and service sectors can compete effectively
and meet the demands of global supply chains, and to understand the
competitive impact of regulatory and economic changes. ITA directly
supports U.S. businesses via a Trade Information Center that provides
customers a single point of access to ITA's programs and services. The
President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $409 million for ITA,
which includes an increase of $2 million to support the President's
Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This
partnership will accelerate the development and deployment of clean
technologies among partner countries. Commerce's role will be to
promote the use of American products and technologies in Australia,
China, India, Japan, and South Korea by providing U.S. firms with
market research on those countries and coordinating trade missions to
those countries.
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) focuses on
accelerating the competitiveness and growth of minority-owned
businesses by helping to close the gaps in economic opportunities and
capital access. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget requests $29.6
million to enable MBDA to continue pursuing additional avenues to
leverage resources and expand the availability of services to minority
business enterprises.
Achieve organizational and management excellence.
The Department's headquarters building, the Herbert C. Hoover
Building (HCHB), is in critical need of major renovation and
modernization. The 73-year-old HCHB is one of the last historic
buildings in the Federal Triangle to be scheduled for renovation and
modernization. The Department is requesting $18 million to correct
basic health and safety code deficiencies, replace failing mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems, and incorporate major security
upgrades. In addition to the renovation, the Department also requests
$5.9 million for the installation of blast resistant windows for one-
third of the HCHB.
Departmental Management (DM), in addition to funding the Offices of
the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, develops and implements policy,
administers internal operations, and serves as the primary liaison to
other executive branch agencies, Congress, and private sector entities.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is charged with promoting
economy and efficiency, and detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and
abuse. The President's fiscal year 2007 Budget request continues to
support these objectives.
Conclusion
The President has submitted a budget that implements the
Department's mission in a manner that maximizes benefits to our public.
The Department of Commerce is home to a diverse collection of agencies,
each with a unique area of expertise and a wide array of needs, tied
together in a common commitment to ensure an environment exists that
allows us to lead the world in competitiveness and innovation. The
President's fiscal year 2007 Budget successfully addresses those needs
in an efficient manner, mindful of the fiscal restraint required to
sustain our economic prosperity. I look forward to working with the
Committee to ensure that together we are providing the best services to
the American people.
HURRICANE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I have a number of questions
and I will go through them one by one.
In December, Mr. Secretary, the President signed the third
supplemental bill into law. In mid-March, our subcommittee was
informed that $55 million in supplemental funds that were
appropriated for NOAA had not yet been distributed to the
intended recipients. This is May now.
The Senate soon will pass another supplemental bill
providing additional funds necessary for ongoing activities in
relation to the war in Iraq and the recovery from Hurricane
Katrina and other hurricanes in the 2005 season, which proposes
additional funds for NOAA.
Mr. Secretary, have all the December supplemental funds
been distributed by NOAA as of now, and if not, why not?
Secretary Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is they
have been distributed to all of the line offices.
Senator Shelby. Okay. How will the Department handle the
distribution of additional supplemental funds?
Secretary Gutierrez. We will ensure, given the dimension of
this, that we do everything to get the money out there as soon
as possible.
Senator Shelby. Where it is needed?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir.
Senator Shelby. Okay. Could you provide the subcommittee
with a timeline of events for getting supplemental funds to the
intended recipients? You can do that for the record, if you
want.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir. If I may?
Senator Shelby. You can do that.
[The information follows:]
Timeline of Events for Getting Supplemental Funds to the Intended
Recipients
Public Law Signed--December 30, 2005
Apportionment Submitted to Department of Commerce--January
21, 2006
Apportionment Submitted to OMB--February 01, 2006
OMB Approval of Apportionment--February 09, 2006
Signed Apportionment received in NOAA--February 10, 2006
Final transfer to NOAA Line Offices--February 15, 2006
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Senator Shelby. While the subcommittee is pleased that the
2007 budget request proposes an overall increase of more than
$46 million for the economic development assistance programs, I
remain concerned that the proposal favors the creation of a new
regional development account while zeroing out four other
accounts--public works, technical assistance, research and
evaluation, and economic adjustment.
How would this restructuring of accounts be more beneficial
to our communities that rely on these grants for economic
improvement? And should the subcommittee agree to the changes
in the accounts as proposed in the budget request, what
assurances, Mr. Secretary, can you provide this subcommittee
that the restructuring will not lead to gaps in assistance,
considering there were four of those programs?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We have tried
to simplify the procedure in that we had four different types
of grants, which led to four different types of processes and
ways of looking at public works versus infrastructure. And we
believe that there is a common way of looking at these funds.
Do they create jobs? Do they attract private sector grants? Do
they improve the community?
Senator Shelby. Those are good questions.
Secretary Gutierrez. And so, we simplified the process and
just have a common way of looking at all grants as opposed to
four different buckets, which have a lot of overlapping
criteria.
Senator Shelby. Will you give us some more detail on this
for the subcommittee? I think that Senator Mikulski would also
like that.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, of course.
[The information follows:]
Economic Development Administration--Regional Development Account
The Regional Development Account (RDA) simply consolidates funding
for EDA's four primary competitive investment (grant) programs into a
single, more flexible account. This will allow EDA to strengthen its
long-standing focus on regional economic development investments.
EDA TODAY FISCAL YEAR 2006: MULTIPLE PROGRAM ``SILOS''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Research and Tech. Partnership
Public Works $158.3 million Adjustment $44.2 Assistance $8.7 Planning $26.7 TAA for Firms
(fiscal year 2006) million (fiscal million (fiscal million (fiscal $12.8 million
year 2006) year 2006) year 2006) (fiscal year 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and upgrade of Strategy Research on Supports Economic Supports network
physical infrastructure in development, leading edge Development of Trade
areas of chronic economic technical economic Districts to Adjustment
distress. assistance, and development develop and Assistance
physical practices as well execute regional Centers to help
infrastructure to as information Comprehensive manufacturers and
respond to sudden dissemination and Economic producers respond
and severe efforts to Development to the world-wide
economic distress. provide targeted Strategies (CEDS). marketplace.
technical
assistance
including
University
Centers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDA PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2007: CONSOLIDATION OF PRIMARY INVESTMENT
ACCOUNTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partnership
Proposed Regional Development Planning $27 TAA for Firms
Account (RDA) $257.6 million million (fiscal $12.9 million
(fiscal year 2007) year 2007) (fiscal year 2007)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activities as funded under Supports Economic Supports network
current Public Works, Economic Development of Trade
Adjustment, Research and Districts to Adjustment
Technical Assistance programs, develop and Assistance
for both chronic and sudden and execute regional Centers to help
severe economic distress: Comprehensive U.S.
Economic manufacturers
Development respond to the
Strategies (CEDS). world-wide
marketplace.
Physical infrastructure
development.
Strategy development.
Technical assistance.
Research and information
dissemination.
University Centers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regional Development Account (RDA) will:
--Allow investment partners (grantees) to engage simultaneously in
multiple activities in support of a common initiative through
just one EDA grant (e.g., infrastructure and technical
assistance).
--Provide EDA additional flexibility to respond to sudden and severe
economic dislocations (e.g., a significant plant closure,
natural disaster covered by the Stafford Act, or a military
base closure).
--Mirror the flexibility of EDA's popular and proven Economic
Adjustment account.
--Build on EDA's existing regional development work through Economic
Development Districts and University Centers.
EDA'S FOCUS ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Since its inception, EDA has emphasized regional economic
development approaches. The creation of Economic Development Districts
(EDDs) (which are primarily multi-county areas charged with supporting
a coordinated economic development strategy across an economic region)
simultaneously with EDA's original authorization in 1965 was a
meaningful force for regional development approaches.
For fiscal year 2007, EDA will continue its long-standing emphasis
on regional economic development strategies. EDA will work with
communities on economic development strategies and implementation that
support the development plan of an entire economic region. This will
help ensure that EDA-supported investments are compatible with and can
better leverage other economic development initiatives in an economic
region.
The RDA helps support the principle of regional economic
development by allowing EDA investment partners (grantees) to engage in
multiple EDA-supported activities through a single grant. For example,
an infrastructure grant to a city to help develop an inter-modal
transportation facility can be coupled with technical assistance
support to help the city build strategic linkages with neighboring
cities and counties--in the same grant.
It is important to note that the RDA:
--Benefits investment partners (grantees) by allowing multiple EDA
programs to be executed toward a common goal with just one
grant--eliminates redundant application and reporting
requirements.
--Increases EDA's efficiency by providing a single, flexible program
account and avoids the accounting and management challenge of
managing four separate ``buckets'' of funding across the six
EDA regions.
--Has no impact on EDA's: investment selection criteria, balance
between rural and urban investments, or focus on economic
distress.
--Utilizes existing EDA legislative authorities.
--Bolsters the President's request for a $47 million increase in EDA
program funds (total Economic Development Assistance program
budget: $297.5 million).
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT
Senator Shelby. I want to get to the Patent and Trademark
Office. I am just going down the line because you have a lot of
jurisdiction.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has initiated a number
of programs to assist with the intellectual property
enforcement, such as the help hotline and the www.stopfakes.gov
and the Global Intellectual Property Academy and training
around the globe, which provides curriculum and training for
foreign government officials in intellectual property rights
protection and enforcement.
I know these are only a few examples of the work being done
to enforce intellectual property rights at home and abroad. Can
you give us an update, if you would, Mr. Secretary, on the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office's intellectual property education
outreach and enforcement effort? Because this is a real problem
in the world as we expand our global trade.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
We have, as you mentioned, done several outreach efforts to
small businesses. We have provided free legal services to small
businesses. We have a hotline. We now have people on the ground
in China, and we are focused on four countries--Brazil, Russia,
India, and China--given that this is really where the illicit
world economy takes place.
We have a working group with the European Union, which is
the first time that they have agreed to work with us to have a
clear message to the rest of the world about Europe and the
United States. Up until now, we have sort of been in different
camps. And I think the illicit world would use that to their
benefit. We are now together. We are talking with one voice,
and we have an IPR working group.
We have just agreed with Japan that we are going to do the
same thing. So now they can't isolate us as well. Japan, the
European Union, and the United States will continue to speak as
one voice when it comes to illicit trafficking of intellectual
property.
The other thing that I will mention, which we believe is
very important through the National Intellectual Property Law
Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC), is enforcement.
Because, ultimately, it is going to be our ability to enforce
and our ability to stop some of these factories that are
producing these products.
Our prosecutions have grown by 97 percent in 2005.
Internationally, we have been able to collaborate with other
countries to seize about $50 million of merchandise. And very
importantly, at our border, in 2005, we seized $232 million, up
from $190 million a couple of years earlier.
So everything indicates that not only are we training
people, we are providing service for foreign officials, helping
them understand the philosophy of intellectual property. We are
working with foreign governments, and we are ensuring that we
are enforcing IPR and that people know there is a price to pay
for this.
I knew you were going to ask about this, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Mikulski. We have been putting a lot of pressure on
China, and they came back with their action plan on IPR
protection 2006. We think the significance of this is that this
is a plan developed by them. So it tells us that they should
have more ownership for it, that they should want to make it a
success because it was their idea.
And I thought you would be interested. This is one of the
areas, one of the things that they agreed to here is to require
that all PCs have pre-installed software.
Senator Shelby. But this is a challenge for your
Department?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And we are going to
follow up on that and ensure that it is not just on paper, but
that they are executing. And I look forward to updating you in
the future on any progress.
NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
Senator Shelby. Absolutely. The National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program has
experienced significant schedule delays and cost overruns for
the 2006 budget, and yet the 2007 budget request includes an
increase of $20 million for a total request of $337.8 million
for this program. That is a good bit of money.
The more than 25 percent cost overruns in this program
triggered the Nunn-McCurdy process within the Department of
Defense (DOD). And I understand there is an ongoing
investigation at DOD that may lead to a total reevaluation of
the entire program.
In your opening statement for the record here, you say that
your Department's goal will be--I quote you--``to ensure the
best possible approach for meeting the Nation's civilian and
military meteorological needs and protecting the taxpayer.''
That is what we want you to do.
What exactly are the options being considered within NOAA
in response to the increased costs and schedule delays for
NPOESS? And for the record, could you tell the subcommittee how
your Department is addressing additional or potential gaps in
satellite coverage, given the delays that have already been
experienced and the possibility of even more delays due to the
Nunn-McCurdy process?
Is that too much?
Secretary Gutierrez. No, Mr. Chairman. It is very good.
When we heard about the overruns and we had knowledge of
this, we called in the chief executive officers (CEOs) of both
Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, which are the two companies that
are on this and----
Senator Shelby. You are used to that from your business
background?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, I was. And we just let them know
that this is not the way we like to do business. This is not
something that we like to see, and they are going to do
everything possible to do what they can to keep the overruns at
a minimum.
We know that this triggers the Nunn-McCurdy Act, and we
will have a better understanding of how much we are talking
about here in June.
Senator Shelby. What is the rationalization for the
overruns? Do you know offhand?
Secretary Gutierrez. Their basic argument was that they
believe that the initial estimate was too low.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Gutierrez. But it is an overrun, and for us, that
is the bottom line. And as a result, we thought it was
appropriate to call them in and let them know that we are
disappointed.
So we are working very closely with them. And I am going to
have another meeting with them. Deputy Secretary Sampson has
met with them again. He is going to go out and visit their
factories. So----
Senator Shelby. See what is----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. We are not going to let up on
them.
Senator Shelby. Well, your business background could
certainly come in handy, Mr. Secretary, here.
Secretary Gutierrez. I am not used to these overruns.
Senator Shelby. Don't get used to them.
Secretary Gutierrez. I used to have to go to my board for a
10 percent overrun, and it would be a very tough week every
time I did that. So we want to make it tough on them.
Senator Shelby. I have more questions, but I am going to
rest and let Senator Mikulski be recognized for questions.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. ``Rest''
isn't usually part of your vocabulary.
First of all, I am very pleased at the exchange between you
and Senator Shelby on the NOAA satellite issue. This is a
source of great concern. We need to have the most modern
satellites, and they are the key to our weather prediction. But
if we get into the overruns, well, you know the consequences.
In looking at the NOAA budget, I was puzzled by what seems
like a 6 percent cut in NOAA, but really, it is
disproportionate. The 30 percent cut in ocean services, 8
percent in marine fisheries, and 8 percent in NOAA research.
Could you share with us the rationale of cutting 30 percent
in oceans, particularly after the rather firm reports that came
from the Joint Ocean Commission and the Pew Foundation, as well
as marine fisheries and NOAA research, which, of course, is so
important to climatic change and others?
Could you tell us the rationale, and what are the
consequences of these cuts? Will there be layoffs? Do they
agree, sir? What is the deal?
Secretary Gutierrez. Senator, we believe that we can carry
on the mission and many of the initiatives that we have
started. Of our $3.7 billion budget, about $1.8 billion is
related to oceans and fisheries. So a big bulk of NOAA is
really oceans and fisheries.
And we have a lot of activities going. We just submitted
for reauthorization our Organic Act. We submitted the Magnuson-
Stevens Act for reauthorization, as well as the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. We have the Proposed National Offshore
Aquaculture Act. We have extramural grants in place for
research. We have four different scholarship programs.
So while we are working within a tight budget, we believe
that we have our focus on the right things, and we have got
plenty going to be very active throughout 2007.
Senator Mikulski. But a 30 percent cut in National Ocean
Service is a big cut. That is not at the margin. What will be
the consequences?
Secretary Gutierrez. I believe, if we were to go back and
look at it, that some of the difference you cite would be
versus the fiscal year 2006 enacted budget. So we are, rightly
or wrongly, comparing the President's budget requested amount
to the base budget. So they may have been these one-time
projects for fisheries.
But our big projects, and especially coming off the ocean
policy, our big projects, our big commitments are being funded,
and we are not looking at the major layoffs or anything that
would be distracting and that would take us off our fundamental
mission and the big projects that we have going.
Magnuson-Stevens, aquaculture, marine mammals, our
scholarships--those are funded and very well----
Senator Mikulski. Sea grants----
Secretary Gutierrez. Sea grants, yes.
Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, a little bipartisan
group--Senator Dodd and myself, Senator Sununu, Senator Gregg--
went to both Admiral Watkins and Leon Panetta and asked them to
do a report for us on their reports, if you will--like
Alexander and Bingaman went to the national academies--and said
give us the 10 ideas now to really make sure that we save our
oceans or enhance our oceans.
They are going to, Mr. Chairman, have this report ready
sometime this summer, and which I would like to share. But
then, you know, because there is endless reports. There is
endless five points this and three-point programs for that. And
I agree with you that we need to have at least a core basic set
of programs we are going to support, and then at the end of the
year or the end of a 3- to 5-year period we can honestly say
what we have accomplished.
And I know from, again, private sector background, you are
a benchmark guy. And I think we would like to share the same,
which is to say what are some of our national goals in terms of
these and then really make a commitment on a bipartisan basis
to work on these.
Secretary Gutierrez. That would be great.
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Senator Mikulski. So we are going to keep you posted on it.
In terms of NOAA weather, we know that the budget includes
a $3 million increase for the National Weather Service, which
we think is important and much needed. But we are concerned
that some smaller programs were eliminated like the Susquehanna
basin, which essentially goes from New York down through
Maryland and are the sensors along those rivers that kind of
give the river almost like a ``river watch.''
Well, it is. It is the Susquehanna River watch that alerts
communities to flooding. A couple of years ago, when we had the
big snow and the big meltdown, the Susquehanna alerts really
saved a great deal of lives in Maryland because we had the
early warning.
It is one of those earmarks that everybody gets cranky
about. But we want to be sure that when we are looking at
weather, we are looking at the big picture on this. And I am
going to alert you to some of these.
But we are concerned that there is now a move to privatize
the National Weather Service in the National Weather Service
Duties Act. Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Gutierrez. I have heard, just not officially, not
formally. But I have been made aware.
Senator Mikulski. Does the administration have a position
on that bill yet?
Secretary Gutierrez. I don't believe there has been a
statement of administration policy (SAP) issued for that. As I
think about it, the National Weather Service is a public
service. Everyone has access to it. So I haven't thought much
about it as a private service.
PATENT EXAMINERS HIRING
Senator Mikulski. Well, we just want to alert you to that.
I, too, think that the National Weather Service is a public
service that should be in the public domain and operated as
such. And the old saying is, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix
it?''
We know very few that the private sector value-adds to the
National Weather Service and even develops either niche
products or something like that for which we are appreciative.
Let me go to the patents. Five hundred thousand backlog,
and we know we have increased the new hires. Is that correct?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. One thousand new examiners?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And we also know that there were fees
charged for that. But isn't the fee authority going to expire?
Not for the overall collection of the patents.
The patent, PTO is funded through, is paid by inventors.
The authority to get current fee levels were expired. I think
we raised fee levels. Am I correct in that?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. So that we could add more people. I think
it is going to expire this year.
Secretary Gutierrez. I think it is renewed----
Senator Mikulski. Can you kind of tell us where you are
with this?
Secretary Gutierrez. My understanding is that----
Senator Mikulski. And whether we need to continue to hire
and use this as a tool or mechanism?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is an annual renewal in the
appropriations bill. So we get a 1-year extension, essentially,
every year. We collected about $1.5 billion of fees. So this
is----
Senator Mikulski. B? Like in ``Barb?''
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. I hope that is right.
Senator Mikulski. Yes, that sounds about right.
Senator Shelby. That is a lot of money.
Secretary Gutierrez. And we have 4,000 examiners. We are
hiring 1,000 over the next 5 years. And unfortunately, you are
right. The pendency is growing from about 29 months to 32
months. So it is not going in the direction we want.
We are hiring more examiners. We are trying to make the
process a lot smoother at the beginning, trying to avoid
patents that we don't need to put through the process, getting
more quality in the beginning.
We have a conflict here between the quality of the patent
and the pendency. So we want to lower pendency, but not at the
expense of quality, especially technology.
Senator Mikulski. We don't want to have other BlackBerry
cases and so on.
Secretary Gutierrez. Exactly. So technology folks are very
concerned about the quality aspect. Everyone is concerned about
the quality aspect.
So we are working on that. We are hiring more people. We
have just gone online for the first time. We have what we think
is the most efficient patent application system, where people
can apply online.
Senator Mikulski. They couldn't do that before?
Secretary Gutierrez. Not to the extent that they can today.
And we launched just about 1 month ago. That should help our
pendency. We have monthly reports on productivity, monthly
reports on production. People are rewarded for that. They are
measured on that. These metrics are cascaded throughout the PTO
offices.
So, more and more, it is being managed by the numbers and
quality of the patents. We agree with your challenge that as we
improve quality, we also have to take down pendency. We just
can't afford to have our pendency continue to increase.
Senator Mikulski. See, this is part of the innovation-
friendly government. And people in Maryland who are inventors
and then someone in the bio fields, which is another dynamic,
is they have to stand in two lines. One to get their patent,
the other to get their FDA approval. So that, in and of itself,
is time.
What they have shared with me is that, say, if they are
waiting for their patent, some of their intellectual property
has already been stolen. And so, that is an issue. It is a big
issue.
Do you feel that the 1,000 examiners that you hired will be
enough, or do you think you need to have more?
Secretary Gutierrez. We believe that, for now, it should be
enough. But if we see that it isn't, we will be coming back to
you.
PATENT EXAMINERS QUALIFICATIONS AND RETENTION
Senator Mikulski. Well, what are the tools then for
retention? First of all, share, as you did with me, with
Senator Shelby what are the basic qualifications to be a patent
examiner?
Secretary Gutierrez. We have actually gone back and looked
at this. We hire mostly engineers and lawyers. About 19 percent
of the engineers we hire also have a law degree.
Senator Mikulski. See, so this is a big bucket of talent
here?
Secretary Gutierrez. Oh, this is----
Senator Shelby. Important talent.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, very important. And we actually
retain people for about 6\1/2\ years. So they come, an average
of tenure with PTO is about 6\1/2\ years. So they know they are
getting the best training you can get, working with very smart
people. They are at the leading edge of seeing what
technologies are happening and who is innovating.
If they don't have a law degree, we provide them with
financial help to get a law degree. We give them training to
help them manage people. We are constantly trying to upgrade
their skills. So it is a way of keeping them there.
Our starting salaries average about $56,000. And that
ranges anywhere from $35,000 to $70,000, depending on their
GPA, depending on their skills. That is about 10 percent below
the private sector.
So we know that we have to fill that gap with other ways--
--
Senator Mikulski. You mean for a young associate in a law
firm----
Secretary Gutierrez. For a young associate coming in, that
is right.
Senator Mikulski. That would be focused on intellectual
property?
Secretary Gutierrez. About 10 percent. They make about 10
percent more in the private sector.
So we have to fill that 10 percent through other ways--by
training, by giving them a great work environment, by giving
them a sense that they are in the right place at the right
time.
Senator Shelby. Well, that is very important.
Secretary Gutierrez. And we pay them for performance, a 10
percent bonus. We would like to see that go up to about 17----
Senator Shelby. For good people?
Secretary Gutierrez. That is right, for the people who are
performing.
Senator Mikulski. Six and a half, are you satisfied with
that, or would you hope that they would stay longer? And don't
you need a career service to be able to mentor----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. That is right.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. These talented, young,
bright people? Or mid-career people that are changing? There
might have been somebody who is a whiz in electrical
engineering, maybe one of our leading defense contractors gets
their law degree and wants to move over and do something like
this?
Secretary Gutierrez. I agree. The 6\1/2\ years is higher
than I would have expected. I would like to see more. And I
think it is a good----
Senator Shelby. Six and a half years is average, right?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, that is the average tenure.
Senator Shelby. So some stay a long time.
Secretary Gutierrez. Some stay longer. Some leave,
unfortunately, sooner. But we would like to see more.
Continuity is always a good thing, and things are changing
so quickly. Yes, we have gone from 300,000 patents several
years ago to about 412,000 patent applications.
Senator Mikulski. That is a lot of ideas.
Secretary Gutierrez. So people are innovating. There is
more innovation. The applications are getting more complex. So
it requires better skill sets to just understand the
technology.
Senator Mikulski. So what can we do to retain now? We have
got these 1,000 people. And of that 1,000, we would want, you
know, as you would say, staying longer for the public
investment we are about to make in their training.
Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
Senator Mikulski. What do you see as the key retention
tools, and are there ways that we could be helpful to you?
Secretary Gutierrez. I think we have to continue to make it
a great working environment, where they feel like they are
learning. If they want to go on to get their law degree, we
will help them do that financially.
They are constantly getting seminars to upgrade their
skills, whether it be people management if they are engineers,
getting legal seminars if they are lawyers. Getting engineering
seminars, marketing seminars that they really become experts at
what they do.
And I would like to do everything possible from the
standpoint of the working environment. And if we need to, to
come back and look at the bonuses.
We have a 10 percent performance bonus. To keep up with the
private sector, we may have to take that up higher. And I would
like just a little bit more time to go back and see where the
discussions are in order to talk about it with the union and
then come back to you on that.
Senator Mikulski. Well, this issue of adequacy of personnel
and recruitment and retention is, I believe, a real high
priority. Our colleagues in the Judiciary Committee create them
all, but your idea of the working environment, I would like to
just bring to your attention, one, the GAO report that was
commissioned last June for Congressman Sensenbrenner and
Congressman Wolf, our counterpart----
Secretary Gutierrez. Right.
Senator Mikulski [continuing]. On progress made in hiring,
the challenges to return. And one of their number one issues
that they raise, Mr. Secretary, is communication. And they
state that there seems to be a culture of poor to uneven
communication between management and the examiners. And they
cite that as really affecting morale, productivity, and
retention.
We bring this report to your attention, and we think it is
a very good guidepost for us to follow. And when I read it, I
saw that, yes, money, recruitment, and so on is there. And then
the employee organizations also had their newsletter, and
replete through the newsletter is the need for more
communication between management and the examiners.
So I am going to bring these to your attention and know
that this is a lot of hard work going into it. The other side
of the Capitol is also interested in this, and I think it
really focuses on the human capital, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. Very much so.
Senator Mikulski. And my questions in the future and, even
more importantly, this year will be how are we doing on this
report and implementing it, and whether you think maybe the
report was off the mark, nevertheless?
Because as I travel my State and talk to those Nobel Prize
winners, not only in this and other places, they say that one
of the most important tools to an innovation-friendly
government, in addition to the pipeline issue of talented
people, is the Patent Office. Everybody talks about the Patent
Office. So we let it at that.
My last question in this round--the chairman wants to go
another--is NIST. Isn't that a spectacular agency? That is
where those three Nobel Prize winners are. But I am concerned
that as we cut ATP and shrink the manufacturing extension
partnership and so on, that is why I said are we robbing Peter
to pay Paul here?
Secretary Gutierrez. If I may just step back a little,
Senator, on this?
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM AND MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
Senator Mikulski. Because we eliminate the ATP----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. And we shrink the manufacturing
extension, the legacy of our colleague, Senator Hollings. So--
--
Secretary Gutierrez. The President mentioned this in the
State of the Union that NIST is one of the three agencies that
is getting an increase in funding because NIST does basic
research. We have an iPod today, thanks to what NIST did many
years ago. We have many of our security systems on automobiles
came out of research that NIST has done.
So what they do is basic research for technologies that
will be applied across many industries. And we think that is
the role of the Federal Government. Long-term basic research,
10, 15 years down the road, the types of projects that private
sector typically does not have the patience for or the money,
the competitive environment. They typically do product
development, a lot shorter period of time.
Senator Mikulski. They value-add to our basic research.
Secretary Gutierrez. Exactly. So one-third of the country's
R&D is Federal Government. Two-thirds is private sector. That
one-third, we would like to keep it on basic research and let
the private sector use what we produce to develop products.
ATP was almost like a venture capital fund. It was trying
to pick winning companies, and we felt that the role of the
public sector wasn't necessarily picking winners or losers, but
providing technologies.
MEP, we are keeping at a smaller rate because that also
tends to be product development, operational. It does demand
for us to pick who gets the money and who doesn't. But we have
a network in place that we don't want to let go of because it
can still be used.
But to the extent that we can, we would like to stay on
basic research, things that only we can do. We now have 1,800
guest scientists and engineers at NIST, who are there trying to
pick up any experiences, any learning to take back to be able
to use.
And as we look around the world, there isn't another
country--we asked the European Union the other day, how do you
do it? Do you have your NIST? Do you have a private sector
linkage? They don't.
I think we have an advantage in the linkage between our
basic research agencies, such as NIST, Department of Energy,
the National Science Foundation (NSF), our private sector
companies, and our universities. And we are seeing more and
more of that partnership taking place.
That is why we have shifted money to basic research from
what we would call picking winners and losers and----
Senator Mikulski. What about the manufacturing extension
partnership?
Secretary Gutierrez. The $46 million that we put in the
budget is to keep the network in place. That is about one-third
of the funding because State governments and private sector
usually put in another third and one-third is from fees.
But the important thing is the network will be there, and
the private sector can access the network. The funding will not
necessarily come from the Federal Government as much as it did
before, but it will still be there. The network will still be
there, and the funding, to some extent, will be there.
But most of our money is going into basic research that
will give us a country-wide competitive advantage against the
rest of the world. Nanotechnology, quantum research,
biometrics--the types of things that the private sector just
doesn't have the time or the patience or the competitive
environment to be able to do.
Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OCEAN-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
I have a few more questions. In what way does the 2007
budget request provide sufficient funding to address NOAA's
ocean-related activities and responsibilities with respect to
the Joint Ocean Commission's report?
Secretary Gutierrez. No, that is great. Thank you.
Out of NOAA's $3.7 billion request we allocated about 50
percent to oceans and fisheries. We are working on many of the
Ocean Policy Commission's recommendations. We have resubmitted
for reauthorization the Organic Act for NOAA, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act Reauthorization, and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act Reauthorization.
We are now hoping to work with Congress to get
authorization for offshore aquaculture, which is also very
important----
Senator Shelby. That is a whole lot of promise there.
Secretary Gutierrez. We actually are a net importer of
fish.
Senator Shelby. I know.
Senator Mikulski. And growing.
Secretary Gutierrez. Some of the fish we import is farmed
fish. So we think we should be doing a lot more.
Senator Mikulski. And some of it is a little----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, well. So it is an area of
opportunity for us. So we believe that we have the right
priorities and the big projects that we need to continue funded
in the area of oceans, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. And we have got the coast and the bays,
too.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, what progress are you making
in addressing some of the recommendations put forward by the
Joint Ocean Commission, like the report card's low marks for
international leadership, research, science, and education? I
know you weren't there all this time.
Secretary Gutierrez. We just had our Asia-Pacific economic
cooperation (APEC) forum's marine resource conservation working
group meeting, which includes other agencies, but NOAA is a big
part of it. We are leading the whole effort toward tsunami
detection with the rest of the world. It goes beyond oceans.
So I believe that we and our people are constantly taking a
leadership role in coordination meetings and seminars. The rest
of the world looks to us for oceans leadership, technology,
knowledge. Of the 50 recommendations within the
administration's ocean action plan where NOAA is the lead or a
partner, we have implemented 37 to date. So we are very focused
on it.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Senator Shelby. The 2007 budget request includes $18
million for the renovation and modernization of the Herbert C.
Hoover Building, headquarters to the Department of Commerce.
The subcommittee notes the funding was requested in 2006,
but not appropriated. What would the level of funding here
provide for you, and how many years of follow-on funding would
be needed to complete the renovation?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. And this is the last one, Mr.
Chairman, of the Federal Triangle Historic buildings that has
not been renovated.
Senator Shelby. Well, they have got to be renovated.
Secretary Gutierrez. The plan actually takes us out to
2017. So we are spreading it out so that we don't have the
burden of a big cost in 1 year.
Senator Shelby. It is still a lot of money, though.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, it is about $700 million total,
of which about $200 million will be picked up by Commerce.
Senator Shelby. It would cost a lot of money--we wouldn't
want you to move. But if you built a new building somewhere, it
would cost a lot of money, too.
Secretary Gutierrez. That is absolutely right. And it is--
--
Senator Shelby. Plus, you would lose the history.
Secretary Gutierrez. That is absolutely right. So we have
$18 million, which gets us going, and we have it spread out to
2017.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
Senator Shelby. The President announced the American
competitive initiative as a new program that would continue to
build the Nation's science and technology base. Senator
Mikulski has already talked about this.
This will be done through investments in federally funded
research and investments to ensure the country has a
technologically skilled workforce. We have got to do it on our
own.
To accomplish this, several agencies were tasked with
leading this initiative. One of those falls under you, the
Department of Commerce--the National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
What is your basic role with regard to the American
competitiveness initiative? And how much of your budget and
time is dedicated to this? We think it is important.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree. And
this is one area where we have actually tasked every department
inside of Commerce to play a role. I think we all play a role
in helping our country become more competitive.
Directly, we have the $104 million that we have added to
NIST for projects, and those are, as I mentioned before,
nanotechnology, quantum research, biometrics. Things that the
private sector can take and apply across many industries.
We are also sort of out of our lane. We are working with
the private sector to motivate them to get volunteer teachers
into K through 12. Part of the ACI----
Senator Shelby. How do we do that? How do you do that?
Secretary Gutierrez. Well, we go out and talk to companies.
We were with Intel the other day, in an auditorium of maybe 500
engineers. We said please go out and be part of the ACI. We
want----
Senator Shelby. They could be tremendous role models, can't
they?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. Because students are not really
sure where a math or a science career will take them.
Senator Mikulski. They don't know.
Senator Shelby. They don't know.
Senator Mikulski. They don't know what is going on.
Secretary Gutierrez. So this would be an opportunity to do
that--working with Congress to make the R&D tax credit
permanent. We have renewed that, I think, a dozen times over
the last 10 or 12 years. We believe the private sector needs
more predictability.
Senator Shelby. So they can plan.
Secretary Gutierrez. So that they know if they are starting
a 5-year project, they will have a tax credit in 5 years. So--
--
Senator Shelby. But we have to do that, don't we, Mr.
Secretary, to compete in the world of tomorrow that we see on
the horizon?
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. In China and India and everywhere else?
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. If we don't, we are going to lag behind.
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. We are competing today.
Our economy is doing very well in the face of intense
competition. But it is 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20
years from now----
Senator Shelby. We have got to worry about.
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Senator Shelby. In 2007, the budget request for EDA
salaries and expenses is only $9,000 more than 2006.
The subcommittee recently approved a reprogramming request
of $700,000 that we were told was necessary to provide
sufficient salaries and expenses for the balance of 2006, which
means the 2007 request is now $691,000 below the 2006 number.
Given this reprogramming of funds, how can the funding
level requested for 2007 be sufficient? I know that we are
appropriators, and you think, well, gosh, why are we asking you
to ask for more money? But we think you need to have the
requisite money to do your job here. And can you do that?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, of course, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Shelby. In other words, what funding level is
necessary to maintain the current EDA operations in 2007? Can
you do it like that? And why and how?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. With the current
budget, we can keep our office network in place.
Senator Shelby. Okay.
Secretary Gutierrez. Our salaries and expenses, as a
percent of the total budget, is about 9 percent, which we think
is right up there. We wouldn't like to see it go higher because
then we have got more money tied up in expenses than we would
like to have. So we think we have the right balance, and we
think we can make it work.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Senator Shelby. Going back to the Herbert C. Hoover
Building, the Commerce Building. You are seeking $5.9 million
for blast mitigation windows, which you certainly need. Is that
the total funding level? Or will there be additional funds in
this area, too?
Secretary Gutierrez. That is actually additional for the
windows.
Senator Shelby. In other words, how many years is that? We
have been told there is a request of a $5.9 million increase
for blast mitigation windows.
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, yes.
Senator Shelby. Is that the total level of funding, or will
there be additional?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is for blast mitigation windows for
one-third of the building.
Senator Shelby. Okay. So that is one-third, and there will
be additional funding?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And this came out
of the ``Window Blast Hazard Mitigation Study'' for the Herbert
C. Hoover Building issued by the General Services
Administration in February 2003.
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
Senator Shelby. Oh, yes. I know you need it. You don't want
to put your people at risk.
The Bureau of the Census. The budget request for the 2010
census is starting to grow, of course, in anticipation of the
2010 census, which is just a few years away. The increases are
quite significant while, at the same time, the census is
proposing to reduce or to eliminate work that it has done
previously.
What efforts are being made, Mr. Secretary, to ensure that
the 2010 census is as cost effective and accurate as possible
while maintaining other capabilities that the bureau provides?
Because they do a lot of other ancillary things.
Secretary Gutierrez. Absolutely. And this is an area, Mr.
Chairman, where I believe we have made quite a bit of progress
for the 2010 census, and I brought a little exhibit. This is
something we used to use in our sales force in the
supermarkets. I didn't have anything to do with it. It was
already in place here. But----
Senator Shelby. It worked, didn't it?
Secretary Gutierrez. It works. So, instead of carrying a
pad and having to jot down, they will have these small
computers and hand-helds. And they will be putting the
information, as they get it, into this hand-held computer,
which will be consolidated and tabulated in a central location.
So we are miles ahead from where we were, say, 10 years ago
for our census, and we have already started now to train
people, to get people in place. We are now doing the American
community survey on a monthly basis, which is a long----
Senator Mikulski. Guess who just got her survey
questionnaire.
Secretary Gutierrez. That is right.
Senator Mikulski. I got mine.
Secretary Gutierrez. And that allows us to make the 10-year
questionnaire shorter, easier, quicker. So we get more accurate
information. That will be extremely important.
So we are getting geared up, and I believe that the folks
at Census have done a great job, and this is a major innovation
that will just put us ahead in terms of----
Senator Shelby. Senator Mikulski, do you have any other
questions?
PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Senator Mikulski. First of all, the chairman's questions on
economic development and the census paralleled my own. And also
his remarks on competitiveness.
I think where there is a true opportunity for partnership
between the executive and legislative branch on a bipartisan
basis is in this area to make us more innovative. Because our
goal is to be able to create what we hope will be the economic
infrastructure, if you will, for there to be jobs in this
country. And that is kind of where we are.
My question, though, that didn't come up goes with another
national security issue. And that goes with interoperability of
communications with our first responders. And for we in the
capital region this is a very intense need and, as you know, is
a national need. And after 5 years, almost 4\1/2\ now since 9/
11, we are still not interoperable.
The National Telecommunications Information Administration
(NTIA), we understand, is about to give out a lot of money for
grants. They will award with interoperability grants. The money
will come from spectrum auction. But we are concerned that the
standards haven't been developed.
There was supposed to be this voluntary effort between the
telecommunications industry, association, something called
``Project 25'' to develop this. But as of this January, little
progress has been made. And when NIST tests the equipment that
is coming down the pike, it doesn't seem to meet the standards.
So here is my question. What are we doing really to develop
interoperable standards? So no matter if you are a local
volunteer fire department, funding yourself with fish fries, or
you are a big government like New York and New Jersey, or we in
the capital region can talk to each other.
What has been developed in standards? And what are we going
to do with this billion dollars? I am afraid that this could be
another techno-boondoggle where people go out and buy gear that
can't communicate. And we are already concerned in the capital
region that there are significant gaps here.
Senator Shelby. We want it to work. You know that.
Senator Mikulski. So we want to know what will the money
buy? Who is going to be eligible? And are the standards ready?
And if they are not ready, shouldn't we make sure that the
standard is in place before we start giving out the money?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. We have the $1 billion, and we
are actually doing a test in Washington, DC. This is the first
time we have done a Federal/non-Federal test in the D.C. area
to see what we can make interoperable, how much we can push
this.
And based on that test, which we need to push hard, we will
come up with the framework, the standards that we can provide
to business, get businesses' input and get to work on the
national program. So we would roll out our D.C. test and it is
just very fortunate that we are able to do it in the District.
Senator Mikulski. When are you going to do that?
Secretary Gutierrez. We are doing it as we speak. We are
doing a test now. This is obviously interagency. It is
Commerce. It is the Department of Homeland Security. It is
Department of Justice. We can provide you that for the record.
Senator Shelby. That would be good.
[The information follows:]
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Standards and Testing
A report on this topic will be transmitted by letter from
Secretary Gutierrez.
Secretary Gutierrez. And a longer document on what is
involved in the test.
PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SCENARIOS
Senator Mikulski. But is the test to establish the
standards?
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes. The test will give us guidelines
for the development of standards that we will develop in
conjunction with the private sector.
We believe the private sector needs some direction from us,
and they need a little bit of help. And this test will give us
the knowledge we need to tell the private sector how we should
move forward because the private sector hasn't been as
aggressive as we would like them to be.
Senator Mikulski. Have you started to give the grants out
yet?
Secretary Gutierrez. No.
Senator Mikulski. Well, I would encourage you, let us not
give out the money.
Secretary Gutierrez. We haven't.
Senator Mikulski. Because my observation, at least in the
capital region, again, is there are a million salesmen out
there with a lot of gizmos. Some are quite good. Some are
questionable. And they go to everything from county governments
to small towns in the counties, and they say, ``Buy this. Buy
this. It will be okay.''
And you know, we believe in competition, so not a single
product. Again, not winners and losers, but that it all be
interoperable, depending on what you buy. And that for national
security reasons, in other words, homeland security reasons,
that each gizmo, the more gadgets it has on it, the more
expensive.
But that there be a core element that whatever you buy for
first responders and local government, that it be a core
element that enables us to transmit voice and data so they know
what to do.
Secretary Gutierrez. I think the test will enable us to be
more certain about what to buy and what not to buy.
Senator Mikulski. Are you personally----
Secretary Gutierrez. Yes.
Senator Mikulski. Is this thing operated out of your
office?
Secretary Gutierrez. It is being operated out of John
Kneuer's office, NTIA. But I am very close to this and----
Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, I know you have a
lot on your plate, and I know you are traveling the world in
the many issues we have talked about, protecting intellectual
property, doing very important things for the good of our
economic security. But this is a big one.
Secretary Gutierrez. I would agree with that.
Senator Mikulski. It is 4\1/2\ years since 9/11, and you
would think that, number one, we can accelerate putting it in
place. But working with NTIA, if you could personally keep an
eye on it, so that it doesn't get bogged down. But at the same
time, we really do achieve this goal. I think it is one of the
most important things that you could accomplish, if I might be
so bold.
Secretary Gutierrez. I will stay very close to it. And if I
may, I will send you a summary for the record of the test.
Senator Shelby. That would be good.
Senator Mikulski. Yes. Well, you know the importance of
communication.
Senator Shelby. That is right. Got to have it.
Senator Mikulski. You know all about it, what you guys went
through with Katrina. It could be a predatory attack, or it
could be a natural disaster.
Senator Shelby. We certainly need interoperability, don't
we, Senator?
Senator Mikulski. Yes, we certainly do.
That concludes my questions.
Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we thank you for your
appearance today.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We are going to keep the record open because we have some
other Senators that couldn't be here who would like to submit
some questions for the record, and we will hope that when we
get them to you that you could respond to them no later than
June 16, as we are working on the fiscal year 2007
appropriations.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
FISCAL YEAR 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
Question. What financial mechanisms did the Department of Commerce
use to create this almost three month delay in allocating December
supplemental funds to the appropriate NOAA folks on the Gulf Coast?
Answer. The Department of Commerce employed the standard financial
and procedural mechanisms to approve, apportion and distribute the
funds provided by Congress in Public Law 109-148. This enactment took
just over six weeks, from the date of the signed appropriation to final
distribution (please see timeline below).
Question. Have all of the December supplemental funds been
distributed? If not, why not?
Answer. Yes. The funding was distributed to NOAA Line Offices on
February 15, 2006. NOAA began conducting activities using those funds
immediately.
Question. How will the Department handle the distribution of
additional supplemental funds?
Answer. NOAA has formed an internal working team to expedite the
distribution of funds. The Team has developed procedures to track the
expenditures and ensure all internal control processes are set up to
handle any additional funding.
Question. Please provide the Committee with a timeline of events
for getting supplemental funds to the intended recipients.
Answer. The final transfer of funding to the intended recipient
depends on the individual items listed in the supplemental. NOAA is
working hard to award all contracts and transfer funding as soon as
possible. The timeline for the enactment of funds from the December
supplemental is as follows:
--Public Law 109-148 signed--December 30, 2005
--Apportionment Submitted to Department of Commerce--January 21, 2006
--Apportionment Submitted to OMB--February 1, 2006
--OMB Approval of Apportionment--February 9, 2006
--Signed Apportionment received in NOAA--February 10, 2006
--Final transfer to NOAA Line Offices--February 15, 2006
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Question. How would this restructuring of accounts be more
beneficial to our communities that rely on these grants for economic
improvement?
Answer. Under the RDA, EDA will simplify its application process
for communities while maintaining its current selection criteria and
traditional balance between rural and urban projects. The restructuring
of accounts into the RDA will provide additional benefits to
communities because it will:
--Allow grantees to engage simultaneously in multiple activities in
support of a common initiative with just one EDA grant (e.g.,
infrastructure and technical assistance).
--Provide EDA additional flexibility to respond to sudden and severe
economic dislocations (e.g., a significant plant closure,
natural disaster covered by the Stafford Act, or a military
base closure), especially when those economic dislocations
occur near the end of the fiscal year.
--Mirror the flexibility of EDA's popular and proven Economic
Adjustment account.
--Eliminate redundant application and reporting requirements for
grantees.
--Increase EDA's efficiency by providing a single, flexible program
account and avoid the accounting and management challenge of
managing four separate ``buckets'' of funding across the six
EDA regions.
Question. Should this Committee agree to the change in accounts as
proposed in the budget request, what assurances can you provide that
this restructuring won't leave gaps in assistance?
Answer. EDA is a discretionary program for which there will always
be a greater demand than supply when it comes to funding. It is
important to note that if the RDA were enacted, it would have no impact
on EDA's investment selection criteria, balance between rural and urban
investments, or focus on economic distress. Additionally, the RDA would
not affect the general level of funding per project.
Additionally, the RDA would better ensure that small jurisdictions
and rural areas have a ``seat at the table'' within the larger regional
economic development framework. The RDA would increase the focus on
regional approaches, allowing rural areas to better build on shared
strengths and link up with regional economic hubs. This focus would in
turn enhance the economic prospects of rural and distressed areas as
they attempt to integrate into the larger economic region and
participate in the growing national economy.
Please see also the attached document, ``Economic Development
Administration--Regional Development Account''.
Question. Given this recent reprogramming of funds, how can the
funding level requested for fiscal year 2007 be sufficient to continue
current operations without a reorganization or restructuring, when it
is less than what we have been told is necessary for fiscal year 2006?
Answer. For fiscal year 2007, EDA will defer or cancel planned
projects, including automation and training initiatives, defer staff
hires until later in the year or to the following year, recruit interns
in lieu of higher-graded staff, identify every available resource and
potential operational efficiency, and, if absolutely necessary, reduce
staff in order to maintain a six regional office footprint and operate
within the parameters of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request.
Question. What funding level is necessary to maintain current EDA
operations in fiscal year 2007?
Answer. EDA continues to support the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2007. The Salaries and Expenses request is $29.7 million.
The request level would necessitate programmatic and organizational
changes. To maintain the current regional office structure and level of
service provided without changes may require additional resources.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Question. Can you give us a status update on the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office's intellectual property education, outreach, and
enforcement efforts?
Answer. The USPTO is diligently working to help curb intellectual
property theft and strengthen intellectual property (IP) protection and
enforcement in every corner of the globe. As the largest IP office in
the world, the USPTO is leading efforts to develop and strengthen
domestic and international intellectual property protection.
Under the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) of 1999 (Public
Law 106-113), the USPTO is directed to advise the President, through
the Secretary of Commerce, and all federal agencies on national and
international intellectual property policy issues, including
intellectual property protection in other nations. The USPTO is also
authorized by the AIPA to provide guidance, conduct programs and
studies, and otherwise interact with foreign intellectual property
offices and international intergovernmental organizations on matters
involving the protection of intellectual property.
Through its Offices of International Relations, Enforcement, and
Congressional Relations, the USPTO: (1) helps negotiate and works with
Congress to implement international intellectual property treaties and
develop domestic intellectual property related legislation; (2)
provides technical assistance to foreign governments that are looking
to develop or improve their intellectual property laws and systems; (3)
provides capacity-building training programs to foreign intellectual
property officials on intellectual property enforcement; (4) advises
the Department of State and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on
drafting and reviewing intellectual property sections in bilateral and
multilateral investment treaties and trade agreements; (5) advises the
USTR and the Department of State on intellectual property issues in the
World Trade Organization (WTO); (6) works with USTR, the Department of
State, and American industry on the annual review of intellectual
property protection and enforcement under the Special 301 provisions of
the Trade Act of 1974; and (7) consults with the Department of Justice
and other federal law enforcement entities who are responsible for
intellectual property enforcement.
The Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) Initiative.--The
USPTO is actively involved in the Administration's STOP! initiative,
the most comprehensive U.S. Government-wide initiative created to
combat trade in pirated and counterfeit goods. The initiative is a
collaboration of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Homeland
Security, and the Office of the USTR. The goal of the STOP! program is
to prevent international piracy and counterfeiting and protect U.S.
businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, overseas.
The STOP! initiative has brought together all the major players at the
highest levels--the federal government, private sector, and trade
partners--and this increased level of coordination has produced some of
the initiatives described below and real results in our worldwide
efforts to promote and protect IP.
Help Hotline.--As part of STOP!, the USPTO manages a hotline (1-
866-999-HALT) that helps small- and medium-sized businesses leverage
the resources of the U.S. Government to protect their intellectual
property rights in the United States and abroad. Callers receive
information from IP attorneys at the USPTO with regional expertise on
how to secure patents, trademarks and copyrights, and on the
enforcement of these rights.
Stopfakes.gov.--The USPTO has established a link on its website to
www.stopfakes.gov which provides in-depth detail of the STOP!
initiative. One key feature of the website is the country specific
``Toolkits'' that have been created by our embassies overseas to assist
small- and medium-sized businesses with intellectual property rights
issues in China, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, and Russia, with additional
toolkits to be posted soon. STOP! also seeks to increase global
awareness of the risks and consequences of intellectual property crimes
through a section of its website, www.stopfakes.com/smallbusiness, that
is specifically designed and operated by the USPTO to answer common
questions of small businesses so they can better identify and address
their intellectual property protection needs.
No-trade-in-fakes.--The no-trade-in-fakes program is being
developed in cooperation with the private sector. This is a voluntary,
industry driven set of guidelines and a corporate compliance program
that participating companies will use to ensure their supply chains and
retail networks are free of counterfeit or pirated goods. In addition,
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintains a trademark recordation
system for marks registered at the USPTO to assist the CBP in its
efforts to prevent the importation of goods that infringe registered
marks. The USPTO has begun mailing notices to new trademark registrants
directing them to the services that CBP offers, and has established a
website link on the USPTO homepage which contains the CBP form for
recordation.
Public Awareness Campaign.--While counterfeiting and piracy pose a
serious threat to all American businesses, small businesses are
particularly at risk since they often lack the knowledge and expertise
to effectively combat them. Because small businesses typically do not
have personnel or maintain large operations in other countries, theft
of their intellectual property overseas can go undetected. As part of
the STOP! initiative, the USPTO has launched an intensive national
public awareness campaign to help educate small businesses on
protecting their intellectual property both here and abroad.
The USPTO began a conference series targeting small- and medium-
sized businesses where participants learn what intellectual property
rights are, why they are important, and how to protect and enforce
these rights. Several workshops have been conducted throughout the
country and the USPTO will continue to hold small-business outreach
seminars to give American businesses face-to-face contact with
intellectual property experts. This effort is expected to reach
hundreds of American entrepreneurs in fiscal year 2006.
The USPTO has also participated in a China road show in several
U.S. cities for companies ranging from small businesses contemplating
entering the China market to large corporations with established
presence in China. Topics have included a review of recent laws and
regulations promulgated by the Chinese government that affect
protection and enforcement of intellectual property, what the U.S.
Government is doing to improve intellectual property protection and
enforcement in China, how to best protect business assets to avoid
intellectual property problems, how to recognize product infringement,
and steps to take if infringement occurs.
Posting of IP Experts.--In partnership with the Department of
Commerce's U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service and the Department of
State, the USPTO is working to post additional IP experts in selected,
high-profile countries where U.S. IP challenges are greatest. These
countries include China, Brazil, India, Thailand, Russia and Egypt. The
experts will advocate U.S. IP policy and interests, conduct training on
IP rights matters, assist U.S. businesses and otherwise support the
Embassy or Consulate action plan on IP rights.
Global Intellectual Property Academy.--In the fall of 2005, USPTO
created the Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), which
consolidates and greatly expands USPTO's curriculum of training and
capacity building programs on intellectual property rights protection
and enforcement. Through the GIPA, USPTO will bring foreign government
officials including judges, prosecutors, police, Customs officers,
patent, trademark and copyright officials and policy makers to the
United States to learn, discuss and strategize about global IPR
protection and enforcement. In fiscal year 2006, the USPTO expects this
effort to reach several hundred foreign IPR officials. GIPA programs
cover the gamut of patent, trademark, copyright and IPR enforcement
issues facing the global economy, and are offered by USPTO acting in
close cooperation with other U.S. federal government agencies.
Training, Workshop and Seminar Events.--Various completed and
planned training, workshops, seminars and other IP-related events are
ongoing.
NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
(NPOESS)
Question. In your opening statement, you say that your Department's
goal will be to ``ensure the best possible approach for meeting the
Nation's civilian and military meteorological needs and protecting the
taxpayer.'' What exactly are the options being considered within NOAA
in response to the increased cost and schedule delays for NPOESS?
Answer. In addition to the program of record, a range of options
were considered in the Nunn-McCurdy certification process. The options
(over 40 were considered) are best characterized as: reducing the
number of satellites on orbit; changing the capabilities of the
instruments on the satellite; and delaying launch dates. After five
months of careful and extensive deliberations, the Tri-Agency group
participating in the Nunn-McCurdy certification process chose an option
that reduces the number of orbits from three to two; continues
cooperation with the European Organisation for the Exploitation of
Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) for the mid-morning orbit;
minimizes any potential gaps in coverage; and reduces requirements for
the Conical-scanning Microwave Imager/Sounder (CMIS) resulting in a
recompete of a less complex system. The cost to procure several
secondary sensors is not included in the certified program; however,
the program will plan for and fund the integration of these sensors on
the spacecraft. Further, any additional funding gained through contract
renegotiation or in unutilized management reserve would be used to
procure these secondary sensors.
Question. Would NOAA be better off going it alone on the NPOESS
program, rather than continuing the partnership with the U.S. Air Force
and NASA? What would be the cost for NOAA to take on a satellite
program of this magnitude on its own?
Answer. As a precaution during the Nunn-McCurdy certification
process, NOAA (with the assistance of NASA) looked at the ways to
maintain continuity of polar satellite data other than the converged
NPOESS program. Any scenario where NOAA would go it alone would be
costly and yield less capability than the partnership program. The
restructured program maintains the Tri-Agency partnership of the
original program. NOAA continues to support the Tri-Agency program and
benefits by the 50:50 funding partnership between the Air Force and
NOAA.
Question. How are we addressing potential gaps in satellite
coverage given the delays that have already been experienced, and the
possibility of even more delays due to the Nunn-McCurdy process?
Answer. The number one priority in all of the Nunn-McCurdy
certification analysis and deliberations was to avoid a gap in
operational data delivery. The restructured program provides high
confidence that no gap will exist. A 90 percent confidence level
schedule for avoiding an operational data gap has been laid out for the
restructured program. Before the launch of the first NPOESS, NOAA seeks
to delay the launch of its last polar satellite, NOAA N Prime; rely on
the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP); and through a partnership with
EUMETSAT, will receive data from METOP. An updated NPOESS satellite
schedule is attached.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
U.S. OCEAN ACTION PLAN
Question. Why is the gap so consistently great between the
administration's annual requests to support our oceans with that of the
true needs of our ocean community?
Answer. NOAA has a diverse mission ranging from managing fisheries
to predicting the severe weather. The Administration's requests provide
a balanced set of priorities to sustain core mission services and
address our highest priority program needs. However, even with a
restrained fiscal environment, the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
includes over $184.9 million in increases for ocean and coastal needs.
NOAA will continue to work within the Administration and with
Congress to ensure the ocean community's highest needs are addressed.
Question. In what way does the fiscal year 2007 budget request
provide sufficient funding to address NOAA's responsibilities in
relation to the Joint Ocean Commission's Reports, or does the current
request follow the same trend as 2005 and 2006 as identified by the
recent report?
Answer. Both the fiscal year 2007 President's budget and NOAA's
activities support the President's U.S. Ocean Action Plan, which
responded to the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy. NOAA has requested $1.7 billion in ocean and coastal related
programs and activities in the fiscal year 2007 President's budget
request in support of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan (OAP); this is an
increase of $184.9 million over the fiscal year 2007 base. The OAP
reflects the Administration's focus on achieving meaningful results--
making our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more
productive. The Plan itself is a budget-neutral document, and does not
commit any new investments to fulfilling its objectives.
Question. What progress has NOAA made in addressing the
recommendations put forward by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,
specifically the Report Card's low marks for ``International
Leadership'' and ``Research, Science and Education?''
Answer. As you know, the Administration responded to the
Commission's report with the U.S. Ocean Action Plan. The OAP reflects
the Administration's focus on achieving meaningful results--making our
oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes cleaner, healthier, and more
productive. It recognizes the challenges in developing management
strategies that ensure continued conservation of coastal and marine
habitats and living resources while at the same time ensuring that the
American public enjoys and benefits from those same resources.
Not all of our work towards implementing the OAP is budgetary in
nature. A key achievement has been to address the Ocean Commission's
call to improve coordination of Federal agencies with ocean-related
missions through the creation of the interagency Committee on Ocean
Policy and its subsidiary groups. NOAA is lead or co-lead, for roughly
half the assigned items from the President's plan, and has made
significant strides on several OAP actions:
--The NOAA Organic Act establishing NOAA within the Department of
Commerce was transmitted to Congress in April 2005.
--Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
reauthorization and legislation to establish a national
offshore aquaculture program was introduced.
--An Administration bill for the reauthorization of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act was submitted in June 2005.
--NOAA is playing a key role in the Gulf of Mexico Alliance and the
planning for the formation of a Northeast Regional Oceans
Council.
--NOAA Fleet: NOAA received $34 million in fiscal year 2005 to build
the third Fisheries Survey Vessel, which is expected to be
delivered in late 2007. NOAA also exercised an option for about
$30 million to build the fourth planned vessel under an
existing contract. Construction will begin in 2006 with
delivery planned during the second half of 2008.
Many of the remaining action items--including improving
International Leadership and Research, Science and Education--are long-
term projects which are more about changing the way the world manages
our ocean resources:
--Ocean Education.--The Ocean Hall exhibition--developed in concert
with NOAA--has opened at the Smithsonian, and is slated to be
open for 30 years, with a web portal that provides virtual
access to the museum's marine collections.
--Regional Partnership in the Gulf of Mexico.--The Gulf Governors'
Action Plan has been developed by the five Gulf States as part
of the Gulf of Mexico Partnership. The Action Plan was unveiled
on March 28, 2006, at the State of the Gulf Summit in Corpus
Christi, Texas.
--Partnership Creation.--State Department funding of $320,000 for a
White Water to Blue Water Initiative small grants program will
allow ongoing partnerships to continue and new partnerships to
be developed among international and multi-sectoral partners
which will promote integrated watershed and marine ecosystem-
based management.
--Link the Global Marine Assessment (GMA) and Global Earth
Observation System of Systems.--Through international
cooperation, the GEOSS will collect and disperse data
information from terrestrial, atmospheric, climate, and ocean
observations. The GMA, under development since the World Summit
on Sustainable Development, will seek to establish a regular,
comprehensive process of reporting and assessment of the state
of the global marine environment.
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS
Question. What can Congress do to fully fund the needs of the
agency, including those activities that have been eliminated or under-
funded by the administration, in a manner that would not cause the
administration to view those activities as Congressional ``add-ons?''
Answer. The first priority is to fully fund the fiscal year 2007
President's budget request. The request level of $3,684 million
contains modest investments in core programs and ocean-related
activities. The President's budget is focused on meeting National needs
for NOAA services. In many cases, the Congressional ``earmarks'' and
``add-ons'' address a single purpose in a defined geographic area.
While some have merit and support NOAA's mission, the fiscal year 2007
request focused on the highest priority programs to meet National
needs.
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Question. Within the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses
account, there is a $3.6 million increase for E-Government Initiatives.
Is this funding level for the E-Government Initiatives of the
Department of Commerce only? Are any of these funds a ``tax'' to be
paid to the Office of Management and Budget?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has included a funding request
for e-government initiatives and lines of business (LoB) for fiscal
year 2007. The breakdown is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Initiative/LoB Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA E-Rulemaking $855,000
DOC/ITA International Trade Process Streamlining 740,000
SBA Business Gateway 329,000
HHS Grants.gov 521,000
GSA Integrated Acquisition 174,000
GSA E-Authentication 749,000
GSA Financial Management LoB 83,000
OPM Human Resources LoB 130,000
HHS Grants Management LoB 60,000
--------------
Total Commerce 3,641,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
These funds represent the total Commerce funding contribution to
the managing partner agencies, which develop the initiatives and lines
of business. Funding amounts are based on initiative and line of
business costs and were jointly determined by the managing partner
agency and the agencies making use of the services provided by the
initiative and lines of business. The funds are used by the managing
partner agencies to support operations and implementation of the
initiatives and lines of business. As a user of services provided by
these initiatives and lines of business, Commerce benefits through
economies of scale, avoidance of duplication of effort, and improved
services to its citizen constituents.
These funds will be sent through memoranda of understanding to the
managing partner agencies. The Office of Management and Budget does not
receive any of the Commerce funds.
Question. The fiscal year 2007 budget request includes $18 million
for the renovation and modernization of the Herbert C. Hoover Building,
headquarters for the Department of Commerce. The Committee notes that
funding was requested in fiscal year 2006, but not appropriated. What
would this level of funding provide?
Answer. This funding level would allow DOC to fund its share of
costs related to the first phase of construction (primarily build out
and furnishing of a consolidated data center and internal swing space);
fund the fiscal year 2007 portion of the DOC share of costs for the GSA
Lease Prospectus approved by Congress (moving one-third of the HCHB
employees to leased swing space, providing unoccupied areas for
renovation of one-third of the HCHB at a time); and to fund a Project
Management Office (PMO) that will manage DOC responsibilities
throughout the life of the renovation. The fiscal year 2007 funding
request consists of three major components listed below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build-out and furnish the courtyard 6 space............. $5,900,000
Lease space costs....................................... 10,400,000
Contract support for PMO................................ 1,700,000
---------------
TOTAL............................................. 18,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. How many years of follow-on funding would be needed to
complete the renovation of the Herbert C. Hoover Building?
Answer. The renovation project is expected to continue through
2017.
Question. Within the Departmental Management Salaries and Expenses
account, there is a $5.9 million increase for blast mitigation windows
for the Herbert C. Hoover Building. Is this the total funding level
necessary, or will there be an additional request in fiscal year 2008?
How many years of funding and at what level may we expect to see in
this account?
Answer. Approximately one-third of the facility will be protected
with the start-up funding requested in fiscal year 2007. Additional
funding requirements and timing of installation of additional windows
will need to be determined in the context of the overall Hoover
Building renovation.
Question. Why are blast mitigation windows necessary for the
Department, when other D.C. offices--even the U.S. Capitol--use more
cost effective alternatives?
Answer. Blast mitigation windows are required to protect the lives
of our employees and other occupants. It is the most cost-effective
protection for this unique facility. All other Federal buildings in the
Federal Triangle area have upgraded windows.
The HCHB requires this level of countermeasure to mitigate the risk
to our employees. Vulnerability factors include:
--Location immediately adjacent to two intersection HAZMAT routes
(14th Street and Constitution Avenue) and nearby rail line that
transports HAZMAT cargo.
--No available standoff, dedicated police officers or permanent/
temporary street closures (available at U.S. Capitol).
--Proximity to known terrorism targets.
Independent studies on the HCHB by GSA and the Federal Protective
Service (now DHS) recognized the vulnerability to hazardous window
failure and documented the requirement for blast windows to provide
cost-effective security.
--Federal Protective Service (now DHS): Security Survey/Risk
Assessment Report, 2001. ``Window protection is inadequate.''
--GSA: Window Blast Hazard Mitigation Study, 2003. The HCHB ``is
vulnerable to hazardous window failure . . . windows,
therefore, require an upgrade.''
--GSA: Modification of HCHB HVAC to Obtain Positive Building
Pressurization and Air Filtration, 2003. ``Existing windows are
in `poor condition' and need to be replaced to improve the
pressurization that will mitigate chemical, biological, and
radiological contaminants.''
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Question. You have stated that EDA can operate within the
parameters of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request and
maintain a six office regional footprint. What impact, if any, will
there be, on service delivery, operations and human resource levels by
maintaining six offices with this level of resources for this number of
offices?
Answer. EDA is committed to honoring congressional intent by
maintaining a six-office regional footprint while at the same time
supporting the President's budget request. EDA will do this by
dedicating available resources to essential activities such as proposal
review and approval, grant award, grant administration and required
reporting, achieving efficiencies and process improvements throughout
its operations. EDA will ensure adequate funding of these essential
services through reductions to non-essential and lower priority
activities. This could include reductions to one-on-one customer
assistance before and during the application process, process
automation, training, post-award customer support and oversight. As a
last resort, EDA may be required to consider staff reductions.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Shelby. For the information of Senators and others,
this subcommittee's next hearing is scheduled for June 7 in the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 192 at 10 a.m. on overview
of the 2006 hurrance season.
Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 3:09 p.m., Wednesday, May 3, 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 2007
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
relate to the fiscal year 2007 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Association of Marine Laboratories I am pleased to submit this
statement in strong support of the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative, as well as the research and education programs under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction that are vitally important for a vibrant
oceans, coastal, and Great Lakes research and education enterprise. My
name is Tony Michaels and I am the director of the Wrigley Institute
for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California. I
am submitting this statement as the President of National Association
of Marine Laboratories (NAML).
NAML is a nonprofit organization of over 120 member institutions
employing more than 10,000 scientists, engineers, and professionals and
representing ocean, coastal and Great Lakes laboratories stretching
from Maine to the Gulf of Mexico to the west coast, from Guam to
Bermuda and from Alaska to Puerto Rico. NAML labs support the conduct
of high quality ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research and education
in the natural and social sciences and the effective use of that
science for decision-making on the important issues that face our
country. Through national and regional networks, NAML labs--
--Promote and support basic and applied research of the highest
quality from the unique perspective of coastal laboratories;
--Assist local, regional and State entities with information related
to the use and conservation of marine and coastal resources
using ecosystem-based management approaches;
--Recognize, encourage and support the unique and significant role
that coastal laboratories play in workforce development,
enhancing science/ocean literacy, and in conducting education,
outreach, and public service programs for K-gray audiences; and
--Facilitate the exchange of information and relevant expertise
between NAML member institutions, government agencies, and the
private sector.
AMERICAN COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVE
NAML strongly supports the President's fiscal year 2007 American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) for research and education along with
the accompanying Presidential budget request which includes a doubling
of the Federal commitment to basic research programs in the physical
sciences over the next 10 years. NAML expressly supports the
President's fiscal year 2007 request of $6.02 billion for the NSF.
While not officially part of the President's ACI, NAML also urges
the subcommittee to recognize and support the vital research programs
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and calls
on the subcommittee to fund NOAA at a level of $4.5 billion which would
enable NOAA to carry out its multiple missions on behalf of the
American people.
OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES RESEARCH
NAML strongly supports enhanced support for cutting edge ocean,
coastal, and Great Lakes research in the natural and social sciences,
education, outreach, and related infrastructure. The marine sciences
have much to offer the Nation as it seeks to strengthen its ability to
innovate and compete in today's global economy. They are inherently
interdisciplinary, push the envelope in terms of technology
development, test the boundaries of our data collection and analysis
systems, and offer an effective training ground for future scientists
and engineers. As the Nation seeks to augment its investment in the
physical sciences to increase its international competitiveness, NAML
calls on policy makers to recognize the integrated nature of the marine
sciences and to support an enhanced investment in these as well as
other science and engineering disciplines as part of any long term
economic competitiveness policy.
NAML supports increased federal funding for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) consistent with the President's budget for fiscal year
2007. Basic research and the transfer and use of the knowledge
developed through research are vital for the long term economic
competitiveness and national security of this Nation. It is
increasingly important for the Nation to maintain--and enhance--its
scientific edge in a global community with emerging new capacities for
scientific research. NSF provides vital support for basic research and
education which enhances public understanding of the Nation's oceans,
coastal areas, and the Great Lakes. NSF also provides important support
for basic laboratory facilities, instrumentation, support systems,
computing and related cyberinfrastructure, and ship access. The final
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy makes several
recommendations on the need to develop and enhance ocean, coastal and
Great Lakes research infrastructure. That infrastructure includes
research vessels, ocean observing systems, and the shore-based
instrumentation and equipment needed to collect and analyze the data
and observations made by research vessels and the observing systems.
For that reason, NAML strongly supports the NSF proposal to initiate
support for the development of the Ocean Observatories Initiative in
the fiscal year 2007 budget request. NAML also urges the Congress to
provide $5 million for the expansion of the NSF's Field Stations and
Marine Laboratories program. This modest program provides researchers
with access to state of the art instrumentation for research and
education and necessary cyberinfrastructure and data management systems
that complement the Ocean Observatories Initiative.
NOAA is one of the premier science agencies in the Federal
Government, providing decision makers with important data, products and
services that promote and enhance the Nation's economy, security,
environment, and quality of life. It was NOAA--and its underlying
science enterprise--that enabled the delivery of accurate and timely
information regarding the impending landfall of Hurricane Katrina in
2005, a forecast that saved tens of thousands of lives.
The $4.5 billion recommended for NOAA would fully fund the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget request, restore funding for core
programs, and address all the areas of concern and priority that have
traditionally been supported by Congress. It would allow enhancements
in the development of an integrated ocean and atmospheric observing
system; increased research and education activities and expanded ocean
conservation and management programs; and provide critical improvements
in infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
facilities), and data management.
In August 2004, a congressionally requested study of NOAA's
research programs, entitled, Review of the Organization and Management
of Research in NOAA concluded that extramural research is critical to
accomplishing NOAA's mission. The access to such enhanced research
capacities provides NOAA with world class expertise not found in NOAA
laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct of global science;
means to leverage external funding sources; facilitation of 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 interaction and exchange of information and value.
NAML strongly supports a robust NOAA extramural research activity
and calls on the subcommittee to support the National Sea Grant
program, the National Undersea Research program, the Ocean Exploration
Initiative, as well as research related to aquaculture, invasive
species, harmful algal blooms and the various joint and cooperative
institutes at levels envisioned in last year's Senate version of the
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. These partnership programs
are not only consistent with the findings of the August 2004 review of
NOAA research, but are also consistent with the NOAA strategic plan and
enable NOAA to carry out its mission at the State and local level.
OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
A strong national ocean policy can only be sustained through the
development of high-quality coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes education
programs that support learning at all age levels and by all
disciplines. Through such efforts, NAML can highlight the relevance and
utility of coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources and demonstrate and
increase the value of incorporating science-based decisions in a public
policy process designed to protect and enhance these resources. For
that reason, NAML strongly supports the NSF Centers for Ocean Science
Education Excellence program (COSEE), NSF education and human resources
generally, and NOAA's Office of Education. Such programs provide a rich
environment within which partnerships flourish. A greater understanding
of the oceans and coastal ecosystems will instill a sense of
stewardship for these important environments. These programs also yield
a more diverse workforce that includes a significant participation by
underrepresented groups. Preparing these cultural bridges would allow
us to capitalize upon diverse national strengths, ensuring the flow of
intellectual talent into ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes-related
fields.
OCEAN COMMISSION AND INTERAGENCY RESPONSE
NAML strongly supports implementation of the recommendations from
the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the initial efforts of the
administration's Interagency Committee on Ocean Policy to develop a
response to the commission's recommendations. The commission's analysis
of policies governing oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes has resulted in a
collection of bold and broad-reaching recommendations for reform.
Implementation of these recommendations by the Federal Government will
enable the United States to maintain and strengthen its role as a world
leader in protecting and sustaining the planet's oceans, coasts, and
Great Lakes. NAML is particularly supportive of the commission's
recommendation to re-align NOAA's functions to support ecosystem-based
management approaches. In addition, we fully endorse the commission's
recommendations to double the federal investment in ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes research as well as its recommendation to promote a strong
federal investment in ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes education,
outreach, and stewardship. The commission's recommendations are
important first steps in addressing the Nation's ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes needs.
NAML is supportive of the initial steps taken by the administration
in response to the commission's report--including the creation of
Committee on Ocean Policy established in December 2004 by Executive
Order. NAML is committed to working with the interagency Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology and to commenting on the
forthcoming Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy.
INTEGRATED OCEAN, COASTAL AND GREAT LAKES OBSERVING SYSTEMS
Integrated observations offer critical information on coastal
processes necessary for addressing issues, such as the health of humans
and marine life, weather and climate nowcasts and forecasts, homeland
security, and resource management. Coastal and marine laboratories have
been addressing this need. However, funding for existing subsystems is
difficult to sustain, and significant additional funding is required to
implement the national integrated system. Although efforts have been
made in the past to coordinate federal agencies involved in ocean and
coastal research and national and international programs regarding
coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes observing systems, further investment
and strengthened cooperation at all levels is still needed to ensure
that these systems are sustained and that they incorporate the long-
term monitoring efforts of the Nation's coastal and marine
laboratories. NAML enthusiastically supports the development of a
sustained integrated ocean observing system to be managed by NOAA.
CONCLUSION
NAML recognizes the extraordinary fiscal constraints and difficult
choices the subcommittee must make. Nevertheless, the research and
education programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction are vital
investments in the future of this Nation and deserve the maximum
support possible. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these
recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) is a coalition of 22 independent scientific societies who
together represent more than 84,000 biomedical research scientists. The
mission of FASEB is to enhance the ability of biomedical and life
scientists to improve, through their research, the health, well-being
and productivity of all people. As your committee begins deliberations
on appropriations for agencies under its jurisdiction, FASEB would like
to offer its views on funding for the National Science Foundation
(NSF). FASEB recommends an appropriation of $6.4 billion for the
National Science Foundation in fiscal year 2007. This appropriation
should be the start of a long-term, steadily increasing national
investment in the agency, which was the goal of the NSF Doubling Act of
2002.
For more than 50 years, NSF has served as our Nation's premier
sponsor of fundamental research and science education. NSF invests in
talent, ideas, and tools that cross all boundaries of scientific
inquiry to produce new discoveries and technologies. These innovations
save lives, enhance our economic productivity, protect our country, and
increase our knowledge and understanding of the world.
As other countries make research and development (R&D) spending a
top priority, U.S. investment in basic research achieves heightened
importance for maintaining America's global competitiveness. According
to the recent National Academies' report, Rising Above The Gathering
Storm: Energizing and Employing America For A Brighter Future, the U.S.
risks falling behind other nations in its number of highly trained
scientists and engineers. In China, 57 percent of undergraduates
receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared to just 33
percent in the United States.\1\ A large fraction of the U.S. students
lack the fundamental knowledge necessary to succeed in these fields.
Less than one-third of U.S. 4th grade and 8th grade students performed
at or above a level of ``proficient'' in mathematics; proficiency was
considered the ability to exhibit competence with challenging subject
matter.\2\ In 2001, the Hart-Rudman Commission on American National
Security--a bipartisan panel set up to address the national security
challenges of the new century--stated, ``second only to a weapon of
mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of
nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science,
technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter
century.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data are from National Science Board. 2006 Science and
Engineering Indicators (NSB 06-02). Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c2/c2s4.htm. accessed
March 8, 2006.
\2\ National Center for Education Statistics, Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study, 2003. http://nces.edu.gov/
timss accessed November 16, 2005.
\3\ U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century.
Recommendations of Hart-Rudman National Security Report: R&D. FYI: The
AIP Bulletin of Science Policy News. FYI # 22: February 28, 2001.
www.aip.org/fyi/2001/022.html. accessed November 16, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSF receives less than 5 percent of the federal R&D budget but
takes a leading role in promoting progress in science and technology.
Each year, NSF awards grants to more than 200,000 scientists, teachers,
and student researchers for cutting-edge projects in science,
engineering, and mathematics at thousands of educational institutions
across the country. NSF educational programs develop the talent needed
to maintain our science and technology (S&T) leadership.
Through its core programs, NSF subsidizes the highest quality,
fundamental research in all major S&T fields. This broad approach makes
the agency unique among federal sponsors of research, enabling NSF to
play a critical role in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration,
stimulating the flow of ideas across scientific boundaries. The ability
of scientists to share insights and perspectives across disciplines has
produced impressive breakthroughs and solutions for perplexing
problems. For example, NSF-funded research at the intersection of
material science and medicine has developed a modified form of collagen
that could be used to block the formation of scar tissue, control the
growth of tiny blood vessels in tissues destined for transplant, and
even lead to better infection-fighting bandages.
Research funded by the National Science Foundation is providing
knowledge and information on a host of America's most vexing problems.
With breakthroughs in public safety and natural disaster mitigation,
alternative energy sources, and medicine, NSF support is leading the
way toward new discoveries that have significant economic and societal
benefits. Recent advances by NSF-funded scientists include:
The recent natural disasters are a stark reminder that much is
needed in the way of understanding how these unique phenomena happen
and what can be done to anticipate and respond to such occurrences.
Research funded by NSF is exploring ways to reduce the impacts of
catastrophic events.
--Epidemic containment.--An NSF-supported computer network
contributed to the containment of the SARS outbreak last year
by connecting quarantined doctors in Taiwan to a world-wide
network of medical researchers. This network has a potential
application in the event of a pandemic flu outbreak.
--New Orleans levee work.--NSF-funded engineers discovered that the
flooding of New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina was caused
not by water flowing over the top of the levees, but was the
result of faulty soil composition supporting the levee walls.
--Hurricane and fire forecasting.--Computer models, created via NSF
funding, have been used to predict the path and intensity of
both hurricanes and fires, providing valuable information to
reduce the loss of lives and property.
--Unmanned aircraft search and rescue.--Unmanned aircraft, developed
through NSF support, were used to search for survivors
immediately following Hurricane Katrina.
As our population grows and our dependence on oil and natural gas
increases, research into alternative fuels will help conserve energy,
reduce the need for petroleum, and provide environmentally sustainable
solutions to our energy needs. NSF research is working towards making
alternative fuel technology a reality.
--Ocean-powered buoys.--NSF has supported development of
electromagnetic buoys that efficiently collect the power of
ocean waves.
--Extended-life batteries.--Researchers have developed a porous
silicone chip that can be used in low-energy batteries to power
remote sensors for decades.
--Hydrogen leak sensor.--With the current emphasis on hydrogen fuel
cells as an energy source, these miniature sensors will be
crucial to prevent leaks of this combustible gas.
NSF is ideally positioned to sponsor new research efforts that
combine the best researchers from biology, chemistry, computer science,
economics, engineering, environmental sciences, geology, mathematics,
and physics to help alleviate human suffering and increase the health
of all Americans.
--New antibiotics.--By investigating exotic plant species in Central
America, investigators have identified what could be the next
generation of antibiotics, helping to slow the growing presence
of antibiotic-resistant infections.
--Heart valve testing.--As a way to test the effectiveness of
replacement heart valves, researchers supported by NSF have
determined that curdled milk best mimics the characteristics of
blood as it passes through the valve.
--Freeze-tolerant tissue.--NSF awards are being used to explore the
unique properties of animals such as frogs and fish, which
survive freezing temperatures, in an effort to preserve tissues
for transplantation over extended periods of time.
Nanotechnology is an innovation in which objects are designed and
built at the level of individual atoms or molecules. This new field is
revolutionizing everything from computers to health care and NSF is
leading the charge.
--Nanopowders.--Chemically manufactured nanopowders have been
designed to absorb toxic chemicals, including nerve gas and
acid spills, with rapid action to prevent hazardous situations.
--Bio-Nanotube.--Small chemical sensors have the potential to rapidly
monitor the bodily functions of patients, such as blood sugar
levels in diabetics or hormone levels after drug treatment,
without invasive procedures. They can also be used to deliver
drugs or genes to specific cellular targets.
--Nanowires.--Miniature-scale wires are able to traverse the blood
vessels of the brain to monitor and stimulate specific brain
regions, with potential use in Parkinson's and trauma patients.
One of the most important roles that NSF plays in support of the
Nation's S&T infrastructure is its major contribution to science
education. NSF helps create the next generation of scientists and
engineers through its active support of primary and secondary school
science curriculum development and graduate and postdoctoral student
training in all scientific disciplines. NSF funding is necessary to
ensure an adequately prepared workforce for addressing the challenges
of the 21st century. Through NSF, our Nation supports each stage in the
science education pipeline to encourage and retain the best and
brightest talents in S&T.
--Science mentoring for young women.--Researchers have determined
that pairing high school girls interested in science with
elementary school girls encourages both groups to pursue a
science education.
--Engaging young scientists.--Through NSF-funded training grants in
science and math, researchers in North Carolina have developed
new activity-based curriculums to encourage young students to
pursue science and math careers.
NSF supports nearly 50 percent of the non-medical basic research at
U.S. colleges and universities. It funds research in new frontiers of
scientific inquiry and contributes to creating a highly skilled,
competitive science and engineering workforce. In addition, NSF
programs have been cited by the Office of Management and Budget and the
Government Accountability Office for their creativity, efficiency and
innovativeness. Despite this record of accomplishment, NSF funding has
lagged, resulting in a steady reduction in the percentage of quality
applications that receive funding, a failure to increase the size of
NSF awards to support the increased costs of research, and the loss of
training support for the next generation of scientists and engineers.
Congress recognized this agency's critical importance when it
authorized the doubling of the NSF's budget by 2007.\4\ To date,
however, Congress and the administration have failed to fulfill the
vision of this legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ National Science Foundation Act of 2002. P.L. No. 107-368.
December 19, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are going to continue leading the world in innovation and
prepare for the future, NSF is crucial to this goal. As NSF Director
Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., has said, ``America's sustained economic
prosperity is based on technological innovation made possible, in large
part, by fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation and
technology are the engines of the American economy, and advances in
science and engineering provide the fuel.'' \5\ Without a greater
commitment to NSF, our country faces the grave possibility of losing
its global dominance in science and technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Dr. Arden Bement Jr. Testimony before the United States Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies.
February 17, 2005, available online at: http://
appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/record.cfm?id=232167, accessed on
November 1, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush recognized the importance of research funded by the
National Science Foundation when he unveiled his American
Competitiveness Initiative last month. The President has said
``Groundbreaking ideas generated by innovative minds have paid enormous
dividends--improving the lives and livelihoods of generations of
Americans. With more research in both the public and private sectors,
we will improve our quality of life--and ensure that America will lead
the world in opportunity and innovation for decades to come.'' We urge
you appropriate $6.4 billion for the National Science Foundation in
fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association
SEA GRANT FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Jonathan Kramer,
President of the Sea Grant Association and Director of the Maryland Sea
Grant program. The Sea Grant Association (SGA) is a non-profit
organization dedicated to furthering the Sea Grant program concept. The
SGA's regular members are the academic institutions that participate in
the National Sea Grant College program. SGA provides the mechanism for
these institutions to coordinate their activities, to set program
priorities at both the regional and national level, and to provide a
unified voice for these institutions on issues of importance to the
oceans and coasts. The SGA advocates for greater understanding, use,
and conservation of marine, coastal and Great Lakes resources.
The SGA joins with many other NOAA stakeholders to urge the
subcommittee to recognize and support the vital research and outreach
programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
SGA requests the subcommittee to fund NOAA at a level of $4.5 billion
in fiscal year 2007 which would enable the agency to carry out its
mission: To understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment
and conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our
Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs.
As part of the overall fiscal year 2007 NOAA appropriation, the SGA
requests the subcommittee to appropriate $72 million for the National
Sea Grant College program. This amount is well within the $100.5
million level authorized in Public Law 107-299, National Sea Grant
College Program Act Amendments of 2002 for fiscal year 2007. Further,
this recommended amount is the same as the amount provided in last
year's Senate passed Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
Appropriating this request would reverse the significant reduction
taken by the program in fiscal year 2006 and more importantly, would
allow the Sea Grant program to provide the research support,
information, education, and outreach needed to assist NOAA in carrying
out its mission throughout the United States.
SEA GRANT--SCIENCE SERVING THE NATION'S COASTS
Sea Grant is an investment in America's economic future. Attempts
to balance our booming coastal economy with its associated impacts on
the coastal and marine environment have raised the stakes for effective
government action. America's coastal and ocean resources encompass an
immense area with more than 95,000 miles of coastline and more than 3.4
million square miles of ocean within the U.S. territorial sea. Over
half the Nation's 280 million people live in coastal counties that
comprise less than one-fifth of the total land area of the United
States. The economy of these coastal counties is critical to the
economic well being of the entire Nation, providing a wide array of
goods and services that account for at least 50 percent of the gross
national product of the United States. By 2010, U.S. foreign trade in
goods is expected to double to $5 trillion, with ocean-going cargo
increasing by 30 percent. Coastal tourism and recreation account for 85
percent of all U.S. tourism revenues. The oceans, in one way or
another, account for one out of every six jobs. Tax revenues in coastal
areas are among the fastest growing revenue sources for State and local
governments. In fact, the collective economic impact of the coastal
economy far exceeds U.S. agriculture, and yet federal investments in
Sea Grant colleges and universities are much smaller than investments
in the Land Grant college and university system funded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for agriculture and land-based natural
resource activities, the program on which Sea Grant was modeled.
Research supported by Sea Grant is based on competition, undergoes
rigorous peer-review, and is geared to address the many marine and
coastal challenges and opportunities that face our citizens. The
federal investment in Sea Grant enables a nationally coordinated
network embedded in the best research universities to apply
unparalleled intellectual capital to address these problems and
opportunities. Cost-effectiveness is enhanced by access to university
management infrastructure.
Sea Grant serves the Nation in many ways. Sea Grant's unmatched
access to local constituencies through its extension and outreach
programs ensures that federal investment is targeted at relevant issues
for the benefit of NOAA and other Federal agencies, State and local
governments, coastal environmental managers, local fishermen, other
marine resource users, and the general public. This contact also
provides an important conduit for recommendations back to Sea Grant and
NOAA for needed research and improved policies and services. Sea
Grant's non-regulatory and science-based focus has established the
program as an honest broker among a wide range of constituencies. In
addition, marine education programs supported by federal funds reach
from kindergarten to marine-related business people to elder hostels.
The matched federal investment also fills the enormous demand for
expertise to tackle rapid growth, change, and pressure on coastal
resources.
Sea Grant is a national program addressing national needs. It is a
partnership of and depends on partnerships among government, academia,
business, industry, scientists, and private citizens to help Americans
understand and wisely use our precious coastal waters and Great Lakes
for enjoyment and long-term economic growth. This network unites 30
State Sea Grant programs, over 300 universities, and millions of
people. Sea Grant is an agent for scientific discovery, technology
transfer, economic growth, resource conservation, and public education.
Study after study has shown that Sea Grant returns to the taxpayers
many times its annual budget in goods and services. It is government as
our citizens want it--visible, tangible, relevant, efficient, and
effective.
SEA GRANT--INITIATIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007
When adequately funded, Sea Grant can serve as the gateway to
relevant and reliable scientific information used to address local,
regional and Statewide resource management issues. Funding Sea Grant at
the requested level will enable it to strategically invest in research
and outreach programs targeted at important practical problems facing
the Nation and address those problems with science-based solutions. Two
initiatives for fiscal year 2007 demonstrate this objective.
Building Resilient Coastal Communities.--Coastal areas of the
United States comprise only 10 percent of our Nation's land mass, yet
they are home to more than 54 percent of Americans. As witnessed by the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, coastal communities
and the natural resources and infrastructure on which they depend are
at increasing risk from hurricanes, tsunamis, coastal storms, shoreline
change, and sea level rise. Sea Grant research and outreach provide
coastal communities with the best available science-based information
for sustainable community decision-making, coupled with the knowledge,
experience and tools needed to bring diverse coastal interests
together. The knowledge, programs and approaches developed by Sea Grant
in one State or region can be applied broadly throughout the national
network. The Sea Grant network will expand its efforts to improve
coastal community leadership and planning capacities to jointly address
economic, environmental and social issues. Our aim is to encourage and
equip coastal communities to utilize long-term, integrated approaches
to developing sustainable communities. This initiative would engage the
research, education and outreach capabilities of Sea Grant's
universities and partners to enhance mitigation, preparedness,
planning, education, response, and recovery in coastal communities
throughout the Nation.
Ensuring Safe and Sustainable Seafood for Americans.--The U.S.
seafood industry faces many challenges and opportunities as it enters
the 21st century. These include an increasingly competitive global
marketplace, complex trade policies, stricter safety regulations,
rising energy costs, food security concerns and an increasingly limited
seafood supply. Change also brings new opportunities to expand markets,
form strategic alliances and encourage innovations to lower production
costs, create new products, add value to existing ones, increase safety
and reduce waste. In this new seafood era, science and education are
cornerstones for maintaining the vitality of the Nation's $27 billion
seafood industry ($55 billion including consumer expenditures) and its
250,000-member workforce. To remain competitive, the industry must
control the costs of catching, transporting, processing, storing, and
distributing seafood. The U.S. seafood industry recognizes the benefits
of innovation, but it is comprised of mostly small and medium-sized,
independent enterprises that simply cannot afford research and
development programs. Through its unique capabilities in research and
technology transfer, the national Sea Grant network is poised to help
the industry increase quality and safety, add value, lower costs and
expand seafood supplies and markets.
SEA GRANT--SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Aquaculture.--Sea Grant research and extension results have created
the growth and development of fish farming in the United States. As a
result, the growing of hybrid striped bass in ponds has expanded in
just 10 years from a small demonstration project to an industry that
produces 10 million pounds of fish valued at $25 million annually. Sea
Grant also developed a sterile oyster that can be grown year-round and
that now comprises one-third of the $86 million U.S. oyster market.
Coastal Hazards.--Based on Sea Grant recommendations, in 1986 the
State of North Carolina implemented revisions in the State's hurricane
resistant building code which increased the required minimum depth of
foundation pilings for erosion prone coastal buildings. In 1996,
Hurricane Fran was the first test of those standards. As a result, on
Topsail Island, 200 of the 205 newer oceanfront houses built to the
``Sea Grant'' standards survived the hurricane with minimal foundation
damage. In comparison, over 500 older oceanfront houses were destroyed
in the same area.
Coastal Communities and Economies.--Much of the 32-mile river front
along the Detroit River is bulkheaded and in disrepair thus requiring
major revitalization investment. ``Soft'' engineering offered
developers cost, maintenance and environmental advantages over
traditional hard structures and promoting these advantages was
necessary to meet river front renewal goals. Sea Grant has been
extensively involved in this effort and chairs the Steering Committee
for the Greater Detroit American Rivers Heritage initiative. As a
result, Sea Grant sponsored conferences and workshops and published
best management practice manuals which led General Motors to utilize
less expensive ``soft'' engineering techniques in the development of
its multi-million dollar, 32 mile long urban river promenade in the
heart of Detroit, thus providing substantial savings to the project
while simultaneously helping the environment.
Fisheries.--Sea Grant research has shown that visually modifying
salmon gillnets and adjusting fishing schedules can reduce
entanglements of seabirds. As a result, these findings, coupled with an
observer program coordinated by Sea Grant, prevented the closure of the
Puget Sound sockeye salmon fishery, saving hundreds of jobs and
millions of dollars in the region's economy.
Ocean/Coastal Technology and Marine Biotechnology.--Sea Grant
organized the first systematic research effort in the United States to
develop new drugs from marine organisms. As a result, Sea Grant
researchers have discovered and described more than 1,000 compounds
that may be vitally important as new anticancer, anti-inflammatory, and
antibiotic agents.
Seafood Science and Safety.--To aid the seafood industry in meeting
educational and training needs called for by new FDA regulations, Sea
Grant spearheaded the formation of the ``Seafood HACCP Alliance,'' an
intergovernmental agency partnership with industry and academia. As a
result, the Alliance's programs reached over 5,000 U.S. processing
plants, and 6,000 importers and international suppliers with training
on new seafood handling and processing techniques. In addition, it has
been estimated that the program has prevented 20,000 to 60,000 seafood-
related illnesses a year, thereby saving as much as $115 million
annually.
The SGA recognizes the subcommittee is facing an extremely
constrained funding environment and must make difficult choices among
many competing priorities. We urge you to consider Sea Grant has an
investment in the future health and well being of our coastal
communities and to support the program in line with this request.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Funds
Actual Start Date Received Amount Match Award No. Grantor Project Sub-Subtype
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01/01/03............................ 2003................ $706,474 $282,308 NA03OAR4170020............... .................... Ballast Water Demonstration
01/01/03............................ 2004................ 344,006 .............. NA96RG0501................... .................... CERP
02/01/03............................ 2003................ 38,000 .............. NA03OAR4170022............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/03............................ 2003................ 38,000 .............. NA03OAR4170024............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/03............................ 2003................ 2,621,762 1,469,954 NA16RG2207................... NOAA................ OMNIBUS
06/01/03............................ 2003................ 31,667 6,333 NA17RG1375................... NOAA................ NMFS FELLOWSHIP
--------------------------------
Total........................... .................... 3,779,909 .............. ............................. .................... ...............................................
================================
10/01/03............................ 2004................ 70,774 .............. NSF-Seagrant-1............... USM/NSF............. Vertically Integrated Partnership K-12
02/01/04............................ 2005................ 38,000 .............. NA04OAR4170008............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/04............................ 2005................ 38,000 .............. NA04OAR4170009............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/04............................ 2004................ 38,000 .............. NA04OAR4170010............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/04............................ 2004................ 2,616,108 1,439,890 NA16RG2207................... NOAA................ OMNIBUS
05/01/04............................ 2003................ 94,130 31,748 NA03NMF4570228............... NOAA................ Chesapeake Research Fellowship
09/01/04............................ 2005................ 378,300 .............. NA04OAR4170152............... NOAA................ Ballast Water Demonstration
--------------------------------
Total........................... .................... 3,273,312 .............. ............................. .................... ...............................................
================================
10/01/04............................ 2005................ 74,313 .............. NSF-Seagrant-1............... USM/NSF............. Vertically Integrated Partnership K-12
02/01/05............................ 2005................ 40,000 20,000 NA05OAR4171035............... NOAA................ Knauss
02/01/05............................ 2006................ 1,412,265 892,902 NA05OAR4171042............... NOAA................ OMNIBUS
03/25/05............................ 2003................ 10,000 .............. NA16RG2207................... NOAA................ OMNIBUS
05/01/05............................ 2005................ 108,000 28,252 NA03NMF4570228............... NOAA................ Chesapeake Research Fellowship
06/01/05............................ 2006................ 15,678 7,839 NA05OAR4171042............... NOAA................ Fisheries
06/01/05............................ 2006................ 107,472 56,468 NA05OAR4171071............... NOAA................ AISR
06/01/05............................ 2006................ 146,247 73,123 NA05OAR4171107............... NOAA................ AISR
--------------------------------
Total........................... .................... 1,929,653 .............. ............................. .................... ...............................................
================================
02/01/06............................ 2006................ 1,407,800 942,098 NA05OAR4171042............... NOAA................ OMNIBUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation for the
National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest single life
science organization with more than 43,000 members. The ASM mission is
to enhance the science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding
of life processes, and to promote the application of this knowledge for
improved health and for economic and environmental well-being.
The NSF plays a critical role in ensuring the health of the
Nation's research and education system, the principal source of new
ideas and human resources in science and engineering. The NSF is the
funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported
basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. The NSF's
broad support to U.S. academic institutions provides not only a key
source of funds for basic discoveries across disciplinary fields, but
also prepares students for the science and engineering workforce. The
NSF is the primary federal agency charged with promoting science and
engineering education at all levels and in all settings, from pre-
kindergarten through career development. This educational effort helps
to ensure that the United States has world-class scientists,
mathematicians, and engineers.
The ASM strongly supports the administration's request of $6.02
billion in fiscal year 2007 for the NSF, an increase of 7.9 percent
over fiscal year 2006. The NSF is one of the three key agencies in the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which plans to
double investment over a 10-year period in key federal agencies that
support basic research programs emphasizing physical sciences and
engineering. The NSF funding request of $6.02 billion is expected to
support about 500 more research grants in 2007 and an estimated 6,400
additional scientists, students, and postdoctoral fellows.
The ASM would like to provide the following comments and
recommendations on specific programs of interest and concern within the
NSF budget.
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE
The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) provides critical
support for a broad array of biological sciences, particularly in areas
such as environmental biology and plant sciences. BIO provides 66
percent of all federal support for non-medical biological research at
academic institutions. Research programs range from the study of the
structure and dynamics of biological molecules, such as proteins and
nucleic acids, through cells, organs, and intact organisms to studies
of populations and ecosystems. It encompasses processes that are
internal to particular organisms as well as those that are external,
and includes temporal frameworks ranging from immediate measurements
through life spans of mere minutes for some microorganisms to the full
scope of evolutionary time.
Basic research in the biosciences is key to understanding the
living world from molecules to organisms to ecosystems, providing
discoveries applicable to meeting health, environmental, agricultural,
and energy needs. The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the BIO
directorate is $607.9 million, an increase of $31.6 million, or 5.4
percent, over the fiscal year 2006 level. This increase will allow BIO
to award about 95 more research grants in fiscal year 2007 with an
estimated funding rate of approximately 18 percent.
BIO MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOSCIENCES: MICROBIAL BIOLOGY RESEARCH
The Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) Division within the
Biological Sciences Directorate of the NSF includes research activities
in microbiology that were transferred to the Emerging Frontiers
subactivity for a new emphasis in Microbial Biology in fiscal year
2006. The Microbial Observatories/Microbial Interactions and Processes
program (MO/MIP) has been returned to MCB for fiscal year 2007. The ASM
has received unsolicited comments about the transfer of the MO/MIP and
its budgetary consequences from more than 100 individuals representing
more than 40 institutions. The ASM would like to express its strong
support for the MO/MIP program, and recommends Congress fund the
program at $10 million, to allow for important research initiatives.
The MO/MIP was recently housed in Emerging Frontiers in recognition
of the need for a distinct emphasis on microbial biology research that
cannot be supported adequately in other programs. Transfer of the MO/
MIP from Emerging Frontiers to the Division of Molecular and Cellular
Biosciences (MCB) raises questions about the NSF's intentions regarding
the future of this program.
The ASM is concerned about the MO/MIP, since the pace of astounding
discoveries in microbial biology has been increasing through
applications of genomics and metagenomics. The MO/MIP program has been
exemplary in achieving its goals. It supports research, training and
outreach that are helping to define the future of microbiology and
interdisciplinary efforts involving microbes. The MO/MIP is thriving
and deserves expanded support and long-term commitments from NSF. Such
commitments should be reflected in the 7.9 percent increase in the
NSF's budget request to Congress, which includes a 5.4 percent increase
for the Biological Sciences Directorate.
BIO EMERGING FRONTIERS PROGRAMS
The budget request for the Emerging Frontiers (EF) subactivity for
fiscal year 2007 is for $99.16 million, an increase of about 23 percent
over fiscal year 2006. This increase is partly the result of the
transfer of support for all BIO centers for centralization at the EF,
including the two current centers, and two new centers expected to
start in fiscal year 2007. With the proposed transfer of the MO/MIP
program to the MCB, just two microbial related programs are left within
the EF, the Microbial Genome Sequencing Program and Ecology of
Infectious Diseases.
The Microbial Genome Sequencing program is to be conducted jointly
with a competitive grants program in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, while the Ecology of Infectious Diseases is an interagency
partnership with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to support the
development of predictive models and discovery of principles for
relationships between environmental factors and transmission of
infectious agents. Potential benefits include the development of
disease transmission models, understanding the unintended health
effects of environmental change, and improved prediction of disease
outbreaks, including the emergence or reemergence of disease agents.
Examples of environmental factors include habitat transformation,
biological invasion, biodiversity loss, and contamination. The ASM is
concerned that these programs are being transferred out of an EF
priority area and have level funding proposed for fiscal year 2007.
BIO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY
The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) priorities for fiscal
year 2007 are represented by four clusters focused on studies to
accelerate the rate of discovery of new species, address the
genealogical relationships of plants, animals, fungi, and microbes;
illuminate the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions;
discover the principles or rules by which species are assembled into
functional communities and change through time; and determine the flux
of energy and materials through ecosystems. The core research within
the DEB will increase by $6.32 million due to the transfer of
responsibility for funding the National Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis to Emerging Frontiers.
The DEB also supports the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
program, a network of 26 comprehensive research sites located in areas
that broadly represent the global range of natural, agricultural, and
urban ecosystems. Support for the LTER program is requested to increase
by $1.12 million in fiscal year 2007, for a total of $19.6 million.
The ASM supports the fiscal year 2007 budget request for the DEB of
$109.6 million, an increase of 2.7 percent over fiscal year 2006.
BIO NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) encompasses the
systematic organization, manipulation, and control of matter at the
atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels. With the capacity to
manipulate matter at the nanometer scale (one-billionth of a meter),
science, engineering, and technology are realizing revolutionary
advances in areas, such as, individualized pharmaceuticals, new drug
delivery systems, more resilient materials and fabrics, catalysts for
industry, and computer chips. The NSF has been a pioneer among federal
agencies in fostering the development of nanoscale science. The ASM
supports the administration's fiscal year 2007 request of $52.55
million for the NNI within BIO, a 7.2 percent increase over fiscal year
2006.
NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK
The fiscal year 2007 budget request for the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON) throughout NSF is $24 million, an increase
of $18 million over fiscal year 2006. NEON has the potential to
transform ecological research. The NEON program calls for developing a
continental-scale research instrument consisting of geographically
distributed infrastructure that will be networked via state-of-the-art
communications to obtain a predictive understanding of the Nation's
environment. A very large number of scientists, students, resource
managers, and decision makers could make use of NEON data, both
directly and indirectly, through the network capabilities and the
internet. The ASM supports the administration's fiscal year 2007
request of $24 million for NEON.
The $24 million includes: $6 million within the Biological
Infrastructure division of BIO to continue implementation planning; $6
million within the Emerging Frontiers division for sensor array
research and development; and $12 million within the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MRE&FC) account at the NSF to
assemble and evaluate the NEON fundamental technology unit (BioMesoNet,
sensor micronets, and enabling cyberinfrastructure) that will be
deployed.
GEOSCIENCES DIRECTORATE
The fiscal year 2007 request proposes restructuring the Geosciences
Directorate (GEO) to include a new subactivity, Innovative and
Collaborative Education and Research (ICER), which will support
multidisciplinary research and education activities that were
previously done through the Atmospheric Sciences (ATM), Earth Sciences
(EAR), and Ocean Sciences (OCE). The new ICER subactivity priorities
include Ecology of Infectious Diseases, in partnership with the BIO
directorate and the NIH. Additionally, the EAR and the OCE support
other important microbiological research related to the Earth's diverse
ecological systems and climate change. The ASM urges Congress to
support the administrations' request of $744.9 million for GEO in
fiscal year 2007, a 6 percent increase over fiscal year 2006.
ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE
The fiscal year 2007 request proposes restructuring the Engineering
Directorate. The ASM has traditionally supported research conducted
through the Bioengineering and Environmental Systems (BES) division.
The proposed restructuring would combine the BES division with the
Chemical and Transport Systems (CTS) division to become the Chemical,
Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) division. In
fiscal year 2006, BES was funded at $52 million and CTS at $70.8
million, for a total of $122.8 million. The fiscal year 2007 request
proposes increasing funding for CBET to $124.44.
The CBET will play a vital role in supporting research, innovation,
and education in the rapidly evolving fields of bioengineering and
environmental engineering. Including research on microbial fuel cells,
liquid biofuels, and biohydrogen, as well as exploratory research in
nanobiotechnology. The ASM recommends Congress support the increased
funding for the CBET to foster technological innovations that will
advance the global competitiveness of our industries and the health of
our environment.
CONCLUSION
The NSF plays a key role in supporting basic science in the United
States. Knowledge gained from the NSF studies directly benefits
industry and contributes to the economy and U.S. international
competitiveness. There is a growing synergy among the biological,
physical and social sciences, and U.S. investment in science and
technology should support all science.
The NSF is in a singular position among all the federal research
and development agencies to support fundamental research in a wide
range of important areas, including microbiology and molecular biology.
The ASM urges Congress to support the administration's request of $6.02
billion for the NSF in fiscal year 2007. The ASM believes the NSF
should continue to emphasize fundamental, investigator-initiated
research, research training, and science education as its highest
priorities.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers its
appropriation for the NSF for fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States
Mr. Chairman: My name is Royce Engstrom. I am a Provost and Vice
President for Academic Affairs at the University of South Dakota and a
member of the South Dakota EPSCoR Statewide Committee, the governing
body that oversees EPSCoR activities in South Dakota. I submit this
testimony on behalf of the 25 States,\1\ the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that participate in the federal EPSCoR
program and the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States. I have the honor of
serving as the chair of the Board of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As most of you know, the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was established at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in 1979 to assist those States that historically had
not fully participated in the federal research and development (R&D)
enterprise. Historically, these States were less competitive than
others throughout the Nation for a variety of reasons--some tended to
be rural and geographically isolated; others tended to be among the
States with large numbers of students who were under-represented
minorities or disadvantaged economically; and some were States that
traditionally invested more heavily in an agriculture and natural
resource research base than technological endeavors. For these reasons,
EPSCoR States did not benefit from the large federal institutional
development investments made to universities and colleges as part of a
national effort to broaden and strengthen the U.S. public university
system and its R&D capability. Consequently, today, all the
institutions in these States--half of the States--receive less than 10
percent of all NSF and all federal R&D funding. Otherwise, we are
ignoring a large reservoir of talent and expertise that are necessary
for our country to remain competitive in the world.
Helping these 25 States grow to be more competitive has become more
important in recent years in order to overcome the concentration of
federal R&D funding in a few States and institutions, and to create a
broader research community throughout the Nation. Today, all States
should be full participants in federal R&D efforts and federal R&D
support should be available to qualified students and researchers
wherever they are.
The EPSCoR program started at NSF with five States. It grew to its
current number of 25 States and two territories as more States, the
Congress, and the research field came to realize the need to raise the
science and technology (S&T) research capabilities to new levels, and
as new States realized the value of a program that emphasized research
infrastructure and capacity building.
The EPSCoR program remained a very small program for the first half
of its life. Its budget, federal-wide, was only $8 million in 1990 for
all the States. It has only been since the mid-1990's that we have seen
real increases in funding and the extension of the program to agencies
outside of the NSF. For those of us in the EPSCoR States, these have
been welcome advances but we also understand that they have been
extremely modest in comparison to the overall increases in total
federal R&D funding and to increases currently being contemplated for
NSF and DOE's Office of Science. We also know that, as in other States,
much of the recent increase has been focused on the life sciences, as
opposed to the physical sciences and engineering. This is true, despite
the fact that many EPSCoR institutions have strong engineering
programs. During the 1990's, EPSCoR grew rapidly, expanding from 5
States to 25 States and 2 territories as Congress recognized that
EPSCoR funding was successfully building S&T research infrastructure in
higher education institutions in a fashion that contributed to the
wealth creation process in the initial group of EPSCoR jurisdictions.
Congress also expanded the program into six new agencies; the
Departments of: Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). These seven
Federal departments and agencies now have EPSCoR-like programs that
focus on building academic research infrastructure that will ultimately
contribute to the economies of EPSCoR jurisdictions in the 21st century
in similar ways to how agriculture, mining, and forestry contributed to
the economies in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Let me provide an example of how the federal agencies are able to
accomplish the mission of building research infrastructure and
improving the competitiveness of our university researchers. At the
National Science Foundation, the ``center piece'' of the EPSCoR effort
is the Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) awards. The awards
establish a Federal-State partnership, which is most clearly seen in
the composition of the State Steering Committees, or EPSCoR State
committees. Typically, senior university officials, representatives of
State government (both legislative and executive branches), and local
business officials come together and develop a S&T plan for their State
that focuses on a few selected areas where researchers can become
competitive for funding in federal, non-profit, or industrial
competitions. The focus areas are selected because of inherent
scientific quality, able faculty, and because of the likelihood of
potential benefit to the States' citizenry. As a result, EPSCoR States
have entered into high-tech computing, bio-medical research, and
nanotechnology. The State EPSCoR ``team'' then submits a RII proposal
to NSF for funding support in these areas.
The RII's are not an end unto themselves. Every researcher who is
supported under the NSF RII's is expected to apply to one of the
regular S&T programs at NSF or one of the other federal R&D funding
agencies before the RII award is completed. The track record of these
researchers over time has been remarkable. Recently, NSF released
statistics showing that since 1998 (which was the first year that NSF
issued RII awards) EPSCoR States accounted for 9 of the 10 U.S. States
with the greatest increase in science and engineering funding. This
success has occurred in areas where EPSCoR institutions had not
previously been competitive. For example, for the first time, EPSCoR
institutions have used RII funding as a base to successfully compete
for large-scale awards like the Engineering Research Centers and
Materials Research Science and Engineering, Integrative Graduate
Education and Research Traineeship Program.
At NIH and other agencies with EPSCoR-like programs, EPSCoR
researchers are building on research infrastructure grants to compete
for funding that not only advances academic science and technology, but
serves the mission of these agencies in the areas of defense,
environment, health, and agriculture. EPSCoR researchers are becoming
increasingly adept at spinning off academic research into small
companies. EPSCoR States are becoming more competitive for Small
Business Innovative Research (SBIR) awards. SBIR awards have great
potential to produce not just companies but high paying jobs for our
States' youth.
Many EPSCoR institutions are now actively engaged in issues related
to homeland security. For example, some of our institutions are
carrying out research that improves the safety of food products as they
move from the field to grocery store. Other institutions are engaged in
defense issues that relate to improving communication for troops in the
field during combat. Still others are addressing issues related to
transportation. All of these examples are intended to demonstrate that
the initial federal investment in building the research capabilities of
our universities through EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like programs has had a
profound impact beyond our campuses.
I will now provide some specific cases, which emphasize the
importance of this program to South Dakota and other EPSCoR States. The
South Dakota EPSCoR REACH Committee manages the development and
implementation of Statewide science, engineering and mathematics
research, education, and related programs. It enhances the research and
intellectual capacity of South Dakota universities and colleges by
building and coordinating strategic investments in human capital and
physical infrastructures necessary for South Dakota to develop the
capacity to make the State more competitive in research and economic
development, nationally and internationally.
South Dakota has benefited tremendously from the EPSCoR program.
For example, using EPSCoR as a catalyst, we have developed four major
research centers that form the core of Governor Mike Rounds ``2010
Initiative.'' The centers are in the areas of nanotechnology, light-
activated materials, biomedical signal transduction, and vaccinology.
The progress made by investigators in these areas, supported in
significant ways by EPSCoR, has resulted in an additional $20 million
investment on the part of the State. In addition, in the last 2 years,
we have initiated seven new Ph.D. programs to help educate future
scientists for South Dakota. The clear recognition of the connection
between research and economic development has been made in South
Dakota, and the sustained support by EPSCoR has been absolutely key to
that connection.
EPSCoR-funded science and technology dividends to South Dakota
reflect an understanding that investments in infrastructure are needed
for South Dakota to compete in a knowledge-based economy. Without State
support, South Dakota EPSCoR would not be able to participate in most
federal EPSCoR initiatives. Several of the federal programs have
required a ``State match''.
The South Dakota EPSCoR program has many unique features to enhance
cooperation between our universities. In addition to supporting
individual research projects, the program funds faculty and student
exchange programs, provides interdisciplinary planning grants for
cooperative scientific ventures among our universities; and offers
undergraduate summer research fellowships.
We are delighted to stress that EPSCoR has had a positive influence
on State economic development well beyond what was initially conceived
for the program. As a focal point for technological and scientific
improvement across the State, EPSCoR identified areas of priority for
funding and helped to draft South Dakota's strategic plan for
scientific and technological development. In addition to the growth in
basic research, we have seen a substantial increase in SBIR activity,
to the point that the State has established two new offices: a system-
wide Vice President for Research, and a State Commercialization
Director, whose job it is to help transfer ideas from the universities
to the private sector.
Within each States' EPSCoR program, efforts continue to identify:
(1) high potential research areas in which to concentrate limited State
resources and (2) barriers that must be removed to attain nationally
competitive science and engineering research and education programs. A
critical need for EPSCoR States is to overcome a lack of critical mass
(i.e. too few faculty in a given area of research) by collaborating
inside the State and with outside partners.
NSF EPSCoR is helping us ensure, through its Research
Infrastructure Improvement (RII) awards and co-funding, that our States
have an opportunity to develop these new fields. This is vitally
important to the economy of each of our States and especially to our
young people who live therein. Despite increased mobility, the vast
majority of students still attend college within 100 miles of home.
EPSCoR helps to guarantee that students and residents of all States
have the access to high-quality education, front-line research, and the
quality of life and jobs that comes with an active and competitive R&D
base.
Again, the cornerstone of the NSF EPSCoR program are the Research
Infrastructure Improvement awards (RIIs). These awards focus on South
Dakota's competitive academic science and technology base. The RIIs
strengthen South Dakota's ability to compete favorably for mainstream
program funds at the NSF, other agencies and for private sector
dollars.
Consequently, we urge the subcommittee to continue support for
EPSCoR by appropriating $125 million in fiscal year 2007 funding for
the NSF EPSCoR core program in the NSF Education and Human Resources
Directorate. This funding will: (1) allow the NSF EPSCoR program to
implement its expanded core RII program to continue building our
infrastructure and expertise in areas of scientific importance to the
States and Nation; and (2) increase co-funding and assistance to our
States so that the number of scientists and engineers in the EPSCoR
States and universities that receive competitive federal R&D support
continues to grow.
For the NASA EPSCoR program, we are requesting $15 million. There
are currently two components to the NASA EPSCoR program: core grants
and research cluster awards. A core-funding award is made to each
eligible State to develop a program, secure collaborations with NASA
centers and programs and cover related administrative expenses. The
remaining funds have been granted to the eligible States to support
specific, competitively selected research clusters. The intent is for
these clusters to develop an infrastructure in key NASA related
research areas within the State, which will then be competitive for
other NASA funding. NASA is currently planning its next round of awards
and will be allowing all 27 NSF ESPCoR jurisdictions (as opposed to 23
currently eligible NASA EPSCoR States) to submit. We know that NASA had
more meritorious proposals than it could fund during the last
competition and we believe that there are even more qualified proposals
to be submitted pursuant to the next solicitation, even without the
addition of new States.
On behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, please know that
the relatively modest NSF investment in EPSCoR plays a unique role in
developing a truly nationwide science and technology capability. A
strong EPSCoR is a sound investment for our Nation's future.
DISCLOSURE OF AMOUNT AND SOURCE OF FEDERAL GRANTS (FISCAL YEAR 2003,
FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND FISCAL YEAR 2005) OF DR. ROYCE C. ENGSTROM,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Dr. Engstrom has participated in the following federally-funded
projects during the fiscal years 2003-2005:
REU Site: Excavation and Reconstruction of a Northern Plains Bison
Kill Site, National Science Foundation, 2002-2005, $155,778. This
project was an interdisciplinary undergraduate research project
focusing on anthropology. (Co-Principal Investigator)
Statewide Partnership to Support Technology Innovation and
Entrepreneurship in South Dakota, National Science Foundation, 2002-
2005, $598,247. (Co-Principal Investigator)
EPSCoR Centers Development Initiative (CDI), National Science
Foundation, 2001-2004, $1,713,836. This project was aimed at providing
technical assistance to EPSCoR States in their efforts at building
nationally competitive research centers.
South Dakota EPSCoR Rushmore Initiative for Excellence in Research,
National Science Foundation EPSCoR, 2001-2004, $2,293,628 (USD
portion). This project was the Research Infrastructure Initiative for
South Dakota's EPSCoR program. (Co-Project Director)
REU Site: Tracing the Lewis and Clark Expedition, National Science
Foundation, 2001-2004, $173,605. This was an interdisciplinary
undergraduate research program at the University of South Dakota. (Co-
Principal Investigator)
______
Prepared Statement of the National Space Grant Alliance
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank
you for allowing me to provide testimony on behalf of the National
Space Grant Alliance (NSGA) as you consider funding priorities relevant
to the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice and Science Related Agencies
appropriations bill. I am Mary Sandy, Virginia Space Grant Director.
Today, I speak to you in support of NASA's National Space Grant
College and Fellowship Program (Space Grant). In an effort to bring
national coherence to our efforts, the Space Grant Directors formed the
National Space Grant Alliance (NSGA). NSGA is a non-profit national
organization that is working to: (a) galvanize support and enthusiasm
for aerospace research and education; (b) ensure that Space Grant has
an appropriate level of financial and programmatic support; and (c)
align Space Grant's education, research, and workforce development
activities with NASA's mission to ``inspire the next generation of
explorers--as only NASA can.'' Comprised of 52 Space Grant consortia
including 867 affiliates--located in every State of the country, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico--the NSGA
requests that you approve the President's fiscal year 2007 request of
$28.76 million for Space Grant with the following language: The
committee has included the budget request of $28,760,000 for the
National Space Grant College and Fellowship program. The amount
provided will fund 35 States at $615,250 each and 17 States at
$425,000. We believe that funding the Space Grant program at $28.76
million and including the requested language will allow the Space Grant
program to move forward and will encourage the rapid allocation of
funds to the individual Space Grant consortia so that they can
efficiently plan and implement their State programs.
BACKGROUND
Congress established the National Space Grant College and
Fellowship program under Title II of the NASA Authorization Act of
1988. Through a national network of colleges, universities, and
affiliates, Space Grant supports and enhances science and engineering
education, research and outreach programs through three major
components: (1) Education and Workforce Development; (2) Public
Understanding and Participation in NASA-related Science and Technology
Programs; and (3) Research Enhancement Programs.
--Education and Workforce Development.--Space Grant programs
substantially contribute to creating a diverse, scientifically
literate and prepared workforce. Its programs encourage and
help prepare students to enter science, mathematics and
engineering careers, by offering ``hands-on'' learning with
aerospace technology. Space Grant has been particularly
successful in recruiting and training students from
underrepresented groups and women.
--Public Understanding and Participation in Aerospace-Related Science
and Technology Programs.--Space Grant consortia provide a wide
array of public outreach programs that reach citizens of all
ages: Space Grant supports more than 400 public outreach
programs reaching over 3 million people each year.
--Research Enhancement Programs.--The development of a strong
research base and infrastructure is critical to securing U.S.
world leadership in science and technology. In addition to
improving the quality of education, Space Grant is dedicated to
strengthening research capability, and integrating this
research with education and human resource development.
SPACE GRANT AND ITS VALUE TO THE NATION
The 52 university-based Space Grant consortia:
--Support over 1,915 undergraduate and 632 graduate students in
practical education and research experiences in aerospace
science and engineering, and related fields. In fiscal year
2003, we awarded $9.5 million in scholarships and fellowships
to students--22 percent of whom are minority, and 44 percent
are women.
--Infuse NASA space exploration and technology goals, knowledge, and
materials into the education experiences of over 1.3 million K-
12 students and teachers.
--Reach over 3.5 million people annually through public outreach and
awareness campaigns emphasizing the importance of aerospace
science, the excitement of space exploration and discovery and
its contribution to the Nation's scientific knowledge base and
our economy.
To give you a better picture of Space Grant, I'd like to tell you a
little about the Virginia Space Grant Consortium, where I am the
director, and cite a few of our accomplishments.
VIRGINIA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM
The Virginia Space Grant Consortium (VSGC) is a coalition of five
Virginia colleges and universities, two NASA centers, State education
agencies, Virginia's Center for Innovative Technology, and other
institutions and informal science centers, representing diverse
aerospace education and research interests. The Consortium acts as an
umbrella organization, coordinating and developing quality aerospace-
related, high technology, educational applications and research efforts
throughout the Commonwealth as well as regionally and nationally for
some efforts. We are committed to promoting and achieving excellence in
education and research in science, mathematics, technology and
engineering at all levels in Virginia. The Consortium also seeks to
encourage student and faculty diversity in these fields and to foster
scientifically and technologically literate citizens. The Consortium
received its Space Grant designation in 1989. It is a mature
organization that is well established in the State with strong programs
in all of the Space Grant program areas.
The VSGC is a highly leveraged program. In recent years, each Space
Grant dollar has been leveraged by about $6 in cash and in-kind
contributions from other sources. Programs and interactions with NASA
centers have grown to include all NASA centers. State networks have
vastly expanded.
In the program's recent 5-year evaluation period, VSGC Higher
Education programs impacted 1,494 individuals, primarily undergraduate
students, but graduate students and faculty as well. Implementation of
two industry internship programs involved 52 undergraduate students and
more than 36 industries and garnered strong State and industry funding.
The VSGC-managed NASA Undergraduate Student Research program placed 622
students in summer or fall internships at all NASA centers, Los Alamos
National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Lab.
In the Research and Technology Applications arena, VSGC has
generated sufficient funding to develop and maintain a full-time
Research Programs Manager. Research missions, applications and
infrastructure programs have grown exponentially from $28,871 in 1998
to $429,766 in 2002. The additional funding secured from grants and
contracts for new projects with members and partners permitted a total
of 41 programs involving 3,359 participants in this time frame.
Participation of NASA Langley Research Center and NASA's Goddard/
Wallops Flight Facility Consortium members has opened doors to new
collaborative ventures that are mutually beneficial. The VSGC is one of
14 Space Grant programs which have developed a partnership with
Cooperative Extension and established a geospatial extension
specialist. The Virginia Space Grant Geospatial Extension program is
serving as a hub for terrific synergy among Cooperative Extension,
universities, community colleges, Sea Grant, State natural resource
agencies and other partners. Virginia Tech, VSGC, Cooperative Extension
and Virginia Access-Mid-Atlantic Geographic Information Consortium, a
NASA-Stennis funded partnership, are contributing resources to extend
the reach of this program in ways that are already making a difference
in the Commonwealth for Extension Agent training, workforce development
programs with community colleges, networking and sharing of
information, data tools, and other resources.
Pre-college programs engaging over 75,000 educators over the past 7
years. All are carefully aligned with State standards of learning in
math, science and technology. The Virginia Department of Education is a
VSGC member and key partner that has helped us to reach out to all
Virginia school divisions with our professional development programs,
including OVERspace, our professional development program for teachers
in how to use GPS and GIS as teaching and learning tools, and our Space
Science workshops and materials dissemination for teachers of learning
disabled as well as blind and low vision students. We are particularly
pleased with the six-series Journey Into Cyberspace distance-learning
program for middle school career exploration produced in partnership
with Old Dominion University and NASA. Nearly 3,000 students nationwide
participated in six grade-related challenges in the 2005 competition in
the NASA Student Involvement program which we co-managed on behalf of
the National Space Grant Foundation prior to NASA's ending the program
and which engages every state Space Grant program.
Public and informal educational programming, often undertaken with
museum members, included StarDate sponsorships at six Virginia radio
stations throughout the Commonwealth, co-sponsorship of a Native
American Sky Legends planetarium program for national distribution, and
a range of museum programming. Over the latest 5-year evaluation
period, 47 programs in this arena reached 373,829 participants.
Impact/Results: The VSGC's extensive networks into member
institutions at all levels, as well as extended State, Federal,
industry and non-profit networks, are crucial to the Consortium's
success. The Consortium's openness to collaborative partnerships
together with its willingness to serve as the facilitating element and
often to provide the administrative component has helped to engineer
projects for success. The flexibility offered by our organizational and
fiscal structure helps us to create and take advantage of opportunities
that arise. Success in securing grants, contracts and other external
funding, together with strong leveraging of financial, human and
material resources is also an element in the successful accomplishment
of our goals.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 REQUEST FOR SPACE GRANT--$28.76 MILLION
Clearly, we are very busy in our Space Grant consortia and very
proud of what we are able to do but we know that there is much more
that we can do that is very important to science education in this
country and to maintaining the pipeline of highly qualified scientists
and engineers for our high technology industries to ensure U.S. global
competitiveness.
How $28.76 million will be utilized:
--Strengthen the national network structure by raising the level of
annual funding at 35 States to $615,250 and 17 States to
$425,000.
--Maintain existing network of S&Es--located in 50 States, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands and comprised of 800 universities,
colleges, and private industries.
--Continue and strengthen the undergraduate and graduate STEM
education programs for talented American youth to pursue
careers in NASA related disciplines by:
--Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines through a
progression of educational opportunities for students,
teachers, and faculty.
--Build the NASA and aerospace industry workforce in order to meet
NASA's strategic goals.
--Build strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and
informal education providers.
Results of increased funding in fiscal year 2006:
--Dramatic increase and linkage of undergraduate and graduate
students to NASA research and exploration initiatives at NASA
field centers.
--Increased research experiences for undergraduates by maintaining
and expanding the Student Satellite Initiative and young
faculty research development.
--Sustained K-12 programs and links to new Code N Initiatives by
providing training workshops and after-school programs to
assist faculty and teachers and to attract and motivate
students into relevant career tracks.
Taken together, these activities help to promote workforce
development and help support NASA and Congress' goal to address the
national ``brain drain'' in the aerospace science and engineering
workforce. NASA, through its National Space Grant consortia/network and
affiliate programs, can effectively encourage and improve the
possibility for students to pursue careers in aerospace science and
technology fields.
SUMMARY
In summary, Space Grant has achieved what most other science
agencies have not.
--Created a national network that fosters strong partnerships among
university faculty, colleges of education, K-12 and business
communities in the States.
--Mobilized and immersed Science and Technology faculty in education
initiatives.
--Highly utilized and highly leveraged NASA resources to inspire and
motivate the next generation of explorers.
Space Grant is delivering a remarkable number of high quality
educational experiences for a very small NASA investment. Space Grant
is a sound investment in America's future and should be expanded.
______
Prepared Statement of Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, Assemblymember, 33rd
District, California Legislature
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1.5 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for Piedras Blancas in California.
Nestled among lush rolling hills shadowed by ancient volcanic
peaks, San Luis Obispo County offers residents and visitors a welcome
respite from crowded urban areas. The northwestern part of the county
is often referred to as the ``Southern Gateway to Big Sur,'' and it is
here that the famous Hearst Ranch is located adjacent to Los Padres
National Forest. Covering 128 square miles, including 18 miles of
coastline, the ranch was originally known as Rancho Piedra Blanca,
named for an offshore white rock outcropping. In 1865, Senator George
Hearst purchased the property, and in 1919 his son, William Randolph
Hearst, started construction of Hearst Castle. The ranch offers
outstanding scenic vistas, including 19 beaches, and contains numerous
creeks flowing into the Pacific Ocean. It is home to a wide variety of
wildlife--including eagles, hawks, deer, coyote and steelhead trout--
and plant life including grasslands, chaparral, oak woodlands and
California poppies.
The Hearst Ranch Conservation Project, completed in early 2005,
protects the entire historic ranch through voluntary conservation
agreements and included the donation of 1,500 acres of land on the west
side of Highway 1 to the State of California. Although this
conservation agreement protects the scenic and rural character of this
18-mile stretch of coast, there remains one privately held parcel along
the coast west of Highway 1, known as Piedras Blancas.
Located 1 mile north of the Piedras Blancas Lighthouse, this 20-
acre parcel is available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007. Formerly
the site of a 14-unit motel, coffee shop, gas station, and private
residence, the property will be restored in large part to its natural
state and made ready for State park acquisition. Funds from the Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation program (CELCP) will be used to
purchase 18 acres of the land for the coastal resources, and funding
will be secured from other sources to potentially develop an
interpretive center and low-cost accommodations, such as a hostel or
campground, on the remaining 2 acres.
Public acquisition of the Piedras Blancas parcel offers a unique
opportunity to enhance the Hearst Ranch Conservation Project by
providing: (1) a permanent safe place for visitors to pull off the
highway, park in the existing lot and access the coastal bluffs and
beaches of the Hearst Coast; (2) the possibility of developing visitor
serving facilities such as an interpretive center for the Hearst Coast
and elephant seal, cafe, public restrooms and low-cost overnight
accommodations due to its rare recreational zoning; and (3) these
urgently needed public access and visitor serving benefits in an area
of high demand due to its location just 7 miles north of the popular
Hearst Castle, which receives over 1 million visitors per year.
Additionally, the site offers the potential to develop guided hiking
tours to the nearby Piedras Blancas Lighthouse and elephant seal
rookery, as well as a second staging area for vehicular tours to the
lighthouse.
The southern beach of the property is also home to dozens of
elephant seals during the winter each year. The steep bluffs
overlooking the beach offer a safe viewing area for visitors watching
the elephant seals. Arroyo del Corral Creek drains into the ocean at
this beach attracting birds and other wildlife to the freshwater
resources.
While the shoreline along Hearst Ranch is mostly under State
protection, much of it is still inaccessible. It may take as long as 5
years by State Parks to implement a public access plan for these
coastal areas. In the meantime, Piedras Blancas will be a critically
needed safe access point for the public to access trails along the
bluffs and down to the beaches. Safe and easy public access and the
potential for visitor facilities make Piedras Blancas a key acquisition
for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. This project is
the missing half-mile of coast for the California Coastal Trail on a
13-mile stretch of land that was recently made public as part of the
Hearst Project. Piedras Blancas will provide a welcome respite to the
hikers and bicyclists on the California Coastal Trail as well as to
visitors who come by car on Highway 1.
Without permanent public protection, there is high risk that the
property could be sold and developed privately as an exclusive resort
given its hotel zoning, making the bluffs and beaches off-limits to the
public and forever leaving a missing link in the Coastal Trail. The
northern portion of the property is under natural heavy erosion
pressure accelerated by piecemeal shoreline armoring of Highway 1 just
north of the property. There is the further risk that a future buyer
would seek to build a seawall on site to protect structures from
erosion. A seawall would negatively impact the property's coastal
habitat in a designated area of the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary.
In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $500,000 towards this
conservation effort. A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1.5 million
from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is the final
funding needed for the California Department of Parks and Recreation to
acquire and conserve this unique and vital property on the Pacific
Coast. The California Coastal Conservancy has already pledged matching
funds and ranked Piedras Blancas as the top CELCP priority in the
State.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of the
appropriations request for this critical project in my district.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
The American Institute of Biological Sciences encourages Congress
to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $6.02
billion for the National Science Foundation.
The administration's request reflects the recognition of the
important role that fundamental, peer-reviewed scientific research
plays in driving innovation, creating new economic opportunities, and
addressing important societal challenges. The National Science
Foundation Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) is particularly
important to basic biological research, the fields of study concerned
with understanding how the natural world works. These research
disciplines include botany, zoology, microbiology, ecology, basic
molecular and cellular biology, systematics and taxonomy. Indeed,
according to National Science Foundation data, more than 65 percent of
fundamental biological research is funded by the foundation.
Additionally, the National Science Foundation provides essential
support for the development of research infrastructure (for example,
natural science collections, cyber-infrastructure, field and marine
stations, and the National Ecological Observatory Network) that is
required to advance our understanding of biological and ecological
systems.
We strongly support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request, which would provide the BIO directorate with roughly $607.8
million (a 5.4 percent increase). This funding would support important
new research efforts in the areas of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
($111.2 million), Integrative Organismal Biology ($100.7 million),
Environmental Biology ($109.6 million), Biological Infrastructure
($85.9 million), and Plant Genome Research ($101.2 million). The budget
also reflects the need for synthesizing biological information from
different fields. Thus, $99.2 million is allocated for the cross
discipline Emerging Frontiers program area.
The President's request includes $24 million in funding for the
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Of the requested
funding for NEON, $12 million would come from the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account and $12 million would
come from the BIO directorate. NEON will be the first national
ecological measurement and observation system designed both to answer
regional to continental scale scientific questions and to have the
interdisciplinary participation necessary to achieve credible
ecological forecasting and prediction. NEON is expected to transform
the way we conduct science by enabling the integration of research and
education from natural to human systems, and from genomes to the
biosphere. Social scientists and educators have worked with ecologists
and physical scientists to plan and design NEON. These research
communities will all be able to participate in research only possible
because of the construction of NEON.
The National Science Foundation plays an important role in science
education, in both formal and informal environments. Whether through
programs such as Research Experience for Undergraduates, GK-12
fellowships, or fellowships for graduate students and post-doctoral
researchers, the National Science Foundation provides the resources
needed to educate, recruit, and retain our next generation of
scientists. National Science Foundation programs provide the support
that makes it possible for practicing research scientists and college
faculty to mentor and train budding researchers. National Science
Foundation science education initiatives are unique and stimulate
innovation in teaching and learning about science. The lessons learned
and models developed through this research inform Department of
Education and local school system programs.
Informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs
supported by the Education and Human Resources Directorate also warrant
increased funding. Economic growth in the 21st century demands a
scientifically aware and technically skilled workforce. Moreover, we
live in a time when people are increasingly called upon to make
informed decisions about technology and public policy grounded in
science. To make informed decisions, citizens must continue to learn
about science throughout their lives. Informal science education
programs, whether through a local natural history museum, marine
laboratory or other venue, play a central role in educating the public
about science. We encourage you to do all you can to support National
Science Foundation formal and informal science education initiatives.
Thank you for your past efforts on behalf of the National Science
Foundation and for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If
you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-
628-1500.
______
Prepared Statement of Oceana
Dear Chairman Shelby, ranking member Mikulski, and other
subcommittee members: On behalf of the more than 250,000 supporters of
Oceana, an international, non-profit conservation organization devoted
to protecting ocean waters and wildlife, I submit the following
testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce.
Oceana urges the subcommittee to provide $4.5 billion for NOAA in the
fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
appropriations bill. More specifically, we urge the subcommittee to
fund the following critical ocean research and conservation programs at
these recommended levels:
--$52.0 million for fishery observer programs;
--$5.0 million for the reducing bycatch initiative;
--$12.3 million for the national undersea research program (NURP);
--$82.0 million for marine mammal research and management;
--$20.0 million for sea turtle research and management; and
--$8.0 million for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
activities in fishery management.
NOAA is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for managing
our Nation's coasts and oceans. It has a critical role in promoting
sustainable coastal communities and a healthy economy. An investment of
$4.5 billion averages out to $15 per person annually--a bargain for the
fishery management, coral reef protection, undersea research, weather
forecasting, nautical mapping, coastal zone management, and ocean
education NOAA provides to the Nation.
We are greatly concerned about the impact of the administration's
request for a $227 million cut (-5.8 percent) to NOAA below existing
funding levels. The National Marine Fisheries Service is targeted for
an $18 million cut (-2.6 percent) and the National Ocean Service is
targeted for a $99 million cut (-20.1 percent). These steep reductions
do not match the recommendations of the Presidentially-appointed United
States Commission on Ocean Policy's 2004 final report or the
independent Pew Oceans Commission's 2003 report. The commissions
emphasized the importance of taking immediate action to conserve ocean
and coastal waters, wildlife, and habitats and called for substantial
increases in our Nation's investments for ocean research, conservation,
and management. We hope you will follow the commissions' advice and
strengthen our Nation's commitment to sustainable oceans and coasts. As
a significant first step, we urge you to increase funding for the
important NOAA programs and activities described below.
Fishery Observer Programs--$52.0 million.--Oceana recommends that
the fiscal year 2007 budget provide $52.0 million for more effective
national and regional observer programs. The information gathered by
observers helps track how many fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea
birds, and other ocean wildlife are caught directly and as bycatch,
thereby improving management of our fish populations. According to
NMFS, observers are currently deployed to collect fishery dependent
data in less than 40 of the Nation's 300 fisheries. Existing coverage
levels for many of the fisheries with observers are inadequate. In its
final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy concluded that
``accurate, reliable science is critical to the successful management
of fisheries'' and endorsed the use of observers as key to bycatch
reduction efforts.
In recent weeks, the National Marine Fisheries Service announced
crippling cuts to the Northeast Fishery Observer program. The number of
observers will be reduced from 120 to 25. The number of observer ``days
at sea'' will be slashed from 10,000 in 2005 to approximately 5,000 in
2006. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez proposed an emergency rule
on March 3 to further restrict New England's groundfish fishery due to
last year's stock assessments showing several overfished groundfish
populations are continuing to decline. It is obvious more science is
needed to monitor New England's fisheries and help spur recovery of
fisheries and coastal communities; therefore more observers are
required, not less.
Specifically, Oceana recommends $9.0 million for the national
observer program; $20.0 million for the Northeast observer program;
$7.5 million for the Atlantic Coast observer program; $5.0 million to
establish a Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic reef fish observer program
and monitor the shark fisheries. We recommend funding other regional
fishery observer programs at the administration's request.
Bycatch Reduction--$5.0 million.--One of the primary issues
threatening the future of our fisheries is the catch and subsequent
death or injury of unwanted fish and ocean life. Prominent fishery
scientists recently completed a thorough examination of fish data and
concluded that more than 1 million metric tons of fish and invertebrate
bycatch are caught by U.S. commercial fishermen; this bycatch is 28
percent of the total catch. In past years, Congress has provided
additional resources to help address bycatch by researching technical
solutions, improving outreach, and promoting international improvements
in fishing practices. We strongly encourage the subcommittee fund this
initiative at $5.0 million to accelerate bycatch reduction efforts.
National Undersea Research Program--$12.3 million.--NOAA's Undersea
Research program serves the Nation by providing marine scientists with
the tools, such as submersibles, remotely operated or autonomous
underwater vehicles, mixed gas diving gear, underwater laboratories and
observatories, to conduct important research that can help other ocean
managers and users. The program helps locate and map areas of deep sea
corals that are important for many fish and wildlife populations.
Funding in fiscal year 2006 was cut more than 40 percent, halting
important marine research. We support the fiscal year 2005 enacted
level in help restore the program's vital work.
Marine Mammal Protection--$82.0 million.--Oceana recommends
sustaining the level of funding provided to support marine mammal
research and management activities in the fiscal year 2005 budget
($82.0 million). These funds will help the National Marine Fisheries
Service more fully assess and adopt measures to recover depleted and
strategic marine mammal species, such as Northern right whales,
bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, and common dolphins. It will also
help the agency improve the knowledge of marine mammal populations;
currently, the status of more than 200 protected and at-risk marine
species is unknown. Activities that will be supported by these funds
include funding top priority studies identified by the take reduction
teams; designing and implementing take reduction plans for certain
depleted marine mammal populations; conducting research on population
trends; working on recovery plans; and conducting critical research on
marine mammal health and responding to marine mammal die-offs.
Sea Turtle Conservation--$20.0 million.--Oceana urges the
subcommittee to sustain work currently underway on sea turtle research
and conservation by providing $20.0 million to NMFS programs dedicated
to protecting sea turtles. All sea turtles found in U.S. waters are
officially protected as endangered or threatened. Additional funding
will enhance research, recovery, and protection activities for
imperiled sea turtle species, including the agency's Atlantic sea
turtle bycatch reduction strategy that will examine needed gear
modifications for the conservation and recovery of sea turtles.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementation--$8.0
million.--Oceana supports the administration's request of $8.0 million
to enhance NMFS work in satisfying NEPA requirements. These funds will
support NEPA specialists within the agency and in the eight regional
fishery management councils and will help build the analytical
capability needed to move toward ecosystem-based approaches to
management.
I request that this testimony be submitted for the official record.
Also, I wish to be considered for any hearing of outside witnesses the
committee may call. Thank you for your consideration of these
recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Protection Institute; Blue Ocean
Institute; Endangered Species Coalition; Environmental Defense; Friends
of the Earth; HEART (Help Endangered Animals--Ridley Turtles);
HerpDigest; The Humane Society of the U.S.; International Fund for
Animal Welfare; International Wildlife Coalition; Inwater Research
Group, Inc.; The Leatherback Trust; Local Ocean Trust/Watamu Turtle
Watch; Marine Conservation Biology Institute; Marine Conservation
Society; Marine Research Foundation; National Environmental Trust; The
National Marine Life Center; Natural Resources Defense Council; Oceana;
Osa Sea Turtle Conservation Project; The Pegasus Foundation; PRETOMA;
Pro Peninsula; Proyecto Tortugas Marinas; Seaflow; Sea Sense; Sea
Turtles at Risk; Sea Turtle Restoration Project--Texas; Sierra Club;
South Carolina Aquarium; Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society;
WIDECAST: Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network; The Wild
Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand; and Wildlife Rescue and
Conservation Association (ARCAS)
On behalf of the millions of supporters we represent, we urge you
to provide $4.5 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the fiscal year 2007 Science, State, Justice
and Commerce appropriations bill. Specifically, we encourage the
subcommittee to provide $52.0 million for Fishery Observer programs;
$30.0 million for Fish Stock Assessments; $82.0 million for Marine
Mammal Research and Protection; $20.0 million for Sea Turtle
Conservation: $60.0 million for the National Marine Sanctuary Program;
$46.2 million for Coral Conservation; $3.3 million for the Marine
Protected Area Center; and $12.3 million for the National Undersea
Research Program. We ask that this letter be included in the official
committee record for the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill.
NOAA is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for managing
our Nation's coasts and oceans. It has a critical role in promoting
sustainable coastal communities and a healthy economy. An investment of
$4.5 billion averages out to $15 per person annually--a bargain for the
fishery management, coral reef protection, undersea research, weather
forecasting, nautical mapping, coastal zone management, and ocean
education NOAA provides to the Nation.
In recent years, the presidentially-appointed U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy and the independent Pew Oceans Commission identified major
challenges to ensure a future with healthy and abundant oceans. Both
commissions called for significant and immediate increased investments
in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes research, management, and
conservation in order to ensure these vital ecosystems recover and can
fully contribute to our Nation's economy and well-being. Now, it is
time for Congress to demonstrate its commitment to NOAA programs and
provide sufficient funding to fully confront the challenges ahead.
Last month, a number of national groups produced a report, Green
Budget: Fiscal Year 2007 National Funding Priorities for the
Environment. The full report, which included several NOAA programs in
addition to the ones highlighted in this letter, can be found at
www.saveourenvironment.org. We call upon your leadership to increase
funding for these following priority research and conservation
activities and programs at the recommended levels.
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Fishery Research--Fishery Observer Program--$52.0 million. Fish
Stock Assessments--$30.0 million.--The information gathered by
observers helps track how many fish, marine mammals, sea turtles, sea
birds and other ocean wildlife are caught directly and as bycatch,
thereby providing data to improve management of our fish populations.
In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy concluded that
``accurate, reliable science is critical to successful management of
fisheries'' and endorsed the use of observers as key to bycatch
reduction efforts. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
observers are currently deployed to collect fishery data in
approximately 40 of the Nation's 300 fisheries.
In addition to the need for more data about what is caught, fishery
managers would benefit from more complete information about the fish
populations they oversee. Almost two-thirds of the Nation's fish
populations lack basic information to determine their status; there are
56 ``major'' stocks where the information about their status is
classified as ``unknown.'' Additional resources would allow the
National Marine Fisheries Service to hire additional biologists to
produce annual stock assessments, fund necessary charter days at sea to
collect data, and significantly reduce the number of fish stocks with
unknown status.
Protected Species Research and Conservation--Marine Mammal Research
and Protection--$82.0 million. Sea Turtle Conservation--$20.0
million.--The National Marine Fisheries Service needs resources to more
fully assess and adopt measures to recover depleted marine mammal
species, such as North Atlantic right whales (whose population is
estimated to be less than 300), bottlenose dolphins, pilot whales, and
common dolphins. In addition, the status of more than 200 protected and
at-risk marine species is unknown. Increased funds will help NOAA
complete top priority studies identified by the take reduction teams;
consult with other agencies and ocean users on activities that may
affect endangered marine mammals; design and implement take reduction
plans for certain depleted marine mammal populations; conduct research
on population trends; and respond to marine mammal die offs.
All sea turtles in U.S. waters are officially listed as endangered
or threatened species by the Endangered Species Act. Increased
investments will help fund sea turtle research, recovery, and
protection activities for imperiled sea turtles, including NMFS'
Atlantic sea turtle bycatch reduction strategy that examines needed
fishing gear modifications for enhanced conservation.
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
National Marine Sanctuary Program--$60.0 million.--The National
Marine Sanctuary program manages 13 sanctuaries that encompass more
than 18,000 square miles of our Nation's most diverse marine
ecosystems. A 14th sanctuary for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands is
now in the process of designation. The program helps protects resources
such as the coral reefs and mangrove forests off the Florida Keys, the
tide pools and kelp forests along the Olympic Coast, and habitat for
endangered humpback and northern right whales. The proposed
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands sanctuary, expected to be designated in
2007, will require new financial commitments. Meanwhile, Congress has
indicated its desire to see better resource inventories and management
of existing sanctuaries before it will approve any further
designations. This requirement can only be solved by enhanced
appropriations.
Coral Conservation--$46.2 million ($31.2 million for tropical
corals and $15.0 million for deep sea corals).--Tropical reefs are
often called the rainforests of the ocean because of the amount of rich
biodiversity that these living reefs provide. Sensitive to human and
environmental factors, these slow-growing reef systems need to be
conserved for the health of our oceans. Corals reef systems are also
found on the deep sea floor. These corals provide shelter for marine
animals, protection from predators, nurseries for young fish, feeding
areas, and spawning areas. Tropical and cold-water corals are subject
to many threats, including damaging fishing practices, land-based
pollution, and vessel strikes. Additional resources to improve coral
management are needed to halt further coral destruction.
Marine Protected Area Center--$3.3 million.--The National Marine
Protected Area Center was created to develop the framework for a
national system of marine protected areas (MPAs), support cooperative
efforts, and provide technical and scientific support to improve MPA
stewardship and effectiveness. Cuts in previous budgets have
significantly reduced the center's work. This spring, the national MPA
System Framework document should be published. Increased investments
are needed to ensure that regional coordinators in Massachusetts and
California and additional scientific and outreach staff are retained to
continue the substantial collaborative work necessary to properly shape
a proposed national system of MPAs.
RESEARCH
National Undersea Research Program--$12.3 million.--NOAA's Undersea
Research program serves the Nation by providing marine scientists with
the tools, such as submersibles, remotely operated or autonomous
underwater vehicles, mixed gas diving gear, underwater laboratories and
observatories, to conduct important research that can help other ocean
managers and users. Funding in fiscal year 2006 was cut more than 40
percent, halting important marine research. We support the fiscal year
2005 enacted level in order to ensure that vital undersea research
continues.
Finally, we urge you to reject adding anti-environmental riders in
this and other bills. If you have any questions, please contact Ted
Morton, Oceana's Federal Policy Director at 202-833-3900. Thank you for
considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research
On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
(UCAR) and the university community involved in weather and climate
research and related education, training and support activities, I
submit this written testimony for the record of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science. UCAR is
a 69-university member consortium that manages and operates the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and additional programs
that support and extend the country's scientific research and education
capabilities. UCAR is supported principally by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and by other Federal agencies including the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The atmospheric sciences community strongly supports the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), an investment
that we believe will pay great dividends for this country if it is
sustained as planned over the next 10 years. In the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2007, NSF is one of the critical agencies in
line for ACI increases intended to double the physical sciences
research budget by 2016. This is a necessary first step in any
initiative that seeks to strengthen this Nation's economic
competitiveness. However, the strength of the country's R&D investment
is a result of multiple agencies playing multiple, complementary and
interlocking roles. We believe that the science missions of NASA and
NOAA, in addition to NSF, are critical to the health and well-being of
this country. We look forward to the ACI developing rapidly to shore up
and strengthen the physical sciences supported by all three of the
major science mission agencies within your jurisdiction.
National Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF plays a unique role among all Federal agencies. In achieving
its goal to develop new knowledge to meet societal needs and improve
quality of life, NSF strengthens the ability of the country to create
new ideas; develop new technologies; create a diverse, knowledgeable
workforce; and set new standards that challenge any boundaries of
invention and intellect. These are all key components of our capacity
to compete globally in the 21st Century and are fundamental drivers of
wealth-producing growth and job creation. The NSF budget request states
that the ACI investment in NSF--a commitment to double the NSF research
budget over 10 years--is being made ``in order to sustain a robust,
competitive, and productive America.'' The UCAR community takes great
pride in this national priority and supports to the fullest extent
possible the ACI focus on NSF. I urge the committee to support the
President's overall request of $6.02 billion for the National Science
Foundation and, within NSF, the request of $4.66 billion for Research
and Related Activities (R&RA), the heart of NSF's scientific
enterprise. In addition, I urge the committee to support the
administration's goal of doubling the research budget of NSF over the
course of a decade, finally realizing the promise of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002.
Geosciences Directorate (GEO).--Within R&RA, GEO is the principal
source of federal funding for university-based basic research in the
geosciences, providing about 68 percent of the total federal support in
these areas. The fiscal year 2007 increase for GEO includes aggressive
investment in cyberinfrastructure, without which discoveries in the
geosciences simply will not be able to advance at a competitive rate;
and additional investment in the interagency Climate Change Science
program in activities focused on understanding past climate
variability, the advancement of knowledge about the carbon and nitrogen
cycles, and the continued development of computational models of Earth
system processes. I urge the committee to support the President's
request of $744.85 million for the Geosciences Directorate and, within
GEO, to provide the President's request of $226.85 million for the
Atmospheric Sciences Division which provides resources for the
atmospheric sciences community that are critical to the physical safety
of our citizens, our economic health, and global issues of national
security relevance such as severe weather, climate change, the security
of our communications infrastructure, and the environmental health of
the planet.
Office of Cyberinfrastructure.--Given the requirements of modern
research, leading-edge progress that results in societal benefits
cannot be realized without the acquisition, development and operation
of state-of-the-art cyberinfrastructure services including ever-
improving supercomputers, high-capacity mass-storage systems, and an
ever-expanding suite of software tools. NSF promises to accomplish much
in this area with the creation of the Office of Cyberinsfrastructure. I
urge the committee to support the President's fiscal year 2007 request
of $182.42 million for the Office of Cyberinfrastructure which includes
$50.0 million for the all-important achievement of petascale
performance for application to important science and engineering
problems.
Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate.--Key to the
success of the administration's ACI efforts is the improvement of math
and science education in this country. It is therefore disappointing to
see the EHR funding request for fiscal year 2007 decline in certain
areas and not keep pace with inflation overall. We believe that the
strengthening of science education, so critical to the Nation's future,
must be intimately connected with the best scientific practices and
results being produced via the NSF scientific directorates. While we
realize that the EHR request strengthens collaborations that aid in
addressing workforce needs, we hope that other areas of the budget do
not indicate a shrinking NSF influence in the classroom. Of some
encouragement is the recognition in the request of the value of digital
libraries to teachers and students. Within the Division of
Undergraduate Education (DUE), the National Science Digital Library
(NSDL) receives a small increase. The value of this program continues
to rise as its capacity to bring first-rate education tools into the
classroom is broadened and enhanced. I urge the committee to provide as
healthy an increase as possible for the Education and Human Resources
Directorate so that it may play its rightful, critical role in
achieving ACI goals.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) plays a unique and central
role in our Nation's ability to attract students into science and
engineering fields, and to understand the universe, our own planet's
environmental complexities and its relationship to the Sun, and major
factors contributing to climate change. Despite this essential role,
NASA's fiscal year 2007 Federal budget request would curtail long-term
growth in the science portfolio, defer or eliminate many of the
Nation's most successful and promising missions, and fund only a
relatively small number of scientific missions (albeit promising ones)
in the next 5 to 10 years. While the manned program is incredibly
important, it cannot come at the complete expense of this critical
investment.
Within SMD, NASA plays a unique and central role in the study of
the complexities of the Earth system and the equally complex
relationship of the Sun to Earth through the Earth-Sun System. NASA's
investment in Earth Science Research and Analysis (R&A) and the
missions and tools associated with this research makes possible the
study of Earth from space providing data that simply are not available
from any other Federal agencies. These observations, used in research
and in the construction of computer models to predict weather, climate,
and natural hazards, provide a critical basis from which our
understanding of our planet evolves and on which informed policy
decisions, both long term and emergency response, can be made. Given
the tremendous importance of this underlying activity, the R&A analysis
programs should continue to receive robust funding levels at least
commensurate with fiscal year 2006 levels.
In addition to investments in Earth-Sun System, NASA must preserve
the essential PI-led programs that serve as a primary conduit through
which the Nation's best scientists can engage NASA in cutting-edge
problems. NASA should support the Explorer, Discovery, and New Frontier
programs and fully commit to missions unless there are technical or
cost related issues. When NASA promotes premature termination of those
missions for non-technical or cost reasons, it is in danger of sending
the message to the community that it is an unreliable partner and that
this is not a field that future scientists and engineers should pursue.
Moreover, balanced, highly skilled teams of talent are lost, as are
discoveries on the immediate horizon.
While the exploration initiative and International Space Station
are of great human interest and of scientific value, we are far from
unlocking all the mysteries of our own planet. NASA programs that are
in progress and others that are yet to be implemented will enable us to
protect space vehicles, astronauts, and satellites from the devastating
radiation of solar storms; mitigate some of the property damage and
prevent some of the deaths caused by severe weather; and help us to
mitigate, understand, and cope with the inevitable effects of natural
and human-induced climate change. These programs are critical to the
health of our economy, to the health of the Earth, and to our national
security. As the administration's new vision for U.S. space exploration
unfolds, I urge the committee to protect the vibrant NASA science
accounts and missions, current and planned, that make possible the
study of our own planet and the environment that sustains life on
Earth.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NOAA's importance to the Nation was made glaringly evident to the
world as Hurricane Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast last fall.
Without the R&D and operations behind the accurate forecasts and
warnings that moved tens of thousands of people out of the region, the
number of deaths caused directly by the storm would have been
catastrophic. This is just one example of the manner in which NOAA
data, research, and services contribute to the Nation's security,
economy, environment, and quality of life, yet NOAA hurricane forecast
R&D is also just one example of areas severely under funded in the
request for fiscal year 2007. NOAA provides a critical link for this
Nation between research results, research applications, technology
development, and operations, yet NOAA's overall budget request is 5.8
percent below the fiscal year 2006 Enacted Budget. For NOAA to address
all areas of concern and priority that have been identified by
Congress, and to restore core funding that has decreased in recent
years, I urge the committee to fund NOAA at $4.5 billion for fiscal
year 2007 and to do so while maintaining vital, enhanced support for
other portion's of the subcommittee's research and development
portfolio.
National Weather Service (NWS).--The fiscal year 2007 NWS request
eases some of the extremely difficult pay raise pressures that were
squeezing NWS operations to the breaking point. In recent years, NWS
has assumed responsibility for several programs such as the Space
Environment Center (SEC), the U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP),
and the Wind Profilers. None has fared particularly well. SEC, the
Nation's official source of space weather alerts and solar radiation
warnings, was cut in fiscal year 2006 from just over $7 million to less
than $4 million. USWRP has not been able to adequately keep up with our
international obligation to fund THORPEX, and has not yet implemented
planned national activities for this international research program
designed to accelerate improvements in the accuracy of 1-to-14 day
weather forecasts with deliverables such as improving disaster
mitigation/response and increasing economic efficiency. The staff of
the NOAA Profiler Network, 35 Doppler Radar sites that provide vital
vertical wind profile data, has been cut back to the point that
reliability and urgently required upgrades are severely compromised.
The fiscal year 2007 NWS request will allow these and other critical
programs such as AWIPS and Local Warnings and Forecasts to barely meet
minimum requirements. I urge the committee to do everything possible to
fund the President's entire request of $881.86 million for the National
Weather Service, a line office that provides the most critical of
activities for policy makers, stakeholders, and citizens.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).--OAR conducts
research and technology development that are the underpinnings for NOAA
operations. If the requested amount is appropriated, OAR would receive
a small increase to its base funding for fiscal year 2007, some of
which will keep the Nation on track with its contribution to the
international commitment of completing the ocean climate observing
system by 2010. This is a high priority component within this country's
obligation to the construction of the international Global Earth
Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). In addition, the increase will
support drought impact research through the National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS) and develop new data sets that will enhance
operational climate prediction. Also within OAR, the Hurricane Research
Division (HRD) works to improve the Nation's hurricane forecasts for
both path and intensity. This is an activity the importance of which is
obvious, post-Katrina, yet HRD funding, modest to begin with, is cut by
over $1.0 million in the fiscal year 2007 request. I urge the committee
to support the foundational research, technology development, and
international commitments represented by the fiscal year 2007 request
of $348.6 million for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
and to shore up funding for obviously critical research areas such as
hurricane forecasts.
National Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service
(NESDIS).-- NESDIS is responsible for managing all aspects of the
remotely gathered environmental data that form the basis for
environmental research meeting the needs of policy makers and users.
The fiscal year 2007 request provides a badly needed increase to cover
basic operations and to provide additional funding for data archiving,
and access and assessment activities at the NOAA National Data Centers
which serve over 50,000 users annually. I urge the committee to support
the President's fiscal year 2007 request of $1,033.8 million for
NESDIS.
On behalf of the UCAR community, I want to thank the committee for
your stewardship of the Nation's scientific enterprise and your
understanding that the future strength of the Nation depends on the
investments we make in science and technology today.
______
Prepared Statement of the Town of Brunswick, Maine
On behalf on the Town of Brunswick, I appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1.45 million
from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the
Maquoit Bay project in southern Maine.
Located in coastal Cumberland County, Brunswick is the sixth
largest community in the State and the largest in the mid-coast region.
The popularity of our downtown, the presence of Bowdoin College, and
excellent public educational and recreational opportunities all
contribute to the attractiveness of Brunswick. Over the past 15 years
our town has experienced rapid residential growth resulting in the
construction of approximately 1,200 new homes. This growth underscores
the need to conserve key, ecologically significant, properties while
the opportunity still exists. Successful completion of the Maquoit Bay
project will forever preserve our community's traditional ties to Casco
Bay by maintaining public access and forever reminding our citizens of
their place in the watershed.
While the Casco Bay watershed represents only 3 percent of Maine's
total landmass, it holds nearly 25 percent of the State's population.
The bay supports many industries such as shipping, commercial fishing,
and shellfishing, as well as tourism and other recreational activities
all of which are critical to the economic vitality of Maine. The Casco
Bay Plan, developed to prevent further degradation of the bay and
restore its health, focuses on five key issues of importance to the
health of the bay: stormwater management, clam flats and swimming
areas, habitat protection, toxic pollution, and stewardship.
Maquoit Bay, which is at the northwestern end of Casco Bay, is a
shallow 5-square-mile embayment and includes the best commercial
clamming flats in southern Maine. The Town of Brunswick, in which the
entire bay is located, has adopted a Coastal Protection District zoning
ordinance to limit development within the Maquoit watershed in an
attempt to slow deterioration of the bay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has identified the northern end of Maquoit Bay as the most
important habitat area in Casco Bay for all species studied, including
the eider, brant, Canada goose, eelgrass, common loon, horseshoe crab,
and the black duck.
Available for immediate protection is the 170-acre Maquoit Bay
property, which constitutes fully one-quarter of the northern end of
the bay and is one of the last undeveloped sites on Brunswick's entire
coastline. Very little of the town's 66 miles of coastline is open to
public access, and the town has made improving water access one of its
top priorities. This property has almost a mile of salt water frontage
on the bay and if protected will nearly double the town's current
public access to the water.
The property available for conservation this year comprises a
substantial portion of a larger 222-acre forest block, identified as a
priority for conservation by the Rural Brunswick Smart Growth Plan.
There are also three freshwater streams on the tract and a unique rocky
promontory that provides spectacular views of Casco Bay and its islands
and great swimming access to the warm shallow bay. With nearly a mile
of trails for walking and cross-country skiing, and canoe and kayak
access to Maquoit Bay and Casco Bay, this property has great
recreational value to the townspeople as well as other Maine residents
and visitors seeking access to coastal waters.
Conservation of this relatively large unfragmented forested habitat
on Maquoit Bay will help achieve the goals of the larger Casco Bay
protection effort, enhance existing conserved properties up the
watershed, and assist Brunswick in providing additional public access
to the waterfront for its residents and many visitors.
The landowners are offering the property for conservation but only
for a very limited time. In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated
$550,000 towards this project, which is strongly supported by the
Brunswick Town Council and has been endorsed by the Maine Coastal
Program, a division of the State Planning Office. An appropriation of
$1.45 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program (CELCP) in fiscal year 2007 is needed to complete this critical
coastal protection effort in the Casco Bay watershed. These federal
funds will be matched by a State grant, land value donation and the
value of other conserved lands within the Maquoit Bay watershed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the St. Simons Land Trust
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for a conservation easement on Little St. Simons
Island in Brunswick, Georgia.
The St. Simons Land Trust is a non-profit organization dedicated to
protecting St. Simons natural and scenic character so that residents,
visitors, and generations to come can share and enjoy this precious
jewel of nature. The trust has worked to protect lands since its
formation in 2000 by working with caring landowners, county government,
and our dedicated membership of over 2,000 families.
The 100 miles of Georgia coastline from Savannah to St. Marys is a
diverse ecosystem of estuaries, salt marshes, wetlands, barrier
islands, and beaches. The Georgia coast is also home to a number of
historic forts and sites from colonial, antebellum, and Civil War
periods. In recognition of the ecological and historical significance
of the State's coast, Congress, Georgia, and private organizations have
created a number of parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, historic sites,
and reserves that conserve these special coastal resources.
Of the dozen or so larger barrier islands along the Georgia coast,
Little St. Simons Island is one of the last that remains substantially
undeveloped and unprotected. This year there is an opportunity to
acquire a conservation easement on the entirety of Little St. Simons
Island in Glynn County. The island consists of 12,500 acres of land
along 7 miles of Atlantic Ocean beachfront. Of the total acreage,
approximately 2,500 acres are high ground; the rest is tidal salt
marsh. Little St. Simons Island is about 10 miles northeast of the town
of Brunswick.
Little St. Simons Island contains a variety of pristine ecosystems
that provide habitat for migratory birds unique to the Atlantic
coastline. Little St. Simons Island and parts of three other islands in
the area were designated the Altamaha River Delta Reserve under the
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, an international
voluntary conservation system. This barrier island was also recognized
by the American Bird Conservancy as one of the top 500 important bird
areas in the United States. The marshlands provide habitat for
waterfowl, migratory birds, and American alligators. The island is also
a habitat for several endangered and threatened species, including the
loggerhead sea turtle, the piping plover, and the wood stork.
Little St. Simons Island contains significant historical and
cultural resources. Of the several historic structures still remaining
on the island, one of the most important is an eighteenth-century house
built by Samuel Augspourger, a surveyor and engineer to General James
Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia colony. Augspourger also
supervised the design and construction of Fort Frederica on St. Simons
Island, which has been preserved as a national monument since 1936.
Little St. Simons is thought to have potentially rich archaeological
and cultural resources relating to Native Americans and European
settlers.
Under the proposed conservation easement, the island will remain
privately owned. The easement will be held by the City of Brunswick and
will be monitored by the St. Simons Land Trust. Public access to the
island will be available through overnight and day-trip guest programs,
with ecological study programs for university scholars and naturalists.
The owners intend to establish an education and research foundation to
be endowed by a portion of the proceeds from the sale of the easement.
In addition to researchers, school groups will be able to visit the
island on a limited basis.
Unless the island is permanently protected, Little St. Simons
Islands' pristine natural resources will be at risk, as the island is
currently zoned for development. As nearby communities and developed
barrier islands grow, the conservation of Little St. Simons Island will
not only preserve open space and beachfront, but will also reduce the
potential damage and costs from storms and hurricanes.
The community in Brunswick and St. Simons Island supports the
conservation easement. The state of Georgia has submitted this project
to NOAA as its top CELCP priority for fiscal year 2007. The $3 million
appropriation from the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program
will be matched by $27.75 million in other public and privately raised
funds.
Acquisition of this conservation easement is critical to protecting
thousands of acres of marshlands and one of the last stretches of
undeveloped and unspoiled beachfront on Georgia's Atlantic coastline.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of the $3 million CELCP appropriation for Little
St. Simons Island, and for your consideration of the request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Protectors of Pine Oak Woods
Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, a conservation organization
representing 2,300 environmentally conscious Staten Islanders,
appreciates this opportunity to testify in support of appropriating $3
million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for
the preservation of Long Pond/Butler Woods in New York.
The southern coast of Staten Island, facing the open waters of the
Atlantic Ocean and Sandy Hook in New Jersey southeast over the Raritan
Bay, is an important natural and recreational resource for the
residents of the metropolitan New York City Area. To conserve this
shoreland, hundreds of acres have been protected as Federal, State, and
local government parks such as Gateway National Recreational Area in
New York and New Jersey, Mount Loretto Unique Area, Wolfe's Pond Park,
and Conference House Park. These parks lie on the northern shore of
Raritan Bay, a significant estuary between New York and New Jersey.
New York/New Jersey's Raritan Bay, with Staten Island to the north
and Middlesex and Monmouth counties to the south, is the largest
component of the Hudson River-Raritan Estuary system. It is part of the
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary program, one of 28 federally
recognized estuaries of national importance. Raritan Bay was
historically one of the richest fisheries in the Nation prior to over-
fishing and a reduction of water quality due to silt and other
pollution which have impacted fish stocks in recent decades. The
harbor, where commerce, industry, and nature confront one another, has,
considering its overlying urban/industrial matrix, large amounts of
upland and wetland open space and an unexpectedly high degree of
biological diversity. The wetlands, marshes, flats, and costal and
riparian corridors in both New York and New Jersey serve as prime
habitats for fish, terrapin, amphibians, and shorebirds, while
migratory birds use these same areas for habitat and stopovers to
replenish the energies needed to continue their journeys. In this part
of Raritan Bay land conservation has been used as a primary tool for
wildlife protection and to improve water control and quality; it is the
site of extensive habitat and storm water management Bluebelts
established by The New York City Department of Environmental
Protection.
Two parcels totaling 80 acres near the Princes Bay section of
Staten Island are available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007. These
are collectively referred to as Long Pond/Butler Woods. The largest
parcel, known as the North Mount Loretto Woods, comprises 75 acres of
forest and wetlands lying between Hylan Boulevard and the Pleasant
Plains Station of the Staten Island Railway. This property contains
wetlands that provide flood protection, stormwater control, wildlife
habitat, and open space for residents. More than half of the property
contains wetlands within the Mill Creek watershed and provides
watershed protection. The smaller parcel, known as the Camp St. Edward
property, is a 5-acre triangular property on the shore of Raritan Bay.
Currently undeveloped, it extends south of Hylan Boulevard along 800
feet of shoreland, and is adjacent to the only natural red clay bluffs
in the New York City area.
Both of these properties have been identified as high priority
conservation projects in the New York State Open Space Conservation
Plan of 2005, a plan which includes the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary program and the State plans for the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation program. Together the properties offer opportunities to
conserve important recreation and open space for residents and other
users. Enhancing their value are several existing conserved properties
that surround the parcels, including the Mill Creek Bluebelt site
immediately to the north of the North Mount Loretto Woods parcel; Long
Pond Park Natural Area which contains forest, swamp, and freshwater
ponds; Lemon Creek on the bay itself; Bloesser's Pond; Arden Heights
Woods; and the Mount Loretto Unique area, an adjacent 145-acre tract of
grasslands and bluff fronting the bay that was conserved in 1998.
In order to conserve the Long Pond/Butler Woods parcels, an
appropriation of $3 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation program is needed in fiscal year 2007. A federal
contribution would be matched by $11.5 million in non-federal funds,
very nearly a one-to-four ratio. Once conserved, the properties would
be managed by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Both properties are highly vulnerable for development
given their location in the metropolitan area, and other parcels in the
immediate area are have been purchased and developed for residential
use within the past year. Conservation of these two properties will
ensure the protection of important coastal wetlands and the
availability of open space, recreational opportunity, and public access
to the shore of Raritan Bay. Therefore protectors of Pine Oak Woods
urges the inclusion of funding for this project in the fiscal year 2007
Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill. We thank the
subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony, and for
consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other State and locally owned utilities in 49 of the 50 States (all
but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver electricity
to one of every seven electric consumers (approximately 43 million
people), serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However, the vast
majority of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000
people or less.
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) play critical roles in monitoring and
enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry is
experiencing an increase in mergers that, if approved, could result in
increased market power in certain regions. This development coupled
with the volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale
electricity markets, make the oversight provided by DOJ and the FTC
more critical than ever.
APPA supports adequate funding for staffing antitrust enforcement
and oversight at the FTC and DOJ. Specifically, we support the
administration's request of $223 million for fiscal year 2007 for the
FTC. We are heartened that the downward trend in funding for the DOJ's
Antitrust Division over several years has been reversed, and are
pleased with the administration's request of $147.7 million for fiscal
year 2007.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2007 funding priorities within the Commerce, Justice
and Science subcommittee's jurisdiction.
______
Prepared Statement of the California State Coastal Conservancy
SUMMARY
The following testimony is in support of the California State
Coastal Conservancy's fiscal year 2007 Science, Justice, Commerce, and
Related Agencies appropriations request. The Conservancy respectfully
requests needed funding for the following critical projects: $5.5
million for the acquisition of Piedras Blancas, the Santa Clara River
Parkway and the Jenner Headlands under the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program.
CONSERVANCY BACKGROUND
The California Coastal Conservancy, established in 1976, is a State
agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect,
restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the
shore. We work in partnership with local governments, other public
agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners.
To date, the Conservancy has undertaken more than 950 projects
along the 1,100 mile California coastline and around San Francisco Bay.
Through such projects, the Conservancy protects and improves coastal
wetlands, streams, and watersheds; works with local communities to
revitalize urban waterfronts; assists local communities in solving
complex land-use problems and protects agricultural lands and supports
coastal agriculture to list a few of our activities.
Since its establishment in 1976, the Coastal Conservancy has helped
build more than 300 access ways and trails, thus opening more than 80
miles of coastal and bay lands for public use; assisted in the
completion of over 100 urban waterfront projects; joined in partnership
endeavors with more than 100 local land trusts and other nonprofit
groups, making local community involvement an integral part of the
Coastal Conservancy's work and completed projects in every coastal
county and all nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. In addition, we
currently have over 300 active projects that are benefiting the
citizens of California.
Fiscal Year 2007 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Projects
The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is the only
federal program directly supporting public land acquisitions necessary
to implement the State's federally-mandated Coastal Management program.
California has coastal land acquisition needs for public recreation and
habitat conservation much greater than available State and local funds,
and the public strongly supports preservation of coastal resource
lands. The CELCP is strongly supported by nonprofit conservation
organizations and by the Coastal States Organization.
In fiscal year 2007, we are seeking $1,500,000 for the acquisition
of the Piedras Blancas property. The Piedras Blancas project will
purchase 18 acres of coastal property in San Luis Obispo County. It is
nestled within the Hearst Ranch, which covers 128 square miles and
includes 18 miles of coastline. In early 2005, the State of California
protected 82,000 acres of the Hearst Ranch through a conservation
easement and fee title acquisition. This conservation endeavor
transferred fee title of 13 miles of rugged, undeveloped coastline to
California State Parks. The Piedras Blancas property is the last
remaining privately held parcel west of Highway 1 within the 18-mile
stretch of Hearst Ranch. This project will allow the California
Department of Parks and Recreation to complete acquisition of this
missing half mile of coast and will offer immediate safe public access
to the coastal bluffs, trails, and beaches that exist on the property.
We also respectfully request $1,000,000 in funding for the
acquisition of land to complete the Santa Clara River Estuary Project.
The project will protect disappearing riparian and wetland habitats
through acquisitions of fee title and/or conservation easement in and
around the river's estuary. This project complements a 5-year ongoing
effort by the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) and The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) to create the Santa Clara River Parkway by acquiring
and protecting properties along the river. To date, the Coastal
Conservancy and The Nature Conservancy have acquired 14 riverside
properties totaling more than 2,300 acres. The project will also expand
McGrath Beach State Park and the Santa Clara River Estuary Natural
Preserve.
The $1 million requested from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program (CELCP) will be matched by the McGrath State Beach
Trustee Council (Trustee Council), the SCC, and TNC. The Trustee
Council will contribute up to $500,000 from a $1,315,000 State trust
account resulting from mitigation of the 1993 Berry Petroleum Company
oil spill in the vicinity of McGrath Lake. The trustees are the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Department of
Parks and Recreation (State Parks), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS). SCC will contribute at least $500,000 toward land protection
in the project area. Needs in excess of the projected $2 million will
be met by SCC and The Nature Conservancy.
This project is part of a larger ecological conservation project
that includes the entire Santa Clara River, its estuary, and beach and
marsh habitat along the Ventura County coastline. A number of local,
State, and federal agencies as well as non-profit organizations and
local citizens' groups are cooperating to make this work successful.
Finally, we respectfully request the inclusion of $3,000,000 in
funding for the acquisition of the Jenner Headlands. Acquisition of the
Jenner Headlands represents the most significant opportunity along the
Sonoma Coast to protect an important area with unique and diverse
conservation, recreation, ecological and aesthetic values. This 5,630-
acre property is threatened by conversion to rural residential
development, placing its extraordinary resources in peril. This
acquisition is a critical link in completing a 30-mile long
conservation corridor from Bodega Head to Fort Ross.
Much of the property is designated as Significant Natural Area by
the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and contains
numerous and diverse habitat types, including riparian corridors
suitable for Coho rearing. Jenner Gulch, Russian Gulch, Austin Creek
and Sheephouse Creek, whose watersheds are within this property, are
anadromous fish streams, the latter being one of three locations of
CDFG's Coho salmon re-introduction program. Jenner Gulch is also the
water source for the 170 residents of Jenner. The complex mosaic of
habitats that exist in this site provides a vast, contiguous region for
resident and nonresident fish and wildlife species. In addition to the
abundant common animal species, identified species of special concern
located on the property include northern spotted owl, red tree vole,
bank swallow, steelhead, and Coho salmon.
This property also offers exceptional new recreational
opportunities as well as opportunities to improve existing access to
the shore. As part of Sonoma Coast State Beach, California Department
of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) owns the land adjacent to Jenner
Headlands and west of Highway 1 from Russian Gulch almost to Jenner.
Access to this narrow coastal terrace with bluffs surrounding unnamed
coves is limited. Many of the trails are hazardous and the existing use
is eroding the bluffs. The acquisition of Jenner Headlands will provide
a safer and more scenic coastal trail route along the approximate 2.5
miles between Russian Gulch and Jenner.
The property owners are currently processing certificates of
compliance, which, when approved, will allow them to fragment the
property into 44 separate parcels without any further local subdivision
approval requirements. The intense demand for home sites on the
California coast practically guarantees that this property will be
developed unless it is acquired for the benefit of the public.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Small Business Development
Centers
The Association of Small Business Development Centers (ASBDC) urges
the subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies to
provide an appropriation of $110 million for the Small Business
Administration's Small Business Development Center (SBDC) grant program
in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill. A fiscal year 2007 Federal
funding level of $110 million for the nationwide SBDC network will
restore Federal funding lost to most State and regional SBDC networks
across the Nation as a result of inflation in recent years.
A Federal funding level of $110 million for the nationwide SBDC
network is the level of funding provided for in the bi-partisan Snowe-
Kerry-Vitter-Landrieu-Talent amendment that passed the Senate on
September 15, 2005, by a vote of 96-0, during consideration of the
fiscal year 2006 S-S-J-C appropriations bill. This is also the funding
level provided for in the bi-partisan Snowe-Kerry-Vitter-Coleman-Nelson
(of Florida)-Landrieu-Lieberman-Levin amendment to the fiscal year 2007
Budget Resolution adopted by the Senate on March 16 of this year; and
it is the funding level requested by every member of the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in a letter to the
chairman and ranking member of the C-J-S Appropriations subcommittee on
April 7.
The table below shows how much each State and regional SBDC network
has lost in the value of its annual Federal SBDC funding in recent
years as a result of inflation. Without an increase in Federal funding
for the nationwide SBDC network, Federal SBDC funding for the average
Statess SBDC network will be approximately $250,000 (19 percent) less
in fiscal year 2007 than it was in the year of the last Federal funding
increase, in inflation-adjusted dollars. For many State and regional
SBDC networks, the loss of Federal funding due to inflation will be
even more severe. For example, SBDC networks in small-population
States, which have not had an increase in their Federal SBDC funding
since 1998, will receive approximately 25 percent less Federal funding
in fiscal year 2007 than in fiscal year 1998, after adjusting for
inflation. And now the proposed SBA Budget calls for cutting Federal
funding for the nationwide SBDC network even further--by $743,00 (from
$87,863,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $87,120,000 in fiscal year 2007).
The immediate result of declining real Federal funding for the
Nation's SBDC network has been a decline in the number of hours that
SBDC business counselors can spend with small businesses and aspiring
entrepreneurs. Between 2003 and 2005 (the most recent year for which
statistics are available), the number of hours that SBDC business
counselors could spend with small businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs
declined by 224,844 (from 1,566,243 in fiscal year 2003 to 1,341,399 in
fiscal year 2005). The tragedy is that, as fewer small business owners
and aspiring entrepreneurs have access to SBDC business counselors, and
as SBDC business counselors spend less time with their small business
clients, the impact of the SBDCs will be diminished. Fewer businesses
will be created and saved, and fewer jobs will be created and saved.
The nationwide SBDC network has a proven record of helping
America's small businesses grow and create jobs. In 2004, for example,
nationwide SBDC in-depth clients (those who received five or more hours
of business counseling) created 74,253 new full time jobs; saved an
additional 80,907 jobs; generated $6.1 billion in new sales; and saved
an additional $5.8 billion in sales.
In addition, the Federal SBDC appropriation of $88 million in
fiscal year 2004 resulted in SBDC in-depth clients generating an
estimated $233,674,930 in new Federal revenue as a result of increased
economic activity--a return of $2.66 in new Federal tax revenues for
every Federal dollar spent on the SBDC program. Simply put, Federal
SBDC funding actually generates more revenues than it costs the
taxpayer. And every dollar appropriated by the Federal government for
the SBDC national program--to assist small businesses to survive, grow
and create jobs--leverages at least one additional, non-Federal dollar
in small business assistance. That is so because, to secure a Federal
dollar, SBDCs must raise a non-Federal matching dollar.
If we are to generate jobs for our Nation's young people coming out
of colleges and universities and high schools, we must stimulate job
growth. The cost per job created by SBDC in-depth counseling clients,
including Federal dollars and non-Federal dollars, is $2,439 per job.
Few federal jobs programs can approximate that cost-per-job created.
Most State economic development agencies consider $10,000 per job to be
a successful program.
It makes no sense to cut funding for a program that teaches small
business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs to become more competitive,
effectively manage their small businesses, start new businesses,
increase sales and create new jobs--especially when the SBDCs help
generate more Federal revenue through economic growth than it costs the
federal taxpayer to fund the SBDCs. As the United States Chamber of
Commerce states, in its letter to the Appropriations Committee
expressing the Chamber's support for an appropriation of $110 million
for the SBDC grant program, ``It is vital to have a well-funded SBDC
infrastructure in place to provide a cost-effective way to help these
small business owners develop the skills they need to manage cash flow,
restore markets, bolster revenue streams and increase sales--while
creating new jobs and additional State and federal revenues.''
Based on survey data analyzed by Professor James Chrisman of
Mississippi State University, the ASBDC estimates that, with an
appropriation of $110 million the nationwide SBDC network could help
in-depth SBDC clients to:
--Create 92,752 new jobs;
--Save an additional 101,064 jobs;
--Make $7.6 billion in new sales;
--Save an additional $7.2 billion in sales;
--Obtain $3.2 billion in financing to grow their businesses; and
--Generate $291,891,163 in additional Federal revenues as a result of
economic growth.
Again, a federal funding level of $110 million for the nationwide
SBDC network in fiscal year 2007 will restore federal funding lost to
most State and regional SBDC networks across the Nation as a result of
inflation in recent years. The ASBDC urges the subcommittee to provide
this much needed funding and help ensure that America's small
businesses and aspiring entrepreneurs, and the SBDCs that serve them,
have the resources they need.
Below is a spreadsheet showing how much each State and regional
SBDC network has lost in the value of its Federal SBDC funding in
recent years as a result of inflation.
HOW INFLATION HAS ERODED SBDC FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Percent of
Funding Federal Federal
Year of Last Federal Dollars During Dollars Lost Dollars Lost
Federal SBDC Funding During Year of Last to Inflation to Inflation
State Funding Year of Last Increase (in (between Year (between Year
Increase Increase inflation- of Last of Last
adjusted, Increase and Increase and
2007) 2007) 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................ 2001........... $1,276,425 $1,488,822 $212,397 17
Alaska......................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
America Samoa.................. 2001........... 200,000 233,280 33,280 17
Arizona........................ 2002........... 1,433,189 1,626,096 192,907 13
Arkansas....................... 2000........... 784,618 946,328 161,710 21
California..................... 2004........... 9,461,506 10,329,126 867,620 9
Colorado....................... 2002........... 1,201,512 1,363,236 161,724 13
Connecticut.................... 2000........... 1,045,447 1,260,914 215,467 21
Delaware....................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
District of Columbia........... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Florida........................ 2002........... 4,464,511 5,065,434 600,923 13
Georgia........................ 2002........... 2,286,800 2,594,603 307,803 13
Guam........................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Hawaii......................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Idaho.......................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Illinois....................... 2001........... 3,602,452 4,201,900 599,448 17
Indiana........................ 2001........... 1,747,976 2,038,839 290,863 17
Iowa........................... 2000........... 903,302 1,089,473 186,171 21
Kansas......................... 2000........... 819,243 988,089 168,846 21
Kentucky....................... 2001........... 1,162,071 1,355,440 193,369 17
Louisiana...................... 2001........... 1,331,402 1,552,947 221,545 17
Maine.......................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Maryland....................... 2001........... 1,507,645 1,758,517 250,872 17
Massachusetts.................. 2001........... 1,894,060 2,209,232 315,172 17
Michigan....................... 2001........... 2,930,782 3,418,464 487,682 17
Minnesota...................... 2001........... 1,378,212 1,607,546 229,334 17
Mississippi.................... 2000........... 847,168 1,021,769 174,601 21
Missouri....................... 2001........... 1,614,145 1,882,739 268,594 17
Montana........................ 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Nebraska....................... 2000........... 567,629 684,617 116,988 21
Nevada......................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
New Hampshire.................. 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
New Jersey..................... 2001........... 2,434,412 2,839,498 405,086 17
New Mexico..................... 2000........... 550,034 663,396 113,362 21
New York....................... 2001........... 5,668,984 6,612,303 943,319 17
North Carolina................. 2002........... 2,248,492 2,551,139 302,647 13
North Dakota................... 1999........... 500,000 616,300 116,300 23
Ohio........................... 2001........... 3,420,240 3,989,368 569,128 17
Oklahoma....................... 2000........... 1,006,907 1,214,431 207,524 21
Oregon......................... 2002........... 955,732 1,084,374 128,642 13
Pennsylvania................... 2001........... 3,746,336 4,369,726 623,390 17
Puerto Rico.................... 2002........... 1,063,895 1,207,095 143,200 13
Rhode Island................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
South Carolina................. 2002........... 1,120,714 1,271,562 150,848 13
South Dakota................... 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Tennessee...................... 2002........... 1,589,242 1,803,154 213,912 13
Texas.......................... 2001-02........ 5,898,568 6,711,872 813,304 14
Utah........................... 2002........... 623,812 707,777 83,965 13
Vermont........................ 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Virgin Islands................. 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
Virginia....................... 2002........... 1,977,309 2,243,455 266,146 13
Washington..................... 2003........... 1,656,015 1,849,438 193,423 12
West Virginia.................. 2000........... 628,228 757,706 129,478 21
Wisconsin...................... 2001........... 1,541,574 1,798,092 256,518 17
Wyoming........................ 1998........... 500,000 626,150 126,150 25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the American Physiological Society
The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks the Subcommittee
for its sustained financial support of scientific research at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Scientific research plays an important
role in technological innovation and economic development and therefore
is vitally important to the future of our Nation. The APS applauds the
proposed budget increase for NSF, and recommends implementation of the
plan to provide the agency with $6.02 billion in fiscal year 2007 and
double its budget in the coming years. In contrast, while the proposed
overall budget increase for NASA is 3.2 percent, the Human Systems
Research and Technology (HSR&T) theme would be cut by 56 percent. The
APS recommends the restoration of funds to basic life sciences and
countermeasures research at NASA to ensure the safety of humans both on
the International Space Station and in any future space endeavors.
The APS is a professional society dedicated to fostering research
and education as well as the dissemination of scientific knowledge
concerning how the organs and systems of the body work. The Society was
founded in 1887 and now has more than 11,000 members who do research
and teach at public and private research institutions across the
country, including colleges, universities, medical and veterinary
schools.
The APS recognizes both the enormous financial challenges facing
our Nation and the significant opportunities for scientific progress.
In this testimony, the APS offers its recommendations for fiscal year
2007 funding for the NSF and NASA.
NSF
The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the
most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. Although at times
NSF-funded research may seem to be exploring questions that lack
immediate practical application, we have learned again and again that
the relevance of the knowledge gained becomes apparent over time. The
NSF provides support for approximately 20 percent of 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. The majority
of the funding NSF provides is awarded through competitive, merit-based
peer review, which ensures that the best possible projects are
supported. NSF has an excellent record of accomplishment in terms of
funding research endeavors that have produced results with far-reaching
potential.
One example of innovative NSF-funded research that crosses
scientific disciplines is the effort by scientists in the Department of
Mathematics at Duke University to develop mathematical models of kidney
function. The kidney rids the body of waste and regulates fluid volume
and balance. By developing mathematically based computer models of
kidney function at the cellular level, researchers hope to gain a
better understanding of this complex organ and the causes of kidney
disease.\1\ This type of cutting-edge, interdisciplinary research
program is essential for the progress of science, which is becoming
increasingly interdisciplinary as new technologies emerge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A.T. Layton, H.E. Layton, Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 289,
F1346-66 (Dec, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another example of NSF-funded research, scientists studying
land-dwelling wood frogs at Miami University in Ohio have made some
important discoveries about how they survive harsh winter weather.
According to their studies, the frogs alter the amount of sugar and
other molecules in their bodies in response to cold temperatures,
ultimately allowing them to freeze solid in the winter and then thaw
again in spring.\2\ Because frogs share many biological similarities
with humans and other mammals, the researchers hope that studying the
precise series of physiological events in the frog will allow them to
achieve better and longer-term preservation of human organs for
transplantation. If human organs could be stored for longer periods,
more organs might be available for transplantation and better
immunological matches could be achieved. This has the potential to
result in longer and healthier lives for transplant patients. In
addition, because the frogs undergo cardiac arrest when they freeze, a
better understanding of their natural cold tolerance may also shed
light on medical problems in humans resulting from hypothermia and
oxygen deprivation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ J.P. Costanzo, R.E. Lee, Jr., J Exp Biol 208, 4079-89 (Nov,
2005).
\3\ J. P. Costanzo, R.E. Lee, Jr., A.L. DeVries, T. Wang, J.R.
Layne, Jr., Faseb J 9, 351-8 (Mar, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to such innovative research, NSF also supports
outstanding science and math education programs, which was one of the
themes in the President's State of the Union address. NSF programs
enhance education at every level from elementary school through
graduate school and therefore should have merited funding increases for
fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, education programs at the NSF have
suffered from recent budget cuts, and fiscal year 2007 budget proposal
similarly fails to give them the priority they deserve. The President's
budget recommends shifting funding for some NSF educational programs to
the Department of Education. We believe that the NSF is uniquely
qualified to foster excellence in science and math education and urge
that funding for these programs remain at the NSF.
The APS urges Congress to support the important work being carried
out at NSF by funding the agency at its requested level of $6.02
billion. In addition, the APS recommends restoration of funding for
education programs at NSF.
NASA
The Human Systems Research and Technology (HSR&T) Theme within NASA
was created to focus on the health and safety of humans involved in
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 health problems and reduced ability to
perform tasks. Given NASA's current focus on manned space exploration,
it is critical that resources be devoted now to research into the
health effects of prolonged space flight. NASA is the only agency whose
mission includes addressing the biomedical challenges of manned space
exploration. Moreover, this research has already produced findings with
potential application to medical problems that occur in other
connections. A few examples of outstanding NASA funded science are
described below.
A common problem associated with prolonged exposure to reduced
gravity is muscle atrophy, including in the muscles of the legs. In an
environment with normal gravity, muscle mass is maintained because
walking provides both exercise and nerve stimulation in the leg
muscles. The kind of muscle atrophy observed in humans following
spaceflight can be simulated in laboratory rats, which has permitted
researchers opportunities to study ways to counteract its negative
effects. Last year several NASA-funded researchers published a study
using showing that by artificially stimulating the bottom of the foot
using an inflatable boot they could markedly reduce the atrophy that
would otherwise occur in the leg muscles.\4\ If these results can be
confirmed in humans, this type of countermeasure may be useful not only
in conditions of reduced gravity, but also in patients who are bed-
ridden for prolonged periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A. Kyparos, D.L. Feeback, C.S. Layne, D.A. Martinez, M.S.
Clarke, J Appl Physiol 99, 739-46 (Aug, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muscles that have atrophied also show resistance to insulin, a
molecule that affects how sugar is absorbed by the body's tissues.
NASA-funded researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, used the same kind of animal model to study insulin resistance in
conditions that simulate microgravity. They were able to identify
events that occur at the molecular level that lead to insulin
resistance, as well as ways the body compensates to allow the muscles
to utilize sugar in a way that does not require insulin.\5\ These
studies may have significant implications for keeping astronauts
healthy during and after spaceflight. At the same time, they may
contribute to our understanding of biological pathways that are
important in diabetes, which is a growing health problem in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ T.L. Hilder et al., J Appl Physiol 99, 2181-8 (Dec, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The APS is concerned about the proposed 56 percent decrease in the
allocation for fiscal year 2007, which is inconsistent with NASA's
increased focus on manned space exploration. The APS joins the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) in
urging both a restoration of the cut and an increase in support for
peer-reviewed research into the health risks of long-term space flight
and development of appropriate countermeasures.
Investment in the basic sciences is critical to our Nation's
technological and economic future. The APS strongly supports federal
funding for biological and biomedical research at the NSF and NASA, as
it does for funding at the National Institutes of Health, another
agency whose budget is in need of congressional attention to counter
the real decline in its ability to fund medical research. The APS urges
you to make every effort to provide these agencies with increased
funding for fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of ASME Aerospace Division's Task Force
INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE AEROSPACE DIVISION
ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering society serving a
membership of 120,000. It conducts one of the world's largest technical
publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200
professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial
and manufacturing standards. The work of the society is performed by
its member-elected board of governors through five councils, 44 boards,
and hundreds of committees operating in 13 regions throughout the
world.
The ASME Aerospace Division has approximately 15,000 members from
industry, academia and government. ASME members are involved in all
aspects of aeronautical and aerospace engineering at all levels of
responsibility. They have a long-standing interest and expertise in the
Nation's federally funded aerospace research and development activities
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and NASA's
efforts to create a pipeline of young engineers interested in aerospace
and aeronautics. In this statement, the ASME Aerospace Division's Task
Force (herein referred to as ``the Task Force'') will address programs
that are critical to the long-term health of the Nation's aerospace
enterprise and its global economic competitiveness.
overview of nasa's fiscal year 2007 budget request
The Task Force applauds the administration for its firm commitment
to space exploration. Space exploration is one of the United States'
greatest achievements and maintaining this mission is critical to U.S.
leadership in space. However, at a time when America faces
unprecedented challenges to its economic leadership, NASA must continue
to play a lead role in funding engineering-related research,
particularly for aeronautics programs.
While we are pleased with the administration's support for the
space program and NASA's efforts to revitalize its mission, we remain
concerned about proposed reductions in funding for the aeronautics
research and technology (R&T) programs contained within NASA's
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. This is the portion of the
NASA budget that has an immediate and practical benefit to the Nation,
and yet the administration proposes to reduce those programs by $160
million to $724 million in fiscal year 2007, reducing the budget by
almost half over the past decade.
Strong investment in fundamental engineering research in
aeronautics will ensure that the United States will retain its long-
term leadership in this field. Therefore, the Task Force recommends
that the aeronautics portion of the NASA budget be increased to $2
billion over the next 8 years, with a long-term target of attaining a
level of 10 percent of the total NASA budget. Achieving this target
would re-establish aeronautics funding, as a percentage of the NASA
budget, at its pre-1990 level and put U.S. R&D funding at levels
commensurate with its competitors abroad.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Several interrelated critical challenges confront the U.S.
aeronautics enterprise--a sharp decrease in the number of new
commercial and military aircraft programs, a decline in the quality of
the research infrastructure, and erosion in the technologically
literate workforce needed to ensure pre-eminence in an increasingly
competitive marketplace. Low investment by NASA in aeronautics research
contributes to all these problems.
Infrastructure.--There is a need to refocus on the infrastructure
required to develop a new generation of advanced flight vehicles. In an
era of budget cuts and fewer defense contracts, the Nation has embarked
on a path where key wind tunnel and other ground test facilities are
being retired. Our Task Force recommends a team of experts from
industry, government and academia be chartered to identify the
infrastructure requirements for a robust national aeronautical R&D
program aimed at developing a new generation of advanced aeronautical
vehicles. R&D adequate to sustain or build this infrastructure should
be identified. The Nation should guard against a loss of technical
expertise in the critical field of wind tunnel testing, a very real
possibility in the current climate of attrition.
Workforce.--Aeronautics faces the same pressures being felt by the
space industries: fewer research dollars over time has resulted in
fewer companies with skilled workers capable of designing and building
complex aeronautical systems. An investment in aeronautics is a matter
of strategic importance, as it creates highly skilled manufacturing
jobs and helps create a foundation for a strong national defense.
Aerospace companies have an aging workforce, with an estimated 26-
27 percent reaching retirement age by 2008. Aerospace suffers from a
lack of available young workers with advanced technology degrees who
can step in to replace retiring, experienced workers. The aerospace
industry looks to NASA to create a demand for long-term R&D to
encourage students to go to graduate school and on to companies who are
doing aeronautical research. There is a clear correlation between
research dollars and the number of graduate students in a particular
field--the students follow the money. Therefore, as the funding for
aeronautics has decreased by more than half over the last decade, so
have the number of graduate student decreased.
Aeronautical Technologies Critical to U.S. Leadership.--Contrary to
perception, aeronautics is not a mature industry. Exciting new
opportunities exist for major advances in many areas of aeronautical
technology, including automated flight vehicles, ``fail-safe''
avionics, new platforms/configurations, efficient propulsion, ``quiet''
aircraft, enhanced safety, and ``zero'' emissions aircraft. The Task
Force identified numerous technologies that are critical to the long-
term health of the Nation's civil and military aviation and aeronautics
technology enterprise including:
--Quieter, more environmentally friendly aircraft engines are not
only possible, but highly desirable over the near- and longer-
term. More distant, but intriguing, are the possibilities for
engines using alternative fuels, including hydrogen. A vigorous
pursuit of these technologies is likely to pay rich dividends
to the United States air transportation system, the national
economy, and in our efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
--Flight demonstrations (jointly funded by DOD and NASA) should be
sustained at an annual budget level sufficient to determine the
integrated performance of promising and dramatic new emerging
technology opportunities.
--Research into avionics systems and their applications should be
aggressively pursued because their use is pervasive and is
often critical to the success of advanced aircraft
developments.
--Research and development into Uninhabited Air Vehicles (UAVs)
should be given sustained support addressing issues of
reliability, maintainability and cost, so that the full
potential of these promising aircraft can be realized.
--Research on new and more effective prediction methodologies are
sorely needed to meet the challenge of addressing the increased
complexity of design decisions. Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) methods, for example, have evolved to the point of
achieving good correlation with test results, but are so
computer-time intensive as to be currently impractical for the
multiplicity of calculations needed for design of optimum
configurations.
--Methodologies that facilitate the development of cost-effective,
extraordinarily reliable software and systems for safety
critical operations should receive the strongest possible
support.
--Materials development and design to transition high trust
propulsion technology to aerospace systems to boost trust-to-
weight ratio of propulsion systems. This will require
development of hybrid materials systems, durable coatings, and
microvascular active thermal management.
--Composite-Structures research is a critical enabling technology for
advanced aeronautical development, and should be vigorously
supported. New advances in manufacturing techniques for large-
scale composite structures are required to promote the
development of a new generation of aeronautical vehicles.
Nanotechnology research is also needed to develop high strength
and environmentally durable materials that perform well in
hostile atmospheric and space environments.
--Significant new aerodynamics research is required in support of
innovative and promising applications ranging from micro UAVs,
to Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) regional transports to
Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) launch vehicles and hypersonic
missiles.
--Essential simulation, ground, and flight-testing capabilities must
be preserved and new, more productive capabilities should be
developed--including physical infrastructure and personnel--so
that new generations of advanced aircraft can be designed
safely to be competitive in the world market.
--There is a continuing need for R&D into flight mechanics and
control for new, innovative configurations including un-piloted
aircraft. Research to minimize if not entirely eliminate the
impact of pilot and operator errors on flight safety should be
a primary focus.
We urge you to read our more detailed report on ``Persistent and
Critical Issues in the Nation's Aviation and Aeronautics Enterprise,''
prioritizing technologies critical to the long-term health of the
Nation's civil and military aviation and aeronautics technology
enterprise which is located on our website at http://www.asme.org/gric/
ps/2003/ASMEPolicyPaper.pdf.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we applaud the proposed fiscal year 2007 NASA budget
for its efforts to revitalize U.S. space exploration. There is a strong
rationale, however, for Congress to consider real increases in the NASA
Aeronautics budget. The President has challenged us to make the
investments in the physical sciences necessary to maintain our high
standard of living and unprecedented economic prowess. Aeronautics is a
vital industry that produces tangible economic and security benefits
for the Nation. As other nations seek to expand their efforts in
aeronautics and space exploration, Congress should also consider funds
for NASA R&D measures that will help the U.S. economy remain
competitive and innovative.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of federal appropriations
for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As a stakeholder and partner of NOAA, the National Aquarium in
Baltimore strongly encourages you to provide the agency with an
appropriation of $4.5 billion in fiscal year 2007. NOAA's protection of
our oceans and coastal communities is crucial to the U.S. economy.
Coastal communities, our national fisheries, and the services provided
by shorelines and wetlands depend on the science and management offered
by NOAA.
Funding from NOAA supports many of the conservation and education
activities conducted by the National Aquarium in Baltimore, its
affiliates, and other nonprofit and educational organizations on the
Chesapeake Bay. In partnership with NOAA, the National Aquarium in
Baltimore has helped citizens and communities restore tidal wetlands on
Chesapeake Bay's Barren Island, Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge,
Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, and Fort McHenry in Baltimore.
This partnership leverages support from other Federal and State
agencies and private foundations, enabling community-based restoration
activities that publicly demonstrate habitat enhancement and beneficial
use of dredged material for restoring tidal wetlands. NOAA investments
have leveraged more than $1.6 million over the past 5 years for
restoration of Chesapeake Bay tidal wetlands.
NOAA helps support the conservation of marine life through the
Aquarium's Marine Animal Rescue Program (MARP), which rescues and
rehabilitates seals, sea turtles, dolphins and porpoises, and even the
occasional whale, that become stranded on Atlantic Coast shorelines.
Many animals are released back into the wild after rehabilitation.
Those that cannot be released are cared for, studied, and placed in
educational facilities throughout the United States. MARP could not
conduct rescue and rehabilitation without help from NOAA's Prescott
Marine Mammal Assistance Grants. NOAA-funded conservation education
messages presented by MARP reach tens of thousands of visitors to Ocean
City, Baltimore, and the surrounding region. NOAA investments have
leveraged more than $500,000 for MARP activities over the past 5 years.
The Bay Wide Education and Training (BWET) grants from NOAA support
the National Aquarium in Baltimore's school-based Wetland Nursery
Program for middle and high school students in Maryland and Washington,
DC. This program builds demonstration wetland plant nurseries at urban
schools. Students grow wetland grasses and monitor water quality,
growth, and other scientific parameters. A new component of the program
integrates native fish aquaculture into the wetland nursery system. At
the end of the growing season, students plant grasses and release fish
in restored tidal wetlands on Chesapeake Bay. Additional teacher
training programs enable local educators to utilize curricular
materials on the Chesapeake Bay watershed in their classrooms
throughout the school year. NOAA investments have leveraged more than
$300,000 for these and other environmental education programs at the
Aquarium over the past 5 years.
NOAA is also significantly supporting the restoration of the
historic National Aquarium in Washington, DC, which is located in the
basement of the Commerce Building. The DC aquarium is an affiliate of
the National Aquarium in Baltimore. The two aquariums share resources,
providing top quality animal care, exhibit expertise, and materials.
Recent funding from NOAA has allowed the DC aquarium to upgrade water
quality and life support systems; improve worker safety and visitor
access; and refurbish exhibits. A NOAA-supported educational assessment
is under way and will help enhance conservation education activities
for schoolchildren in Washington, DC and the surrounding region.
Visitors to the DC aquarium come from around the world and learn about
our National Marine Sanctuaries through educational displays and the
new exhibits. In just 2 years, NOAA investments have leveraged more
than $100,000 in in-kind support for the National Aquarium in
Washington, DC.
The National Aquariums in Baltimore and Washington, DC are
appreciative of NOAA support over past years. We encourage the
subcommittee to continue significant funding for NOAA in future years,
as we work together to protect our oceans, shorelines, fisheries,
coastal communities and their economies.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Tennis Association Tennis and
Education Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the
Foundation of the United States Tennis Association (USTA), we extend
our sincere appreciation to the committee for the past consideration
and support extended to our national youth development initiative,
``Aces for Kids''--community based, nonprofit after-school and out-of-
school programs that encourage healthy lifestyles, tennis, and life
skills in a safe, nurturing environment for at-risk children between
the ages of 5-18, particularly those in lower income communities. The
specific problems addressed by this grant are: school truancy and
performance, gang activity, underage drinking and drug abuse. A U.S.
Department of Justice report, Juvenile Justice Bulletin, concluded that
after-school recreation programs are a promising approach to preventing
delinquency and crime.
``America's Promise'' and the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act state
that nearly 8 in 10 middle/high school youth who participate in
supportive after-school programs are high achieving students. Children
who regularly attend high-quality after-school programs have:
--Better grades and conduct in school,
--More academic and personal growth opportunities,
--Better peer relations and emotional adjustment,
--A stronger sense of responsibility to themselves and the community,
and
--Lower incidences of drug-use, violence and teen pregnancy.
Research cites that the problems to be addressed by ``Aces for
Kids'' are consistent across the country. Specifically that: (1) the
majority of children have both parents or their only parent/caregiver
in the workforce; (2) the majority of children under the age of 16 are
left alone at home each week; (3) many children, especially those from
low-income households, lose ground in reading skills if they are not
engaged in organized learning over the summer months; (4) school-age
children who are unsupervised during out-of-school hours are more
likely to receive poor grades and drop out of school than those who are
involved in supervised, constructive activities; and, (5) most juvenile
crime takes place between the hours of 2 p.m. and 8 p.m., and that
children are also at much greater risk of being the victims of crime
during these hours.
The USTA/USTA Tennis & Education Foundation recognized the
importance of ``Aces for Kids'' prior to receiving government support
and began funding programs that followed the ``Aces'' model in 2004.
These organizations include: Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis & Education,
Community Education & Tennis Association, and National Kidney
Foundation-Delaware Valley, all located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Abundant Waters, City Parks Foundation, New York Junior Tennis League,
and Harlem Junior Tennis Program, all located in New York City; Boys &
Girls Clubs of San Francisco, San Francisco, California; East Palo Alto
Tennis & Tutoring, Stanford, California; Youth Tennis Advantage,
Oakland, California; Net Results Junior Tennis, Denver, Colorado;
Recreation Wish List Committee and Joy of Sports, both in Washington,
DC; Love to Serve and Tennis Opportunity Program, both in Chicago;
Baltimore Tennis Patrons, Baltimore, Maryland; Tenacity, Inc., Boston,
Massachusetts; Fort Snelling Tennis & Education and Inner City Tennis,
both in Minneapolis, Minnesota; First Serve-New Mexico, Santa Fe, New
Mexico; NJTL of Charleston, Charlestown, South Carolina; Coldstream
Junior Tennis Academy, Columbia, South Carolina; Public Tennis, Inc.,
Hilton Head, South Carolina; Wilson Tennis Foundation-NJTL, Wilson,
South Carolina; and several dozen other programs across the country.
In October, 2005 (due date of January 13, 2006), the USTA/USTA
Tennis & Education Foundation issued a first-round of requests for
proposals. In Round I of ``Aces for Kids,'' 10 programs were selected
in a competitive application and review process based upon criteria
that rely on meeting the physical, social and emotional needs of
children:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funded
Aces for Kids program/location Purpose of grant amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Ridge Farm, Roanoke, Virginia To sponsor 50 $15,000
underserved students
from low income
families who are
living in government
housing at their 9-
week Summer Academic
Camp.
MACH Academy, Aiken, South Carolina To increase outreach $15,000
and Martinez, Georgia. efforts to provide
academic, nutrition,
technology, and
tennis/fitness
activities 2 days per
week after school, 4
hours per day, and 5
days per week--4
hours per day during
a 2 week summer camp
session and target
children ages 5-18
from families that
have limited parental
involvement and are
of a transient nature.
Middlesex County Grandparents For ``Success Pathways $25,000
Raising Grandchildren Coalition, Summer Camp-Tennis
Rahway, New Jersey. Program'' which is
designed to assist
disabled and
extremely low to low-
income working
grandparents and
kinship caregivers in
resolving their
dilemma of finding
affordable and
nurturing summer
child care.
National Junior Tennis League of For the start-up of $25,000
Trenton, Pennington, New Jersey. the ``Mobile
Information
Technology
Educational Support
Program,'' which will
enhance and expand
the academic, tennis,
and nutritional
education components
by adding a traveling
computer literacy
program that will
reach 1,000 children
by Summer, 2006.
Prince George's Tennis & Education To continue the work $25,000
Foundation, Upper Marlboro, and achievements of
Maryland. its five core
programs which target
approximately 400+ at-
risk youth: Junior
Outreach, College
Preparation &
Personal Development,
Out of School, and
Tennis Camp.
Rodney Street Tennis Association, To implement two Aces $13,750
Wilmington, Delaware. for Kids components:
nutrition and
citizenship. A part-
time nutritionist
will be hired to
improve the nutrition
of at-risk minority
youth during a 10-
week summer tennis
program. The
citizenship component
will support student
trips to their
representatives at
the city, Sate and
Federal Government
levels.
Southern Alabama Tennis To improve the lives $11,400
Association, Mobile, Alabama. of the youth in
Mobile and Baldwin
Counties. Tutoring is
already done on a
small scale with many
staff members
volunteering, and
this grant will allow
the program to reach
25 children, 2 days
per week.
Sportsmen's Tennis Club, General support for $25,000
Dorchester, Massachusetts. their programs which
serve approximately
300 disadvantaged
children from low-
income, working
families.
Washington Tennis & Education For their Arthur Ashe $25,000
Foundation, Washington, DC. Children's Program
and WTEF Academy.
Combined the programs
serve over 500
students, ages 8-18,
with tennis, academic
and life-skills
instruction. The
programs are
intensive, operating
2-to-3 hours a day, 4
days each week,
nearly year-round for
a total of
approximately 6,500
hours of programming
each year.
Youth & Tennis, Inc., Jamaica, New To help them increase $25,000
York. the number of
students in the
program by 10 percent
in addition to
expanding their
academic and social
support services.
They currently serve
1,000 children.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USTA/USTA Tennis & Education Foundation is grateful for your
support and is confident that our ``Aces for Kids'' model is a positive
step in preventing crime and delinquency and encouraging healthy
lifestyles and academic achievement for underserved children. In fiscal
year 2007, we hope the subcommittee will support our request for $1.5
million in funding, so that we can continue to be successful in our
efforts.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)
On behalf of the National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC), thank you for the opportunity to provide
recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 budgets for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautic
and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation
(NSF). We thank you for the support you have continually demonstrated
for these agencies over the past several years, and know that the
Senate recognizes the unique roles that NOAA, NASA and NSF each play in
a number of high-priority U.S. and international initiatives. All three
agencies also support research at our member institutions that provides
critical information to policymakers and communities across the
country. That is why we strongly recommend $4.5 billion for NOAA;
restoration of the President's proposed cuts to NASA's Earth Science
R&A Account; and the President's budget request for NSF.
NOAA
In order to maintain our country's homeland security, scientific
leadership, and economic competitive edge we must have a diverse
portfolio of federally supported science research and programs.
Consequently, we are concerned about the significant cuts made to NOAA
in fiscal year 2006. The science-based work of NOAA protects and
impacts every American citizen, everyday. NOAA is the third largest
source of funds for academic marine research in the Federal Government.
In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) report ``An
Ocean Blueprint'' recommended an integrated national ocean policy be
developed, incorporating ecosystem-based management and end-to-end
watershed monitoring. USCOP also recommended doubling the federal ocean
research budget and a significant enhancement and expansion of NOAA's
coastal, oceanic and atmospheric real-time observing network that will
lead to better forecasts of weather events, climate conditions and
impending natural hazards. Yet, even following a year with the most
devastating ocean and climate-based natural disaster in recent memory,
Hurricane Katrina, and in which the importance of science to American's
competitiveness was noted in a number of reports such as the National
Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' NOAA is still
significantly under-funded. As a member of the Friends of NOAA
Coalition, NASULGC strongly recommends $4.5 billion for NOAA in fiscal
year 2007.
We thank the Senate for appropriating this same amount last year,
and believe it is a reasonable recommendation when one considers that
the coastal watershed counties contribute $4.5 trillion to the U.S.
economy--half of the Nation's Gross Domestic Product--and over 60
million jobs. For that relatively small amount, each American receives
weather forecasting, hurricane tracking, tornado warnings, tsunami
warnings, navigational information, land and building boundary
specifications, fisheries management, hazard mitigation, scientific
research, and local community assistance. On behalf of all of us, NOAA
oversees the Nation's environmental observing networks and satellites,
and provides science-based management of many valuable marine
resources. The bottom line is that NOAA affects and provides important
services to all Americans, so it is time for Congress to demonstrate
its commitment to the NOAA programs that are vital to our economy and
to the health and well being.
As members of the oceanic and atmospheric academic community we
further recommend that a portion of the additional funding, that $4.5
billion would provide, be used to support the following programs and
activities:
--$471 million for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), a $100
million increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and the
same amount approved by the Senate in fiscal year 2006. The
basic research conducted through the OAR line office and its
partnerships with universities helps us understand climate
variability, provide better protection for coastal resources,
contributes to our Nation's commerce, and supports our
transportation systems. OAR supports such important programs as
the National Sea Grant College Program, Ocean Exploration, the
National Undersea Research Program, the U.S. Weather Research
Program, and Climate Operations. Despite this, the President's
budget request for OAR represents a $65.8 million decrease
since fiscal year 2005. Within the OAR line office, NASULGC
specifically recommends:
--$72 million for the National Sea Grant College Program, $17.3
million increase over fiscal year 2006 enacted levels, and the
same amount approved by the Senate in fiscal year 2006. Last
year, Sea Grant was surprisingly cut by $7.1 million, or 11
percent, from fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. The fiscal year
2006 enacted level of $54.7 million was also significantly
below the President's request, the House passed level, and the
Senate passed level for the same year. While our fiscal year
2007 request represents a modest increase, it restores the
significant reductions taken in fiscal year 2006 and is still
$28 million below the authorization for the Sea Grant program.
Sea Grant is the flagship program between NOAA and the academic
community that supports the work of 31 colleges located in
coastal and Great Lakes States and serves as the core of a
national network of more than 300 participating institutions
involving more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, educators,
students, and outreach experts.
--$29.5 million in fiscal year 2007 for the extramural portions of
both the NOS Ocean and Coastal Research program and the Oceans
and Human Health Initiative (OHHI). Within the National Ocean
Service (NOS), NASULGC supports restoration of last year's
drastic cuts in competitive extramural research, bringing
funding back to the more sustainable and effective level
provided in fiscal year 2005. In addition, we support the
appropriation of sufficient funds for full NOAA participation
in collaborative NOS science programs, particularly OHHI. NOS
support for extramural research conducted in cooperation with
NOAA scientists is leading to improved knowledge and forecasts
to address complex problems such as harmful algal blooms,
hypoxia, coastal stressors and ecosystem-based management of
fisheries. We ask that a minimum of $20.5 million be provided
in fiscal year 2007 to provide support for academic
participation in such efforts. In addition, OHHI offers real
promise for understanding the role of the oceans in human
health. The initiative was funded at $18 million in fiscal year
2005 of which $9 million was made available to academic
partners, and we ask that this support be restored.
As recipients of many of NOAA's extramural research grants, we
would also appreciate bill language that asks NOAA to provide greater
transparency in their budget justification of available funding for
extramural research purposes. Extramural research is available
throughout various programs within OAR and NOS, but the current system
makes it difficult to track where the money is going.
NASA
Another area of great concern is the future prospect for Earth
science activities at NASA, which now falls under the agency's Science
Mission Directorate. We feel that Earth science activities are being
cut because of space exploration missions. While we appreciate the
President's ambitious space exploration agenda, we agree with Science
Committee Chairman Boehlert's statement that ``There simply is no
planet more important to human beings than our own, and we're
remarkably ignorant about it. NASA's Earth science mission is
essential.'' NASA's traditional robust research and development funding
has been very important for our member universities and NASULGC
supports a balance between NASA's science and the human space programs
at NASA.
NASA's investments in the Earth sciences fund university research
that has resulted in valuable advances in weather forecasting, improved
climate projections, and understanding of Earth ecosystems. Without the
tools provided by NASA, oceanographers and the Nation would have a much
less complete picture of the planet's oceans and coasts.
There are suggestions that NASA's Earth Science R&A funding will be
cut by almost 20 percent this year, and estimated to cut $350-$400
million over the next 5 years. The Research and Analysis program at
NASA is the primary mechanism for funding to the academic community.
Through its support for young scientists and graduate students, the R&A
program supports innovation in Earth science and technology using
NASA's satellite missions. New sensor concepts, new data processing
algorithms, and new approaches to global-scale Earth science are the
legacy of the research funded by the R&A program. It is essential that
NASA maintain a balance between R&A funding and its space missions in
order to derive maximum benefit from today's missions as well as to
support the innovation needed to drive the missions of tomorrow.
NASULGC is opposed to proposed cuts to the NASA Earth Science R&A
Program.
NSF
The Nation's state universities and land-grant colleges that we
represent welcome, and are excited by, the renewed national focus on
scientific research and education as illustrated in the President's
proposed American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). We are extremely
pleased with his proposal to double funding in the physical sciences at
NSF over the next 10 years. NASULGC supports the President's NSF fiscal
year 2007 budget request of $6 billion, and specifically his proposed
increases in the Geoscience Directorate.
Thank you for taking time to review our recommendations. We look
forward to continue working with you towards promoting and sustaining
the important NOAA, NASA, and NSF programs that enable the United
States to maintain a leadership position in marine and climate science.
About NASULGC
NASULGC is the Nation's oldest higher education association.
Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
the historically black land-grant institutions--located in all 50
States. The association's overriding mission is to support high quality
public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
public service roles.
About the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere
The Board on Oceans and Atmosphere's primary responsibility is to
develop a federal relations program to advance research and education
in the marine and atmospheric sciences. The board currently has
approximately 200 regionally distributed members, including some of the
Nation's most eminent research scientists, chief executive officers of
universities, marine and atmospheric scientists, academic deans, and
directors of Sea Grant programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the Surfrider Foundation
On behalf of the Surfrider Foundation, I appreciate the opportunity
to present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million
from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San
Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit environmental organization
dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the world's oceans, waves
and beaches for all people, through conservation, activism, research
and education. The Surfrider Foundation, is a grassroots organization
with 64 chapters and over 50,000 members. We have a local chapter in
Rincon, Puerto Rico and have been actively involved in coastal and
ocean protection in Puerto Rico for over a decade, including the
preservation of the NEC.
The Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC), comprising
approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the Caribbean's last, great,
unprotected areas. Located on the eastern corner of the main island of
Puerto Rico within the municipalities of Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC
contains an extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in
other parts of the world. In addition to coral communities, mangroves,
and pre-Columbian forests, all the different varieties of coastal
wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico are represented within the NEC.
The wetlands in this area are essential to the existence of a seasonal
bioluminescent lagoon known as Laguna Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare
biological phenomenon. The NEC is also home to several world-class
surfing areas that represent some of the best surfing in the Carribean.
The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
National Rain Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, the forest
represents one of the oldest reserves in the Western Hemisphere and is
the only tropical forest in the United States national forest system.
The forest contains rare wildlife and is home to over 50 species of
birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--one of the ten most
endangered species of birds in the world. The ecological diversity
observed within these two related sites, varying from a coastal dry
forest to a rain forest, lies within a corridor just 13 miles in
length. Such diversity can only be enhanced by the conservation of NEC
lands.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
remaining virgin forests on the island, as well as one of the last
remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
immediately off shore. The property falls within the range of over 40
rare species of flora and fauna, including 16 federally threatened or
endangered listed species, such as the hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin
Island boa, Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon,
West Indian manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering plant). The area is
best known, however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for
leatherback sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. The
project site also contains a variety of archeological resources, such
as historical tools and structures.
At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
have proposed various mega luxury tourist-residential resorts within
the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
250-room resort/casino, a 175-unit hotel/casino, and two golf courses.
The development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization
of rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
sensitive area, including destruction of wetlands and the degradation
of key endangered species habitats.
Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque National
Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational opportunities.
Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. A
fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to further the protection
of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by $2.27 million
in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill (specifically for
land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil spill settlement
funds (for restoration categories), $3 million committed by the
Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional funds being raised by
a local land trust and other interested private parties. I urge you to
include this project in the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and
Science appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
Mr. Chairman, my name is Roland Rousseau and I serve as an
alternate commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) and the
chair of the Budget Committee for the U.S. Section of the Commission.
The Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) between the United States and Canada
was entered into in 1985. A subsequent agreement was concluded in June
of 1999 (1999 Agreement) that established new abundance-based fishing
regimes under the treaty and made other improvements in the treaty's
structure. During fiscal year 2007, the PSC will begin discussions on
treaty provisions that conclude at the end of 2008. The U.S. Section
recommends:
--Funding the Pacific Salmon Treaty Line Item of the National Marine
Fisheries Service at $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2007, restoring
$1,000,000 previously provided by Congress. This funding
provides the technical support for the States of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon and Idaho and the National Marine Fisheries
Service to implement the salmon stock assessment and fishery
management programs required to implement the treaty fishing
regimes. Included within the total amount of $8,000,000 is
$400,000 to continue a joint Transboundary River Enhancement
program required by the treaty.
--Funding the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement account
at $1,844,000, level funding from that was provided by Congress
for fiscal year 2006. This funding continues to be necessary to
acquire the technical information to implement abundance based
Chinook salmon management provided for under the 1999
Agreement.
The base treaty implementation projects include a wide range of
stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support activities
for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from
Southeast Alaska to those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The States
of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), are charged with carrying out a major portion
of the salmon fishery stock assessment and harvest management actions
required under the treaty. Federal funding for these activities is
provided through NMFS on an annual basis. The agency projects carried
out under PSC funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and
sharing the information required to implement the salmon conservation
and sharing principles of the treaty. A wide range of programs for
salmon stock size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock
distribution, and catch and effort information from fisheries, are
represented. The information from many of these programs is used
directly to establish fishing seasons and harvest levels. Congress
increased this funding by $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2005 to a total of
$8,000,000 to provide for programs needed to implement the new
abundance based fishing regimes established under the 1999 Agreement.
The 1999 Agreement updated provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty
including fishing arrangements and abundance based management
approaches for Chinook, southern Coho, Northern Boundary and
Transboundary River fisheries. The $400,000 that has been provided
since 1988 for a joint Transboundary River enhancement program with
Canada is included in this amount.
In 1996, the United States adopted an abundance-based approach to
managing Chinook salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska. Under this
approach, Chinook harvest levels are based on annual estimates of
Chinook abundance. This system replaced fixed harvest ceilings agreed
to in 1985, which did not respond to annual fluctuations in Chinook
salmon populations. Under the 1999 Agreement, this abundance based
management approach was expanded to all Chinook fisheries subject to
the treaty. Beginning in 1998, Congress provided $1,844,000 to allow
for the collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery management
information to implement the new approach. Through a rigorous
competitive technical review process, the States of Alaska, Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho, and the 24 treaty tribes are using the funding to
implement abundance-based Chinook salmon management coast-wide under
the new agreement. The U.S. Section recommends level funding of
$1,844,000 for fiscal year 2007 to support the implementation of
abundance-based Chinook salmon management.
The United States and Canada agreed to a joint salmon enhancement
program on the Transboundary Rivers flowing between Canada and
Southeast Alaska in 1988. Since 1989, Congress has provided $400,000
annually for this effort through the National Marine Fisheries Service
International Fisheries Commission line item under the Conservation and
Management Operations activity. Canada provides an equal amount of
funding and support for this bilateral program. This funding is
included in the $8,000,000 the U.S. Section is recommending for the
fiscal year 2007 Pacific Salmon Treaty line item.
This concludes the statement of the U.S. Section of the PSC
submitted for consideration by your committee. We wish to thank the
committee for the support that it has given us in the past.
______
Prepared Statement of the Washington State Department of Ecology
On behalf of the Washington State Department of Ecology, I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $2 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation program for the Turner's Bay project in Washington State.
The mission of the Washington State Department of Ecology is to
protect, preserve, and enhance Washington's environment, and promote
wise management of our air, land, and water for the benefit of current
and future generations. The Washington State Department of Ecology
manages a wide variety of programs, including the Coastal and Estuarine
Land Conservation program.
Made up of a series of underwater valleys and ridges, Washington's
Puget Sound is an estuary where salt water from the ocean mixes with
fresh water from the many rivers and streams of the surrounding land.
The 2,500-mile of shoreline is a mosaic of beaches, bluffs, deltas,
mudflats, and wetlands. While much of the sound is healthy, recent
growth and development in the region are stressing its ecosystem. Water
pollution and sediments laden with toxic pollutants threaten the water
quality of Puget Sound, which has seen sharp declines in populations of
salmon, orcas, marine birds and rockfish. Nearly 85 percent of the
basin's annual surface water runoff comes from 10 rivers, one of which
is the Skagit River. The Skagit River delta is a biologically rich and
complex area characterized by tidal marshes and flats, shrub/scrub
wetlands, and prolific agricultural areas. The delta's river system
sustains viable runs of all five species of Pacific salmon. In all, the
delta provides habitat for more than 300 species of fish and wildlife,
including eight federally endangered or threatened species.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 456-acre
Turner's Bay project, which lies within the Skagit delta. This property
includes approximately 38 acres of tidelands and estuarine wetlands, 27
acres of tidal influenced shorelands (including a 4.2-acre spit) and an
adjacent 391 acres of mixed deciduous/conifer forested uplands and
wetlands, all located at the northern boundary of the Swinomish
Reservation. Small forested wetlands border the southern end of the
subject property. The length of shoreline to be acquired, including the
spit, is approximately 7,180 feet.
Turner's Bay provides critical habitat for waterfowl, blue herons,
juvenile salmon, shellfish and other aquatic life. Bald eagles are
commonly seen foraging in the bay. The property contains the largest
stretch of undeveloped estuarine habitat on the reservation and one of
the largest of such areas remaining in the Skagit Bay system.
The Skagit delta is a popular recreation area for kayakers,
shellfish harvesters, beachcombers, and birdwatchers. The public access
provided by the Turner's Bay project would increase the availability of
coast-dependent and nature-based recreation. The spit and undeveloped
shoreline along the bay provide a unique natural environment--sandy
shores, prolific tidelands, and rich wetlands--for the public to
explore and enjoy. Turner's Bay is located along the Cascadia Marine
Trail, a water trail that stretches from Olympia in south Puget Sound
to Canada. The Cascadia Trail is a well-traveled route of many boaters
exploring Puget Sound or heading farther north to the San Juan Islands.
The project area is also located just south of Highway 20, a State-
designated scenic byway that runs the length of Whidbey Island to the
west and provides a scenic east-west route across the Skagit Valley.
The Washington State Department of Ecology manages the nearby 11,000-
acre Padilla Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve which is funded by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The area
surrounding Turner's Bay and the greater Skagit Valley is under
increasing development pressure as population in the Puget Sound basin
continues to grow and spread from urban centers. Undeveloped,
undisturbed waterfront property is an increasingly threatened commodity
in Puget Sound, as retirees and owners of vacation homes discover the
beauty of the Puget Sound shoreline. Acquisition of this parcel is a
unique opportunity to preserve an enclave of pleasing and natural views
amid a growing sea of suburban development.
Turner's Bay is of significant cultural importance to the Swinomish
Tribe. Three archaeological sites have been identified along the
shoreline in previous surveys. More significantly, Turner's Bay is a
traditional subsistence shellfish harvest area for tribal members. The
harvest and consumption of shellfish from tribal homelands is also an
important cultural practice of tribal members and is central to
Swinomish cultural identity. For this reason, the tribe would like to
work with the State to acquire these tidelands, shorelands, and
forested uplands that shelter and protect the quality of Turner's Bay.
The tribe wishes to ensure appropriate stewardship of the abundant
resources in the subject area. Additionally, some historians consider
the spit in Turner's Bay to be a possible landing site of Captain
George Vancouver's Puget Sound exploration party, as it fits the
description and approximate location of one of their reported survey
sites as they explored the area.
A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $2 million from the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation program will ensure the protection of this
ecologically and culturally significant site on Turner's Bay, and I
respectfully request that you to include this project in the Fiscal
Year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2007 funding request of $150,000
from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account for CCOS. These funds are
necessary for the State of California to address the very significant
challenges it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality
standards for ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design
incorporates recent technical recommendations from the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) on how to most effectively comply with Federal Clean
Air Act requirements.
First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
California Regional PM<INF>10</INF>/PM<INF>2.5</INF> Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
Nation. Information gained from these two studies is forming the basis
for the 8-hour ozone, PM<INF>2.5</INF>, and regional haze State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
(particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous SIPs, the
2007-2008 SIPs will need to be updated and refined due to the
scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request this
year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important questions
that won't be answered with results from previously funded research
projects.
To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
concentrations. Future SIPs will be more complex than they were in the
past. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now recommending a
weight-of-evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-
based, integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with
seasonal and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with
Federal Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a
larger number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition,
because ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same
emissions precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in
combination, which CCOS will do.
Consistent with the new NAS recommendations, the CCOS study
includes corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by
past studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling,
and addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution
studies. In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to
emission inventories, address the development of observation-based
analyses with sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four
general components:
--Performing SIP modeling analyses, 2005-2011
--Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses, 2006-2008
--Making emission inventory improvements, 2006-2010
--Performing seasonal and annual modeling, 2008-2011
CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
For fiscal year 2007, our coalition is seeking funding of $150,000
from the Department of Commerce/NOAA account in support of CCOS.
California has a very complex terrain that includes mountain ranges,
flat valleys, and long coastal regions. Some meteorological models are
known to have difficulty in simulating high-resolution airflow over
such complex terrain. NOAA has a vast amount of experience in applying
meteorology models in several different areas of the country and their
scientific know-how is a valuable asset to CCOS. This request will be
used to continue NOAA's involvement in developing meteorological
simulations for Central California, specifically longer-term
simulations of seasonal and annual meteorology. The long-term record of
meteorological data in the CCOS database can be used to improve NOAA's
meteorological forecasting abilities and in the evaluation of U.S.
western boundary conditions for weather forecasting models.
As you know, NOAA is at the scientific forefront of the development
of meteorological models including the Weather Research and Forecasting
(WRF) model that is viewed as a replacement for the Mesoscale
Meteorology Model, Version 5 (MM5). Thus, NOAA's involvement would
facilitate the use of CCOS measurements in the development and
refinement of WRF. In addition, NOAA has conducted prior research in
the CCOS region on atmospheric airflows, sea breeze circulation
patterns, nocturnal jets and eddies, airflow bifurcation, convergence
and divergence zones, up-slope and down-slope flows, and up-valley and
down-valley airflow. Thus, CCOS provides the opportunity to draw from
or extend this research for a longer, multi-year time period. This
research provides fundamental data needed to understand airflow over
complex terrain, and has national applicability.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
To the chairman and members of the subcommittee: The American
Geological Institute (AGI) supports fundamental 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). This frontier research has fueled economic
growth, mitigated losses and sustained our quality of life. The
subcommittee's leadership in expanding the federal investment in basic
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,
assess and reduce our risks to natural hazards. AGI supports full
funding as authorized for NSF's EarthScope project and Research and
Related Activities; full funding for NOAA's and NASA's Earth observing
campaigns; and authorized support for NIST's and NSF's responsibilities
in the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).
The President's American Competitiveness Initiative calls for a
doubling of physical science research funding in key federal agencies,
while Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative calls for significant increases
in energy research support. Both initiatives also include much needed
support for education in the physical sciences and some specific
incentives for education in the energy resources sector. Such
initiatives are strongly supported by AGI.
AGI is a nonprofit federation of 44 geoscientific and professional
societies representing more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
the geosciences play in society's use of resources and interaction with
the environment.
NSF.--We applaud the President's request for an 8 percent increase
in the overall budget for NSF and a 6 percent increase for the
Geosciences Directorate. We hope that the subcommittee shares this
commitment and can continue to strengthen our physical science research
and education foundation through annual budget increases. Congress
wisely authorized increased funding for NSF in Public Law 107-368, such
that the total NSF budget would increase to $9.84 billion in fiscal
year 2007, however, NSF only received about $5.6 billion in fiscal year
2006 and remains well short of this effective science policy objective.
Although NSF remains under funded, Congress and the administration are
proposing annual increases to NSF's budget over the next 7 to 10 years.
AGI believes that such a forward-looking investment in tight fiscal
times will pay important dividends in future development and innovation
that drives economic growth, especially in critical areas of
sustainable and economic natural resources and reduced risks from
natural hazards.
NSF Geosciences Directorate.--The Geosciences Directorate is the
principal source of federal support for academic Earth scientists and
their students who are seeking to understand the processes that
ultimately sustain and transform life on this planet. The President's
budget proposal requests an increase of 6 percent ( $42 million) for a
total budget of about $745 million, which AGI strongly supports. We
would encourage increases in funding to allow NSF to strengthen core
research by increasing the number and duration of grants. Now is the
time to boost Earth science research and education to fill the draining
pipeline of skilled geoscientists and geo-engineers working in the
energy industry; the construction industry, particularly on levees and
dams; the environmental industry; the academic community, particularly
on understanding natural hazards and the sustainability of our natural
resources; the primary federal Earth science agencies, such as the
United States Geological Survey; and in all areas of education.
NSF Major Research Equipment Account.--AGI urges the subcommittee
to support the Major Research Equipment, Facilities and Construction
budget request of $27.4 million for EarthScope. We also support funding
of $42.88 million to complete construction of the Scientific Ocean
Drilling Vessel, $13.5 million to begin construction of the Ocean
Observatories Initiative (OOI) and $56 million to begin construction of
the Alaska Region Research Vessel.
EarthScope--begun thanks to the previous subcommittee's support in
fiscal year 2003--will systematically survey the structure of Earth's
crust beneath North America, imaging faults at depth, hidden faults and
other structures that range from hazardous to economically-valuable.
The fiscal year 2007 request includes continued support for deployment
of three components: a dense array of digital seismometers across the
country; a 4-km deep borehole through the San Andreas Fault, housing a
variety of instruments that can continuously monitor the conditions
within the fault zone; and a network of state-of-the-art Global
Positioning System (GPS) stations and sensitive strain meters to
measure the deformation of the constantly shifting boundary between the
Pacific and North American tectonic plates in an area susceptible to
large earthquakes and tsunamis.
EarthScope has very broad support from the Earth science community
and received a very favorable review from the National Research
Council's 2001 report entitled ``Review of EarthScope Integrated
Science''. All data from this project will be available in real time to
scientists, students and the public, providing a tremendous opportunity
for research and learning about Earth. Involving the public in Earth
science research will increase appreciation of how such research can
lead to improvements in understanding the environment, utilizing
natural resources and mitigating natural hazards. EarthScope can also
provide a mechanism to integrate a broad array of Earth science
research data in a unified system to promote cross-disciplinary
research and avoid duplication of effort.
NSF Support for Earth Science Education.--Congress can improve the
Nation's scientific literacy by supporting the full integration of
Earth science information into mainstream science education at the K-12
and college levels. AGI strongly supports a new grant program in the
Geosciences Directorate called GEO-TEACH, which will support projects
to improve the quality of geosciences instruction, primarily at middle
to high school levels. We also support the Math and Science Partnership
(MSP) program, a competitive peer-reviewed grant program that funds
only the highest quality proposals at NSF. The NSF's MSP program
focuses on modeling, testing and identification of high-quality math
and science activities whereas the Department of Education MSP program
does not. The NSF and Department of Education MSP programs are
complementary and are both necessary to continue to reach the common
goal of providing world-class science and mathematics education to
elementary and secondary school students. AGI opposes the transfer of
the MSP from NSF to the Department of Education.
Improving geoscience education to levels of recognition similar to
other scientific disciplines is important because:
--Geoscience offers students subject matter that has direct
application to their lives and the world around them, including
energy, minerals, water and environmental stewardship.
--Geoscience exposes students to a diverse range of interrelated
scientific disciplines. It is an excellent vehicle for
integrating the theories and methods of chemistry, physics,
biology, and mathematics.
--Geoscience awareness is a key element in reducing the impact of
natural hazards on citizens--hazards that include earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. For
example, lives were saved in the tragic Indian Ocean tsunami by
a 12-year-old girl who understood the warning signs of an
approaching tsunami and warned others to seek higher ground
after completing an Earth science class.
--Geoscience provides the foundation for tomorrow's leaders in
research, education, utilization and policy making for Earth's
resources and our Nation's strategic, economic, sustainable and
environmentally-sound natural resources development.
NOAA.--AGI applauds the President's request for increased funding
for the National Weather Service and the National Environmental
Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDI) within NOAA. The
National Weather Service budget includes support for weather data
buoys, strengthening the U.S. tsunami warning program, support of the
Air Quality Forecasting Program, support for the Space Environment
Center, support for the U.S. Weather Research Program, and continued
implementation of the Advanced Hydrological Prediction Services. AGI
also supports the proposed increased funding for NESDI for the
development of the geostationary operational environmental satellite
(GOES-R) and the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental
Satellite System (NPOESS). Both satellite systems will maintain a
global view of the planet to continuously watch for atmospheric
triggers of severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, flash floods,
hailstorms, and hurricanes. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research and the Office of National Ocean Service have large proposed
budget cuts to their overall budgets that would decimate vital programs
related to the health and sustainability of the ocean, protecting
coastlines and atmospheric research. AGI asks that these large
reductions be minimized through congressional consideration of oceanic
and coastal priorities in this post-Katrina fiscal year.
NIST.--For fiscal year 2007, the President's request calls for $2
million for earthquakes, wind hazards, wildfires at the urban interface
and complex systems-multihazards analysis at NIST. About 70 percent of
these funds will be directed toward the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program (NEHRP) and wind hazards. AGI strongly supports
funding for NEHRP within NIST. NIST is the lead agency for NEHRP
(authorized to receive $6 to $13 million over 5 years), but has never
received any funding in the past. AGI strongly supports NEHRP funds for
NIST and we further support the proposed increases in funding for core
laboratory functions at NIST to ensure that NEHRP funds are protected.
NASA.--AGI supports the vital Earth observing programs within NASA.
Currently the topography of Mars has been measured at a more
comprehensive and higher resolution than Earth's surface. While AGI is
excited about space exploration and the President's Vision for
Exploration, we firmly believe that NASA's Earth observing program is
effective and vital to solving global to regional puzzles about Earth
systems, such as how much and at what rate is the climate changing. The
Earth-Sun System within the Science Mission Directorate funds the
agency's Earth science programs. AGI strongly supports the requested
increase in funding for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, which will
ensure support for the launch of a new Landsat satellite and the
transfer of the data to the United States Geological Survey.
Unfortunately other vital Earth science programs will be cut and
missions will be delayed because of proposed budget reductions within
the Earth-Sun System. AGI hopes these small reductions can be restored
to ensure NASA's unique Earth observations.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
additional information for the record. I can be reached at 703-379-2480
ext. 228 (voice), 703-379-7563 (fax), rowan@agiweb.org, or 4220 King
Street, Alexandria VA 22302-1502.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for the American
Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) to present this testimony in support
of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request for the National
Science Foundation. We urge the committee to support the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative and its request for an increase of
$439 million for the National Science Foundation. The proposed budget
for NSF represents a 7.9 percent increase to $6 billion. The
President's proposed increase for the Biological Sciences Directorate
is $31 million, or 5.4 percent.
This level of funding will enable NSF to continue to play its key
role in establishing a leadership position for the United States in
science and technology. U.S. leadership in a wide range of science
disciplines is needed to compete and survive in the increasingly
challenging global market.
The ACI will double investment in research over 10 years sponsored
by the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy Office of
Science and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The ACI provides increased investment in research needed for
continued growth of the Nation's economy. The Nation's ability to
generate job-creating industries, remain competitive in the global
market and improve the quality of life of consumers would be enhanced
through committee approval of The President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request implementing ACI.
Shifts are occurring in the world with regard to ability to attract
science talent and in relation to government and private investment in
research. Indicators such as number of scientists entering the
workforce and increased success in publishing research findings in
peer-reviewed science journals show that the United States may
encounter increased difficulties in competing with what are now
considered developing nations.
China, India, South Korea and other developing nations are
following national policies that are increasing their capacity and
strength in science and technology.
China is an excellent example for further consideration of what
world neighbors/global competitors are doing in science and science-
related industries. A huge workforce of qualified and inexpensive
talent in science, combined with a market of 1.3 billion consumers is
making China particularly attractive to multinational companies.
Four years ago, there were 200 foreign-invested research and
development centers in China. Today there are some 750. As the Wall
Street Journal reported March 13, 2006, Procter & Gamble Co. opened a
research arm in China in 1988 with just two dozen employees. Back in
1988, P&G employees in China mainly studied Chinese consumer laundry
habits and oral hygiene. Today, P&G runs five R&D facilities in China
with approximately 300 researchers. They work ``on everything from
Crest toothpaste to Oil of Olay face cream.'' New formulations of Tide
laundry detergent developed in the China-based facilities now sell in
markets beyond China, including other parts of Asia, Eastern Europe and
Latin America.
``We are developing capabilities in China that we can use
globally,'' P&G Technology Director in Beijing Dick Carpenter
explained.
In addition to a huge talent pool, including about 1 million
university graduates each year in science or engineering, China is
offering its students in the United States and other nations incentives
to return once they graduate. These incentives include generous
research grants and chances to run their own R&D projects. Science
graduates returning to China can secure enough backing to build up
their own lab and even extend their research in one direction for about
10 years, the Wall Street Journal article noted.
In the United States, that same science graduate would face
extraordinary competition to win a federally sponsored research grant
award. In some areas of study in the United States, the chances of a
scientist succeeding with a competitive grant application is no better
than one in ten. Failure to win research grant awards translates into
an abbreviated science career in academic research.
China's central government plans to increase spending on science
and technology by nearly 20 percent this year. ``China has entered a
stage in its history where it must increase its reliance on scientific
and technological advances and innovation to drive social and economic
development,'' commented Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
The United States continues to rely heavily on science students
from China and other nations to remain in the United States after
graduation to build their careers and new job-creating technologies.
However, more graduates are expected to return home to China and other
countries where opportunities in science careers are now perceived to
be brighter. With the United States already conceding far lower labor,
land and building costs to global competitors such as China and other
nations, how long will our Nation be able to compete if we also concede
preeminence in science and technology?
If science and technology research and development follow textile,
steel, U.S. company-based auto production, and other manufacturing
industries moving beyond our borders, the United States, already
laboring under record trade deficits, will be weaker on a relative
scale to the new ``producer nations.''
More record trade deficits and higher interest rates for our
increasingly debtor Nation could be expected to result--significantly
driving up the costs to the federal budget for debt service. It is
possible that the cost of the total federal science budget in future
years would be just a fraction of the cost of the increase in federal
debt service if the United States loses science and technology
preeminence.
NSF is the leading supporter of university-based research in many
key areas, including plant science. Contributions by universities
conducting NSF-supported research to the local economy also contribute
to a stronger national economy. With the higher labor, housing,
transportation, commercial and industrial property and related costs
found in the United States compared to a number of world nation
competitors, federal investment in science and education through
support of NSF is desperately needed to help keep the Nation's
businesses capable of competing.
NSF support for basic plant research contributes to the local
economies nationwide, including rural areas, while helping to secure
the food supply of all Americans. As the first step of every food
chain, plants and research on plants plays an essential role in meeting
the nutritional needs of people here and abroad. The NSF Directorate
for Biological Sciences sponsors examination of basic research
questions on plants and other organisms. A number of plant research
discoveries were cited by NSF among its most significant advances in
science over the first 50 years of the agency's existence.
NSF supports world leading plant genomic research as part of the
Plant Genome Research Program. The National Plant Genome Initiative
Progress Report was published January 2005 by the National Science and
Technology Council Committee on Science Interagency Working Group on
Plant Genomes. The report noted, ``Plant genome research holds enormous
promise for solving global problems in agriculture, health, energy and
environmental protection. Much still remains to realize this potential
and the U.S. scientific community is clearly working toward that
goal.''
The report cited the importance of research on economically
important crops and on the model plant, Arabidopsis thaliana--a plant
with a small and simple genome. Knowledge gained from the Arabidopsis
genome facilitates understanding of other economically important plants
through use of comparative genomics. The Arabidopsis 2010 Project
within NSF will provide scientists with knowledge of the function of
each gene in Arabidopsis. This will lead to similar discoveries in
crops grown by America's farmers. This knowledge will help scientists
to develop superior crops that are domestic sources of food, fuel,
industrial chemicals, fiber and pharmaceutical products. These advances
will significantly benefit America's farmers and consumers.
Again, we urge you to support The President's American
Competitiveness Initiative, including the NSF Budget Request for 2007.
ASPB is a non-profit society representing nearly 6,000 scientists
conducting research primarily at universities. ASPB's membership also
includes scientists in federal service and in private commerce. We
publish the two most widely cited journals in plant science, The Plant
Cell and Plant Physiology. Please let us know if we could provide any
additional information.
Thank you for your continued strong support of science research and
education.
______
Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission
Agency involved: Department of Justice.
Program involved: COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP).
Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2007 Testimony
GLIFWC requests that Congress: (1) specifically authorize
eligibility for tribes' special law enforcement agencies, including
fish and wildlife departments and game wardens, to participate in the
COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program,\1\ and (2) support the
administration's proposal to fund this program at $31,650,000 in fiscal
year 2007, an increase of $16,650,000 above last year's congressional
appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unlike previous years and without notice or explanation, the
Fiscal Year 2006 Application Guide for the TRGP provides: Special law
enforcement agencies such as fish and wildlife departments, game
wardens, park and recreation departments, and environmental protection
agencies are not eligible to apply under this program at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure of DOJ Grants Contracted
GLIFWC is an intertribal organization which, under the direction of
its member tribes, implements federal court orders governing tribal
harvests of off-reservation natural resources and the formation of
conservation partnerships to protect and enhance natural resources
within the 1836, 1837, and 1842 ceded territories. Under COPS Tribal
Resources Grant Program, GLIFWC contracted:
--$108,034 in fiscal year 2004 for the purpose of purchasing patrol
vehicles (three patrol trucks, an ATV and a snowmobile),
digital cameras, and providing instructor development and basic
recruit training; and
--$98,444 in fiscal year 2005 for the purpose of purchasing thermal
imaging and digital cameras, continuing instructor
certification and providing basic recruit re-certification
training, and supplying standard issue items.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
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 (P.L. 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 and protecting ceded territory natural
resources and their habitats.
For the past 22 years, Congress and administrations have funded
GLIFWC through the BIA, Department of Justice and other agencies to
meet specific federal obligations under: (a) a number of US/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 United States Supreme Court
case, affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member tribes. GLIFWC
serves as a cost efficient agency to conserve natural resources, to
effectively regulate harvests of natural resources shared among treaty
signatory tribes, to develop cooperative partnerships with other
government agencies, educational institutions, and non-governmental
organizations, and to work with its member tribes to protect and
conserve ceded territory natural resources.
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 live and
work within tribal communities that they primarily serve. The officers
are based in 10 satellite offices located on the reservations 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.
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 inter-jurisdictional 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 of the ceded territories. These networks include
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Coast
Guard, USDA-Forest Service, State Patrol and Police, county sheriffs
departments, municipal police forces, fire departments and emergency
medical services.
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 proper functioning of
interjurisdictional emergency mutual assistance networks in the ceded
territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants for the past 6 years have provided a
critical foundation for achieving these goals. Significant
accomplishments with Tribal Resources Grant Program funds include:
Improved Radio Communications and Increased Officer Safety.--GLIFWC
replaced obsolete radio equipment to improve the capacity of officers
to provide emergency services throughout the Chippewa ceded
territories. GLIFWC also used COPS funding to provide each officer a
bullet-proof vest, night vision equipment, and in-car video cameras to
increase officer safety.
Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
completed and maintains certification as a first responder and in the
use of life saving portable defibrillators. Since 2003, GLIFWC officers
carried first responder kits and portable defibrillators during their
patrol of 275,257 miles throughout the ceded territories. In remote,
rural areas the ability of GLIFWC officers to respond to emergencies
provides critical support of mutual aid agreements with Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies.
Ice Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer maintains
certification in ice rescue techniques and was provided a Coast Guard
approved ice rescue suit. In addition, each of GLIFWC's 10 reservation
satellite offices was provided a snowmobile and an ice rescue sled to
participate in interagency ice rescue operations with county sheriffs
departments and local fire departments.
Wilderness Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer
completed wilderness search and rescue training. The COPS Tribal
Resources Grant Program also enabled GLIFWC to replace a number of
vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago, including 10 ATV's and
16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation system on its 31 foot Lake
Superior patrol boat. These vehicles are used for field patrol,
cooperative law enforcement activities, and emergency response in the
1837 and 1842 ceded territories. GLIFWC officers also utilize these
vehicles for boater, ATV, and snowmobile safety classes taught on
Reservations as part of the Commission's Community Policing Strategy.
Hire, Train and Equip Three Additional Officers.--Funding has been
contracted to provide three additional officers to ensure tribes are
able to meet obligations to both enforce off-reservation conservation
codes and effectively participate in the myriad of mutual assistance
networks located throughout a vast region covering 60,000 square miles.
Consistent with numerous other federal court rulings on the
Chippewa treaties, the United States Supreme Court re-affirmed the
existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights in
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999). As tribes have re-
affirmed rights to harvest resources in the 1837 ceded territory of
Minnesota, workloads have increased. But for GLIFWC's COPS grants, this
expanded workload, combined with staff shortages would have limited
GLIFWC's effective participation in regional emergency services
networks in Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. The effectiveness of
these mutual assistance networks is more critical than ever given: (1)
national homeland security concerns, (2) State and local governmental
fiscal shortfalls, (3) staffing shortages experienced by local police,
fire, and ambulance departments due to the call up of National Guard
and military reserve units, and (4) the need to cooperatively combat
the spread of methamphetamine production in rural areas patrolled by
GLIFWC conservation officers.
Examples of the types of assistance provided by GLIFWC officers are
provided below:
--As trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely respond to,
and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents
(throughout the ceded territories) and provide sheriffs
departments valuable assistance with natural disasters (e.g.
floods in Ashland County and a tornado in Siren, Wisconsin).
--Search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen, hikers, children,
and the elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and Forest
Counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic
Counties in Michigan).
--Being among the first to arrive on the scene where officers from
other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett, and Polk
Counties in Wisconsin) and responding to weapons incidents
(Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas Counties in
Wisconsin).
--Use of a thermal imaging camera (purchased through the COPS
program) to track an individual fleeing the scene of an
accident (Sawyer County, Wisconsin).
--Organize and participate in search and rescues of ice fishermen on
Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield Counties in Wisconsin),
Lake Superior boats (Baraga County in Michigan and with the
U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake Superior), and
kayakers (Bayfield County in Wisconsin).
GLIFWC is proposing to utilize DOJ TRGP funding for training and
equipment to: (1) recognize, secure and respond appropriately to
potential methamphetamine production sites, (2) identify addicts while
on patrol, and (3) improve community awareness through hunter safety
classes. Simply put, supporting GLIFWC's officers will not only assist
GLIFWC in meeting its obligations to enforce tribal off-reservation
codes, but it will enhance intergovernmental efforts to protect public
safety and welfare throughout the region in the States of Wisconsin,
Minnesota, and Michigan. The COPS Tribal Resources Grant Program
provides essential funding for equipment and training to support
GLIFWC's cooperative conservation, law enforcement, and emergency
response activities. We ask Congress to support increased funding for
this program.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, Florida State University
is a comprehensive Research I university with a rapidly growing
research base. The university serves as a center for advanced graduate
and professional studies, exemplary research, and top-quality
undergraduate programs. Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong
commitment to quality in teaching, to performance of research and
creative activities, and have a strong commitment to public service.
Among the current or former faculty are numerous recipients of national
and international honors including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize
winners, and several members of the National Academy of Sciences. Our
scientists and engineers do excellent research, have strong
interdisciplinary interests, and often work closely with industrial
partners in the commercialization of the results of their research.
Florida State University had over $182 million this past year in
research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The university is committed
to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
Scholars, as well as students with superior creative talent. We
consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and universities in
attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interests today.
In 2004, Congress funded a project for Florida to share its
exemplary juvenile justice education program model with other States in
order to assist them in their respective implementation of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB). In fiscal year 2005, Phase I, the project's staff
initiated a series of activities to establish collaborative working
partnerships with each State. The activities included: conducting a
national survey of each State's juvenile justice education practices;
holding a national meeting involving key constituents from each State
to review the project's purposes, discussing the national survey
findings; reviewing the NCLB requirements and Florida's program
components and practices; and agreeing upon a grouping of States with
similar systems and NCLB challenges. From this agreed upon grouping of
States, preliminary plans for each State's implementation of the NCLB
requirements for juvenile justice education systems were drafted for
follow-up review by each State.
In fiscal year 2007, Phase II, the project will extend this effort
by holding a series of meetings with different State groups to review,
discuss and reach consensus upon each State's final plan for
implementation of the NCLB requirements. The final implementation plans
will be informed by the implementation experiences and impediments that
Florida confronted and overcame. Additionally, the thoughts, concerns
and potential solutions that the key State constituents provide will be
incorporated into each State's implementation plan to ensure consensus
between individual States and the project staff. Following these
meetings and the development of each State's final NCLB juvenile
justice education implementation plan, the project staff will make
periodic follow-up State visits to assess their implementation efforts
and effectively deal with any encountered problems by providing
training and technical assistance. Further, the project staff, in
collaboration with key State constituents, will develop and implement a
national evaluation design to report each State's NCLB implementation
progress and student learning outcomes. A quarterly report will be sent
to each State, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department
of Education describing the project's activities and progress, and
individual State outcomes. Additionally, the project will design a
national longitudinal study on how improved quality in juvenile justice
education impacts the incidence of delinquency nationwide. The study
will provide data on the role of NCLB implementation in successfully
reducing delinquency in individual States as well as across the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
country and would appreciate your support.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer
this testimony on the proposed budgets for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology (NIST) for fiscal year 2007. The President's American
Competitive Initiative (ACI) with its focus on research and development
at NIST and NSF will pay dividends for the country in many areas. ASCE
is encouraged by and supports ACI and with it, the administration's
request for $6.02 billion request for NSF and $581.3 million for NIST.
ASCE believes that technological innovation has been the engine
that drove the Nation's economy expansion of the last 50 years. ASCE
firmly believes that by maintaining strong continuing and steadily
increasing support for the research and education we will continue to
enjoy the rewards of economic expansion. If we do not continue to
invest in research and technology, we will loose our position in an
ever more integrated and competitive world. The basic research funded
by NSF, in engineering and all other areas of science, is the
foundation of that investment in the future. Global competition
increasingly requires the United States to make the necessary
investments in science and engineering research and education.
ASCE, founded in 1852, is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization representing 139,000 civil engineers in
private practice, government, industry and academia dedicated to the
advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is
a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and professional society.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)
ASCE supports the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request
of $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Math and Science Partnerships.--We encourage you to continue the
federal commitment to math and science education by maintaining the
peer-reviewed Math and Science Partnerships (MSP's) at the NSF and
supporting robust funding for both the U.S. Department of Education
(ED) and the NSF Math and Science Partnership programs. We urge you to
oppose the administration's budget proposal that would phase-out the
NSF MSP program in favor of the new federal grant administered by the
Secretary of Education that would, in effect, limit individual States
discretion to target much-needed funds for local science and
mathematics education reforms.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.--For the past 25
years NEHRP has provided the resources and leadership that have led to
significant advances in understanding the risk earthquakes pose and the
best ways to counter them. Under NEHRP, there has been a constant
source of funding for seismic monitoring, mapping, research, testing,
code development, mitigation and emergency preparedness. A recent study
and report by the Multihazard Mitigation Council entitled ``Natural
Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future
Savings from Mitigation Activities,'' has concluded the money spent on
reducing the risk of natural hazards is a sound investment. On average,
a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation provides the Nation about
$4 in future benefits. The type of research to be conducted under this
program has the potential to greatly increase the benefit.
The NSF strives to advance fundamental knowledge in earthquake
engineering, Earth science processes, and societal preparedness and
response to earthquakes. Additionally, the George E. Brown, Jr. Network
for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), operated by NSF, will
expand knowledge through new methods for experimental and computational
simulation.
ASCE requests that Congress direct NSF to acknowledge the $40.3
million funding level for NEHRP responsibilities at NSF and to urge NSF
to fulfill that obligation. We further support the administration
request of $21.27 million for the operation of the Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation at NSF and ask that Congress urge NSF
to maximize the potential of Network Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES) through research grants.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY
ASCE supports the President's requested budget for NIST of $581.3
million for fiscal year 2007 and would strongly urge Congress to fully
appropriate the request as presented. ASCE is concerned that money
requested for NIST's core laboratory and standards activities may moved
to fund other programs, as has happened in the past.
Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS).--These are
NIST's core programs that provide the measurements and standards on
which the Nation's industry stands and grows. The NIST laboratories
provide industry and the science and engineering community with the
measurement capabilities, standards, evaluated reference data, and test
methods that provide a common language needed at every stage of
technical activity. U.S. scientists rely on NIST's evaluated data
services and measurement expertise for a host of basic and applied
research activities.
ASCE supports the administration's request of $467 million to fund
the core programs at NIST. If fully appropriated, the funding would
permit NIST to carryout its core responsibilities and greatly enhance
U.S. competitiveness.
Building and Fire Research Laboratory.--ASCE believes that the
services provided by the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL)
are invaluable to the building industry. BFRL works to improve the
productivity of U.S. construction industries and serves as the premier
fire research laboratory in the United States. It develops technologies
to predict measure and test the performance of construction materials,
components and practices. BFRL is the Nation's central laboratory for
providing the tools (i.e. research and measurements) needed to rebuild
the Nation's infrastructure.
Laboratory activities include: fire science and fire safety
engineering; building materials; computer-integrated construction
practices; structural, mechanical and environmental engineering; and
building economics. The laboratory conducts investigations at the scene
of major fires and structural failures due to earthquake, hurricanes or
other causes. The knowledge gained from these investigations guides
research and is applied to recommendations for design and construction
practices to reduce future hazards.
Construction is one of the Nation's largest industries, comparable
in size to the health care and agricultural industries. Like those
vital areas of the Nation's economy, the construction industry needs
research and development to enhance international competitiveness and
increase public health and safety. Funding for construction related
research, from all sources, is a fraction of that available to the
healthcare and agricultural industries. Due to the fragmented nature of
the construction industry, the private sector does not have the
resources to conduct the needed research and development on its own.
National Construction Safety Team Act.--Public Law 107-231 created
the National Construction Safety Team at NIST with the mandate to
investigate major building failures within the United States. The
investigations are to establish the technical causes of building
failures and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response. The
goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are
designed, constructed, maintained and used. ASCE supported this act;
however ASCE believes that NIST must be provided with the necessary
resources. The National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Advisory
Committee, established by the act, recently released it first annual
report to Congress which included a number of recommendations including
the creation of a NCST office and funding.
ASCE supports these recommendations and urges Congress to
appropriate an additional $2 million in fiscal year 2006 to create a
NCST office within the Building and Fire Research Laboratory at NIST.
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP).--The 2004
reauthorization of NEHRP has given the National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST) new responsibility as the lead agency for NEHRP
and an expanded role in problem-focused research and development in
earthquake engineering. However, in order for NIST to fully carry out
its responsibilities, the NEHRP Coalition supports the full funding
levels contained in the reauthorization for fiscal year 2007 of $12.1
million for NEHRP responsibilities at NIST.
In addition to its leadership role, NIST is now specifically tasked
to carry out problem-focused research and development in earthquake
engineering aimed at improving building codes and standards for both
new and existing construction and advancing seismic practices for
structures and lifelines.
ASCE applauds NIST's commitment to NEHRP by making money available
and moving ahead with its responsibilities as the NEHPR lead agency in
fiscal year 2006. The President's commitment for fiscal year 2007 by
adding $2 million for structural safety in hurricanes, fires and
earthquake in fiscal year 2007 will enable NIST to increase and expand
its efforts.
The NEHRP supports the President's request for $2 million for
structural safety at NIST. In order for NIST to fully realize the
potential benefits of NEHRP, the NEHRP Coalition urges Congress to
build on the proposal of the administration by appropriating the full
funding levels contained in the reauthorization for fiscal year 2007 of
$12.1 million for NEHRP responsibilities at NIST.
NATIONAL WINDSTORM IMPACT REDUCTION PROGRAM AT NIST AND NSF
In October 2004 the President signed Public Law 108-360 authorizing
the creation of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. As
recent events on the Nation's Gulf coast have so vividly illustrated,
the Nation remains highly vulnerable to major windstorms. We have not
yet fully calculated the full the damage inflected by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma, but it will well exceed $150 billion.
This vulnerability was recognized by Congress in 2004 when it
created the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program. However, while
the program has been authorized for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal
year 2008, there has been no appropriation of funds or specific budget
request.
ASCE urges full funding for the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program. For fiscal year 2007 the law authorizes $25 million in
spending, spread between federal four agencies. The Coalition urges the
Congress to support full funding levels. Specifically, for the agencies
under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, the law authorizes:
--$9.4 million for the National Science Foundation (NSF);
--$4 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST); and
--$2.2 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Once again, thank you for the opportunity for ASCE to express its
views. If you need more information, contact Martin Hight, ASCE Senior
Manager of Government Relations at (202) 326-5125 or by e-mail at
mhight@asce.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for Gaviota State Park.
Gaviota State Park is located 125 miles north of Los Angeles, on a
remote section of Santa Barbara County's Gaviota Coast, a 76 mile
stretch of California's coastline straddling two distinct bioregions in
the transition between Southern and Central California. The Gaviota
Coast is situated between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary
and the Los Padres National Forest where there is a wide variety of
biological, recreational and agricultural resources.
As the largest portion (50 percent) of Southern California's
remaining undeveloped coastline, the Gaviota Coast is a high priority
area for conservation. According to the Nature Conservancy, coastal
Southern California has the highest density of imperiled species of
anywhere in the United States. As part of the only coastal
Mediterranean biome in America, the Gaviota Coast is the last, best,
safe-harbor for the numerous imperiled species displaced by human
settlement further south. Expansion of Gaviota State Park offers an
excellent opportunity for the conservation of several habitat types.
The Santa Ynez Mountains crowd in close to the coastline at
Gaviota, producing a complex topography. Rocky, narrow beaches with
sandy coves are backed by high sea cliffs. Coastal marine terraces,
incised by stream carved canyons, lie below chaparral covered mountain
slopes. This produces a diverse assemblage of habitat types in close
proximity to one another. Perhaps most important are the many riparian
corridors joining the mountains to the sea, which harbor the highest
degree of biodiversity. Gaviota Creek watershed, one of the two largest
watersheds on the south-facing Gaviota Coast, flows through Gaviota
State Park. In addition there is a variety of shrub-land, and woodland
habitat, with scattered vernal pool communities, estuaries, and native
grasslands.
With this array of habitat, and a linkage to vast interior
wildlands, the Gaviota Coast is home to a full assemblage of wildlife,
both terrestrial and marine. Marine animals found along the coast
include dolphin, a variety of whales, northern elephant seals, and
numerous bird species. Terrestrial wildlife includes mountain lions,
mule deer, badgers, black bears and golden eagles, to name a few.
Resident endangered species include the southern sea otter, southern
steelhead trout, the tide-water goby, brown pelican, and an occasional
California condor.
Immediately adjacent to Highway 101, this property is zoned for
commercial use. Commercial land uses in these coastal foothills are
incompatible with county and State efforts to prevent inappropriate
development and protect critical natural, scenic, and recreational
resources. Acquiring lands adjacent to the park will protect its
streams from the degradation that would result from development-related
pollution.
Because of its location among other protected properties and
agricultural lands, this project is part of a larger effort to piece
together up to 10,000 contiguous acres of protected coastal wildlands
and open space from the mountains to the sea, including the Los Padres
National Forest and lands owned and managed by the local land trust for
Santa Barbara County. The subject property is the linchpin for this
larger assemblage, as it is the only property with commercial zoning on
a 35-mile stretch of the Gaviota Coast. The total cost of the project
is $2.5 million, with State and local sources providing the matching
funds.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007, the Gaviota State
Park Addition project is a 43-acre site adjoining Gaviota State Park.
The park serves 86,000 visitors annually and the addition of the
subject property would enable California State Parks to expand the
existing trail system, and provide new trailhead facilities. For all
the reasons stated above, the expansion of Gaviota State Park is a top
priority for State Parks and for Santa Barbara County.
An appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine
Land Conservation Program for fiscal year 2007 is needed to acquire and
protect this 43-acre property. If added to Gaviota State Park, it will
expand recreational opportunities, provide much needed visitor
facilities, protect scenic viewshed and conserve important wildlife
habitat.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of the request for an
appropriation of $1 million for Gaviota State Park.
______
Letter From the Simi Batra of the Trust for Public Land
April 27, 2006.
The Honorable Richard Shelby, Chairman,
Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, S-146A Capitol, Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Barbara Mikulski, Ranking Member,
Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee, Committee on
Appropriations, 144 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Shelby/Ranking Member Mikulski: On behalf of the
organizations listed below, we would like to thank you for your long-
standing support of coastal zone management and coastal land
conservation. We are writing today in support of the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program. This subcommittee created CELCP in
fiscal year 2002 in order to ``protect 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.'' Thus far, this program
has invested over $177 million towards 119 conservation projects in 25
of the Nation's 35 coastal States. All federal funding has been
leveraged by at least an equal amount by State, local and private
funds. We hope to continue this Federal-State partnership and encourage
you to fund CELCP at $60 million for fiscal year 2007.
Our Nation's coastal zone is under significant pressures from
unplanned development. In fact, it is estimated that by 2025, nearly 75
percent of the Nation's population will live within 50 miles of the
coast, in addition to millions more who enjoy America's storied
coastlines. From Maine to Washington State, beaches and waterfronts
have always been the destination of choice for Americans. Billions of
dollars of the Nation's GDP are generated by coast-based economic
activities, inexorably linking our coastal zone with the economic
health of the Nation.
As a result of this economic boom, rapid, unplanned development has
marred the once-pristine viewsheds and substantially reduced public
access to the coast. The resulting increase in impervious surfaces has
correspondingly increased non-point source pollution and seriously
degraded coastal and estuarine waters. The loss of coastal wetlands has
drastically impaired estuaries, some of the most productive habitat on
earth. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy has also stressed the
importance of land conservation as part of its broader recommendations
to Congress and the Nation.
From our work at the local level, we know from first-hand
experience that this program will significantly leverage ongoing
community-based conservation, and will provide a much needed boost to
local efforts. Given the importance of healthy, productive and
accessible coastal areas, a federal commitment to State and local
coastal protection is a sound investment.
We urge you to fund the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program at $60 million in fiscal year 2007. We look forward to working
with you as this program continues to grow, and stand ready to assist
you.
Sincerely,
Alan Front,
Senior Vice President, The Trust for Public Land.
Katherine ``Kacky'' Andrews,
Executive Director, Coastal States Organization.
David Hoskins,
Vice President of Government Affairs and General Counsel, The Ocean
Conservancy.
Gary J. Taylor,
Legislative Director, International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies.
Angela Corridore,
Executive Director, National Estuarine Research Reserve
Association.
Russ Shay,
Director of Public Policy, Land Trust Alliance.
Jimmie Powell,
Director of Government Relations, The Nature Conservancy.
Rich Innes,
Executive Director, Association of National Estuary Programs.
Lawrence A. Selzer,
President, The Conservation Fund.
Gordon C. Robertson,
Vice President, American Sportfishing Association.
Mark Wolf-Armstrong,
President and CEO, Restore America's Estuaries.
______
Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee, on behalf
of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC), I want to
thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the fiscal year
2007 budget for NOAA Fisheries. We encourage this subcommittee to note
the on-going collaborative effort ordered by the federal judge within
the region concerning the biological opinion on the Federal Columbia
River Power System and to also please note the administration's call
for hatchery reform efforts. CRITFC supports funding the following
programs as part of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to restore the
shared salmon resource of the Columbia and Snake River Basins to
healthy sustainable populations:
--$200,000 to support the States and tribes in dispersing sea lions
from areas where severe salmon depredation is occurring on the
Columbia River;
--$36 million for the Columbia River (Mitchell Act) hatchery program
in order to implement reforms called for in the ``Conservation
of Columbia Basin Fish'' (Federal Caucus ``All H'' Paper) and
the Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion, of
which $9 million (or 25 percent of the actual enacted amount)
directed to the tribes for new or expanded supplementation
programs;
--No additional funding for the implementation of mass-marking
programs of hatchery fish at federally funded hatcheries for
the purpose of implementing a selective fisheries program;
--$20.6 million for Columbia River facilities screening and passage
program;
--$110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to
support on-the-ground salmon restoration activities, of which
$5 million should be provided to the intertribal commission of
the Columbia River treaty tribes in the form of a direct grant;
--$9,844,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty program, of which
$8,000,000 is or the implementation of the 1999 Agreement and
previous base programs, and $1,844,000 is for the Chinook
Salmon Agreement.
Background.--In 1977, the Columbia River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce,
Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama Tribes) formed the Commission to
provide coordination and technical assistance to the member tribes.
In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
tribes to ensure the mutual peace and security of our peoples. In the
treaties the U.S. promised to protect and honor the rights and
resources the tribes reserved to themselves. Our rights and our
religious beliefs are tied to the salmon whose populations have
dramatically declined to levels that are even causing alarm to non-
Indian commercial fishing-dependent communities. We must vigorously
pursue the necessary recovery and restoration actions consistent with
the Endangered Species Act and federal trust obligations.
CRITFC's principles for fisheries protection and restoration are
outlined in a restoration plan titled Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (Spirit
of the Salmon) that can be viewed at www.critfc.org. The plan's
objectives are to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon
populations and rebuild salmon runs to levels that support tribal
ceremonial, subsistence and commercial harvests. The plan emphasizes
strategies and principles that relies on natural production and healthy
river systems and utilizes a collaborative conservation approach that
the White House has encouraged parties to use to address natural
resource issues. The tribes can point to several successes in
watershed-based restoration of salmon working with State, Federal and
private entities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)--Pacific Salmon Recovery.--NOAA
Fisheries is making an ambitious effort to complete salmon recovery
plans in the Pacific Northwest. Not all of the measures outlined in the
recovery plans will be funded by the Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA) which means that additional funding is needed to meet statutory
and trust obligations to the salmon resource and tribes. For example,
in coordination with Federal, State and tribal managers, NOAA Fisheries
has developed necessary monitoring and evaluation programs to measure
salmon recovery efforts, but funding for these critical efforts are in
doubt due to the expected fish and wildlife funding levels set by BPA
for fiscal year 2007-09.
Sea Lions.--For the second consecutive year sea lion depredation is
occurring below Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River during a
drastically low adult spring Chinook salmon return. The States and
tribes have collaborated to disperse sea lions below Bonneville Dam.
Sea lion control efforts are subject to a lengthy process in the Marine
Mammals Protection Act (MMPA). Therefore, $200,000 is requested to
support State and tribal efforts to disperse problem animals until a
long term solution is developed under the MMPA.
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, $36 million
is requested for the tribal and State co-managers to jointly reform the
Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $9 million, or 25
percent of enacted funding, will be made available to the tribes for
supplementation projects.
Since 1982, CRITFC has called for hatchery reform to meet recovery
needs and meet mitigation obligations. We welcome the administration's
objective calling for transforming hatchery systems to aid in salmon
recovery (Chairman James Connaughton, Council on Environmental Quality,
Salmon 2100 Conference, January 25, 2006, Portland, Oregon). The tribes
are leaders in designing and managing supplementation hatchery
facilities at Yakama, Umatilla and Nez Perce. We believe similar
practices need to be implemented throughout the basin to reform current
hatchery production efforts. The tribe's facilities are biologically
credible and can be used to supplement rather than supplant natural
spawning salmon populations.
Mitchell Act hatchery production should be used to assist the
rebuilding of naturally spawning salmon, the stocks which have
constrained both Indian and non-Indian fisheries on the West Coast.
With the adoption of abundance based management for all ocean fisheries
under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1999, an aggressive
effort needs to be undertaken to reform hatchery production to be
consistent with that new management approach and to aid in the de-
listing of several salmon populations listed under the ESA. The tribes
can provide leadership for this necessary reform, while still
mitigating for the damage caused to the salmon resource by the Federal
Columbia River Power System.
Mass marking and Selective Fisheries.--No additional Federal
funding should be provided for the mass marking of hatchery-reared fish
and the implementation of selective fisheries unless and until the
tribes and States have agreed upon such programs. The true total
financial, management, and technical costs of pursuing an aggressive
mass marking and selective fisheries program have never been
identified. In addition, there is no technical basis yet in place to
ensure that this program does not undermine the ability of the U.S. and
Canada to monitor and evaluate harvest management actions recently
adopted under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Columbia River Facilities.--To carry out activities identified as
necessary in the Federal Caucus All-H Paper and the BiOp, $20.6 million
is requested for the Columbia River facilities screens and fish passage
programs.
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRF)/Watershed
Restoration.--Beginning in 1996, additional funding has been sought by
the State of Alaska, the Pacific Northwest States, and the treaty
tribes to serve critical unmet needs for the conservation and
restoration of salmon stocks shared in these tribal, State, and
international fisheries (See Record of Discussion, May 20, 1996). The
PCSRF program provides a significant role in accomplishing the goals of
this shared effort. For fiscal year 2007, we recommend restoring the
funding to the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $110 million. Of
this amount, $5 million should be directed to the intertribal
commission of the Columbia River treaty tribes to support ongoing
efforts.
CRITFC acknowledges the economic hardships of western salmon-
dependent communities caused by the current low salmon returns. While
financial disaster relief meets a short-term economic need for these
communities, we encourage this committee to not redirect any PCSRF
funds to offset immediate economic hardship. 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 coastwide program. In an
effort coordinated and facilitated by NOAA Fisheries, the co-managers
have developed an extensive matrix of performance standards to address
these concerns. We will continue to ensure that tribally sponsored
watershed projects are based on the best science, are competently
implemented and adequately monitored, and address the limiting factors
affecting salmon restoration. This will include the use of monitoring
protocols to systematically track current and future projects basin-
wide. Projects undertaken by the tribes last year are consistent with
Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit and the programmatic areas identified by
Congress.
Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.--CRITFC supports the U.S. section
recommendation of $9,844,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Of this
amount, $8,000,000 is for the Pacific Salmon Treaty base program with
Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and NOAA to share as described in
the U.S. section of the Pacific Salmon Commission's Budget
Justification for fiscal year 2007. In addition, we support $1,884,000
as first provided in 1997 to implement the abundance based management
approach (adopted by the U.S. section in 1996) of the Chinook Salmon
Agreement to carry out necessary research and management activities.
The overall total amount includes restoration of $2 million for the
Pacific Salmon Treaty program for the States to implement the
provisions and management and technical changes adopted by the United
States and Canada in 1999, particularly to implement the abundance
based approach for coho management. These funds are subjected annually
to a strict technical review process.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the CRITFC and its four member tribes
have developed the capacity and infrastructure to be models of
leadership and stewardship in rebuilding the fisheries in 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 our efforts. We will be
pleased to provide any additional information that this subcommittee
may require.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
About the American Museum of Natural History
The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
Nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its joint
mission of science and public education. It is renowned for its
exhibitions and collections of more than 32 million natural specimens
and cultural artifacts. With approximately 4 million annual visitors--
approximately half of them children--it is one of the largest, fastest
growing, and most diverse museums in the country. Museum scientists
conduct groundbreaking research in fields ranging from all branches of
zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to earth sciences,
biodiversity conservation, and astrophysics. Their work forms the basis
for all the Museum's activities that seek to explain complex issues and
help people to understand the events and processes that created and
continue to shape the Earth, life and civilization on this planet, and
the universe beyond.
The American Museum--NASA Partnership
In December 1997, NASA and AMNH embarked on a unique partnership,
founded on a joint commitment to cutting-edge research and to
integrating that research into educational vehicles that will improve
science literacy and inspire the next generation. Over this time, we
have worked with the agency to develop innovative technologies and
resources that provide an unparalleled platform for interpreting,
displaying, and distributing NASA content to audiences nationwide.
Since 2004 the Museum has been incorporated by NASA into its longer-
term science education and public outreach base, with the Museum and
NASA now in an unprecedented position to leverage our shared
investments, maximize our accomplishments, and harness our unique
resources, capacity, and platform to help NASA achieve its goals.
--The Museum has built a set of singular national resources that
bring cutting-edge science and integrated NASA content to total
audiences of more than 10 million in New York City, across the
country, and around the world. In the New York area alone, the
Museum reaches nearly four million annual visitors, including
more than 450,000 children in school groups and more than 5,000
teachers, with millions visiting online.
--We have launched a successful program to disseminate project
resources to informal learning venues nationally and
internationally, with science bulletins already on view in 26
locations and space shows at 14, with more being added.
--We have created science bulletins--technologically innovative,
immersive multimedia science encounters, presenting space,
Earth, and life science news and discoveries in visually
stunning feature documentaries, data visualizations, and weekly
updates.
--The Museum has made numerous technological breakthroughs--it has
established leadership in science visualization and high
resolution renderings of massive data sets; it has converted
its space shows to digital format, making the AMNH the only
full planetarium dome content provider that crosses all major
platforms; it has pioneered a unique online distribution
network that each week streams new science content in HD MPEG2
encodes to partners across North America.
--AMNH routinely hosts major events celebrating NASA's mission
highlights and milestones. Recent events have included public
interaction with AMNH scientists and NASA astronauts during the
Mars MER, Cassini-Huygens, and Return to Flight launches and
landings.
--The Museum's educational mission is fueled by and reflects cutting-
edge science, including the work of our scientists in
collaboration with NASA centers and researchers.
Building on this remarkable foundation, the Museum seeks to
continue its institutional collaboration with NASA in fiscal year 2007
so as to contribute its unique science, education, and exhibition
capacity, its expertise in innovative and emerging technologies, and
its national reach to helping the agency meet its goals. The Museum
proposes activities over a 1-year period to include: R&D on new
techniques for visualizing massive space and earth science data sets,
creating visualization tools for presenting NASA missions and other
dynamic science stories, and for advancing innovative solutions to
technical challenges in presenting digital planetarium shows; and
developing current NASA science education resources and continuing to
scale up their national distribution for presentation in public spaces
and for classroom use.
Throughout the course of its NASA partnership, the Museum has very
successfully leveraged the NASA investment with funds from other
government and private sources, and it will continue, with renewed
partnership funding, to support the project with funds from nonfederal
as well as federal sources.
Recognizing its potential to support NASA in its goals to pioneer
the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
research; to develop a balanced overall program of science,
exploration, and aeronautics; and to establish new and innovative
programs to enhance understanding of our Earth, other planets,
asteroids, and comets in our solar system, as well as the search for
life around other stars, the Museum looks forward to continuing its
institutionalized collaboration with NASA and to contributing its
unique science, education, and technological capacity to helping the
agency to meet these goals.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Museum of Natural History
About the American Museum of Natural History
The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) is one of the
Nation's preeminent institutions for scientific research and public
education. Since its founding in 1869, the Museum has pursued its
mission to ``discover, interpret, and disseminate--through scientific
research and education--knowledge about human cultures, the natural
world, and the universe.'' It is renowned for its exhibitions and
collections of more than 32 million natural specimens and cultural
artifacts. With nearly 4 million annual visitors, its audience is one
of the largest, fastest growing, and most diverse of any museum in the
country. Museum scientists conduct groundbreaking research in fields
ranging from zoology, comparative genomics, and informatics to Earth,
space, and environmental sciences and biodiversity conservation. Their
work forms the basis for all the Museum's activities that seek to
explain complex issues and help people to understand the events and
processes that created and continue to shape the Earth, life and
civilization on this planet, and the universe beyond.
The Museum's Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, founded in
1993, is dedicated to enhancing the use of scientific data to mitigate
threats to global biodiversity, and integrating this information into
the conservation process and to disseminate it widely. It conducts
conservation-related field projects around the world, trains
scientists, organizes scientific symposia, presents public programs,
and produces publications geared toward scientists, policy makers, and
the lay public. Each spring, the CBC hosts symposia that focus on
conservation issues. The 2005 symposium, New Currents in Conserving
Freshwater Ecosystems will highlight initiatives from around the world
that inform our ability to understand and protect the biota, processes,
and habitats of aquatic ecosystems. The 2006 symposium, Conserving
Birds in Human-Dominated Landscapes, will focus on unique challenges to
and key opportunities for invigorating bird diversity in the areas most
heavily impacted by human activities.
The Museum's renovated Hall of Ocean Life, reopened in Spring 2003,
is a major focal point for public education on marine science issues.
Drawing on the Museum's world-renowned expertise in Ichthyology as well
as other areas of vertebrate as well as invertebrate zoology, the Hall
is pivotal in educating visitors about the oceans' key role in
sustaining life on our planet. The renovated Hall of Ocean Life,
together with the new Halls of Biodiversity, Planet Earth, and the
Universe and the rebuilt Hayden Planetarium (part of the new Rose
Center for Earth and Space) provide visitors a seamless educational
journey from the universe's beginnings to the formation and processes
of Earth to the extraordinary diversity of life on our planet.
Common Goals of NOAA and AMNH
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
committed to understanding and predicting changes in the Earth's
environment and to conserving and managing coastal and marine resources
to meet the Nation's economic, social, and environmental needs. NOAA's
education plan outlines a broad vision for reaching various audiences
to build awareness and knowledge of issues related to the world's
atmosphere, climate, oceans, and coastal ecosystems. Addressing the
needs of teachers, students, and policy makers as well as the general
public, the agency's goals include enhancing environmental literacy and
knowledge, application of NOAA science, and development of a capable
and diverse workforce for environmental science. The American Museum of
Natural History, one of the Nation's premier research and public
education institutions, shares NOAA's commitment to these environmental
goals and to the scientific research and public education that support
them.
Since its founding in 1869, the American Museum has pursued its
mission of scientific investigation and public education. Its
exhibitions and collections serve as a field guide to the entire planet
and present a panorama of the world's cultures. Museum collections of
some 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts provide an
irreplaceable record of life. More than 200 museum scientists conduct
groundbreaking research in fields as diverse as systematic and
conservation biology and astrophysics, Earth and biodiversity sciences.
The work of scientific staff fuels exhibitions and educational
programming that reach annually an onsite audience of nearly 4 million
visitors--nearly half of them children.
Marine Sciences Initiative
In fiscal year 2004, as a result of congressional leadership, the
Museum entered into a partnership with NOAA that launched a multi-year
marine education and research initiative. Support for this initiative,
which encompasses a broad range of education, outreach, training, and
research activities closely aligned with NOAA goals and purposes, was
continued in fiscal year 2005 and further leveraged by museum
scientists who successfully secured competitive NOAA funding. Building
upon this successful foundation, and in concert with the strategic
priorities of NOAA and the Museum, we seek in fiscal year 2007 to join
with NOAA in aquatic research and education activities that promote
ocean literacy. Activities will include: ecosystem based research,
training, and research tools development concerning oceans and aquatic
environments; special programs on New York waterways for New York City
schoolchildren; professional development for teachers; and public
education that will build understanding of the importance of healthy
oceans and atmosphere.
The Museum seeks in fiscal year 2007 to partner with NOAA to build
this marine sciences education and outreach initiative. Support will be
used, over a 1-year period, for marine research projects, the remote
sensing/GIS laboratory, and public education and outreach. Together
with NOAA, and leveraging its participatory share with funds from
nonfederal as well as other federal sources, the Museum will be
positioned to advance the environmental education, outreach, and
research so pivotal to the health of our Nation and our planet.
Recognizing its potential to support NOAA in its goals to
understand and predict changes in the Earth's environment; conserve and
manage coastal and marine resources; and to protect, restore, and
manage the use of coastal and ocean resources to meet our Nation's
economic, social, and environmental needs, the Museum looks forward to
advancing a partnership with the agency in an education, outreach, and
research initiative to promote public understanding and stewardship of
marine environments.
______
Prepared Statement of American Rivers
American Rivers, on behalf of more than 500 national, regional and
local organizations representing more than 5 million constituents
concerned with river conservation,\1\ urges the Committee to provide
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with an overall
appropriation of $4.5 billion in the Commerce, Justice, Science
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. Within that amount
$252,000,000 should be allocated for the following priority programs in
fiscal year 2007. I request that this testimony be included in the
official record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These groups and individuals have endorsed the Citizen's Agenda
for Rivers which includes the ``River Budget'' for fiscal year 2007, a
report of national funding priorities for local river conservation. For
more information on the Citizen's Agenda for Rivers go to
www.healthyrivers.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND
Pacific salmon are a national treasure with enormous economic,
cultural, and environmental significance in the States of Washington,
Oregon, California, Idaho, and Alaska. A century ago, salmon were an
anchor of the region's economy. Unfortunately, past and present
mismanagement of our rivers, lands, and salmon fisheries have caused
populations of salmon to decline dramatically over the past century,
and 26 runs of Pacific salmon and steelhead are now listed under the
Endangered Species Act.
One important program aimed at restoring imperiled runs of chinook,
coho, sockeye, and chum salmon, as well as steelhead trout, is the
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, funded through the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. For the past several years,
this program has provided much-needed assistance to State, local, and
tribal governments in Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Idaho
for salmon recovery projects.
By increasing funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
in fiscal year 2007, Congress can help restore this economically,
culturally, and ecologically valuable resource and help the Northwest
States and local communities to adopt and embrace the measures needed
to restore Pacific salmon and steelhead. Restoring salmon will also
allow the United States to satisfy treaty obligations with Northwest
Indian tribes and Canada.
American Rivers appreciates the Committee's past support for this
program and urges the funding be increased to $200 million in fiscal
year 2007.
FISHERIES HABITAT RESTORATION CENTER (COMMUNITY-BASE RESTORATION
PROGRAM)
Estuaries and coastal wetlands serve many essential functions for
communities across the Nation. Coastal industries supply 28 million
jobs and generate billions of dollars annually. Eighty to 90 percent of
all recreational fish catch and 75 percent of all commercial harvest
depends upon healthy coastal and estuarine habitats. More than half of
the coastal wetlands in the lower 48 States have been lost, and almost
40 percent of estuarine habitat is impaired.
The Fisheries Habitat Restoration Center and the Community-based
Restoration Program, reaches out to local constituencies to accomplish
on-the-ground, community-based projects to restore estuaries and
coastal habitats. Partnerships and local involvement are fundamental to
the success of this program. Partners typically match federal dollars
1:1 and leverage those dollars up to 10 times more through State and
local participation. To date, the program has funded more than 900
projects in 25 States, promoting fishery habitat restoration in coastal
areas with a grassroots, bottom-up approach.
American Rivers urges the Committee to provide the Fisheries
Habitat Restoration Program with $24 million in fiscal year 2007 to
help more communities restore and protect and restore the health of
their estuaries and coastal habitats.
THE PENOBSCOT RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT
The Penobscot River Restoration Project is an unprecedented
approach to river restoration that will reconfigure hydropower
facilities and maintain energy production while opening up more than
500 miles of habitat to 10 native species of anadromous fish, improve
water quality, boost wildlife and create new opportunities in
communities along New England's second largest river. The two lowermost
Penobscot dams, Veazie and Great Works, will be removed and a state-of-
the-art fish bypass will be installed at Howland Dam. This restoration
project will reestablish the river's historic connection to the ocean,
and help feed fisheries and wildlife in the river and the Gulf of
Maine. The project's reconfiguration of dams will have a wide range of
benefits to fish and wildlife populations, water quality and
communities along the river. The restoration of the Penobscot River is
the best last chance for the dwindling Atlantic Salmon populations in
the country.
American Rivers urges the Committee to provide $15 million to the
Penobscot River Restoration Project in fiscal year 2007 to assist in
the purchase of the three dams on the Penobscot River.
OPEN RIVERS INITIATIVE
Our Nation's rivers are plugged with millions of dams, most still
functional and benefiting society. Many others are either dilapidated
having outlived their 50 year life expectancy or are no longer
providing the benefits for which they were built. These dams are
unnecessarily degrading the riverine ecosystem and holding up economic
development. The Open Rivers Initiative (ORI), a new Presidential
initiative announced by the Secretary of Commerce in 2005, will provide
grants to communities and local dam owners to remove their dams that no
longer make sense. These restoration projects provide significant
environmental improvements and offer noteworthy economic and societal
benefits. They create new opportunities for recreational fishing, river
rafting, and kayaking; provide cost savings by eliminating the need for
dam repairs; and remove safety and liability risks associated with
outdated structures.
American Rivers urges the Committee to provide $10 million to the
Open Rivers Initiative in fiscal year 2007.
HYDROPOWER RELICENSING
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) would greatly benefit
from additional funding to address the growing number of hydropower
dams that need renewal of their operating licenses from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Under the Federal Power Act, the
NMFS has a responsibility to set license conditions for hydropower dams
that protect and conserve anadromous (sea-run) fisheries such as
Pacific and Atlantic salmon, steelhead and sea-run cutthroat trout, and
shad. FERC approved licenses are nearing expiration at hundreds of dams
around the country, and workloads are increasing for NMFS and other
resource agencies. Increasing NMFS's limited hydropower relicensing
budget is essential to ensure a more efficient licensing process and
that NMFS can carry out its responsibilities to protect and restore our
Nation's anadromous fisheries.
American Rivers urges the Committee to provide the National Marine
Fisheries Service with $3 million to specifically fund the agencies
work on hydropower relicensing in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the hearing record regarding the
forensic science laboratory at Claflin University in Orangeburg, South
Carolina. Claflin University is the oldest historically black college
or university in the State of South Carolina and has a solid reputation
for producing science students who are an asset to the Nation's
scientific workforce.
In the past fiscal year, as I am sure you are aware, funds with
which to initiate the establishment of a certified forensics laboratory
at Claflin University were included in the conference report on the
Science, State Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill. We wish to
thank the subcommittee for its support and report on the use to which
we have put the provided funds. In collaboration with local law
enforcement agencies, we have used those funds to identify and secure a
site for the DNA forensic portion of the laboratory, initiated
renovations to the site as needed, and completed the purchase of some
of the needed equipment. We are also finalizing the recruitment of the
initial supervising scientist for the facility. In addition, we have
developed an initial course in forensics that we will beta test this
summer with students in our biotechnology degree program.
The purpose of the forensics laboratory is to allow Claflin
University to create research and service capacity in DNA, drug and
ballistics forensic technologies for the Orangeburg community, the
First Judicial District and other agencies in South Carolina and the
Nation. A Memorandum of Understanding has been developed with the
Orangeburg Department of Public Safety, and others are being finalized
with the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Department and other law
enforcement agencies within the First Judicial District. The faculty
within the forensics laboratory will offer courses to students from
Orangeburg Calhoun Technical College, undergraduates and graduate
biotechnology students from Claflin and will offer short-course
continuing education courses approved by the State's Law Enforcement
Training Academy to local and State law enforcement officials. The
resulting benefits will include but are not limited to:
--Reduction in the case evidence backlog;
--workforce training (for both forensic scientists and law
enforcement personnel);
--crime rate reduction through timely processing of evidence;
--increased research capacity in DNA forensics technique development;
and
--increased capacity to process back-logged samples for the
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense.
Claflin University will staff a forensics laboratory that will be
certified for DNA fingerprinting. The laboratory will also provide
staff and equipment for drug analysis. In addition, the institution
will collaborate with the Orangeburg Department of Public Safety to
apply to the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN)
program at the Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives to become a participant in that network in
order to provide ballistics analysis capacity for the forensics
laboratory.
All law enforcement agencies within the First Judicial Circuit
could greatly benefit in having a regional forensic laboratory with
these capabilities. This would also reduce the number of cases
submitted to SLED and other specialized laboratories alleviating some
of the current backlog seen in these labs and speed time to trial for
alleged offenders.
I would also like to point out that this year Claflin University,
in partnership with Orangeburg Calhoun Technical College received a
grant from the Department of Labor to establish a joint program in
biotechnology with a forensics emphasis. This would allow a student to
earn an associates degree, a bachelor's degree or a master's degree in
biotechnology, with a forensics specialization, or to stop at any point
of their choosing in that training continuum. We are certain that the
collaboration with the local law enforcement agencies to operate a
forensics laboratory will be a valuable additional asset for our
overall programmatic goals and will increase the number of qualified
individuals entering the workforce with expertise in forensic analyses.
In fiscal year 2007 we are again requesting support of $2.2 million
to complete the work that we have begun in establishing the forensics
laboratory. These funds will be used to hire additional personnel for
the laboratory; purchase the remaining major laboratory
instrumentation; acquire and restructure space for the ballistics
facility; purchase consumables and reagents for analytical processes;
and offer the forensics short course to local law enforcement
personnel.
Mr. Chairman, we are sure that the forensics laboratory that we are
establishing will provide for infrastructure for crime reduction in our
State as well as allowing us to produce forensic scientists for the
State and Nation. We hope that the subcommittee will provide the $2.2
million necessary to continue the progress toward full establishment of
this vital service asset. Your support will reduce crime, save lives,
and strengthen the Nation's scientific workforce.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation
On behalf on the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) I appreciate
the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for the San Miguel Project in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico.
NWF is the U.S. largest member-supported conservation education and
advocacy group. It unites people from all walks of life to protect
nature, wildlife, and the world we all share. NWF's mission is to
educate, inspire and assist individuals and organizations of diverse
cultures to conserve wildlife and other natural resources and to
protect the Earth's environment in order to achieve a peaceful,
equitable and sustainable future.
The Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC) comprising approximately
3,200 acres, is one of the Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas.
Located on the eastern corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within
the municipalities of Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an
extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of
the world. In addition to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-
Columbian forests, all the different varieties of coastal wetlands
found throughout Puerto Rico are represented within the NEC. The
wetlands in this area are essential to the existence of a seasonal
bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare
biological phenomenon.
The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
National Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, this United Nations
Biosphere Reserve is one of the oldest forest protected areas in the
Western Hemisphere, and is the only tropical rain forest in the United
States national forest system. The forest contains rare wildlife and is
home to over 50 species of birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--
one of the ten most endangered species of birds in the world. The
ecological diversity observed within the NEC and the Caribbean National
Rain Forest, varying from a coastal dry forest to a rain forest, lies
within a corridor just 13 miles in length. Such an occurrence, in an
amazing limited area, is extremely rare in any location around the
world and, can only be enhanced or protected by the conservation of the
NEC.
In recognition of the NEC's extraordinary natural value, the NWF
has supported its protection since 1999. During NWF's annual meeting
held on March 2006 at New Orleans, a resolution presented by two of our
affiliates, the Puerto Rican Ornithological Society and the Virgin
Islands Conservation Society, was approved, supporting the protection
of coastal and wetland habitats of concern such as those found on the
Corridor. Furthermore, NWF endorsed the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
House of Representatives Bill 2105, designating the NEC as a nature
reserve, as well as its sustainable development based on ecotourism and
nature tourism activities.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER), it has the one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
protected area in the north region of the Island. The property falls
within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
listed species, such as the hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for leatherback
sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
structures.
At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
250-room hotel/casino, 175 timeshare units, and two golf courses. The
development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization of
rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
sensitive area, including limited public access to beaches and other
coastal resources, and unnecessary exposure of life and property on
lands affected by floods and other natural hazards present at the NEC.
Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque Caribbean
National Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational
opportunities.
Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. The
construction of the proposed resort would undermine past and current
conservation efforts in an area that has been widely recognized by the
Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private conservation
organizations for its unique expression of biological diversity.
A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program is needed to further the
protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
$2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill
(specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
spill settlement funds (for restoration categories), $3 million
committed by the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional
funds being raised by a local land trust and other interested private
parties. I urge you to include this project in the fiscal year 2007
Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer the
recommendations of The Nature Conservancy on the fiscal year 2007
budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground and in-the-water conservation work
is carried out in all 50 States and in 27 foreign countries and is
supported by approximately 1 million individual members. We have helped
conserve nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and
Canada and more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations
globally.
The conservancy owns and manages approximately 1,400 preserves
throughout the United States--the largest private system of nature
sanctuaries in the world. We recognize, however, that our mission
cannot be achieved by core protected areas alone. Therefore, our
projects increasingly seek to accommodate compatible human uses to
address sustained human well-being.
The conservancy works to identify priorities for coastal and marine
conservation through marine ecoregional plans. We identify present and
likely future threats to marine biological diversity before attempting
to identify appropriate strategies for conservation. At more than 100
marine sites around the world, the Nature Conservancy has used a
variety of strategies for marine conservation including habitat
restoration of important nursery and spawning areas, removal of
invasive species, coastal land acquisition, private conservation of
submerged lands, elimination of destructive practices, establishment of
protected areas, management of extractive marine resources activities,
and reduction of nutrient and toxic inputs to coastal systems. No
single strategy works everywhere and at every site, multiple
conservation approaches are needed. The selection of appropriate
approaches depends on the biological, socioeconomic, and political
circumstances at each site.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is an
important partner to the conservancy in many aspects of our
conservation work:
--We rely upon NOAA's data, research, and monitoring of coastal and
marine systems, and have several shared priorities on which we
collaborate. For example, NOAA's Coastal Services Center
maintains a strong customer-service, partnership-oriented
approach to providing needed information and technical
assistance to States, local governments, other federal
agencies, and the private sector to inform decision-making.
--We rely on NOAA's programs that support site-based conservation--
those that fund conservation and restoration activities, and
those that provide for management of coastal and marine
systems. NOAA's ability to meet its requirements under various
resource management statutes could be significantly improved by
enhancing the agency's ability to fund on-the-ground
conservation needs. Programs such as Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation, Community-based Restoration, Open Rivers
Initiative are excellent examples of NOAA taking a practical,
community-oriented approach to conservation and management of
coastal and marine resources. These programs should be
expanded.
--NOAA's contributions to State and local implementation and
educational programs help to ensure that the human capacity
exists to address environmental management issues at the
necessary scale. We are concerned that NOAA's support for human
capacity to implement programs within the agency and at the
State and local levels is often the first to go in tight budget
environments. The committee should provide funding for staff
capacity to provide technical assistance, efficiently manage
grants and programs, and help to measure effectiveness. For
example, funding for Cooperation with the States in NMFS Office
of Protected Resources is an opportunity to better engage
States in addressing the needs of federally-listed species. A
similar program in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been
very successful in helping to solve problems and improve the
status of declining species.
Additionally, we are concerned that funding for oceans in general
and NOAA specifically is declining. The conservancy urges the committee
to provide appropriations for NOAA at or approaching $4.5 billion. This
funding level for NOAA would allow enhancements in the development of
an integrated ocean and atmospheric observing system; increased
research and education activities, expanded ocean conservation and
management programs; and provide critical improvements in
infrastructure (satellites, ships, high performance computers,
facilities), and data management. Such an increase would represent
significant progress toward addressing recommendations contained in the
reports of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission.
Finally, we would like to work with the committee on guidance to
NOAA regarding implementation of a number of key programs.
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP).--The
Nature Conservancy supports funding CELCP at $60 million for fiscal
year 2007 and looks forward to working with the committee to guide
selection of high priority projects. We appreciate the committee's
inclusion of report language in the fiscal year 2006 conference report
directing NOAA to develop a list of eligible CELCP projects for fiscal
year 2007. We look forward to delivery of that list, and hope that it
will be useful to the committee as you make decisions regarding this
important program.
We hope that the committee will once again include this language in
your report for fiscal year 2008 project selection. The project review
process for fiscal year 2007 has been illuminating in showing what is
working and what is less successful. Our review of this process draws
attention to three additional issues.
--First, we have found that, while some States engaged in a truly
outstanding collaborative and public process to select
projects, others took a more narrow approach to outreach. One
of the key elements of success of the Forest Legacy program is
the emphasis the Forest Services places on public and partner
involvement. NOAA should be directed to provide similar
involvement.
--Second, a $3 million project cap was included in the guidance for
the call for proposals. We are concerned that this cap may be
either unnecessarily constraining or may lead to inflated
project proposals. States should be encouraged to request what
is needed to complete a given project within an appropriate
timeframe, and should work with NOAA and the Congress to ensure
funding is available within budget constraints.
--Finally, we are increasingly concerned about the lack of dedicated
staff capacity for CELCP at NOAA. Current practice is to assess
a percentage of the project appropriation to cover NOAA staff
costs. However, our practice is to request funding only for
direct project costs, and we are very concerned about the
impact such a tax is going to have on the ground. NOAA needs a
dedicated line of funding to support program administration and
management, and should be prohibited from assessing a
percentage of project allocations to cover administrative
costs.
NOAA Habitat Restoration.--The Nature Conservancy requests
increased funding for habitat conservation and restoration to support
fisheries management objectives, protected species recovery, and other
coastal and marine management requirements. NOAA needs to invest more
in constructive, on-the-ground and in-the-water habitat conservation.
Habitat losses have a substantial impact on the health and productivity
of marine ecosystems, yet NOAA's ability to work closely with
communities around the country to stem or reverse these losses is
limited. We are encouraged by the creation of the new Open Rivers
Initiative and continued investment in the successful Community-based
Restoration Program, but these great programs fall far short of what is
needed to address the threats. The conservancy and NOAA are now
struggling to find financing for a number of projects that we started
with grants from the Community-based Program.
The conservancy recommends $20 million for Community-based
Restoration, $7.2 million more than the President's budget, and more in
line with the House and Senate recommendations going into the fiscal
year 2006 conference. We request $10 million for the new Open Rivers
Initiative, $4 million more than the President's budget. We urge you to
ensure that this new program is additive to NOAA's habitat restoration
capacity, and doesn't reduce funding available for existing programs.
Coral Reef Conservation Program and Coral Reef Watch.--The
conservancy has developed a strong partnership with NOAA's Coral Reef
program, and we are delighted with their enthusiastic desire to work
together on improving resilience of coral reefs, developing approaches
for sustainable financing for coral conservation activities at the
local level, and other creative approaches to reducing threats to
corals.
However, we are concerned with the decision made the fiscal year
2006 conference to cut funding for NESDIS coral monitoring in fiscal
year 2006. The President requested $737,000 for this modest but
effective program known as ``Coral Reef Watch.'' In 2005, not only did
NESDIS scientists in this program predict a major coral bleaching event
in the Caribbean, but these scientists were able to reach out to NMFS,
NOS and partners in the region to use the attention generated by the
event to help local managers take action to help reefs recover from the
devastating effects of bleaching.
Finally, we urge you to include an additional $1.5 million for
``Local Action Strategies,'' a unique partnership between NOAA and
States and territories to address threats to coral reefs at the local
level.
Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund.--The Pacific Coast Salmon
Recovery Fund (PCSRF) has funded hundreds of successful on the ground
salmon conservation efforts, and we are pleased that NOAA and the
States receiving these funds have greatly improved tracking the process
of restoration and management under this important program.
This program is a critical complement to federal salmon recovery
and management efforts. It enables the State to initiate restoration of
salmon habitat and manage fisheries in areas beyond the reach of the
Federal Government, e.g. on private lands. The PCSRF enables the States
to leverage significant amounts of State funding to address the needs
of private landowners in complying with the Endangered Species Act,
maintaining the economic viability of these lands, while greatly
contributing to economic recovery. In Alaska, where the vast majority
of salmon populations and habitats are healthy, these funds help
maintain the economic viability of the salmon industry, Alaska's
largest employer, by providing and maintaining fisheries that don't
conflict with protection of ESA listed stocks that spend part of their
life history in the Gulf of Alaska.
We are concerned about the decline in funding for the program, from
$89 million in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 to $67 million in
fiscal year 2006, and $66 million in the President's fiscal year 2007
request. The conservancy strongly supports $90 million for this
program. We are also concerned how the funds are allocated across the
five States involved in the program. We feel that the conservation
activities oriented towards recovery and protection of salmon should be
the primary purpose of this program, and therefore urge the committee
to consider including report language in this year's appropriation that
more explicitly links expenditures of PCSRF funds to recovery actions
identified in federal and State salmon recovery and management plans,
where applicable.
Thank you for this opportunity to share with the committee the
conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2007 budget. We would be
pleased to provide the committee with additional information on any of
the conservancy's activities described here or elsewhere. You may
contact Erika Feller at 703-841-5374, if you have questions on which we
might be of assistance.
______
Prepared Statement of Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este, Inc.
On behalf of the (LIGA) ``Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este'', I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for the San Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
The LIGA is a non-profit organization of citizens which volunteer
at schools, participate in local conservation efforts and aim to
preserve and protect the Northeast Ecological Corridor (NEC) from the
reckless impactful surge of construction already quite evident. This
exotic coastline area between Fajardo and Luquillo in Puerto Rico is
unbelievably unique and pristine with an array of habitats seldom found
in other parts of the world. It is home to about 40 rare or
``critically endangered'' species. Please note that the NEC coastal
area is considered the third most important endangered Leatherback
Turtle nesting are in the U.S. jurisdiction. The Fish and Wildlife
Supervisor James Oland has stated that ``this beach area is the only
pristine habitat extensive enough to allow for its (Leatherback Turtle)
future recovery in Puerto Rico''. Beautiful corals still exist and
various Pre-Columbine Forest types. Various wetlands remain here,
essential to the existence of the biodiversity present, like for
example a rare biological phenomenon of not one but two ``thriving
bioluminescent lagoons''. There may also exist Taino and historical
archeological finds yet to be correctly researched. The ``accumulative
effects'' of the proposed Dos Mares and San Miguel Resorts ``mega
constructions'' would ultimately negatively effect further the water
shortage problems of this area, due to the more than 3,000 residential
and touristic units, casinos and gold courses etc., resulting in a
deficit of over 4 million gallons of water per day.
Of further need is the concern to have public access to our
beaches, and a proper buffer zone for our ``El Yunque National Forest''
which should extend from the top of the mountain down to the coast.
This forest contains the only U.S. tropic wilderness area and is also
the only tropical forest in the United States. We of the LIGA are
totally against high intensive (5 star) development and truly wish that
with your help, a natural reserve with the alternative of real
ecotoursitic recreational opportunities, could be made available in the
future.
We have in our hands the chance to save and prepare for future
generations, a treasure of rare land, ocean and animal species; not
only for our local citizens and children but also to share with the
rest of the world. We urge you to please include this project in the
fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. We
thank you for your attention and remain hopeful that you will truly
consider this proposal-which could only serve to benefit mankind.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nisqually Indian Tribe
Mr. Chairman, my name is Dorian Sanchez and I am the chairman of
the Nisqually Indian Tribe. On behalf of the tribe, I would like to
submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2007 budget
for the Office of Justice Programs.
The Nisqually Reservation is located in Washington State. We
currently employ nine land patrol law enforcement officers to patrol
5,000 acres of reservation and near reservation lands. In addition,
Nisqually Tribe Police has extensive marine water enforcement duties
and employs two water patrol officers to patrol over 100 square miles
of Puget Sound for both the treaty salmon fishery and treaty shellfish
harvesting. Tribal law enforcement also provides hunting enforcement
for over 50,000 acres of land in the tribe's usual and accustomed area
within the Nisqually River watershed.
We also employ ten detention officers at our 45-bed detention
facility, which was built with Department of Justice funding in 2002.
Like many other tribes, we are struggling to cope with escalating
methamphetamine use and associated increases in gang activity and
property crime related to drug dealing and manufacturing. The
methamphetamine crisis has received significant attention recently in
Congress and in the media, but what is often overlooked is the
disproportionately devastating impact that meth has had on Indian
communities across the country. Tribes' resources are stretched beyond
capacity in order to address this problem.
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
The administration proposed to consolidate several programs,
including law enforcement and juvenile justice programs, under the
Justice Assistance account. Overall funding for these programs would be
significantly reduced under this proposal, and many programs that
specifically serve tribes would be cut entirely. The tribe opposes any
effort by the administration to reorganize the funding structure in
order to mask program cuts, and we request that the administration
restore funding to the following programs:
--Incarceration on tribal lands ($15 million);
--Tribal courts initiative ($8 million); and
--Indian country grant program ($5 million).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
The tribe also requests that the subcommittee restore full funding
for title V local juvenile delinquency prevention programs and, in
particular, that the $10 million earmark for the Tribal Youth Program
(TYP) be restored. For fiscal year 2007, the administration has
requested only $32 million for delinquency prevention programs--this is
half of the fiscal year 2006 enacted amount. In past years, $10 million
of this funding has been earmarked for tribal juvenile delinquency
prevention programs under the TYP line item, but in the fiscal year
2007 budget proposal, no funding is specifically designated for tribal
youth programs.
In most tribal communities, juvenile delinquency early intervention
programs are funded by TYP grants. The Nisqually Indian Tribe received
TYP funding in 2000 to support the Nisqually Indian Juvenile Justice
Improvement Project, and these funds were used to hire and train a
youth counselor for the youth court and to develop detention
alternatives, such as diversion, community peer review, traditional
dispute resolution, drug courts and mentoring programs. The tribe
received funding again in 2003 for the tribe's At-Risk Native Youth
Intervention project, a program to provide targeted outreach,
assessment, support and mental health services to children who are at
risk for academic failure or are already involved in the juvenile
justice system. If funds are not earmarked for tribal programs,
competition will intensify for this already-limited source of funding,
and programs like these may not be funded in the future.
In addition, the tribe supports restoration of the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant program. The administration has again
proposed to eliminate this important program entirely, calling it
``unfocused.'' On the contrary, as Congress has recognized in restoring
this program for the past 3 years, it provides essential funding for
substance abuse and mental health services and graduated sanctions
programs. Of particular importance in Indian country is the Tribal
Juvenile Accountability Discretionary Grant program, a separate JABG
allocation for Indian tribes to provide delinquency prevention
services. Successful delinquency prevention programs require
coordination of multiple systems (substance abuse, mental health, child
welfare, courts, detention, community-based alternatives to detention,
etc.). For this wraparound approach to work, all these programs must
receive funding, and tribes must have the flexibility to allocate
resources among them as needed. JABG grants are an important source of
this flexible core funding; if these grants are eliminated, tribal
juvenile justice systems will be severely crippled.
TRIBAL COPS
The tribe supports the administration's proposed $16 million
increase to the tribal COPS program. We are concerned, however, that
this increase is being used to justify cuts to all the other tribal
programs discussed above. It is important that the subcommittee
understand that funding for justice programs in Indian country still
falls far short of meeting the severe need for law enforcement and
tribal justice resources--a need that will be even greater this year in
light of significant cuts to Indian programs--including the Tribal
Courts program--proposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Tribes depend
on law enforcement and tribal justice funding and this year--at the
height of the meth crisis--this funding should be increased, not simply
redistributed or reduced overall.
If we can provide any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
Ste. 600, Washington, DC 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249 (fax);
mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
______
Prepared Statement of the Skokomish Tribal Nation
Good morning. My name is Gordon James. I am the chairman of the
Skokomish Tribe of Washington State. On behalf of the tribe, I would
like to submit the following written testimony on the fiscal year 2007
budget for the Office of Justice programs. The tribe respectfully
requests that the subcommittee support the administration's proposed
increase to the Tribal COPS program and reject the administration's
proposed cuts to other tribal justice programs.
The Skokomish Department of Public Safety has been granted the
responsibility and authority to enforce laws and regulations as set
forth by the Skokomish Tribal Council. Enforcement of tribal laws and
regulations will enhance and strengthen the development of the tribe's
human resources, encourage the development of the reservation, and
support community values and goals for the achievement of self-
determination as a nation. The tribe provides the only marine law
enforcement and rescue services in a 35-mile radius of the southern
Hood Canal. In addition, the department works closely with non-tribal
law enforcement agencies and with neighboring tribes to combat the
scourge of drug trafficking in this rural area.
As the committee is undoubtedly aware, drug abuse is rampant on
many Indian reservations, and the recent increase in methamphetamine
use has had an especially damaging effect on Indian country. The
Skokomish Reservation saw significant population growth in the 1980s
and early 1990s, and along with this growth came an alarming increase
in the extent and severity of drug use and abuse. Our community is
coping with the far-reaching effects of methamphetamine abuse, placing
a far greater burden on our law enforcement, health and child welfare
services, as well on our court system.
According to data from the tribe's Alcohol Service program, more
than half of our young adults are affected by drug dependency. We have
also seen an increase in drug-related crimes, such as armed assaults,
drug manufacturing and drug dealing. Of the 1,800 calls that tribal
police have responded to in the last 6 months, more than one-third have
been drug-related, and many of these calls involved non-Indians.
Because non-Indians often view reservations as places where they can
manufacture and sell drugs free from State authority, we have also seen
an increase in clandestine methamphetamine labs on the reservation.
Tribal officers play a key role in detecting and busting these labs,
and it is clear that if the tribe is forced to close its department or
scale back its law enforcement and justice resources, our rural
community will indeed become a haven for meth and other drugs.
The Skokomish Department of Public Safety places strong emphasis on
Community Oriented Policing for Skokomish tribal members, residents and
visitors of the Skokomish Indian Reservation. The department consists
of both patrol and fish and wildlife enforcement divisions, which help
the department obtain its goals of proactively suppressing criminal
activity, preventing crime, and protecting the Skokomish Tribe's
interests, lands, and properties. The two departments were consolidated
in 2003 to allow for more effective patrol services within the
reservation. In the last 10 years, the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) has grown from 1 untrained officer to a force of 13 Washington
State/BIA-certified officers. There are currently 11 full time officers
(3 of which are assigned primarily to Fish and Wildlife Enforcement)
and 2 provisional officers (1 of which is also assigned to Fish and
Wildlife duties). The department also utilizes the services of 6
reserve police officers. We also employ a full time civilian that acts
as court clerk and administrative assistant. All Skokomish Public
Safety officers are cross-trained to perform patrol duties and fish and
wildlife enforcement.
The Patrol Division operates 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. It
supports the mission of the department by preserving the peace,
conducting investigations of crimes, providing patrols on tribal lands
and properties, answering calls for assistance, detecting criminal
activities, identifying potential disturbances, enforcing traffic
regulations on reservation lands, investigating and responding to
accidents, arresting criminal offenders, and providing emergency
services.
The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement division works to protect tribal
treaty fishing, hunting and shellfish rights. Skokomish fish and
wildlife officers are fully commissioned tribal police officers. They
enforce fish, wildlife and environmental laws, patrol fishing sites,
inspect nets, check tribal identification, regulate hunting and fishing
licenses, monitor fishing, hunting and shellfish locations, and
investigate violations of Skokomish fish and wildlife, criminal, and
traffic codes.
The tribe supports the administration's proposed $16 million
increase to the tribal COPS program. The COPS program provides a
flexile source of funding for tribal law enforcement programs like the
Skokomish Department of Public Safety and many tribes depend on these
grants.
However, this increase should not be balanced with cuts elsewhere
in the budget for tribal programs. Increased funding for the COPS
program is sorely needed in Indian country, but tribes should not be
forced to sacrifice funding for tribal courts, juvenile delinquency
prevention and other justice programs in order to secure adequate law
enforcement funds. The entire range of law enforcement and justice
programs (prevention, early intervention, law enforcement, prosecution,
detention) in Indian country has always been drastically underfunded,
and the need for this funding has only intensified with the rampant
methamphetamine production and use on reservations. We ask the
committee to recognize this need and reject the administration's
proposed elimination or reduction for the following tribal programs:
--Incarceration on tribal lands ($15 million);
--Tribal courts initiative ($8 million);
--Indian country grant program ($5 million); and
--Tribal Youth Program, title V local juvenile delinquency prevention
($10 million).
We cannot overstate the importance of this funding to Indian
country.
If we can provide any additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact our counsel, Mary J. Pavel or Addie C. Rolnick at
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP, 1425 K Street NW,
Ste. 600, Washington, D.C. 20005; 202-682-0240 (tel); 202-682-0249
(fax); mpavel@sonosky.com; arolnick@sonosky.com.
______
Prepared Statement of the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico
The Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico (CTPR) presents this
testimony in support of an appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the San Miguel
Project in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
CTPR was created in January 23, 1970 by the government of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Department of Interior as a
private, nonprofit organization devoted to the protection and
conservation of the natural resources of the Island of Puerto Rico. Its
sole beneficiary is the people of Puerto Rico. The trust is
administered by three trustees jointly designated by the Governor of
Puerto Rico and the U.S. Secretary of Interior.
As the foremost non-governmental conservation entity in the island,
CTPR currently protects more than 17,000 acres of land on 20 nature
areas across the island, provides interpretive programs to over 106,000
visitors per year in its three sites open to the public, promotes
citizen participation in conservation and reforestation activities
through its education programs, and produces about 65,000 native trees
a year in its four tree nurseries. The trust has a staff of 95
employees who work in property management, visitor interpretive
services, land acquisitions, donations, and conservation easements,
public education, fundraising, and administration.
One of the trust's principal mandates is to acquire--through
purchase, donations, easements, or other mechanisms--land that is vital
to Puerto Rico's natural and cultural heritage; and to maintain and
care for the land already under its protection. In selecting properties
for acquisition, the trust seeks land of extraordinary natural,
aesthetic, and historic value.
Since the mid-1980s, the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico has been
active in land acquisition, management, and conservation efforts of the
lands adjacent and within the Northeastern Ecological Corridor (NEC).
The NEC, comprising approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the
Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas. Located on the eastern
corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within the municipalities of
Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an extraordinary diversity of
tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of the world. In addition
to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-Columbian forests, all the
different varieties of coastal wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico
are represented within the NEC. The wetlands in this area are essential
to the existence of a seasonal bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna
Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare biological phenomenon.
The NEC also acts as a natural bridge where all of Puerto Rico's
six ecological life zones are connected: from a coastal dry forest in
Las Cabezas de San Juan Nature Reserve to a lower montane rain forest
in El Yunque Caribbean National Forest. In one end of the Corridor is
Las Cabezas de San Juan Nature Reserve, a 539 acres coastal protected
area owned and managed by the trust, considered one of Puerto Rico's
most important natural areas. This reserve contains a prize-winning
restoration of an 1882 neoclassic lighthouse (El Faro) built by the
Spaniards that is open to the public since April 1991. Of the island's
14 lighthouses, El Faro's is the second oldest and is recorded on the
Federal Register of Historic Places. A nature center located in the
lighthouse provides close-up educational views of the reserve's animals
and plants, and a rooftop observation deck offers spectacular vistas of
El Yunque, the NEC, St. Thomas and islands as distant as Tortola. Home
to 96 bird species, the reserve is popularly known for its coastal
lagoon (Laguna Grande), one of three major bioluminescent water bodies
in Puerto Rico exhibiting this unique biological phenomenon all
throughout the year. This nature reserve receives more than 50,000
visitors annually.
In the other end of the Corridor is El Yunque Caribbean National
Forest. Designated as a United Nations Biosphere Reserve, El Yunque is
composed of more than 25,000 acres of land. This forest was originally
set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown and is one of the oldest
protected areas in the Western Hemisphere. It is also the only tropical
rain forest within the United States national forest system. The forest
contains rare wildlife and is home to over 50 species of birds,
including the Puerto Rican parrot--one of the ten most endangered
species of birds in the world. Considered Puerto Rico's most popular
nature attraction, El Yunque receives more than 800,000 visitors per
year.
This incredible ecological diversity, found at a distance of less
than 13 miles in length, adds to the NEC's great natural value and
uniqueness. Such an occurrence, in an amazing limited area, is
extremely rare in any location around the world. This is why the
Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico has actively engaged in the
protection and conservation of the NEC and its surrounding areas. In
1986, CTPR acquired the lands that currently compose Las Cabezas de San
Juan Nature Reserve. In 1992, the trust, in collaboration with the
Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources (DNER),
proposed the designation of the NEC as an extension of Las Cabezas de
San Juan Nature Reserve under the name of Segmento El Convento. Since
then, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has
requested that the Puerto Rico Coastal Zone Management program,
administered by the DNER, develop a strategy and a schedule for the
official designation and establishment of the NEC as a nature reserve.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
the DNER, it has one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
protected area in the north region of the island. The property falls
within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
listed species, such as the Hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
manatee, and Cobana negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for Leatherback
sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
Leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
structures.
At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
the NEC. Given the ongoing controversy over development of the
property, the owners are considering to make the land available for
conservation if funding is secured. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, and private parties have come together in an effort to
preserve this remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will
preserve the coastal resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer
El Yunque Caribbean National Forest, and provide public beach access
and recreational opportunities.
Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
development would likely occur on this highly environmentally sensitive
property. The construction of the proposed resort would undermine past
and current conservation efforts in an area that has been widely
recognized by the Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private
conservation organizations, such as the Conservation Trust of Puerto
Rico, for its unique expression of biological diversity.
A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to further the
protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
$2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman oil spill
(specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
spill settlement funds (for restoration categories) and additional
funds are being raised by other interested private parties. The
Conservation Trust will collaborate and provide additional matching
funds to secure this transaction. I urge you to include this project in
the fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations
bill.
With a limited land mass and a growing population, Puerto Rico must
act quickly to counter the encroachment of urban areas into unique
wildlife habitats, such as the ones found in the Northeastern
Ecological Corridor. Maintaining the health and viability of native
habitats and biodiversity is essential to our ecological, economic,
cultural and social sustainability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to present this testimony and for your consideration to
this important request in favor of one of Puerto Rico's most threatened
coastal ecosystems.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Center for Victims of Crime
The National Center for Victims of Crime submits this testimony to
urge members of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies to once again reject the proposed rescission of the
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) fund as part of the Department of Justice
appropriations legislation. In addition, we urge subcommittee members
not to allow the creation of additional earmarks from the VOCA fund,
and to set the cap on distributions from the fund at $685 million for
fiscal year 2007.
The National Center for Victims of Crime, the leading national
resource and advocacy organization for victims of crime, knows the
considerable and urgent funding needs of those who serve crime victims.
Since our founding in 1985, we have worked with public and nonprofit
agencies throughout the country, providing information, support, and
technical assistance to thousands of victims, victim service providers,
allied professionals, and advocates. Our toll-free information and
referral helpline alerts us to the needs of crime victims nationwide.
Through our training institute and our daily interactions with our
members and the nearly 10,000 crime victim service providers in our
referral network, we stay informed of their work and know the impact of
federal-level funding decisions on their ability to meet the needs of
victims. In short, we hear from victims and service providers every day
about the impact and importance of the VOCA fund.
UNDERSTANDING THE VOCA FUND
Congress created the VOCA fund over 20 years ago to ensure on-
going, dedicated federal support for State and local crime victim
programs. The fund receives no taxpayer dollars: it is comprised solely
of criminal fines and penalties imposed on federal offenders. Most of
the funds are distributed each year by formula grants to the States to
fund: (a) crime victim compensation programs, which pay many of crime
victims' out-of-pocket expenses that directly result from the crime;
and (b) crime victim assistance programs. VOCA assistance funding
supports more than 4,400 State and local victim programs, including
rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, victim assistants in
law enforcement and prosecutor offices, and other direct services for
victims of crime.
VOCA funds support services such as:
--The Prescott House Child Advocacy Center in Birmingham, Alabama;
--an advocate for elder victims of domestic violence at the Women's
Community in Wausau, Wisconsin;
--the Pro Bono Counseling Project, serving crime victims in
Baltimore, Maryland;
--Our House, a program for homicide survivors in Greenville,
Mississippi;
--the Upper Ohio Valley Sexual Assault Help Center in Wheeling, West
Virginia;
--the State MADD office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and
--the victim/witness unit of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office in
Winchester, Virginia.
VOCA assistance dollars fund services that help victims in the
immediate aftermath of crime, including accompaniment to hospitals for
examination; hotline counseling; emergency food, clothing, and
transportation; replacing or repairing broken locks; filing restraining
orders; support groups; and more. VOCA money also funds assistance as
victims move through the criminal justice system, including
notification of court proceedings, transportation to court, help
completing a victim impact statement, notification about the release or
escape of the offender, and help in seeking restitution.
Along with funding programs that serve victims, VOCA dollars
support crime victim compensation, which steps in when victims have no
insurance, no workman's compensation, and no other assistance to meet
out-of-pocket expenses related to the crime. The Crime Victim
Compensation program pays medical bills, counseling costs, crime scene
cleanup, burial costs, and similar expenses. The VOCA fund reimburses
States for 60 percent of their compensation costs.
VOCA assistance grant money is crucial to enable both criminal
justice system-based and community programs to serve victims of crime.
Programs report that they have already made significant cuts due to
recent reductions in State and private funding. They have already taken
such steps as closing satellite offices, reducing services for family
members of victims, cutting staff positions, and eliminating staff
training. The VOCA subgrants have been their remaining stable source of
funding.
WHY THE VOCA FUND CURRENTLY HAS A BALANCE
In 1999, Congress acted to ensure the stability of VOCA funding.
For many years, all money collected in a given year was disbursed in
the following year. However, the nature of the funding stream--all
criminal fines on federal offenders--caused the level of available
funding to vary significantly. In some years, large fines against
corporate offenders caused a surge in deposits. In 1999, Congress chose
to reserve a portion of the deposits from such years to offset lower
collections in leaner years. That year, Congress placed a cap on the
amount of funding disbursed from the fund. The appropriations
conference report noted that ``the conferees have taken this action
(delaying annual fund obligations) to protect against wide fluctuations
in receipts into the fund, and to ensure that a stable level of funding
will remain available for these programs in future years'' (fiscal year
2000; Conf. Rpt. 106-479).
REJECT THE PROPOSED RESCISSION
The administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 would
rescind the balance of the VOCA fund at the end of fiscal year 2007.
This rescission, which would include any amounts remaining after the
fiscal year 2007 appropriation and all moneys collected in fiscal year
2007, would produce a zero balance in the VOCA fund at the start of
fiscal year 2008. If enacted, this proposal would cause havoc in the
victim assistance and compensation arenas, and risk permanently
destabilizing the web of support for victims of crime that has been
built during the past 20 years. Congress rejected such a proposal last
year, and we urge you to do the same for fiscal year 2007.
IMPACT OF RESCISSION ON VICTIM COMPENSATION
Crime victim compensation programs must know where they stand
financially at the outset of the year to make payments predictably and
on time. When preparing their budgets, State compensation programs
assume they will receive reimbursements for 60 percent of their
qualifying payouts to victims, as the Victims of Crime Act provides.
However, if the VOCA fund has a zero balance at the beginning of fiscal
year 2008, State compensation programs cannot be sure that they will
receive that entire reimbursement. It could be an entire year before a
compensation program knows, for example, whether it can pay a
physician's bill for an assault victim's emergency surgery. During that
year, the assault victim may have to endure repeated harassment from
bill collectors while waiting for a decision on his compensation claim.
A delay in payment and uncertainty in the amount of the VOCA grants to
compensation programs is a bureaucratic headache to administrators, but
an injustice to victims of crime awaiting payments.
IMPACT OF RESCISSION ON VICTIM SERVICES
The rescission would undermine the ability of many victim
assistance agencies to keep their doors open. VOCA assistance dollars
provide ongoing support to existing programs that help victims through
the criminal justice process and provide them needed counseling and
support to recover from the offense. Even as they struggle to diversify
and expand their funding sources, victim assistance agencies must still
rely on their VOCA grants to remain open.
A rape crisis center that loses its VOCA funding, even for several
months, is likely to lose staff and discontinue services--which hurts
both victims and the program's longterm viability. When a victim seeks
the center's help to cope with a traumatic sexual assault, it's no good
telling her to come back in 6 months when a counselor may be available.
When the rape crisis center has to end its outreach and services for
Spanish-speaking victims, it's no good trying to pick up the pieces a
year later when some funding is restored. The damage has been done, and
the center's work to build relationships and a reputation with that
community has been set back years.
Similarly, if a criminal justice agency loses the funding for its
victim assistance staff, the loss disrupts the office's efforts to
maximize the victim's effective participation in the criminal justice
process. It also undermines the ability of the criminal justice system
to comply with crime victims' rights laws.
Moreover, the State granting agencies that direct VOCA funds to
providers must know at the outset of each year the total amount of VOCA
victim assistance dollars they will have to disburse before they begin
making grants. Such information is integral to their ability to
responsibly and effectively manage such a formula grant.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 VOCA FUNDING SHOULD BE SET AT $685 MILLION, WITH NO
ADDITIONAL EARMARKS
Finally, even though our first priority is the rejection of the
proposed VOCA fund rescission, we also urge you to set the cap on the
VOCA fund at $685 million for fiscal year 2007 and block additional
earmarks from the VOCA fund, even for projects that serve crime
victims. Increasing the cap to $685 million would allow victim services
to meet growing needs. In Virginia, advocates anticipate a 10 percent
reduction in victim/witness staff due to the rising costs of benefits.
They also anticipate a 10 percent decrease in funding for sexual
assault services. In Wisconsin, advocates report a growing number of
victims of financial abuse and identity theft, as well as increases in
violent offenses. Advocates elsewhere speak of the need to expand
services to elderly victims, to immigrant victims, and to teen victims
of crime. Additional funding could support services for those victims.
At the same time, Congress must be vigilant against the creation of
earmarks out of the VOCA fund. Congress designed the VOCA fund to
support formula grants that allow each State to fund victim services on
the basis of the needs and strategic plans of that State. Additional
earmarks on money from the general VOCA fund would thwart Congress'
intentions in designing the fund.
Congress' creation of the VOCA fund in 1984 fundamentally changed
the way our Nation responds to victims of crime. In establishing the
fund, Congress acted to provide ongoing support for services and
compensation programs that help victims rebuild their lives. Congress
reaffirmed its commitment to victims last year, when it rejected the
administration's proposal to rescind the VOCA fund. We urge you to
reject that proposal again this year, preserving the VOCA fund for the
purposes for which it was created, to appropriate $685 million from the
fund for fiscal year 2007, and to resist any pressure to further
earmark the fund.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sierra Club, Puerto Rico
On behalf on Sierra Club of Puerto Rico and the national Sierra
Club, I thank the committee for its time and consideration. The
following testimony is in support of an appropriation of $3 million
from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San
Miguel project in Puerto Rico.
The Sierra Club was founded in 1892 to explore, enjoy and protect
the environment. Our 800,000 members continue more than 100 years later
in this effort. The Puerto Rico chapter is the newest of the Club's 64,
and was formalized a little over a year ago after 4 years of work,
largely on the goal of protecting the Northeast Ecological Corridor. I
refer you to the attached formal resolution passed by the Sierra Club's
national board of directors upon the official formation of the chapter
here in Puerto Rico in February of 2005.
I will also refer you to the testimony of our fellow environmental
organizations for a more detailed review of the environmental values of
the Northeast Ecological Corridor which are numerous: it's 40 rare, at
risk, endangered and endemic species; the endangered Leatherback turtle
which nests in the Corridor, one of the three most important nesting
sites for the turtles in all of U.S. jurisdiction; the Pterocarpus,
mangrove and pre-Columbian forests, and much more.
I instead will focus on environmental trends in Puerto Rico and the
vision our coalition is proposing for the Northeast Ecological Corridor
and the northeast region of Puerto Rico.
With 3.9 million people in only 3,500 square miles, Puerto Rico has
a higher population density than Japan. The island is also among the
most road-covered places in the world and boasts 2.4 million cars on
streets and highways which often leave residents trapped in endless
traffic jams. After decades of rapid development, Puerto Rico is 14
percent urban, compared with 2.6 percent of the mainland landmass.
While developed areas are growing three to four times faster than the
population, urban density is decreasing, leaving huge numbers of
abandoned buildings. The result is sprawl development which is
threatening to destroy the very essence of Puerto Rico, commonly known
as ``la Isla del Encanto'' or the Island of Enchantment''. Three-
fourths of the islands' construction projects are granted zoning
exemptions.
Concerned about both the degradation of the quality of life of
local residents and the diminishing of the island's unique tourism
potential, an array of organizations formed what is now known as the
Coalition for the Northeast Ecological Corridor. It is comprised of 20
local, island-wide, national and international organizations as well as
over 1000 individuals dedicated to the permanent protection of the
Corridor.
We hope to see the Corridor protected as a Nature Reserve but with
a plethora of eco-tourist amenities including: kayaking, mountain
biking, camping, access for fishermen, etc. But at the heart of this
proposal is in the economic development of the two towns adjacent to
the Corridor, Luquillo and Fajardo. Our hope is that tourists visiting
the Corridor will have to enter the Reserve through the two towns and
that the services tourists use will be based in these towns. We hope to
see development of equipment rental stores, small hotels, restaurants,
etc.
The Corridor serves as a natural link between other regional eco-
tourism destinations. El Yunque National Forest, for example, is only a
15 minute drive from the Northeast Ecological Corridor, is the second
most visited place in Puerto Rico. But the thousands of the tourists
that visit the forest have little reason to stay in the region. For
this reason the coalition is proposing the designation of an Eco-
Tourism region which would be called La Porta de la Naturaleza,
modeling after the island's western tourism destination, La Porta del
Sol.
We are proposing a sort of package. Tourists would leave San Juan
traveling east. They would spend a day biking and tasting typical Afro-
Puerto Rican food at widely known kiosks in Pinones, Puerto Rico's
largest mangrove forest. They would spend several days exploring El
Yunque's trails, waterfalls and hidden swimming holes, staying in one
of many country inns in the area, before heading to the Northeast
Ecological Corridor. After several days there the typical tourist would
take off for one of Puerto Rico's smaller islands, Vieques or Culebra.
We imagine this eco-tourism region taking life for non-Puerto
Ricans during the winter months and internal tourists during the summer
months, preserving some of the encanto for the enjoyment of residents
and non-residents alike. The northeastern region already has 6,000
luxury hotel units built, in construction, or in planning in addition
to 14 golf courses. The Northeast Ecological Corridor is too special to
sacrifice for more of the same.
It is with this hope to protect the Northeast Ecological Corridor,
one of Puerto Rico's only remaining undeveloped coastal areas of
considerable size that we respectfully request your support of the
proposed appropriation.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Sierra Club's 800,000
members, for the opportunity to present this testimony and for your
consideration of this important request.
RESOLUTION
DESIGNATION OF PUERTO RICO'S NORTHEAST ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR AS A NATURE
RESERVE
Whereas, the Sierra Club is America's oldest, largest and most
influential grassroots environmental organization, with over 700,000
members.
Whereas, the Sierra Club, through all lawful means, seeks to
explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of Earth; practice and
promote the responsible use of Earth's ecosystems and resources; and
educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the
natural and human environment.
Whereas, the Northeastern Ecological Corridor (``NEC''), comprising
approximately 3,200 acres on the eastern corner of the main island of
Puerto Rico, is one of the Caribbean's last great-unprotected areas,
containing an extraordinary array of tropical habitats seldom found in
other parts of the world.
Whereas, all of the coastal wetlands found in Puerto Rico, such as
coral communities, mangroves, pre-Columbian forest, and a
bioluminescent lagoon, are represented within the NEC.
Whereas, the diversity of habitats within the NEC have made this
area home of the federally endangered Puerto Rican (``PR'') Plain
Pigeon, the Snowy Plover, the Brown Pelican, the Puerto Rican Boa, the
Hawksbill Sea Turtle and the West Indian Manatee, among other 40
critical species (rare, endemic, threatened and endangered), some even
designated as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN).
Whereas, the NEC is considered one of the most important nesting
grounds for Leatherback sea turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in areas
under U.S. jurisdiction.
Whereas, the NEC's conservation and location within the foothills
of the Caribbean National Forest (El Yunque Rain Forest), a United
Nations Biosphere Reserve and only tropical rain forest managed by the
U.S. Forest Service, helps guarantee this area great natural value and
uniqueness.
Whereas, the NEC is currently threatened by the construction of
over 1,900 residential and tourist units, two 18-holes golf courses and
a 9-holes golf course, as well as related facilities from the
development of the San Miguel Resort and the Dos Mares Resort, to be
managed by Four Seasons Resorts & Hotels and Marriott International,
respectively.
Whereas, the construction of the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and
the Dos Mares-J.W. Marriott Resort would include the filling of
wetlands, canalization of rivers and the clearance of coastal
vegetation, significantly impacting the species and other living
resources that inhabit on the NEC.
Whereas, the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and the Dos Mares-J.W.
Marriott Resort would further deplete the limited water supplies needed
by local communities, affecting the quality of life of thousands of
U.S. citizens in the eastern region of Puerto Rico; in addition to
severely limiting citizen's access to public beaches and lands within
the NEC.
Whereas, the development of the San Miguel-Four Seasons Resort and
the Dos Mares-J.W. Marriott Resort would be contrary to the goals and
objectives of the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Endangered Species
Act, the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act and the U.S. Coastal Barriers
and Improvement Act, including several Commonwealth's statutes.
Whereas, the destruction of the NEC's ecology and natural
integrity, and the elimination of its common enjoyment for the sole
benefit of private interests would be contrary to any principles of
environmental justice and sustainable development.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Sierra Club's Board of
Directors endorses the Sierra Club's new Puerto Rico Chapter in its
efforts to achieve the designation of the NEC as a nature reserve, an
action proposed since 1978 and supported by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, the University of Puerto Rico--Rio Piedras Campus' Department
of Biology, the Catholic Church's Dioceses of Caguas, the Governor of
Puerto Rico, Sila M. Calderon's Environmental Council, local community
and environmental groups and national conservation organizations.
Be it further resolved that the Sierra Club's Board of Directors
requests that Four Seasons Resorts & Hotels and Marriott International
withdraw any further interest in developing the San Miguel Resort and
Dos Mares Resort on the NEC, respectively.
Be it further resolved that the Sierra Club Board of Directors
Chapter requests that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designate the NEC
as a nature reserve, as proposed by the Puerto Rican Department of
Natural & Environmental Resources in 1992.
Unanimously passed on Saturday, February 19th, 2005.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council for Science and the
Environment
SUMMARY
The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges
Congress to appropriate at least $6.02 billion for the National Science
Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2007, an increase of $439 million or
7.9 percent relative to fiscal year 2006. NCSE supports this increase
in order to put NSF on the doubling track that is proposed in the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative as well as a series of
recent bills and reports. NCSE encourages Congress to support a faster
rate of growth in order to implement previous recommendations of the
National Science Board regarding the importance of expanding NSF's
environmental research and education portfolio.
The United States leads the world in scientific discovery and
innovation, but we should not take this leadership for granted. The
long-term prosperity of the Nation, our quality of life, as well as our
national and homeland security require a strong and steady commitment
of federal resources to science and technology. Environmental R&D is a
critical component of the overall federal investment in research and
development. Federal investments in environmental R&D must keep pace
with the growing need to improve the scientific basis for environmental
decisionmaking.
As a result of the recent reorganization of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies now has broader jurisdiction over
environmental research and education. NCSE commends the subcommittee
for its past bipartisan leadership in support of science to improve
environmental decisionmaking. The subcommittee has an historic
opportunity to address pressing national challenges by appropriating
strong and growing funding for environmental research and education at
NSF, NOAA, and other science agencies under the subcommittee's expanded
jurisdiction.
The National Council for Science and the Environment is dedicated
to improving the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. We
are supported by over 500 organizations, including universities,
scientific societies, government associations, businesses and chambers
of commerce, and environmental and other civic organizations. NCSE
promotes science and its essential role in decisionmaking but does not
take positions on environmental issues themselves.
NSF BUDGET REQUEST
The President's budget request would increase funding for the
National Science Foundation by $439 million or 7.9 percent to $6.02
billion in fiscal year 2007. Even if Congress approves the President's
request to increase the NSF budget by 7.9 percent in fiscal year 2007,
the NSF budget would still be slightly below the fiscal year 2004
funding level in real dollars (after accounting for inflation).
However, NSF funding for R&D (excluding education, training, and
overhead costs) would reach a record level in real dollars after
falling in fiscal year 2005 and 2006.
The 7.7 percent increase proposed for NSF's Research and Related
Activities account would benefit all scientific disciplines. NCSE urges
Congress to encourage NSF to provide substantial increases in funding
for all fields of science supported by the agency.
NSF's priority area in Biocomplexity in the Environment is being
phased out, and fiscal year 2007 is the final year of this highly
successful initiative. NSF will continue to support interdisciplinary
studies of this type within the structure of its regular programs.
After fiscal year 2007, this research portfolio will be referred to as
Complexity in Environmental Systems. In fiscal year 2007, funding for
Biocomplexity in the Environment will decline to $42.6 million, a cut
of $40.8 million or 48.9 percent compared to fiscal year 2006. Three
primary areas that will be supported in fiscal year 2007 are Carbon and
Water in Earth Systems; Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems;
and Materials Use: Science, Engineering and Society. It is anticipated
that these three areas will continue as independent programs in the
future after the Biocomplexity in the Environment priority area ends in
fiscal year 2007, and NCSE encourages Congress to support this plan.
NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MFEFC)
account contains several projects that will advance the environmental
sciences. The fiscal year 2007 budget request contains $12.0 million in
the MREFC account for initial implementation of the National Ecological
Observatory Network (NEON) and an additional $11.9 million in other
accounts for NEON concept and development activities. The budget
request for NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
account also contains $27.4 million for EarthScope, $42.9 million for
the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel, and $9.1 million for the South
Pole Station Modernization project. Two new starts in the MREFC account
are the Alaska Region Research Vessel ($56.0 million) and the Ocean
Observatories Initiative ($13.5 million), both of which help fulfill
the administration's 2004 U.S. Ocean Action Plan, developed in response
to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. These projects have the
potential to generate scientific breakthroughs and transform the
environmental sciences. NCSE urges Congress to provide full funding for
all of these initiatives.
Optimism about current proposals to double the NSF budget in 10
years is tempered by the failure of a recent attempt to double the NSF
budget in 5 years. The National Science Authorization Act of 2002,
which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush,
called for a doubling of the NSF budget from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal
year 2007. The annual appropriations bills have fallen far short of the
doubling path specified in the NSF Authorization Act. The fiscal year
2007 budget request for NSF is nearly $4 billion below the level
authorized in the last doubling initiative. However, the current
doubling initiative has been given a high priority in the President's
budget request. NCSE urges Congress to appropriate the funds necessary
to achieve this goal.
EXPANDING NSF'S ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND EDUCATION PORTFOLIO
The National Science Foundation plays a crucial role in supporting
environmental R&D. Environmental research often requires knowledge and
discoveries that reach across disciplinary and institutional
boundaries. NSF recognizes this and encourages multidisciplinary
environmental activities across the entire agency, as well as with
other federal agencies. NSF has established a ``virtual directorate''
for Environmental Research and Education (ERE). Through this virtual
directorate, NSF coordinates the environmental research and education
activities supported by all the directorates and programs.
Although the National Science Board said environmental research and
education should be one of NSF's ``highest priorities'' (see below),
the growth of the ERE budget has lagged behind the growth of the
overall NSF budget in recent years. Given that the National Science
Board has identified environmental research and education as one of the
agency's highest priorities, funding for the ERE portfolio should grow
at least as rapidly as the total NSF budget. In order to achieve the
$1.6 billion funding level recommended by the National Science Board,
NCSE supports rapid growth in NSF's Environmental Research and
Education portfolio over the next several years.
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
The National Council for Science and the Environment encourages
Congress to support full and effective implementation of the 2000
National Science Board (NSB) report, Environmental Science and
Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science
Foundation, within the context of doubling the NSF budget.
The National Science Board report sets out an ambitious set of
recommendations that could dramatically improve the scientific basis
for environmental decisionmaking. The first keystone recommendation is
as follows:
--Environmental research, education, and scientific assessment should
be one of NSF's highest priorities. The current environmental
portfolio represents an expenditure of approximately $600
million per year. In view of the overwhelming importance of,
and exciting opportunities for, progress in the environmental
arena, and because existing resources are fully and
appropriately utilized, new funding will be required. We
recommend that support for environmental research, education,
and scientific assessment at NSF be increased by an additional
$1 billion, phased in over the next 5 years, to reach an annual
expenditure of approximately $1.6 billion.
The report says that the National Science Board expects NSF to
develop budget requests that are consistent with this recommendation.
At first, growth in the Environmental Research and Education budget
reflected its priority status: from fiscal year 1999 to 2001, the ERE
account grew more rapidly than the overall NSF budget. However, the ERE
growth rate has trailed the total NSF growth rate since that time. From
fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, the ERE budget grew by
approximately 13 percent while the total NSF budget grew by 20 percent.
The lagging growth of the Environmental Research and Education budget
relative to the total NSF budget in recent years raises serious
concerns about its status as one of NSF's ``highest priorities.''
The National Science Board envisioned a 167 percent increase in
funding for the ERE portfolio, from approximately $600 million to $1.6
billion, within the context of a doubling of the total NSF budget over
5 years. The doubling did not materialized over the past 5 years, but
we urge Congress to support implementation of the NSB recommendation as
the NSF begins a new doubling initiative. If the Environmental Research
and Education portfolio is one of NSF's highest priorities, then the
growth rate of the ERE budget should not lag behind the growth rate of
the total NSF budget.
The National Science Foundation has taken many steps to implement
the recommendations of the NSB. Full implementation of the NSB report
will require strong support from Congress and a significant increase in
funding for NSF's portfolio of environmental science, engineering and
education.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Center for Victims of Crime
The National Center for Victims of Crime submits this testimony to
urge members of the subcommittee to fully fund the Sexual Assault
Services Program (SASP) as part of the Department of Justice
appropriations legislation. The SASP, created by the Violence Against
Women Act of 2005 (VAWA 2005) and authorized at $50 million, will
provide crucial funding for our Nation's rape crisis centers and other
organizations serving victims of sexual assault, which are currently
seriously underfunded and understaffed. This shortage of funds has left
many victims of sexual violence--women and men, girls and boys--with no
place to turn for help. Funding the SASP will ensure that all victims
will receive the counseling and support they need to recover from the
trauma of sexual violence.
The incidence of sexual assault in America remains unconscionably
high. Every two-and-a-half minutes a person is sexually assaulted in
our country.\1\ Sexual violence is a crime that affects people of all
backgrounds and ages--children and adults, males and females.
Approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 33 men in America have experienced
an attempted or completed rape as a child or adult.\2\ Nearly 5 percent
of college women are sexually assaulted during any given calendar
year.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Criminal Victimization in
the United States, 2004: Statistical Tables. Table 1. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
\2\ National Violence Against Women Survey, ``Prevalence,
Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women,'' November 1998.
\3\ Fisher et al. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College
Women. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice/Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexual assault exacts a heavy cost on individuals, families, and
communities. Victims of sexual violence experience higher rates of
depression, anxiety disorders, mental illness, addiction, eating
disorders, and self-esteem problems than non-victims. Sexual assault
victims are also at increased risk for committing suicide or abusing
substances. The emotional well-being of the victims' friends and family
are also negatively impacted.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Seymour, Anne, Kilpatrick, Dean, & Edmunds, Christine. (1992).
Rape In America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Center
for Victims of Crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workplaces and communities are also affected when victims suffer.
Sexual assault victims face loss of economic productivity through
unemployment, underemployment, and absence from work. According to the
Centers for Disease Control, 21 percent of victims who have been raped
by an intimate partner report losing time from work as a result of
their victimization.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2003). Costs
of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States.
Atlanta, Georgia. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Center, the leading national resource and advocacy
organization for victims of crime, understands well the state of
services for victims of sexual violence. Our helpline staff speaks to
sexual assault victims every day, and works to connect them to local
services. We also hear from rape crisis centers and State sexual
assault coalitions across the country who have told us that they are
desperately struggling to meet the needs of victims. Many of our
members are also system-based service providers, such as victim-witness
coordinators in prosecutors' offices and police departments. These
agencies rely on rape crisis center staff to support victims through
the medical and criminal justice system. They, too, can testify to the
impact the shortage of funds has on the ability of rape crisis centers
to provide services for every victim that needs them.
THE SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR VICTIMS
Approximately 1,315 rape crisis centers across the country help
victims of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and incest rebuild their
lives by providing a range of vital services to victims. These centers:
--operate 24-hour hotlines;
--provide 24-hour accompaniment to law enforcement departments,
hospitals, and legal proceedings;
--offer short- and long-term individual therapy and support groups
for victims and their families;
--perform legal advocacy; and
--assist victims with obtaining compensation and restitution.
Rape crisis centers serve all victims of sexual violence, including
women who have been raped, child sexual assault and incest survivors,
adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, male victims, persons with
disabilities, and victims who experience abuse in later life. They also
provide necessary aid to family members and others affected by sexual
violence.
Rape crisis centers often play a vital role in a victim's recovery
after the crime. Studies have found that services such as those
provided by rape crisis centers can shorten the amount of time a person
exhibits symptoms of rape-related posttraumatic stress disorder.\6\
Victims who have the support of an advocate in the emergency room post-
assault are more likely to file a police report and less likely to be
treated negatively by law enforcement. Victims also reported less
distress after contact with the legal system when they had worked with
a victim advocate.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Zorza, J. Ed. (1997). Study finds rape crisis programs do work.
Sexual Assault Report, 1 (2), 17, 30-31.
\7\ Campbell, R.C. (2006). Rape Survivor's Experience with the
Legal and Medical Systems. Violence Against Women. Vol. 12, No. 1, 31-
45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES
While sexual assault programs have made tremendous progress toward
assuring that victims of sexual assault receive the services they need,
a 2004 survey of the field conducted by the National Center and our
colleagues revealed significant gaps in the national response to
victims of sexual assault. Our survey found overwhelmingly that sexual
assault programs are desperately short of funds to meet the needs of
rape victims. Rape crisis centers are suffering in many States where
governments facing tight budgets have been forced to cut support to
local rape crisis centers. A lack of federal support compounds the
problem.
Victim service professionals we interviewed told us about waiting
lists for counseling in Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,
Wisconsin, and other States. At one Utah rape crisis center, victims
can be on a waiting list for long-term counseling for 10-12 weeks. One
program in Louisiana told us that the waiting period for counseling for
a ``level one'' victim--a recent rape victim who is suicidal--is 5
working days.
In some places, victims are being placed in group counseling to
provide them with some form of support while they are waiting for
individual counseling. Rape crisis centers report that they have cut
the frequency of counseling sessions with victims and hours of hotline
operations, two of the most crucial services rape crisis centers
provide.
Rape crisis centers are struggling to meet the needs of child
victims and their families. An Ohio rape crisis center reported that
they provide an advocate to work with families of child victims of
sexual violence at the local Child Advocacy Center (CAC). Currently,
the rape crisis center can only afford to share her with the CAC 20
hours a week. This means that 10 to 15 families a week will not get any
time with the victim advocate. While some needs may be met by the
medical and investigative staff, these families are not able to get
counseling or advocacy from a person dedicated to their emotional and
mental well-being. The rape crisis center director states that the CAC
is ``begging us for more time but the money is just not there.''
Sexual assault service providers in rural areas across the country
are also struggling to serve multiple counties with very little staff.
Many States report that rural areas often have no services at all. For
example, West Virginia has 9 rape crisis centers that have to cover all
55 counties in the State. Texas has 254 counties: 50 of those counties
have no rape crisis services at all. Victims must travel long distances
to meet with a counselor or get other assistance. In many places,
victims simply cannot make the trip, so they suffer alone. Programs in
rural areas need increased funding to help bring victims to programs,
send advocates to victims, develop satellite offices in rural areas, or
make other innovations to improve access to services.
Rape crisis centers also reported that while their communities
include many underserved populations--including racial and ethnic
minorities and victims with disabilities--they have no funds to extend
their outreach or develop specialized services. In many places, service
providers stated that although there are large ethnic and racial
populations within their communities, few victims from those
populations are accessing services. More funding is required to help
programs meet such needs for targeted services.
funding the sexual assault service program in fiscal year 2007 must be
A CONGRESSIONAL PRIORITY
The SASP was enacted as part of VAWA 2005, the reauthorization of
the Violence Against Women Act, signed into law on January 6, 2005.
SASP created a much-needed funding stream for direct services for
sexual assault victims. The act will provide funding for States,
territories, and tribes to support their efforts to provide services to
adult and minor sexual assault victims and their family and household
members. The funds can be used for general intervention, counseling,
and advocacy, including accompaniment though medical, criminal justice,
and social support systems; support services; and related assistance.
State, territorial, and tribal sexual assault coalitions are also
eligible for SASP funding under a specific set-aside. State coalitions
provide critical support for rape crisis centers, allowing rape crisis
centers to focus on providing direct services to victims. Coalitions
develop statewide policies and procedures for all their member rape
crisis centers. Coalition staff develop and disseminate public
awareness and prevention materials for statewide distribution. SASP
funds can also be used by coalitions to provide training to various
organizations, including governments, law enforcement, courts,
nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and professionals
working in legal services, social services, and health care.
SASP would also address the gap in services to racial and ethnic
minorities. Through a funding set-aside, SASP would ensure that
culturally-specific community-based organizations are able to craft
services for victims that are relevant to their cultural needs.
Partnerships with existing organizations will allow for the most
effective use of funds.
When Congress authorized SASP, it made a commitment to ensure that
supportive counseling and services would be available for victims of
sexual assault across the country. By enacting SASP, Congress
acknowledged that sexual assault crisis centers and other organizations
cannot meet the needs of sexual assault victims without additional
resources. The National Center strongly urges the subcommittee to fully
fund the SASP so our Nation's rape crisis centers can help all victims
rebuild their lives after sexual assault.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Development Initiative
On behalf on Sustainable Development Initiative (IDS, by its
Spanish acronym) I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony
in support of an appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation program for the San Miguel Project in the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
IDS is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the
sustainable development of Puerto Rico's natural resources, especially
those within public lands. Our organization is composed of
professionals who work as engineers, economists, biologists, lawyers
and planners for government agencies and private institutions. IDS
members provide assistance to community groups through volunteer
consulting services.
Over the past 7 years, IDS has focused its work on the conservation
and sustainable development of the Northeastern Ecological Corridor
(NEC).
The NEC, comprising approximately 3,200 acres, is one of the
Caribbean's last, great, unprotected areas. Located on the eastern
corner of the main island of Puerto Rico within the municipalities of
Luquillo and Fajardo, the NEC contains an extraordinary array of
tropical habitats seldom found in other parts of the world. In addition
to coral communities, mangroves, and pre-Columbian forests, all the
different varieties of coastal wetlands found throughout Puerto Rico
are represented within the NEC. The wetlands in this area are essential
to the existence of a seasonal bioluminiscent lagoon known as Laguna
Aguas Prietas, an extremely rare biological phenomenon.
The NEC's location within the foothills of the El Yunque Caribbean
National Forest adds to its great natural value and uniqueness.
Originally set aside in 1876 by the Spanish Crown, this United Nations
Biosphere Reserve is one of the oldest forest protected areas in the
Western Hemisphere, and is the only tropical rain forest in the United
States national forest system. The forest contains rare wildlife and is
home to over 50 species of birds, including the Puerto Rican parrot--
one of the 10 most endangered species of birds in the world. The
ecological diversity observed within the NEC and the Caribbean National
Rain Forest, varying from a coastal dry forest to a rain forest, lies
within a corridor just 13 miles in length. Such an occurrence, in an
amazing limited area, is extremely rare in any location around the
world and can only be enhanced or protected by the conservation of the
NEC.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007 is the 1,277-acre San
Miguel property, consisting of three parcels within the NEC. These
parcels contain extensive wetland areas contiguous to the Pitahaya,
Juan Martin and Sabana rivers, and harbor an array of unique upland and
wetland ecosystems. The project site includes some of the last
remaining unspoiled dune systems and a significant coral community
immediately off shore. Its bird fauna is remarkable and according to
the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources
(DNER), it has the one of the highest diversity of birds of any natural
protected area in the north region of the island. The property falls
within the range of over 40 rare species of flora and fauna, some even
unique to Puerto Rico, including 16 federally threatened or endangered
listed species, such as the Hawksbill sea turtle, Virgin Island boa,
Puerto Rican boa, brown pelican, Puerto Rican plain pigeon, West Indian
manatee, and Cobana Negra (a flowering tree). The area is best known,
however, as one of the most important nesting grounds for Leatherback
sea turtles in the Unites States and the Caribbean. Over 420
Leatherback sea turtle nests were recorded during the 2005 nesting
season. Due to its ecological value, the NEC has been identified by the
DNER, the USDA Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical
Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as a critical wildlife
area of primary importance in Puerto Rico. The NEC also contains a
variety of archeological resources, such as historical tools and
structures.
At the present time, several multinational lodging corporations
have proposed various mega luxury residential-tourist resorts within
the NEC. One of the largest proposed developments would be built on the
San Miguel tracts at the boundary of the municipalities of Luquillo and
Fajardo. The San Miguel Resort would include 1,025 residential units, a
250-room hotel/casino, 175 timeshare units, and two golf courses. The
development would involve the filling of wetlands, channelization of
rivers, and clearance of coastal vegetation, thus destroying the
natural integrity of the NEC. If the San Miguel resort were to be
constructed as planned, it would further deplete the limited water
supplies needed by local communities, resulting in a deficit of over
4,000,000 gallons of water per day, a deficit which accounts for the
water requirements of nearly 25,000 people. There is widespread concern
as well about other negative impacts the development would have on this
sensitive area, including limited public access to beaches and other
coastal resources, and unnecessary exposure of life and property on
lands affected by floods and other natural hazards present at the NEC.
Given the ongoing controversy over development of the property,
including years of lawsuits, strong public opposition, and permitting
difficulties, the owners have decided to make the land available for
conservation. Federal agencies, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and
private parties have come together in an effort to preserve this
remarkable coastal property. Public ownership will preserve the coastal
resources, protect the rivers and wetlands, buffer El Yunque Caribbean
National Forest, and provide public beach access and recreational
opportunities.
Approximately $25 million will eventually be needed to complete the
San Miguel acquisition. If this effort should fail, some form of
development would likely occur on this highly sensitive property. The
construction of the proposed resort would undermine past and current
conservation efforts in an area that has been widely recognized by the
Federal and Commonwealth agencies, and private conservation
organizations for its unique expression of biological diversity.
A fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $3 million from NOAA's Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation Program is needed to further the
protection of the San Miguel tracts. These funds will be matched by
$2.27 million in settlement funds from the Barge Berman Oil Spill
(specifically for land acquisition), up to $5.7 million of other oil
spill settlement funds (for restoration categories), $3 million
committed by the Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, and additional
funds being raised by a local land trust and other interested private
parties. I urge you to include this project in the fiscal year 2007
Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 funding
request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Included in this
testimony is a summary of our history and fiscal year 2005
accomplishments, as well as the new and innovative programs we hope to
accomplish with the funding provided by this committee.
Congress established the foundation 22 years ago, and since that
time the foundation's vision for more healthy and abundant populations
of fish, wildlife and plants has flourished through the creation of
numerous valuable partnerships. The breadth of our partnerships is
highlighted through our active agreements with 14 federal agencies, as
well as various corporations, foundations and individual grantees.
Through these unique arrangements, we are able to leverage federal
funds, bring agencies and industry together and produce tangible,
measurable results. Our history of collaboration has given way to
programs and initiatives such as the Coral Reef Conservation Fund, the
Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants
Program and the Shell Marine Habitat Initiative. With the support of
the committee in fiscal year 2007, we can continue to uphold our
mission of enriching fish, wildlife and the habitat on which they
depend.
In 1999, Congress expanded the foundation's mandate to expressly
include the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
its mission. For nearly a decade, NOAA and the foundation have jointly
supported projects in marine conservation through public-private
partnerships. The foundation respectfully requests that this Committee
fund these efforts at $4 million through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
This request lies well within the authorized levels and will allow
the foundation to better meet the demand for new or expanded strategic
conservation programs. The appropriations provided by the committee are
also used by the foundation to attract additional funding for
conservation projects through mitigation, settlements and direct gifts.
Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year 2005, the
foundation has supported over 8,190 grants and leveraged over $339
million in federal funds for more than $1 billion in on-the-ground
conservation. This has resulted in more than 18 million acres of
restored and managed wildlife habitat; new hope for countless species
under stress; new models of private land stewardship; and stronger
education programs in schools and local communities.
In fiscal year 2005, we were appropriated $1.7 million (less
rescissions) for our general NOAA programs which we were able to
leverage with NOAA interest dollars and over $7.8 million in additional
foundation and partner dollars for a total of $9.8 million in marine
conservation. We achieved this leveraging of the federal dollar by
cultivating partnerships. In fiscal year 2005, the foundation partnered
funds entrusted by this committee with seven other foundations and
several private sector corporations including Shell Oil, Southern
Company, Bass Pro Co., BP Oil Co. and ConocoPhillips. In a similar
manner, the foundation was able to leverage the $1 million in funds
(less rescissions) targeted by this Committee to Tampa Bay habitat
restoration through the Pinellas County Environmental Fund by bringing
an additional $1.8 million in funds for an overall fiscal year 2005
conservation value of $3 million.
Through the fiscal year 2006 Omnibus Bill, we will receive between
$0.7 million--$1.7 million of our historical $2.5 million mark for our
NOAA partnership and $1 million of our historical $1.5 million
allocation for the Pinellas County Environmental Fund. Our mark in the
NOAA Fisheries line for our overall partnership is still being
negotiated. This will be the foundation's second year of drastically
reduced funding which is having large impacts on the programs we are
able to support.
Although we have not yet received our fiscal year 2006 funds, we
have already received over $4 million in proposals requests through two
of the seven competing programs for these dollars. The potential 50
percent reduction in funding, will all but zero out funding for our
NOAA General Matching Grants Program, one of NOAA's largest leveraging
vehicles and broadest brush for general marine and coastal conservation
projects with the foundation. The fiscal year 2006 budget cuts will
also result in dramatic cuts to our National Whale Conservation Fund
and the International Sea Turtle Conservation Fund, both programs which
are making significant impacts to endangered species recovery.
In these times of tightened budgets, we have focused our limited
dollars on four of the historical seven Special Grant Programs: the
Coral Reef Conservation Fund, the Long Island Sound Futures Fund, the
Delaware Estuary Grants Program and the Great Lakes Watershed
Restoration Program. Many of these programs were created at the request
of NOAA to help focus more funds and attention to key priorities within
the agency. The fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 cuts will
obviously impact these programs in the number of projects they can
support, and may have additional impacts if NOAA is the main or only
partner. For example, the pilot year of the Great Lakes Watershed
Restoration Program was so successful that the other agency partners
are looking to increase their funding levels; NOAA will not have the
ability to increase their contribution and will therefore reduce their
role at the table. An even bigger concern may be in the need to have
federal monies to leverage the private funds that NOAA has asked us to
raise, to grow these special programs. Our fiscal year 2007
appropriations request will put us back on track to continue leveraging
scarce federal resources and allow us to achieve increased conservation
benefits.
If fully funded in fiscal year 2007, there are a number of new
opportunities to continue NOAA's mission in the areas of estuarine and
coastal habitat, coral reef conservation and marine species management
and recovery:
Restoring Estuarine and Coastal Habitats.--The steady rate of
coastal development and damaging up-stream activities are causing our
estuarine and coastal habitats to be lost at an alarming rate. The
foundation has had tremendous success in countering these problems by
partnering NOAA funds with other agencies, like the Environmental
Protection Agency, to address these issues from a whole watershed
perspective. This is demonstrated in our Chesapeake Bay, Long Island
Sound and Delaware Estuary grants programs and has proven so successful
that in fiscal year 2005, we expanded our coastal habitat portfolio
with a new program in the Great Lakes. After an extremely successful
pilot year, NOAA is interested in continuing to grow this initiative
with the other agencies involved, especially since it reaches an
underserved portion of their mission. A new program is also being
researched for the San Francisco Bay Estuary that should be ready to
launch in the coming year, if funds are available. New programs are
also uniting around the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This creates an
opportunity to partner existing programs like the Foundation's North
Gulf Coast Initiative targeting the shores of Mississippi, Alabama,
Louisiana and Texas and the Shell Marine Habitat Program along broad-
sweeping watershed goals, if funds are provided to expand the marine
focus in the overall watershed.
Protecting Coral Reefs.--The foundation was successful in fiscal
year 2005 at bringing in new partners in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Harold K.L.
Castle Foundation. We continue to set our sights high, and are building
in new evaluation protocols for individual projects and outlining an
evaluation of the overall program. The foundation is also actively
working with other funders in coral conservation to collaborate on
funding priorities to address hot spots and key threats. With increased
funding in fiscal year 2007, the foundation would like to expand
current partnerships between NOAA and the NRCS to reduce nutrient run-
off and sedimentation to coastal reefs and the U.S. FWS to improve the
management and effectiveness of existing marine protected areas. Funds
are also needed to enhance the foundation's partnership with the White
Water to Blue Water Initiative--Anchors Away!--to establish mooring
buoy systems for reducing damage to reefs from anchors.
Threatened and Endangered Species Solutions.--Our Special Grant
Programs that target endangered species conservation have been the
hardest hit by recent budget cuts. With our fiscal year 2007 request
the foundation would be able to restore funding to these vital programs
in species management, like our work in the southern States to restore
sea turtle nesting habitat and our work in New England, Washington and
Alaska to research declining right whale, orca and beluga whale
populations.
The foundation continues to cultivate partnerships in the private
sector to try and offset some of these cuts in our species programs.
One of the partnerships that we will be investigating in fiscal year
2006 is a new program with global energy industries to study the
impacts of marine noise, particularly in relation to marine mammals.
The requested funding levels will allow NOAA, the management agency for
this issue, to sit at the table as a funder and provide them with a
greater role in determining what research should be funded.
Evaluation.--The foundation has become a leader in evaluation and
adaptive management amongst its peers. The foundation's goal is to
build the capacity of both itself and its partners to undertake more
effective evaluation, to assist in both measuring performance and to
adapt methods and funding strategies for more impactful conservation.
To address these goals, the foundation is implementing several
evaluation strategies simultaneously. First, the foundation has
instituted new protocols within its application process to provide the
measurable indicators needed to evaluate the impacts of our programs.
Second, the foundation has convened discussions amongst our agencies
partners to identify and coordinate potential opportunities for
collaboration within evaluation. One of the initial results of these
meetings has been an interest in piloting new evaluation indicators, to
better articulate the federal investment for GPRA and PART
requirements.
Third, the foundation has commissioned several third-party
evaluations targeting widely-used conservation activities like culvert
removal to full program evaluations to learn where we have been
successful and where past methods have not provided the desired impact.
As an example, in fiscal year 2006, the Foundation's Chesapeake Bay
Small Watershed Grants Program will be evaluated for the first 5 years
of grant-making. The evaluation will include 355 projects associated
with about $10.6 million in federal funds. The federal legislation
accompanying this program included 10-year goals, and this evaluation
presents an opportunity to assess the mid-way mark in helping the
foundation and its partners better focus their resources over the next
5 years. To capture these evaluations and lessons learned, the
foundation is taking a fourth key step by developing a new searchable
project website where users will be able to query information and learn
more about funded projects, including how to adapt projects for higher
rates of success.
Accountability and Grantsmanship.--The foundation constantly
strives to improve the grant making process while maintaining a healthy
level of oversight. To improve ease of use for potential applicants,
foundation applications are now completed and reviewed electronically.
In early fiscal year 2006, to further improve efficiency, the
foundation released a revised application, grant contract template and
reporting form. Even with these efficiencies, the foundation still
requires strict financial reporting by grantees and has once again
received an unqualified audit in fiscal year 2005.
In addition to the evaluation requirements described earlier, all
potential grants are subject to a peer review process. This involves
five external reviews representing State agencies, federal agencies,
affected industry, environmental non-profits and academics. Before
being recommended to the foundation's board of directors, grants are
also reviewed internally by staff, including our conservation
scientists. The internal review process examines the project's
conservation need, technical merit, the support of the local community,
the variety of partners and the amount of proposed non-federal cost
share. The foundation also provides a 30-day notification to the
members of Congress for the congressional district and State in which a
grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision.
Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The foundation is governed by a
25-member board of directors, appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. At the
direction of Congress, the board operates on a nonpartisan basis.
Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on the
board; in fact, all of our directors make financial contributions to
the foundation. It is a diverse board, representing the corporate,
philanthropic and conservation communities; all with a tenacious
commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I took over the
chairmanship in January, after serving on the board for 10 years. It is
an honor to lead such a prestigious board.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
if not the most, cost-effective conservation programs funded in part by
the Federal Government. None of our federally appropriated funds are
used for lobbying, litigation or the foundation's administrative
expenses. By implementing real-world solutions with the private sector
while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is more
consistent with this Congress' philosophy than ever before. We are
confident that the money you appropriate to the foundation will
continue to make a difference.
NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION'S FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Funding Source Funding Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Resources Conservation Service.................. 2.970
Fish and Wildlife Service............................... 7.656
Washington Salmon................................... 1.971
Atlantic Salmon..................................... 0.985
Bureau of Land Management............................... 2.955
Forest Service.......................................... 2.637
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration......... 1.400
Pinellas County Environmental Fund.................. 0.937
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of Save Barnegat Bay
On behalf on Save Barnegat Bay, I appreciate the opportunity to
present this testimony in support of an appropriation of $1 million
from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program for the
Potter Creek project in New Jersey.
Save Barnegat Bay is a not-for-profit environmental group working
to conserve undeveloped natural land and clean water throughout the
Barnegat Bay watershed. We were founded in 1971 as a local chapter of
the Izaak Walton League of America, a leading national environmental
organization.
Barnegat Bay is a shallow, lagoon-type estuary, characteristic of
the back bay system of a barrier island coastline. The 550-square mile
Barnegat Bay watershed is located along the central New Jersey
coastline and encompasses nearly all of Ocean County and a small
portion of Monmouth County. The watershed supports more than 450,000
residents year-round, and many hundred thousands more during the summer
tourist season. The Barnegat Bay estuary covers over 42 miles of
shoreline from the Point Pleasant Canal to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, and
supports a thriving tourist industry. The bay's fisheries represent an
invaluable recreational and commercial resource to the region. Although
long recognized for its great aesthetic, economic, and recreational
value, this back bay system is now threatened by an array of human
activities that could damage its ecological integrity. More than 70
percent of the area along Barnegat Bay's estuarine shoreline has been
developed or altered, leaving less than 30 percent of the area in its
natural state. At the request of the State, Barnegat Bay was recognized
as an estuary of national significance threatened by pollution,
development, and overuse. It was accepted into the Environmental
Protection Agency's National Estuary Program in July 1995, one of 28
such sites nationwide.
Ocean County has been the State's fastest growing county since
1950. While run-off and discharge from power boats contribute to the
degradation of Barnegat Bay, the primary threat to the water quality is
upland development and associated nonpoint source pollution. Local
agencies, civic groups, and nonprofit organizations have long been
committed to the protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed. In 1995, The
Trust for Public Land published a comprehensive study identifying high-
priority conservation and public access sites in the Barnegat Bay. This
study, called the Century Plan, has become the ``greenprint'' for the
protection of the watershed for all those committed to a healthy bay
ecosystem. Funding from Federal, State, local, and private sources has
supported the protection of critical acreage within the Barnegat Bay
watershed, but despite these funding commitments, many of these sites
still remain unprotected.
Available for acquisition in the Barnegat Bay watershed in fiscal
year 2007 is the 100-acre Potters Creek property located in Berkeley
Township. Comprised largely of forested wetland and marshland, the
tract also possesses 30 acres of developable uplands.
These woodlands contain various species of pine and oak, American
holly, and mountain laurel, while the wetlands are comprised of
spartina, glasswort, perennial salt marsh aster, and sea pink. These
wetlands are believed to support upwards of 82 species of birds, half
of which are thought to breed on or near the Potters Creek tract. Some
of these species include red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, and
peregrine falcon, all State-listed endangered species. The marbled
salamander and four-toed salamander, both State species of special
concern, are believed to inhabit the property as well. A total of $5
million is needed to protect this property. In fiscal year 2006,
Congress directed $500,000 in Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
Program funds towards this purchase. Berkeley Township has already
committed $1.5 million towards its portion of the purchase.
An appropriation of $1 million in fiscal year 2007 from NOAA's
CELCP program directed to Ocean County will complete the federal
commitment to this conservation purchase. The total non-federal match
will amount to $3.5 million. Acquisition of this parcel will preserve
open space in a rapidly developing area, further the protection efforts
of the Barnegat Bay watershed, and provide an important buffer to
already conserved lands. I urge you to include this project in the
fiscal year 2007 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of this important request.
______
Prepared Statement of Break the Cycle
The Violence Against Women Act 2005 (Public Law 109-162), recently
unanimously reauthorized by the U.S. Congress, provides funding for
proven effective programs and creates new programs to fill gaps in the
original legislation. Because the President's budget was completed
before VAWA 2005 was passed and signed into law on January 5, 2006, all
of the new programs and many of the reauthorized programs which were
given an increase in funding are not fully funded in the President's
budget.
Break the Cycle is a national non-profit with a mission to engage,
educate, and empower youth to build lives and communities free from
domestic and dating violence. Founded in 1996 in Los Angeles,
California, Break the Cycle has worked to raise awareness among youth
and youth service providers about domestic and dating violence. Break
the Cycle provides law-based preventative education and free legal
services to youth ages 12 to 24. Break the Cycle opened its Washington,
DC office in 2004, and has worked with both youth and policy makers to
ensure that youth have the necessary resources available to develop
healthy relationships and build communities free from violence. Break
the Cycle is the only organization of its kind in the country.
Break the Cycle respectfully requests full funding for all VAWA
2005 programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget. Additionally, because of
the mission of our organization; to engage, educate and empower youth
to end domestic and dating violence, we are especially concerned with
the programs directly affecting youth and will address the vital need
to fully fund these programs in this testimony.
YOUTH AND DOMESTIC AND DATING VIOLENCE
``At the age of 13, I began dating my first boyfriend. It was a
time in my life when I was plagued by all the typical insecurities of
entering adolescence, being acutely self-conscious and wanting simply
to feel connected to the world . . . It was the closeness of our
relationship that allowed me to overlook the times when he would punch
me and push me around, the threats to commit suicide if I ever left
him, the emotional strain that I felt being with him . . . As more and
more time passes, I am learning again to trust myself, to trust others,
and to take care of myself. It is at these points in life when I
recognize the need for more young girls to be able to have the type of
support that I feel I received too late in life . . . girls need to be
taught to trust, to be able to confront their abuse, to be able to
learn to live without it.'' Break the Cycle supporter.
The youth of this country are facing a grave situation that is
largely ignored by the people who are responsible for helping them grow
into healthy adults. Sexual and dating violence occur among youth at
rates disproportionate to the rest of the Nation; teens and young
women, aged 16 to 24, experience the highest rate of intimate partner
violence, almost three times the average for women as a whole.\1\
Additionally, the age at which a female is at greatest risk for rape or
sexual assault is 14,\2\ and in one study, one quarter of teen girls
who have been in a romantic relationship admitted that they had been
pressured to perform oral sex or engage in intercourse when they did
not want to.\3\ Yet, domestic violence resources are usually focused on
adult women or young children who are victims of abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Intimate
Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999.'' NCJ 187635: October
2001, 3.
\2\ Snyder, H.N. (2000). Sexual assault of young children as
reported to law enforcement. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics (NCJ 182990). Washington, DC.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
\3\ Liz Claiborne Inc. Omnibuzz Topline Findings: Teen Relationship
Abuse Research. February 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For youth, who face a unique set of circumstances when dealing with
abuse, these resources do not meet their needs. They are in a stage of
their lives where they are just learning to navigate the adult world,
developing positive and healthy relationships is essential to their
success as adults. Victims of teen dating violence are more likely to:
use alcohol, tobacco, and cocaine; drive after drinking; engage in
unhealthy weight control behaviors; commit sexually risky behaviors
including first intercourse before age 15, multiple partnering, and
lack of condom use; become pregnant; and commit suicide.\4\
Additionally, youth that witness domestic or dating violence also have
higher probabilities of truancy, poor school performance, and trouble
concentrating.\5\ These behaviors limit youths' ability to become
healthy adults. Young people must be educated and empowered to end the
violence in their lives. VAWA 2005 can help stop this cycle of violence
where it starts. Congress has taken the first step in recognizing and
correcting this problem by unanimously passing VAWA 2005, and including
vital new programs for youth. It is critical, for the healthy
development of young people, that full funding be provided for all
programs unanimously passed by Congress. By educating youth and
empowering them to live lives free from violence, we not only improve
their current situation, but teach them how to live healthy adult
lives. The cost of these programs is a small price to pay for the
safety of our youth, and in the long term will cut down on the huge
costs of domestic violence that plagues the nation.\6\ It is time to
teach young people to confront their abuse, and to learn the skills
that will help them create a future without it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Jay Silverman, et. al., Dating Violence Against Adolescent
Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual
Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality, 286 JAMA, 2001.
\5\ Lee, Catherine. Witness of Domestic Violence: The Vulnerable
and the Voiceless. http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/children/
downlow/domvio.shtml.
\6\ Intimate partner violence costs the Nation $5.8 billion
annually, including $4.1 billion in direct health care expenses.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control, ``Cost of Intimate Partner Violence Against
Women in the United States.'' (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROGRAMS
Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth (42 USC 14043c; 119 STAT.
3004)
STARY will provide much needed funding to stop the cycle of
violence where it is most likely to occur, with youth ages 16 to 24.\7\
Youth face unique challenges when dealing with domestic and dating
violence and often do not have access to services to help them.
Adolescence is a trying time, often filled with the insecurity and
frustration of learning to navigate the adult world, while not quite
being an adult. Youth are often untrusting of authority, uninformed on
the law, dependent on others for their financial well being, without
transportation, and ignorant of the services available to them. Special
services and service providers with the skills to deal with these
unique challenges are vital to early intervention with youth dating and
domestic violence. Because most domestic violence services are targeted
at adults, youth are often left without important services and end up
falling through the cracks, leaving them to carry these same patterns
of violence into adult relationships. These grants focus specifically
on services and service providers who can address the needs of youth,
filling a gap in current services, and helping youth to build lives
free from abuse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, ``Intimate
Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999.'' October 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STARY is a new program which we urge Congress to fully fund at it's
authorized level of $15 million in fiscal year 2007.
Access to Justice for Youth (42 USC 14043c-1; 119 STAT. 3005)
The violence perpetrated by youth against youth is a serious
problem. However, the legal system in many States does not allow youth
victims the same access to justice and safety as it does adults. Youth
often slip through the cracks of the justice system because neither
adult nor juvenile courts know how to deal with youth perpetrators and
victims of domestic and dating violence. This problem must be
addressed. Currently, there is only one juvenile domestic violence
court in the country. Access to Justice for Youth would provide
demonstration grants to allow courts, domestic violence and sexual
assault service providers, youth organizations, and law enforcement
agencies to work together to create a model system which addresses the
needs of youth. Both perpetrators and victims must be treated by the
law in a way that allows for safety, dignity, and justice. This funding
will give communities the opportunity to work together to create a
system that truly meets their needs and provides victims and
perpetrators the justice and protection they deserve.
Access to Justice for Youth is a new program which we urge Congress
to fully fund at the authorized level of $5 million for fiscal year
2007.
Supporting Teens Through Education and Protection (STEP Act; 42 USC
14043c-3; 119 STAT. 3010)
Schools have always been envisioned as a safe haven where youth
learn and grow into productive citizens. However, violence in schools
has shattered this idea, and left many young people afraid of the very
place they are sent to grow and mature. Four thousand incidents of rape
and sexual assault were reported in public schools across the country
in a single year.\8\ This number only includes the number reported, and
not the countless cases of rape and sexual assault that go unreported.
Additionally, when youth are faced with abusive relationships, most (73
percent) say they would talk about it with a friend.\9\ Unfortunately,
the friends in whom they would confide are often uninformed about the
rights of youth in abusive relationships, and thus unable to help a
friend in need. Young people cannot be expected to mature into
productive citizens with this type of violence occurring in the place
where they are to be nurtured and taught about healthy adulthood.
Schools need effective polices and procedures to address this problem
when it occurs among their students and school staff must be taught the
warning signs of and resources available for students dealing with
domestic and dating violence. The STEP Act allocates funds to educate
faculty, develop effective school policies about domestic and dating
violence, and provide resources to teach students about the issue and
provide appropriate referrals. Fully funding this program will allow
schools to work in collaboration with sexual assault and domestic
violence providers, police, courts, and other organizations to ensure
that schools are the safe and healthy environments necessary to help
youth become healthy adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Education, 1997 (The Department of Education
no longer reports rapes and sexual assaults in schools as a separate
category, but rather includes them with other violent crimes.)
\9\ Liz Claiborne Inc. Omnibuzz Topline Findings: Teen Relationship
Abuse Research. February 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The STEP Act is a new program which we urge Congress to fully fund
at the authorized level of $5 million for fiscal year 2007.
Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes on Campus (42 USC 14045b; 119 STAT.
3013)
One quarter of female college students are sexually assaulted
during their college careers,\10\ and 70 percent of sexual assaults
reported by college-aged girls are date rapes.\11\ This pervasive
violence must stop, and fully funding Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes
on Campus is one way that Congress can help to stop it. Often away from
home for the first time and adjusting to new freedoms, college students
face unique challenges, especially when it comes to dealing with
domestic and sexual violence. Providing this program with full funding
allows for prevention, services and training essential to end this type
of violence. In the federal fiscal year 2005, 146 applications were
submitted to the Office on Violence Against Women, requesting $32
million for campus programs. The need is great, and Congress can help
by providing the full $12 million authorized by VAWA 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Robin Warshaw, I Never Called it Rape: The Ms. Report on
Recognizing, Righting, and Surviving Date and Acquaintance Rape, New
York: Harper Perennial, 1994.
\11\ B. Levy, Dating Violence, (Seattle: Seal Press, 1991), 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget requests $9 million for Campus Grants. We
urge Congress to fully fund Campus Grants at the authorized level of
$12 million in fiscal year 2007.
CONCLUSION
Sexual assault and domestic violence are problems that pervade our
society. The effects of these problems are far reaching, and especially
detrimental to young people navigating the transition from childhood to
healthy adulthood. Young people must be taught that domestic violence
and sexual assault are unacceptable. Services must be tailored to their
needs and they must be educated about the resources available to them.
They must be empowered to stop the violence that affects them so
profoundly. They deserve the building blocks to create healthy
relationships in the future.
Today's teen and young adult victims and perpetrators of domestic
violence and sexual assault will be those we deal with the in the adult
criminal, civil and family justice systems, healthcare system and
social services systems tomorrow. We have the opportunity today to
invest in our youth to protect them from this violence now and save
countless federal dollars later.
Across the Nation, young people are taking a stand against domestic
violence and sexual assault. However, the funds to allow for education
and services are lacking. Congress has unanimously recognized the
importance of this issue by passing VAWA 2005. Now it is time for
Congress to act. By fully funding VAWA 2005, and especially STARY, STEP
Act, Access to Justice for Youth, and Grants to Reduce Violent Crimes
against Women on Campus, Congress can do its part to combat the
pervasiveness of domestic and sexual violence. By fully funding these
programs, Congress will allow young people the resources necessary to
mature into healthy and productive citizens. It is time to protect
young people from abuse, and to teach them to build prosperous,
healthy, violence-free futures.
______
Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) encourages
Congress to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of
$6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation.
The administration's budget request reflects the recognition of the
important role that fundamental, peer-reviewed scientific research
plays in driving innovation, creating new economic opportunities, and
addressing important societal challenges.
The National Science Foundation plays an important role in science
education, in both formal and informal environments, such as natural
history museums, botanical gardens and other science centers. Moreover,
through programs such as Research Experience for Undergraduates, GK-12
fellowships, or fellowships for graduate students and post-doctoral
researchers, the National Science Foundation provides the resources
needed to educate, recruit, and retain our next generation of
scientists. National Science Foundation programs provide the support
that makes it possible for practicing research scientists and college
faculty to mentor and train budding researchers. National Science
Foundation science education initiatives are unique and stimulate
innovation in teaching and learning about science. The lessons learned
and models developed through this research inform Department of
Education and local school system programs.
Informal science and technology programs supported by the Education
and Human Resources Directorate warrant increased funding. Economic
growth in the 21st century demands a scientifically aware and
technically skilled workforce.
The National Science Foundation Biological Sciences Directorate
(BIO) is particularly important to basic biological research, the
fields of study concerned with understanding how the natural world
works. These research disciplines include botany, zoology,
microbiology, ecology, basic molecular and cellular biology,
systematics and taxonomy. Indeed, according to National Science
Foundation data, more than 65 percent of fundamental biological
research is funded by the foundation. Additionally, the National
Science Foundation provides essential support for the development of
research infrastructure (for example, natural science collections,
cyber-infrastructure, field and marine stations, and the National
Ecological Observatory Network) that is required to advance our
understanding of biological and ecological systems.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request would provide the
BIO directorate with roughly $607.8 million (a 5.4 percent increase).
This funding would support important new research efforts in the areas
of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences ($111.2 million), Integrative
Organismal Biology ($100.7 million), Environmental Biology ($109.6
million), Biological Infrastructure ($85.9 million), and Plant Genome
Research ($101.2 million). The budget also reflects the need for
synthesizing biological information from different fields. Thus, $99.2
million is allocated for the cross discipline Emerging Frontiers
program area.
The President's request includes $24 million in funding for the
National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Of the requested
funding for NEON, $12 million would come from the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account and $12 million would
come from the BIO directorate. NEON will be the first national
ecological measurement and observation system designed both to answer
regional to continental scale scientific questions and to have the
interdisciplinary participation necessary to achieve credible
ecological forecasting and prediction. NEON is expected to transform
the way we conduct science by enabling the integration of research and
education from natural to human systems, and from genomes to the
biosphere. Social scientists and educators have worked with ecologists
and physical scientists to plan and design NEON. These research
communities will all be able to participate in research only possible
because of the construction of NEON.
Thank you for your past efforts on behalf of the National Science
Foundation and for your thoughtful consideration of this request. If
you require additional information, please contact Robert Gropp at 202-
628-1500.
______
Prepared Statement of James City County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1.2 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation program in fiscal year 2007 for acquisition of two
properties at Jamestown totaling 198 acres.
Since English colonists disembarked from their ship on May 14,
1607, naming the river and town for the reigning monarch, James I, the
Virginia peninsula has become one of the most historic regions in the
United States. It has played a role in many eras of American history
including colonial, Revolutionary, and Civil War periods. Today
Jamestown is protected by a variety of public and private organizations
including the National Park Service, The Association for the
Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and James City County.
In one year's time, America will celebrate the quadricentennial of
the landing at Jamestown. A number of events, commemorations,
improvements, and enhancements are planned in order to make this
celebration a one-of-a-kind event that visitors will not forget.
In order to preserve the site around Jamestown for future events
and visitors and protect the important natural and coastal resources
that mark the shores of the wide James River, it is critical to protect
lands adjacent to the historic sites from development and inconsistent
conversion. There is a limited opportunity to acquire two properties
adjacent to protected lands at Jamestown, the 112-acre Jamestown
Campsites and the 85.5-acre Jamestown Marina.
There are numerous historical and ecological resources on both
properties. The campsites property includes 4,600 feet of James River
frontage, and the site was part of the Revolutionary War battle of
Green Spring. It is also a piece of the Capitol City Bike Trail linking
Williamsburg to Richmond. The marina includes over 3,000 feet of
shoreline on Powhatan Creek, contains 65 acres of high quality tidal
wetlands, and is adjacent to the Colonial Parkway.
In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $2 million for this
project. An additional appropriation of $1.2 million in fiscal year
2007 will be used to acquire these properties in time for the Jamestown
2007 celebration next year. Federal funding will be matched by over $9
million from James City County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and
private sources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration of this request and
for the opportunity to present this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the ASME Technical Communities' National Science
Foundation Task Force
The ASME Technical Communities' National Science Foundation (NSF)
Task Force is pleased to provide comments on the NSF fiscal year 2007
budget request, and supports this year's proposed funding level of
$6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation.
Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
ASME is a worldwide engineering society of over 120,000 members focused
on technical, educational and research issues. It conducts one of the
world's largest technical publishing operations, holds approximately 30
technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
year, and sets many industry and manufacturing standards.
NSF FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW
The National Science Foundation plays the critical leadership role
in directing the Nation's non-defense related scientific and
engineering research and education. Now more than ever, the Nation's
future in the global economy relies on the quality of the new ideas,
the competitive strength of the science and engineering workforce, and
the innovative use of new knowledge generated through the research and
education enterprise. As such, ASME shares NSF's broad-based, cross-
cutting vision for basic engineering and scientific research and
education, and strongly endorses NSF and its efforts to promote the
crucial fundamental research that engenders new knowledge to meet vital
national needs and to improve the quality of life for all Americans.
The total fiscal year 2007 NSF budget request is $6.02 billion
representing a $439 million or 7.9 percent increase over the current
fiscal year 2006 estimate, making the outlook for the NSF budget appear
more positive than it has in the last few years. NSF had received a 3.0
percent ($171 million) cut in fiscal year 2005, so that despite a small
increase in fiscal year 2006, i.e. 1.8 percent ($100 million), the
current estimate for fiscal year 2006 is actually 1.25 percent below
the fiscal year 2004 budget. The fiscal year 2007 increase benefits
from the administration's recent American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), which calls for a 10-year budget-doubling effort for NSF.
Within this request, the research directorates will receive
increases between 5.4 percent and 8.2 percent, after several years of
``flat'' funding. Funding for the Engineering Directorate (ENG) would
increase by 8.2 percent over the current year estimate to $628.55
million, $108.88 million of which is requested for the NSF Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) programs that ENG administers.
For fiscal year 2007, ENG will complete a comprehensive
reorganization intended to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of
engineering and the complex integration of the sub-disciplines
comprising ENG. The new disciplinary-area divisions are: Chemical,
Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET), $124.4
million, Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI), $152.2
million, and Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems (ECCS), $80.9
million. The new crosscutting-area divisions are: Industrial Innovation
and Partnerships (IIP), $120.1 million, Engineering Education and
Centers (EEC), $126.0 million, and Emerging Frontiers in Research and
Innovation (EFRI), $25.0 million. This last division is being created
to provide mechanisms to rapidly respond to breakthrough innovations at
the interface between divisions and directorates. The other five
divisions will compete with each other to receive EFRI funds.
A portion of the ENG budget (allocated from the divisions) will
continue to support research and education efforts related to broad,
foundation-wide and interagency priority areas. Networking and
Information Technology R&D ($11.2 million), Human and Social Dynamics
($2 million), and Climate Change Science program ($1 million) are
budgeted at the same levels as the fiscal year 2006 estimate.
Biocomplexity in the Environment ($4 million) and Mathematical Sciences
($1.46 million) are significantly reduced, i.e. by -32.7 percent and -
49.3 percent, respectively, under fiscal year 2006, continuing their
phase-downs and transferring into core programs. On the other hand,
National Nanotechnology Initiative ($137 million) and
Cyberinfrastructure ($54 million) investments from ENG increase by 7.2
percent and 3.8 percent, respectively. Additionally, ENG will lead a
new $20 million NSF-wide, interagency effort to support research on
sensors, focusing on prediction and detection of explosive materials
and related threats. This $20 million effort represents 42 percent of
the proposed 8.2 percent increase for ENG, and is divided evenly
between the four ENG divisions of CBET, CMMI, ECCS, and EEC.
THE ASME NSF TASK FORCE POSITION
Affirmation and Endorsement
The ASME NSF Task Force continues its strong endorsement of NSF's
leadership role in guiding the Nation's basic research and development
activities. NSF has an outstanding record of supporting a broad
spectrum of research of the highest quality, from ``curiosity-driven''
science to focused initiatives. This achievement has been made possible
only through strict adherence to the independent peer review process
for merit-based awards. ASME recognizes the importance and timeliness
of NSF's priority areas that address major national needs for the 21st
century.
The fiscal year 2007 budget request and its 7.9 percent increase
over the appropriation enacted last year represent an encouraging step
forward in the country's commitment to NSF's vital role in fostering
the fundamental research that delivers the ideas, knowledge, and
innovation to sustain a robust, competitive, and productive Nation.
Over three-quarters of the total $439 million increase for NSF is in
the Research and Related Activities Account, which increases by $334.5
million (7.7 percent) to a total of $4.67 billion. This investment
involves both established and emerging areas that are the wellspring
for discoveries that lead to products, process, and services that
improve health, wealth, living conditions, environmental quality, and
national security.
In this request, NSF continues to emphasize programs aimed at
tapping the potential of those underrepresented in the science and
engineering workforce--especially minorities, women, and persons with
disabilities. Support for these programs will total over $640 million.
Broadening participation in NSF activities also applies to
institutions, which ensures that the U.S. reflects a strong capability
in science and engineering across all its regions. The fiscal year 2007
request will fund the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) at $100 million.
In general, the Task Force also supports and commends activities
within ENG. NSF's vision of advancing the frontier--by generating
ideas, marking out creative paths, and solving fundamental research
questions--is epitomized within ENG. It is important to emphasize that
it is through such fundamental science and engineering investment by
which next generation technologies are spawned. Examples of successes
emerging from ENG include the development of a new method to precisely
carve arrays of tiny holes only 10 nanometers wide into sheets of gold
by applying electric current through a thin film of oil molecules. The
process may yield miniscule molecular detection devices, semiconducting
connectors, molecular sieves for protein sorting, and nanojets for fuel
or drug delivery. ENG has also funded pioneering work to develop a
device that enables previously blind individuals to perceive light and
patterns. A retinal implant uses an external camera and image-
processing unit to send signals through the optic nerve to the brain.
ENG's university-based research itself has developed buoys that can
harness the motion of the ocean to produce electricity. Each buoy could
potentially produce 250kW of power, and the technology can be scaled up
or down to suit a variety of energy needs.
NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and ENG is the
focal point within NSF for this critical national research endeavor.
ASME has strongly supported the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI) since its inception as an NSF priority area in fiscal year 2000.
By advancing fundamental research and catalyzing synergistic science
and engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale
science and technology, we push the frontiers of knowledge and
innovation, fueling our national economic enterprise. Within the total
investment for NNI, ENG will fund approximately 30 new awards on
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) or NIRT-like projects
($65 million across NSF).
Finally, ASME continues to endorse NSF's bolstering of K-12
education. In partnership with the Department of Education, NSF will
invest $104 million to strengthen K-12 science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics education. Additionally, funding for
Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K-12 Education will increase by nearly
10 percent to $56 million. By pairing graduate students and K-12
teachers in the classroom, effective partnerships between institutions
of higher education and local school districts are established.
Questions and Concerns
Continuing with central themes raised in previous years, ASME's key
questions and concerns arising from the fiscal year 2007 budget request
center on matters of balance. In particular, ASME is concerned with:
--gross funding imbalance in the federal R&D portfolio,
--inadequate funding levels for existing grants, and
--insufficient funding for core disciplinary research in the ENG
portfolio.
Despite the encouraging increase for NSF in fiscal year 2007 as the
first installment of the new ACI NSF 10-year budget-doubling effort,
the present overall budget request of $6.02 billion is still far below
the $9.8 billion originally authorized for 2007 as part of the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (H.R. 4664). NSF is the
only federal agency with a mandate to strengthen the health and
vitality of U.S. science and engineering and support fundamental
research and education in all scientific and engineering disciplines.
Although NSF investments account for only 4 percent of total federal
funding for R&D, NSF provides 22 percent of federal support to academic
institutions for basic research, which is crucial in non-medical fields
and disciplines. Moreover, while NSF does not directly support medical
research, its investments directly benefit the medical sciences and
related industries, providing the needed advances in diagnosis,
regenerative medicine, drug delivery, and the design and manufacturing
of pharmaceuticals. Given NSF's essential contribution to the immediate
and future welfare, growth, and vitality of our Nation, the ASME NSF
Task Force believes strongly that NSF is still severely under funded.
NSF has had considerable success to date in stretching its funds.
NSF is one of three agencies that have been recognized as models of
excellence in Grants Management. However, this efficiency comes at the
expense of quality research. The funding success rate for NSF has
dropped dramatically, from 30 percent in the late 1990s to an estimated
20 percent for fiscal year 2006 agency wide. This funding success rate
is estimated to be 21 percent for fiscal year 2007--a very modest
increase. The number of outstanding, meritorious proposals far exceeds
the available funding for new programs. Nevertheless, even maintaining
current grant size and duration is not enough. An extended period of
constant grant sizes has eroded buying power and the ability to
adequately support professional development. The projected average
annualized award size for research grants for NSF fiscal year 2007 is
$148,300, for a project duration of 3 years. Moreover, ENG has the
lowest estimated funding success rate for research grants of the
directorates at 14 percent for fiscal year 2006. ENG has the second
lowest average annualized award size and project duration for research
grants of the directorates at $118,000 for a project duration of 2.9
years, as compared to the overall NSF average of $143,000 for a project
duration of 3 years, for estimated fiscal year 2006.
In the current budget, ENG receives the largest percent increase of
the Directorates at 8.2 percent (corresponding to the second largest
total amount increase at $47.6 million). However, funding available for
core programs comes into question. As noted earlier, the new Sensor
initiative constitutes 42 percent of the increase for ENG. In fact,
investments in the priority areas and the IIP division, which houses
the SBIR/STTR program, constitute 54 percent of the budget request for
ENG. The limited funding for unsolicited fundamental research proposals
is of great concern, considering that new priority areas and even new
disciplines are engendered from such sources. The Task Force does not
advocate for the redistribution of monies from priority areas into core
areas, but rather significant increases for ``unfenced'' funds in order
to develop creative and novel ideas that feed the comprehensive
fundamental Science, Engineering, and Technology knowledge base, which
has been a cornerstone of this Nation's greatness.
CLOSURE
ASME supports the administration's request of $6.02 billion for
fiscal year 2007, and enthusiastically applauds the National Science
Foundation's leadership in articulating the Nation's basic research and
development vision. Because NSF is the only federal agency that
supports all fields of science and engineering research, ASME still
feels that NSF is severely underfunded. A substantial and steady
increase in NSF's budget, by increasing both the number and size of its
awards, especially in core disciplinary research and education, will
enable NSF to better position itself to fulfill its leadership
responsibility in directing the Nation's research and development
activities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the NSF fiscal
year 2007 budget request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business
Council
As chairman of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall
Reservation, I am pleased to submit written testimony to the
subcommittee regarding President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget for the
Department of Justice and its Office of Tribal Justice. The tribes
recognize the considerable financial burden which the war in Iraq and
Hurricane Katrina relief effort has placed on the Federal Government.
We are disheartened and concerned, however, to witness the resulting
negative impact those funding priorities have caused to programs
enacted for the benefit of federally recognized Indian tribes,
especially funding for construction of correctional facilities, police
departments, and Tribal courts.
Our physical structures for housing these essential governmental
programs and personnel are unsafe, inadequate and are not up to code
requirements. They require replacement. With more than one-half million
acres of land to patrol and safeguard, we must operate our public
safety programs wisely. Congress has documented the deplorable
conditions of detention facilities in Indian country. We ask that you
act and assist us and other Indian tribes to finance the construction
of vital infrastructure for our reservations.
Congress can shore up the Federal Government's on-going trust
responsibility by restoring and increasing proposed cuts to successful
programs of the Department of Justice, including the Correctional
Facilities on Tribal Lands Program, the Tribal Court Assistance Program
(TCAP), the Tribal Resources Grant Program, and the Tribal Youth
Program. Proposed reorganization of Justice Programs mask program cuts
to these and other important Justice Department grant programs.
As Regina Schofield, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice
Programs, has stated, the needs of Indian Tribal governments to combat
crime and violence in Indian country continue to be great. The Justice
Department's Office of Justice programs offer a variety of grants to
Indian tribes to assist us in our efforts to curb criminal activities,
assist victims of crime, and deter future criminals by educating our
younger members. But without the physical structures to house our law
enforcement personnel, corrections officers and detainees, and Tribal
Court personnel in, or the funds required to carry out much-needed
programs to assist our adult and juvenile detainees, our capabilities
are unnecessarily constrained.
As always, we are appreciative of the work of this subcommittee for
your many efforts to improve the quality of life for American Indians.
We count on the subcommittee to counter overbroad and harmful budget
cuts to programs of the Department of Justice which contribute to the
safety of American Indians, who are often the victims of crime.
We request that this subcommittee significantly increase funding
for Justice Department programs that assist Indian tribes construct
police departments, detention facilities and Tribal Courts. Funding for
the Office of Justice programs' Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands
program has dropped off significantly in the last few years. In 2006,
we understand that the program will fund new construction for only one
structure in Indian country, with the balance of the program's funding
(less than $2.0 million) going to assist only existing correctional
facilities located in Indian country bring their structures up to code.
The administration has not included funds for this program in fiscal
year 2007.
The Fort Hall Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes has
made infrastructure its priority funding request for the fiscal year
2007 appropriations cycle. Building Phase II of the tribes' Justice
Center is among the tribes' top priorities. The tribes' have committed
$4.8 million toward construction of the 67,000 square foot Justice
Center. Our Justice Center facility has been designed by Lombard Conrad
Architects of Boise, Idaho. It will house the tribes' police
department, Tribal Courts, and a 100-bed detention center which will
have space for 20 juvenile detainees, with ``sight and sound''
separation. The Tribes require $6.2 million in Federal grants and loans
to finance the second phase of the project, construction of the
detention center and the shell for the police department and Tribal
Courts.
For too many years, a crisis has persisted regarding the lack of
basic infrastructure in Indian country. In good economic times and bad,
Indian country lacks adequate roads, safe drinking water, sewers, gas
and electric lines, as well as law enforcement officers, Tribal Court
personnel, and detention facilities to house our members and generally
protect the health and safety of our members, non-Indian reservation
residents, and the visiting public. As Tribal governments have grown
stronger and more stable over the years, we have witnessed a decrease
in federal appropriations just when our needs are greatest and tribal
capabilities are at their highest.
Just as the administration and Congress recognize that stable and
peaceful governments and nations can only take root when a population's
basic human needs are met, the Congress must do the same for Indian
country here in the United States.
We ask the Congress--which has the power of the purse and which,
together with the Executive Branch, holds a position of trustee as to
the Indian nations and Indian people--to restore budget cuts to already
under-funded tribal programs of the Department of Justice. The
administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget does not eliminate
government excess. It cuts vital sources of revenue which the Federal
Government pays directly to Tribal governments to improve our
infrastructure.
Pursuant to the landmark Indian Self-Determination Act, the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have stepped into the shoes of the Secretary of
the Interior to assume her duties and obligations to the tribes and our
members. We have contracted law enforcement, Tribal Courts, and
detention facility operations. The Fort Hall Police Department is
comprised of 34 employees with six divisions (administration, patrol,
detention, communications/dispatch, criminal investigations and gang
investigations). In recent years our tribal police have been helped by
grants from the Department of Justice's COPS program. While we are
encouraged by the administration's proposed $16 million increase to the
Tribal COPS program, the administration has cut other important Office
of Justice programs which benefit Indian country. If we do not receive
adequate funding, we will lose well-trained and qualified personnel.
The remaining officers will work in unsuitable conditions.
Our existing structures hamper our ability to promote law and order
on the Fort Hall Reservation and curtail violence from spreading off
the Reservation. In 2005, the tribes entered into Memoranda of
Understanding with city and county governments to facilitate the
investigation and response to illegal drug activities in their
respective jurisdictions. The tribes are pleased to see Congress taking
affirmative measures to curb violence against Indian women. We want to
do our part to curtail violence in southeastern Idaho. Our physical
plant limitations make it more difficult for us to be strong partners
with local law enforcement agencies at a time of growing gang and drug
(methamphetamine) violence.
The Tribal Court system handles roughly 4,000 civil and criminal
cases each year, in addition to 1,500 juvenile cases. With just a
single working courtroom, the tribes face a severe backlog of cases.
The courts must delay or dismiss cases that should be tried. The Tribal
Police Department needs more space for evidence storage. Detectives and
investigators share common workspace, there is no space for
interviewing witnesses or informants, and the Patrol Division lacks
space to write up reports. With a new structure, our law enforcement
capabilities will increase tremendously.
The corrections facility space was not designed as a jail and is
not up to code requirements. Just this month a detainee escaped because
of the crumbling detention facility. There is no space for medical
treatment or education of our tribal detainees. We would like to offer
these detainees programs for continuing education (GED) as well as
spiritual and culturally-appropriate programs so that they may
integrate into society with improved skills. There are no visitor
facilities. The layout makes it difficult to prevent visual contact
between male and female detainees. There is no ``sight and sound''
separation of juvenile detainees. Thousands of dollars are expended
each year by the tribes to house juvenile detainees in other
jurisdiction's detention centers, removing them from family and
community and thus increasing the risk that they will become repeat
offenders.
We also are required to provide health services to American Indian
detainees from other jurisdictions who avail themselves of the Indian
Health Service clinic located at Fort Hall. The clinic does not receive
reimbursement for the provision of health services to these
individuals. If we had a state-of-the-art Tribal Justice Center, with a
100-bed detention center, we could house these American Indian
detainees and provide them with the services they require and receive
adequate compensation from other jurisdictions.
The Fort Hall Business Council decided in 2006 to divide
construction of the fully designed Justice Center into phased
construction to spread out the estimated $17.9 million construction
costs. The tribes are also exploring the feasibility of accessing
private, low-interest loans to build the Justice Center.
The 100-bed detention center will have 80 adult beds and 20
juvenile beds. Excess space will be leased out to accommodate
surrounding jurisdictions' American Indian adult and juvenile
detainees. Leasing available bed space will provide the tribes with
additional revenues to fund the operation and maintenance costs, as
well as the salaries of the Justice Center detention program, thus
lowering the annual operating cost of maintaining a state-of-the-art
facility. BIA Office of Law Enforcement Services officials have also
stated that the U.S. Bureau of Prisons needs detention space which
comply with Federal standards for its American Indian detainees.
The tribes subsidized their Indian Self-Determination Act Law
Enforcement and Tribal Courts contracts with the BIA in 2004 in the
amount of $1.6 million. The tribes subsidized Indian Health Service
operations with a $3.9 million annual health insurance program for
Tribal employees, permitting the IHS to bill third-party health
insurers to fund their operations, as well as providing tribal revenues
to shore up health programs vital to the reservation community. These
funds could have been used for construction of our Justice Center. The
tribes require Federal assistance to build the Justice Center so that
its criminal justice programs may operate at their full potential.
The budgets of the Justice Department's Correctional Facilities on
Indian Lands program, and similar programs funding construction of
infrastructure in Indian country must be increased in fiscal year 2007
if we are to access the capital required to complete Phase II. State
and local government officials support our Justice Center.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' Police Department, corrections
officers, and Tribal Court personnel keep us safe. They protect our
families and communities. They save lives. In the wake of 9/11,
Americans truly appreciated the sacrifice of the Nation's first
responders; they put their lives on the line every day. Congress has
recognized how important it is to build infrastructure on Indian
reservations--law enforcement, Tribal courts, schools, health centers,
roads, water and sewer systems, and utilities--if tribal communities
are to attract and retain business, promote economic development, and
maintain law and order in predominantly rural Indian communities.
Reservations boundaries are porous and are becoming more so every day.
Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes the opportunity
to make known our comments regarding the President's budget proposal
for the Justice Department and our needs for fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Mr. Chairman, my name is Herman Dillon, Sr., Puyallup Tribal
Chairman. We thank the committee for past support of many tribal issues
and in your interest today. We share our concerns and request
assistance in reaching objectives of significance to the Congress, the
Tribe, and to 32,000+ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service Area.
U.S. Department of Justice--Office of Tribal Justice--The Puyallup
Tribe has analyzed the President's fiscal year 2007 budget and submit
the following detailed written testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on
the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies. In
the fiscal year 2006 budget process, the Puyallup Tribe supported
actions of Congress to restore the base level funding for various law
enforcement and public safety programs. We look forward to working with
the 109th Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary
for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of
self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of Puyallup
Tribal members and the members from approximately 435 federally
recognized tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal
year 2007 budget. The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup
Tribe's priorities and special appropriation requests for fiscal year
2007;
Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.--The Puyallup Reservation is
located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of
Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area
contains 17,000+ Native Americans from over 435 tribes and Alaskan
villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division currently has 26
commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in
addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers are charged
with the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation 7 days a
week, 24 hours a day. We currently operate with limited equipment,
patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and insufficient staff
levels. With the continuing increase in population, increase in gang
related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the impact of the
increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the region, the
services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding
maximum levels.
A major area of concern is the status of the Tribes Regional
Detention Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually
earthquake, we have had to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As
a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility
not only impacts the tribe's ability to house detainee's but also the
approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup
Incarceration facility during the period of 2001-2002. Relocation to
the modular facility has also impacted the tribes ability to house
juvenile detainees. With no juvenile facilities, Native American youth
are sent to non-native facilities The President's budget request
provides zero funding for the construction of tribal detention
facilities in fiscal year 2007. Indian country will be negatively
impacted by the proposed elimination of funding for tribal detention
facilities. The total estimated backlog is approximately $400 million.
In fiscal year 2006, $5 million was provided to construct tribal
detention facilities. We respectfully request congressional support:
--Fund the Department of Justice--Detention Facilities Construction
program for fiscal year 2007 at a minimum of $30 million for
new construction.
--Support from the subcommittee on the tribes request for funding to
design and construct an Adult & Juvenile Detention Facility on
the Puyallup Reservation, in the amount of $6.5 million.
Tribal Court System.--The Tribal Court system is an independent
branch of the Puyallup Tribal Government having jurisdiction over
17,000+ Indians within our service area. Jurisdiction extends
throughout our 18,061 acre reservation and our U&A Grounds for Hunting
and Fishing. Partial court funding is provided via a Public Law 93-638
Contract; the funding level has varied little during the past 5 years
covering only costs of supplies, expenses and partial funding of the
Court Administrator's salary. Compensation costs for the Judge,
Prosecutor, Public Defender, Children's Court Counselor and Clerical
are at best, intermittent. Current levels of federal support are
grossly inadequate thereby effectively denying access to equal justice.
Operations of a Tribal Court system with jurisdiction over the
3,200+ tribal members and the 17,000+ Indians is extremely costly.
Sufficient funding is needed for the salaries of the Court
Administrator, Judge, Prosecutor, Public Defender, Children's Court
Counselor and Clerical. Our needs to provide juvenile services and
multi disciplinary investigations of child abuse and domestic violence
abuse is critical. The Tribal Court System lacks the basic resources
most court systems take for granted, such as; the Federal Digest, the
Federal Rules decisions, Washington State Reporters and access to the
Lexus Data Base. A frame work is in place for an adequate court system,
however we lack sufficient finding due to competing demands/priorities
we cannot provide funding to other departments--some of which attempt
timely intervention strategies to lessen court involvement. We have
provided supplementary support to the court system for the past 8
years. With the projected increase demand on the court system services,
it is anticipated that this shortfall will increase over the next 5
years. We seek congressional support and endorsement in:
--Request subcommittee support to fund the Office of Tribal Justice--
Tribal Court System at no less than $8 million for fiscal year
2007.
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).--The President's
budget request proposes to fund the COPS for Indian Country at $31
million for fiscal year 2007. This represents an overall reduction in
funding of 33 percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level. This
takes into consideration the administration proposal to eliminate the
Tribal Court Assistance, Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse, and Tribal
Youth programs, and have those programs funded instead through the COPS
program. As stated in the in U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
letter to Committee on the Budget, this action could ``subject these
important programs to the COPS program's 3-year non-reoccurring funding
scheme.'' This program provides an essential service to the public
safety and welfare in Indian County and assist tribal efforts to
increase the number of law enforcement officers. Today, there are 1.3
law enforcement officers per 1,000 citizens in Indian county, compared
to 2.9 law enforcement officers per 1,000 citizens in non-Indian
communities.
The demand on law enforcement services will increase as Tribal
governments continue to enhance civil and criminal justice
administration and as Tribal governments play an integral role in
securing America's borders, citizens and physical infrastructure. This
demand is further impacted by the existing and growing ``gang problem''
within the boundaries of the Puyallup Reservation. These gangs are
different than other reservations due to our urban setting (Puget Sound
region of the State of Washington), five other city boundaries next to
our exterior boundaries, six separate local jurisdictions and
Interstate 5 traversing through the reservation. In an effort to combat
these gang activities, the Puyallup Tribal council created a Gang Task
Force from the Tribal Police Department, representatives from various
tribal services divisions and community members. The Gang Task Force
developed a gang policy that includes a four prong approach to gang
related activities. They are: enforcement; intelligence; education; and
physical-mental health. These programs are currently being implemented
or being designed for use with supplies and staff being provided by the
tribe. What is needed to move forward is funding in each pronged
approach. Enforcement with additional officers, continued training,
equipment and adequate detention facilities for adults and juveniles.
Intelligence with equipment, computer software programs and staffing.
Education with computer software programs, equipment and staffing.
Physical-mental assistance with funding, equipment and staffing for
support of family services and Tribal Health Authority. We seek
congressional support and endorsement:
--Request subcommittee support to fund the Office of Tribal Justice--
COPS at $31 million for fiscal year 2007.
--Request subcommittee support in funding the Indian alcohol and
Substance Abuse Demonstration program at no less than $5
million for fiscal year 2007.
--Request subcommittee support in funding the Tribal Youth Program at
no less than $10 million for fiscal year 2007.
--Request subcommittee support in funding the ``Meth Hot Spots''
program to fund cleanup of meth labs at no less than $40
million for fiscal year 2007 and request that the subcommittee
issue directive language to the Department of Justice to
include this amount in their fiscal year 2008 budget.
--Request subcommittee support in funding programs authorized under
the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), restore funding for
these programs at $387 million for fiscal year 2007 and request
the subcommittee to issue directive language to the Department
of Justice to include this amount in their fiscal year 2008
budget.
______
Prepared Statement of the City of Webster, Texas
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1.54 million from the Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation Program for the Clear Creek Park project in Webster,
Texas.
Five miles south of NASA's mission control center at the Johnson
Space Center, Clear Creek meanders by the City of Webster in Harris
County. Flowing eastward from its source near Missouri City, Clear
Creek is a tributary of the Galveston Bay estuary. As the creek nears
the shores of Galveston Bay, a rich coastal ecosystem develops
featuring coastal prairie, marshes, wetlands, migratory bird habitat,
and riparian forests. Several parks along the corridor in both Harris
and Galveston counties provide residents and visitors with
opportunities for recreation, outdoor education, and other open space
activities.
Webster lies at the lower end of the Clear Creek watershed and is
home to diverse communities of ecologically important coastal habitats
and systems. Riparian forests of willow oaks, water oaks, and cedar
elms provide habitat for amphibians, owls, hawks, neotropical migrant
birds, and the reddish egret, a State listed threatened bird species.
Along the creek banks are several areas of coastal prairie. As less
than 1 percent of North American grassland prairie remains, it is
critical to protect and restore remaining native prairie lands. Near
Clear Lake and the entrance to Galveston Bay, marshes, wetlands, and
embayments support fish, waterfowl, and migrant birds. The bay was
recognized in 1988 as an estuary of national importance in the National
Estuary Program, and it is one of 28 such monitored estuaries in the
Nation. The comprehensive management plan of the Galveston Bay Estuary
program identified wetlands habitat loss and degradation as a priority
problem in the estuarine system.
The Clear Creek corridor offers the potential for significant
recreational opportunities for residents and visitors. Several parks
operated by local governments extend along the creek, including Harris
County's Challenger Seven Memorial Park, Galveston County's Walker Hall
Park, and League City's Erikson Tract and Clear Creek Nature Park. In
order to enlarge and further link this important corridor of parks and
reserves, the City of Webster has proposed the acquisition of
approximately 270 acres along the northern banks of the creek for a new
Clear Creek Park.
Within the planned park area, the City of Webster envisions
building a trail along Clear Creek for hiking and biking. The trail
will also feature access to launch sites on the creek for canoeing and
kayaking, small piers for fishing, observation points and decks for
bird watching, and picnic areas for families. The multiple
opportunities along the trail are expected to accommodate and
contribute to outdoors and environmental education. The opening of a
trail would also advance the Galveston Bay Estuary Program's goal of
increasing public access to Galveston Bay and its tributaries.
Identified for acquisition with fiscal year 2007 funds are
approximately 175 acres within the proposed Clear Creek Park
boundaries, nearly 65 percent of the total planned park acreage. Once
acquired, the City of Webster will own and maintain the property as a
public park and conservation area. Purchase of this property is
critical to the protection of habitat and recreational open space along
Clear Creek, one of the few remaining unchannelized stream and river
corridors in the Houston metropolitan area. Development is currently
the largest threat to habitat in the Galveston Bay estuary, and some
parcels within the park area have already been sold. If additional
tracts in the proposed Clear Creek Park area are developed, the creek's
floodway would be degraded by loss of wetlands and increase in runoff
pollutants.
The total value of this property is $3.08 million. In order to
complete its purchase, an appropriation of $1.54 million from the
Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed in fiscal
year 2007. Clear Creek Park will protect critical coastal land and
provide multiple recreational possibilities to residents of Webster and
other nearby communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony in support of the appropriation for Clear Creek Park and for
your consideration of the request.
______
Prepared Statement of Santa Barbara County, California
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the subcommittee: I
appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony in support of an
appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal and Estuarine Land
Conservation program for Gaviota State Park.
Located in western Santa Barbara County between Coal Oil Point and
Point Sal, approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles, the Gaviota
Coast lies between the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and
the Los Padres National Forest. Offering a wide variety of natural,
recreational and agricultural resources, it is a high priority area for
conservation and is southern California's largest remaining stretch of
pristine coastline. This remarkable 80-mile landscape represents only
15 percent of the Southern California coast, but it contains about 50
percent of its remaining undeveloped land.
With the constant threat of urban sprawl and development, many
Californians have taken an active part in preserving Gaviota's
agricultural heritage and natural resources. The area is one of only
five places in the world with a Mediterranean climate and associated
vegetation, and it has a history of agricultural use. The topography of
the area varies from rocky and narrow beaches to chaparral covered
mountain slopes. There is also a variety of grassland, shrubland, and
woodland habitat, with scattered vernal pool communities, estuaries,
and native grasslands.
With a vast array of habitat, the Gaviota Coast is home to many
species of marine and terrestrial wildlife. Marine animals found along
the coast include dolphin, gray whale, the endangered Guadalupe fur
seal, and steelhead trout. Terrestrial wildlife includes mountain lion,
mule deer, golden eagle, and endangered species such as the California
condor, brown pelican, and marbled murrelet.
Available for acquisition in fiscal year 2007, the Gaviota State
Park Addition project is a 43-acre site adjacent to Gaviota State Park.
This popular park unit serves 86,000 visitors annually and the addition
of the subject property would enable California State Parks to expand
the existing trail system, develop new trailheads, provide trailhead
serving facilities for the park's many visitors and develop much-needed
campgrounds. The expansion of Gaviota State Park is a top priority for
State Parks and for Santa Barbara County.
Immediately adjacent to Highway 101, this 43-acre property is zoned
for commercial use. Commercial land uses in these coastal foothills are
incompatible with county and State efforts to prevent inappropriate
development and protect critical natural, scenic, and recreational
resources. Acquiring lands adjacent to the park will protect these
streams from the degradation that would occur from development-related
pollution.
Because of its location among other protected properties and
agricultural lands, this project is part of a larger effort to piece
together up to 10,000 contiguous acres of protected coastal wildlands
and open space from the mountains to the sea, including the Los Padres
National Forest and lands owned and managed by the local Land Trust for
Santa Barbara County. The subject property is the linchpin for this
larger assemblage, as it is the only property with commercial zoning on
a 35-mile stretch of the Gaviota Coast. The total cost of the project
is $2.5 million, with State and local sources providing the matching
funds.
An fiscal year 2007 appropriation of $1 million from NOAA's Coastal
and Estuarine Land Conservation program is needed to acquire and
protect this 43-acre property. If added to Gaviota State Park, it will
expand recreational opportunities, provide much needed visitor
facilities, protect scenic viewshed and conserve important wildlife
habitat.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to present this
testimony and for your consideration of the request for an
appropriation of $1 million for Gaviota State Park.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
American Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the......... 282
American Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 253
American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statements of the.297, 298
American Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of the........ 268
American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..... 263
American Rivers, Prepared Statement of........................... 299
American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..... 243
American Society of Civil Engineers, Prepared Statement of the... 290
American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the.. 284
Animal Protection Institute, Prepared Statement of the........... 256
ASME Aerospace Division's Task Force, Prepared Statement of...... 270
ASME Technical Communities' National Science Foundation Task
Force, Prepared Statement of the............................... 330
Association of Small Business Development Centers, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 266
Blakeslee, Assemblyman Sam, Assemblymember, 33rd District,
California Legislature, Prepared Statement of.................. 252
Blue Ocean Institute, Prepared Statement of the.................. 256
Break the Cycle, Prepared Statement of........................... 325
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Question Submitted by.......................................... 112
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
(CCOS) Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.................... 281
California State Coastal Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.. 264
City of Webster, Texas, Prepared Statement of the................ 337
Claflin University, Orangeburg, South Carolina, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 301
Clark, John F., Director, United States Marshals Service,
Department of Justice.......................................... 73
Prepared Statement of........................................ 75
Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA States, Prepared Statement of the....... 245
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 294
Conservation Trust of Puerto Rico, Prepared Statement of the..... 309
Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 96
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota,
Questions Submitted by.......................................110, 192
Endangered Species Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.......... 256
Environmental Defense, Prepared Statement of..................... 256
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 236
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 289
Friends of the Earth, Prepared Statement of...................... 256
Gaviota Coast Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the............. 292
Gonzales, Hon. Alberto R., Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General, Department of Justice........................ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 11
Questions Submitted to....................................... 95
Summary Statement of......................................... 9
Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 286
Griffin, Hon. Michael D., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration........................................... 117
Opening Remarks of........................................... 120
Prepared Statement of....................................... 124
Gutierrez, Hon. Carlos, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Commerce......................................... 197
Prepared Statement of........................................ 201
Summary Statement of......................................... 199
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 194
Statement of................................................. 7
HEART (Help Endangered Animals--Ridley Turtles), Prepared
Statement of................................................... 256
HerpDigest, Prepared Statement of................................ 256
Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 98
International Fund for Animal Welfare, Prepared Statement of the. 256
International Wildlife Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...... 256
Inwater Research Group, Inc., Prepared Statement of the.......... 256
James City County, Virginia, Prepared Statement of............... 329
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin, Questions
Submitted by.................................................107, 113
Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 5
Questions Submitted by......................................99, 114
Statement of................................................. 5
Liga Conciencia Ambiental del Este, Inc., Prepared Statement of.. 306
Local Ocean Trust/Watamu Turtle Watch, Prepared Statement of the. 256
Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the. 256
Marine Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the........... 256
Marine Research Foundation, Prepared Statement of the............ 256
Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
Opening Remarks.............................................. 119
Statements of................................................3, 198
Mueller, Robert, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice.......................................... 36
Prepared Statement of........................................ 39
Questions Submitted to....................................... 113
Murray, Senator Patty, U.S. Senator From Washington, Statement of 7
National Aquarium, Baltimore, Maryland, Prepared Statement of the 272
National Association of Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 233
National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant
Colleges (NASULGC), Prepared Statement of the.................. 275
National Center for Victims of Crime , Prepared Statements of t311, 317
National Council for Science and the Environment, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 315
National Environmental Trust, Prepared Statement of the.......... 256
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the. 321
National Space Grant Alliance, Prepared Statement of the......... 249
National Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the.......... 302
Natural Resources Defense Council, Prepared Statement of the..... 256
Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the.. 328
Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.................... 303
Nisqually Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the................ 306
Oceana, Prepared Statements of.................................254, 256
Osa Sea Turtle Conservation Project, Prepared Statement of the... 256
Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the............. 278
PRETOMA, Prepared Statement of................................... 256
Pro Peninsula, Prepared Statement of............................. 256
Protectors of Pine Oak Woods, Prepared Statement of the.......... 262
Proyecto Tortugas Marinas, Prepared Statement of................. 256
Puyallup Tribe of Indians, Prepared Statement of the............. 335
Santa Barbara County, California, Prepared Statement of.......... 338
Save Barnegat Bay, Prepared Statement of......................... 324
Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the................. 238
Sea Sense, Prepared Statement of................................. 256
Sea Turtle Restoration Project--Texas, Prepared Statement of the. 256
Sea Turtles at Risk, Prepared Statement of....................... 256
Seaflow, Prepared Statement of................................... 256
Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
Opening Statements of........................................1, 197
Questions Submitted by.................................95, 150, 224
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Fort Hall Business Council, Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 333
Sierra Club, Prepared Statement of the........................... 256
Sierra Club, Puerto Rico, Prepared Statement of the.............. 313
Simi Batra of the Trust for Public Land, Letter From the......... 293
Skokomish Tribal Nation, Prepared Statement of the............... 308
South Carolina Aquarium, Prepared Statement of the............... 256
St. Simons Land Trust, Prepared Statement of the................. 261
Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Statement of..... 5
Surfrider Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.................. 277
Sustainable Development Initiative, Prepared Statement of the.... 320
Tandy, Karen, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration,
Department of Justice.......................................... 45
Prepared Statement of........................................ 47
The Humane Society of the U.S., Prepared Statement of............ 256
The Leatherback Trust, Prepared Statement of..................... 256
The National Marine Life Center, Prepared Statement of the....... 256
The Pegasus Foundation, Prepared Statement of.................... 256
The Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 256
Town of Brunswick, Maine, Prepared Statement of the.............. 260
Truscott, Carl J., Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, Department of Justice.......................... 61
Prepared Statement of........................................ 63
United States Tennis Association Tennis and Education Foundation,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 273
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
Statement of
the............................................................ 257
Washington State Department of Ecology, Prepared Statement of the 279
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Prepared Statement of the 256
WIDECAST: Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 256
Wildlife Rescue and Conservation Association (ARCAS), Prepared
Statement of the............................................... 256
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 223
Advanced Technology Program and Manufacturing Extension
Partnership.................................................... 216
Bureau of the Census............................................. 220
Congressional Earmarks........................................... 229
Departmental Management...................................218, 220, 229
Economic Development Administration..................206, 219, 224, 230
Focus on Regional Development................................ 207
Regional Development Account................................. 206
Fiscal Year 2006 Supplemental--National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration................................................. 224
Hurricane Supplemental Funds..................................... 205
Intellectual Property, Education, Outreach and Enforcement....... 207
National Institute of Standards and Technology................... 218
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.................. 210
National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System (NPOESS)..............................................209, 227
National Weather Service......................................... 211
Ocean-related activities......................................... 217
Patent Examiners:
Hiring....................................................... 212
Qualifications and Retention................................. 213
Public Safety Interoperable Communications....................... 221
Scenarios.................................................... 222
Standards and Testing........................................ 222
Timeline of Events for Getting Supplemental Funds to the Intended
Recipients..................................................... 205
U.S. Ocean Action Plan........................................... 228
United States Patent and Trademark Office........................ 225
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Alabama Church Fires Investigation............................... 62
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms:
And Iraq..................................................... 62
Budget Request............................................... 61
User Fee Proposal............................................ 79
Anti-Gang Efforts................................................ 65
Arson............................................................ 68
Criminal Diversion of Alcohol and Tobacco........................ 69
Explosives....................................................... 66
Firearms......................................................... 64
Fiscal Year 2007 President's Budget Request...................... 64
Industry Operations: ATF's Dual Role............................. 69
Intelligence/Technology.......................................... 70
International.................................................... 72
Iraq............................................................. 64
Management....................................................... 73
National Tracing Center.......................................... 66
Partnerships..................................................... 72
Response to Hurricane Katrina.................................... 63
Southwest Border Initiative...................................... 65
Special Programs................................................. 71
Violent Crime Impact Teams.......................................62, 65
Drug Enforcement Administration
ChoicePoint...................................................... 93
Cocaine Trafficking.............................................. 85
Drug Enforcement Administration:
Intelligence Role............................................ 46
Involvement in the Intelligence Community.................... 78
Drug:
Enforcement Agency Anti-Terrorism............................ 83
Flow Prevention Strategy..................................... 46
Threats to the United States................................. 53
Trade Funding and Terrorism.................................. 81
Financial Investigations......................................... 58
Fiscal Year:
2005 Accomplishments......................................... 47
2007 Budget Request.......................................... 50
Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia--ejercito de Pueblo--
FARC........................................................... 90
Gangs............................................................ 59
Global Drug Trade................................................ 45
Independent Verification and Validation of Sentinel's
Implementation................................................. 93
Indictments and Extraditions From Colombia....................... 89
Methamphetamine.................................................. 45
Opportunities Ahead.............................................. 52
Price of Cocaine in Washington, DC............................... 86
Purchase of Software Package From ChoicePoint.................... 94
State and Local Assistance....................................... 60
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Additional Committee Questions................................... 95
ChoicePoint...................................................... 114
Criminal Programs................................................ 44
Cyber............................................................ 43
FBI Analysts..................................................... 113
Human Resources.................................................. 41
Improving Physical Infrastructure................................ 39
Information Technology........................................... 40
Legal Attache Program............................................ 43
National Security Branch......................................... 36
CT/CI/DI..................................................... 42
National Security Division....................................... 82
NGI and IAFIS/IDENT Interoperability............................. 40
Seniors Investment Fraud......................................... 114
Sentinel.....................................................36, 38, 77
Cost........................................................ 92
2007 Budget Request.............................................. 39
Virtual Case File:
Cost......................................................... 91
Project...................................................... 38
Sentinel..................................................... 115
Office of the Attorney General
Additional Committee Questions................................... 95
Antitrust Modernization Commission............................... 110
Bulletproof Vests Partnership Grant Program...................... 106
Byrne Grants..................................................... 31
Program...................................................... 27
Childsafe Initiative............................................. 10
ChoicePoint...................................................... 24
Civil Rights..................................................... 15
Civil Rights Division............................................ 10
Community Oriented Policing Services............................. 32
Competition and International Trade.............................. 99
Counterterrorism Investigations.................................. 9
Crime Victims Fund............................................... 25
Crimes Against Children and Obscenity............................ 15
Cuts to:
Byrne JAG Program............................................ 29
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance................... 104
Drug:
Cartels...................................................... 33
Enforcement and Border Security.............................. 14
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program.... 111
Eliminating the Byrne Grant Program in the Face of a Meth
Epidemic....................................................... 107
Enforcing Federal Law in the Courts.............................. 16
Federal Prison................................................... 20
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.................................. 1
Human Trafficking................................................ 10
Intergovernmental Agreements..................................... 98
Judicial System Support and Incarceration........................ 16
Judiciary Needs on International Borders......................... 96
Justice For All Act.............................................. 101
Juvenile Justice Funding......................................... 108
Management and Information Technology Improvements............... 17
Mental Health Court Needs........................................ 97
National Motor Vehicle Title Information System.................. 95
National Security Division....................................... 21
Northern Border.................................................. 34
Northwest Border Security........................................ 35
NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program and Its Possible Undermining
Affect on Counterterrorism Efforts............................. 112
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review......................... 107
Office of the Inspector General COPS Methamphetamine Initiative
Audit.......................................................... 101
Preventing and Combating Terrorism............................... 12
Project Safe Neighborhoods....................................... 13
Public and Corporate Corruption.................................. 16
Sex Offender Database............................................ 111
Sexual Predators................................................. 19
State and Local Programs.........................................18, 31
State, Local, and Tribal Assistance.............................. 17
Tunney Act Review................................................ 110
Victims of Crime Act Crime Victims Fund.......................... 105
Violence Against Women Act....................................... 30
Funding Within the Department of Justice..................... 30
Whirlpool-Maytag Merger.......................................... 109
United States Marshals Service
Audited Financial Statements.....................................74, 77
Children's Safety Act............................................ 76
Fiscal Year:
2005 Accomplishments......................................... 75
2007 Budget Request.......................................... 76
Fugitive Regional Task Forces.................................... 74
Information Technology...........................................74, 76
Judicial Security............................................74, 76, 79
Local Law Enforcement............................................ 83
Offsets.......................................................... 77
Summary of Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request....................... 74
United States Marshals Service Accomplishments................... 73
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
ADA Violations.................................................121, 187
Preventive Steps...........................................132, 133
Additional Committee Questions................................... 150
Aeronautics Research......................................123, 129, 148
Aging and Damaged Facilities..................................... 140
American Competitive Initiative.................................. 149
Balancing the Budget............................................. 123
Banking Funds for Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)................. 191
Corrective Action Plan Fiscal Year 2005 Financial Audit--February
15,
2006........................................................... 150
Crew Vehicle Development......................................... 147
Cross-Agency Support Programs.................................... 130
Cuts in Science.................................................. 143
DC-8............................................................. 193
Emergency Supplemental Funds..................................... 124
Financial Management............................................. 150
Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)............... 193
Human Space Flight............................................... 124
Impact of Earmarks on NASA's Mission............................. 131
Implementing the Vision.......................................... 125
Integrated Enterprise Management Program.......................133, 134
Internal Weaknesses in Internal Controls......................... 132
International Partners........................................... 146
International Space Station...................................... 145
Lunar Robotic Orbiter (LRO)...................................... 191
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Centers...................................................... 188
Financial Management.......................................121, 131
Next Steps................................................... 132
Science Budget............................................... 137
Unobligated Balance Growth................................... 190
Workforce Strategy........................................... 130
National Priorities.............................................. 122
Procurement...................................................... 189
Propulsion Research.............................................. 137
Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP)......................... 134
Science Reductions at the Marshall Space Flight Center........... 138
Scientific Discovery............................................. 128
Space Shuttle.................................................... 144
Flight Rate Schedule......................................... 139
Unobligated Balances............................................. 121
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium (UMAC)........................ 192
Vision for Space Exploration..................................... 135
Window Observational Research Facility (WORF).................... 192
Workforce Transitioning.......................................... 139
-