COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 8—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

JOHN BLAZEY, DIXON BUTLER, ADRIENNE SIMONSON, 

DIANA SIMPSON, DAREK NEWBY, and BRAD DANIELS, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 8 

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

57–370 WASHINGTON : 2010 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

CHET EDWARDS, Texas 

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan 

ALLEN BOYD, Florida 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

MARION BERRY, Arkansas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY LEWIS, California 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New 

Jersey 

TODD TIAHRT, Kansas 

ZACH WAMP, Tennessee 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

BEVERLY PHETO, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2011 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER 

INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Today we have outside witnesses. It is a great opportunity for 

the Congress to learn about what folks who are stakeholders or 

just have an interest in the jurisdictions of our bill feel about the 

issues that are dealt with through appropriations. And I value this 

hearing very much. 

Unfortunately, today I am not going to be able to spend the 

whole day. I always do that, but there are just other things that 

I have to do. But we value your testimony, appreciate it very much, 

and consider this a very important part of our hearing process. 

Sometimes you think folks think that in the hearing process, everybody has their mind made up to begin with but that is really 

not true. And that is absolutely true with regard to outside witnesses, so we value your testimony. 

Our first witness this morning, we will hear testimony from Bill 

Acker. Mr. Acker is the Director of Broadcasting and Technology, 

West Virginia Public Radio. 

We very much appreciate your appearance here today, Mr. 

Acker. We will stick to a five minute rule on the Committee. We 

invite you to submit your written testimony and then you can summarize or proceed as you will for that period of time. 

Mr. ACKER. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Acker. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS 

WITNESS 

BILL ACKER, DIRECTOR OF BROADCASTING AND TECHNOLOGY, WEST 

VIRGINIA PUBLIC BROADCASTING, ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC TELEVISION STATIONS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
2 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 5 57370A.001
3 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 6 57370A.002
4 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 7 57370A.003
5 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 57370A.004
6 

Mr. ACKER. Congressman Mollohan, Congressman Wolf, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify today about the importance of the Public Telecommunications and Facility Program or 

PTFP. 

This year, public broadcasters respectfully request that the Sub- committee provide $44 million for PTFP. For more than four decades, PTFP has served as the critical infrastructure program that 

helped build and maintain the public broadcasting system, television, and radio. 

In recent years, there has been criticism that the program is no 

longer needed because the digital transition is complete. I remind 

you that is only a transmission digital transition. 

The view reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of PTFP. In 

recent years, yes, some funds from PTFP have gone to help stations 

meet the mandated digital conversion. However, PTFP has remained critical to addressing other station needs such as emergency equipment replacement, such as providing first-time service 

to communities, and assistance for regular equipment upgrades 

and maintenance. 

If PTFP were eliminated, stations would have nowhere to turn 

for the equipment needed to be replaced or upgraded. In fact, today’s digital equipment will age much, much faster than analog 

equipment. Some stations that went digital ten years ago are already looking to PTFP for replacement and upgrade of equipment. 

Just think of having a ten-year-old computer. That is basically 

where many of the stations stand right now. 

The Administration’s budget submission also contends that public broadcasting infrastructure costs could be absorbed by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting line item or CPB Digital Fund. 

What that argument fails to realize is that those accounts cannot 

handle needs-based infrastructure funding that varies from year to 

year, station to station, market to market. 

In addition to providing stations with a competitive public/private matching grant program to upgrade and replace station equipment, PTFP also serves several other significant roles. One of 

PTFP’s key roles is that it is the only dedicated source of federal 

funding for our stations in the event of an emergency. 

For example, I have read grants for emergencies for a microwave 

failure in Montana and got the Montana system back in distribution to all their translators within a seven-day period. PTFP is the 

only place you can do that. 

Additionally, PTFP provides the only federal source for startup 

funding for stations who are looking to serve unserved or underserved communities. 

In my time in West Virginia Public Broadcasting, PTFP has provided over $3 million in grants to support the infrastructure of 

public television and public radio in West Virginia, such things as 

cameras, editors both for radio and for television, distribution 

equipment, recording equipment, I just finished a PTFP for recording equipment for Mountain Stage in order to do on-the-road digital broadcasts and hopefully digital television, studio lighting, and, 

of course, a major commitment to the digital transition. 

Current grant requests that I have in front of PTFP are primarily for radio service to unserved markets in the state. Bluefield 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
7 

is an example. St. Mary’s is an example. We are trying to provide 

some additional broadcasts for radio in that St. Mary’s area. 

PTFP has been drastically underfunded for the past several years. Last year, NTIA received nearly $50 million in applications, 

but the agency only had $20 million available for awards. 

Like all infrastructure projects, the costs and risks of failed service and failed investment in that infrastructure rise exponentially 

each year that the vital projects are left unfunded and 

unmaintained. This is especially critical right now during these 

economic periods. 

PTFP funding is about more than just towers and transmitters 

and antennas. Ultimately it is the means that ensures all Americans have access to the highest quality local education and cultural 

programming and services that are delivered to communities nationwide by America’s public television broadcasters and radio 

broadcasters. 

As some of the last locally owned and operated media outlets in 

the country, PTFP is a critical resource, a vital resource for stations as they seek to share with their communities the breadth and 

depth of public broadcasting services. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. We appreciate the support this Committee has given, has 

long provided public television and radio stations, and we look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that all Americans 

have access to the highest quality of educational programming. It 

is vital that PTFP continue for the infrastructure of public broadcasting. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is the matter with the Executive Branch 

that it does not understand the difference between public broadcasting account and labor H and PTFP in our jurisdiction? 

Mr. ACKER. I am sorry? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What is wrong with the Administration after Administration, the Executive Branch, that they keep zeroing out 

PTFP? 

Mr. ACKER. I think they basically misunderstand what PTFP’s 

primary function is and how, for example—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, no, no. I am sorry to interrupt you. 

Mr. ACKER. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why don’t you talk to them, make a convincing 

case? It really is helpful for this Subcommittee. When the Administration requests that and when they put a big zero in that account, 

we have to make that up in our allocation which is really hard to 

do. It is going to be very hard this year. 

Mr. ACKER. Believe me, we will be doing more and more of that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Who would you be talking to in the Administration; do you know? 

Mr. ACKER. Well, we—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you can figure it out. 

Mr. ACKER. Yeah. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is okay. The point is it would be really 

helpful if they came forward with something. I think these accounts were up to $45 million at one point. 

Mr. ACKER. Yeah. And that is what we are looking for next year. 

And I have read PTFP grants for years and I can tell you there 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
8 

are always more requests, but typically about 65 percent of them 

are unfunded—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. 

Mr. ACKER [continuing]. As far as a number of requests. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. Did I hear you say there were $50 million 

of requests? 

Mr. ACKER. In requests last year and only $20 million funded. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Acker. 

Mr. ACKER. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We appreciate your testimony here today. 

Next the Committee would like to welcome Scott Smith. Mr. 

Smith is Ohio County Prosecuting Attorney. He is testifying on behalf of the Fight Crime: Invest in Kids. 

Scott, welcome to the hearing today. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

FIGHT CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS 

WITNESS 

SCOTT SMITH, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, OHIO COUNTY, WV, FIGHT 

CRIME: INVEST IN KIDS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
9 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 57370A.005
10 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 57370A.006
11 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 57370A.007
12 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 57370A.008
13 

Mr. SCOTT SMITH. Thank you. Good morning. And thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you today. 

My name is Scott Smith. I am the Prosecuting Attorney in Ohio 

County, West Virginia. However, I am also a member of Fight 

Crime: Invest in Kids which is a national organization of more 

than 5,000 law enforcement leaders who have come together to 

take a hard-nosed look at the research about what really works to 

keep kids from becoming criminals. 

The organization, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, takes no federal, 

state, or local money and does not run any of the programs we advocate for. I know from my experience as a prosecutor and from research that targeted investments in kids can help prevent crime 

and reduce recidivism. 

Title 2 and Title 5 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, and Juvenile 

Mentoring programs and funding under the Second Chance Act 

provide needed support for evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies. Our goal is to keep kids away from crime. 

Title 5 Local Delinquency Prevention grants are the only federal 

funding source dedicated solely to the prevention of youth crime 

and violence. Title 5 grants can help fund after-school programs 

that help at-risk youth avoid criminal activity in the first place. 

Fourteen million children lack proper adult supervision between 

3:00 and 6:00 p.m. which is the prime time for juvenile crime. Programs such as Boys and Girls Clubs connect children with two caring adults and constructive activities during these hours. We know 

these programs work because studies have found that without Boys 

and Girls Clubs, 50 percent more vandalism and 27 percent more 

drug activity occurs during those hours in communities not served 

by those programs. Like after-school programs, high-quality juvenile mentoring programs also help at-risk youth. 

There are effective interventions to reduce recidivism among juveniles. JJDPA Title 2 and JABG can fund crime reducing therapeutic interventions for kids who have already gotten into trouble. 

And the new proposed Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program 

can help fund place-based, evidence-based approaches to help troubled youth stay on track. 

A carrot and stick approach combined with intense police supervision and expedited sanctions for repeated violence with access to 

jobs, drug treatment, and other services has shown in cities that 

it can cut homicides by violent offenders in high crime neighborhoods. 

There are also effective reentry approaches to reduce recidivism. 

The Second Chance Act supports reentry programs that help reduce recidivism rates among those that are reentering the communities by providing support and resources to guide juvenile ex-offenders. 

One of those programs is the Multidimensional Treatment Foster 

Care Program which has cut juvenile recidivism in half and saves 

the public an average of $89,000 per youth. 

Many of these needs have gone unmet. Unfortunately, these programs have remained underfunded in the past. JJDPA Title 2 and 

Title 5 and JABG have yet to recover from many of the funding 

cuts from 2002. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
14 

So I am here today to urge you to restore funding to the 2002 

levels for such programs as Title 5 Local Delinquency Prevention 

grants, Juvenile Accountability Block grants, and restore them to 

levels appropriated by Congress in 2002. 

I also urge you to fund the new Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program at $40 million and to fully fund programs authorized 

by the Second Chance Act, including funding for the Adult, Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Demonstration projects at 

the authorized amount of $55 million. 

In addition to increased funding for these programs, I urge you 

to set aside funding in NIJ for more research to find other programs that may help youth. This increase will help identify programs that really work to keep at-risk kids out of trouble. It will 

also help us to better understand which interventions with troubled 

adolescents can best enable them to develop skills that will keep 

them away from criminal activity. 

The funding will also help differentiate between programs that 

are effective for adults and those that are effective for kids and 

identify promising but currently untested approaches to youth 

crime prevention and intervention. 

In conclusion, once again, I thank you for letting me testify 

today. And on behalf of my fellow law enforcement leaders, I urge 

you to increase our nation’s investment in these proven crime prevention strategies and improve outcomes for kids and save lives 

and taxpayer dollars. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Scott, thank you for your appearance here today. 

It is not the first time. 

And thank you for your commitment not only to enforcing the 

laws in Ohio County and in West Virginia generally but also in 

looking at the other side and being interested in the prevention 

side and the intervention side, particularly with regard to our 

youth. You do a great job. And welcome to the hearing and say 

hello to a great family too. 

Mr. SCOTT SMITH. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thanks for your testimony here. Thank you. 

Thanks, Scott. 

Next the Committee would like to welcome Dr. Mridul Gautam. 

Dr. Gautam is testifying on behalf of the Coalition of EPSCoR/IDeA 

States. 

Dr. Gautam, welcome to the hearing today. 

Mr. GAUTAM. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

COALITION OF EPSCoR/IDeA STATES 

WITNESS 

MRIDUL GAUTAM, INTERIM ASSOCIATE VICE-PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, COALITION OF EPSCoR/IDeA STATES 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
15 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 57370A.009
16 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 57370A.010
17 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 57370A.011
18 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 57370A.012
19 

Mr. GAUTAM. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, my 

name is Mridul Gautam and I am the Interim Associate Vice-President for Research and Economic Development and a Robert C. 

Byrd Professor of Mechanical Aerospace Engineering at West Virginia University. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding NSF and 

NASA EPSCoR. 

For fiscal year 2011, we respectfully request $170 million for the 

NSF EPSCoR and $25 million for the NASA EPSCoR programs. 

EPSCoR is the mechanism at NSF and NASA that intends to address the geographic imbalance in research funding and for creating a truly national research community in all states. 

Although EPSCoR states have 20 percent of the population and 

about 25 percent of its doctoral research universities, they only receive about 10 percent of the allocation for research. Today there 

are 27 states and two jurisdictions participating in EPSCoR. 

EPSCoR research activities build a national research community 

and a scientific workforce which are essential to our nation’s competitiveness and to the economies of the individual states. 

EPSCoR jurisdictions prepare a major portion of the nation’s future high-tech workforce by educating thousands of engineers and 

scientists each year. We have many Truman and Goldwater scholars. We are among the major energy producing states and are in 

the forefront of ocean and coastal research, fossil energy research, 

climate change, and many other areas that are considered vital to 

our nation’s future. 

We are grateful for the support the Subcommittee has given 

EPSCoR over the past years. However, we believe that we must 

again seek your help to strengthen the budget. 

The $170 million that we are requesting will help cover the costs 

associated with inclusion of ten additional states to the EPSCoR 

Program without jeopardizing the wonderful work underway in the 

original EPSCoR states, expanded research infrastructure and development and additional EPSCoR co-funding with other NSF programs. 

In West Virginia, the Research Infrastructure Initiation also 

known as the RII grants have brought strong young faculty and 

modern equipment to our campuses and increase competitiveness. 

There has been a doubling of competitive federal awards since 

2005. 

Since 2004, $30 million has been invested in West Virginia’s 

science and technology infrastructure. The research projects funded 

through the Research Challenge Fund have resulted in five startup 

companies with five-year projected revenues of $124 million. Two 

of the startup companies estimate that they will hire 295 additional employees in the next five years. In addition, two university 

research centers with industry partners were formed at WVU. 

Additionally, two faculty members at Marshall University who 

were hired by the 2001 RII Grant created the Cell Development 

Differentiation Center at Marshall. One of these faculty members 

recently discovered that acetaminophen may help age-associated 

muscle loss and other conditions. Without question, NSF EPSCoR’s 

Track One RII grants were the catalyst for these recent commitVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
20 

ments to improving West Virginia’s research capacity and ultimately ensuring a brighter future for all West Virginians. 

The NASA Program helps our states, all states become more 

competitive in research areas associated with the NASA centers 

and enterprises. This is accomplished through two primary funding 

mechanisms, the research infrastructure development awards and 

the research implementation awards. 

In order to retain the current award levels in each participating state, NASA EPSCoR needs at least $25 million. To grow the number of research awards, additional funding would be required. 

NASA projects are having an impact on technological development in the country. A few examples include the Nevada Astrophysics Project and the Neutron Detectors for Detecting Illicit Nuclear Materials Project in Louisiana. 

Additionally, West Virginia NASA EPSCoR has resulted in three 

approved patents and six of them are pending. Our nation needs 

all our research capabilities and all our talent. EPSCoR enables eligible states to advance in vital science and research areas. 

I thank you for your support. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Dr. Gautam, thank you for your appearance here 

today and your excellent testimony. 

I also want to thank you for being among those and at the very 

front rank among those in West Virginia who are bringing research 

capability and, therefore, innovation to the state. And you are 

doing nothing less than redefining the economy, diversifying the 

economy in ways that lay a great foundation for our future. 

And I want to thank you for your excellent academic work and 

also as it impacts the lives of all West Virginians. Thank you for 

your testimony here today. 

Mr. GAUTAM. Thank you, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

Next the Committee would like to welcome Mr. Billy Frank, Jr. 

Mr. Frank will testify on behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries 

Commission. 

Mr. Frank, welcome to the hearing today. Thank you for appearing. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION 

WITNESS 

BILLY FRANK, JR., CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
21 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 36 57370A.013
22 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 57370A.014
23 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 57370A.015
24 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 57370A.016
25 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 57370A.017
26 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 57370A.018
27 

Mr. FRANK. Good morning, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Wolf. I am 

back again. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are pleased to have you back again. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. You always do a great job. 

Mr. FRANK. I am Bill Frank. I am Chairman of the Northwest 

Indian Fish Commission in the State of Washington. And I am 

here to support NOAA, Commerce, and all of our fishery programs 

out there in the Northwest who are seeking funding to address several fisheries management initiatives that are critically important 

to the Northwest tribes. 

These fishery resources that are protected by treaties with the 

United States are the basics of the culture and economics and their 

very existence as tribes. These fisheries are in trouble as continued 

population growth and the habitat destruction that accompanies 

this growth are making it increasingly important that recovery efforts are adequately funded. 

We requested the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund be funded at the fiscal year 2002 level of $110 million. This fund is critically important to the states and the tribes to allow them to pursue 

the recovery of Pacific salmon throughout the Northwest and Alaska by financially supporting and leveraging local and regional efforts. 

Since its inception of 2000, the Pacific salmon has made a significant contribution to salmon recovery to address the federal responsibility under the ESA to recover listed species and under the treaties with tribes to recover stocks that are critically important to 

meeting the tribes’ treaties reserve fishing rights. 

We have developed watershed-based recovery plans in collaboration with the communities that have been adopted by NOAA and 

those funds are now needed for implementation of these plans. 

Number two, we are requesting funding to implement the ocean 

ecosystem initiative in partnership with the State of Washington 

and NOAA. This initiative has two elements. First, we are seeking 

$1.1 million through NOAA’s National Ocean Service to support 

the participation by the tribes and the state and recently formed 

Intergovernmental Policy Council which is intended to strengthen 

management partnerships with the Olympic National Marine Sanctuary. 

Through these partnerships, the participants hope to maximize 

resource protection and management while respecting existing jurisdictional authorities. 

Second, we are seeking $2.7 million that would be used by the 

tribal state and NOAA partnership to begin a multi-year program 

to assess rockfish populations and to map sea floor habitats off the 

northern Washington Coast. This information is a critical first step 

towards the development of an ecosystem-based management plan 

for the region. 

Third, to further this ocean planning initiative, we support the 

Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program continued in the Administration’s budget under the National Ocean Service Coastal 

Management Account. The budget request for $20 million could be 

used to move our planning proposals into action. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
28 

We also support the request by the U.S. Pacific Salmon Commis- sion for $11.1 million needed for the implementation of the 2008 

Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex to the treaty. You will hear 

more about that from David Bedford today. We support the full funding of $60 million for the Mitchell Act hatcheries and the restoration of the $10 million for the reform 

projects for these hatcheries. 

And the sixth and the last thing is we also want to extend our 

support for the request being made by Henry Cagey, the Chairman 

of Lummi Tribe, for their funding request for the economic fisheries 

disaster relief. 

And so I want to thank you for the opportunity of making a presentation before you today. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Frank, thank you very much for your presentation here today. 

I know everyone who has the least bit of interest in all these topics not only appreciates but reveres your life-long activity in this 

area. And that gives your testimony considerable weight before this 

Subcommittee and we very much appreciate your appearance here 

today. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The Committee makes every effort to accommodate Members’ busy schedules and we routinely take Members as 

they arrive. We are pleased to welcome Congressman Dean Heller. 

Congressman Heller, welcome to the Committee. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. DEAN HELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEVADA 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
29 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 47 57370A.019
30 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 48 57370A.020
31 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 49 57370A.021
32 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Your written statement, of course, will be made 

a part of the record. And summarize—we are working on a fiveminute testimony—— 

Mr. HELLER. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Time frame here. 

Mr. HELLER. And it will not take more than five minutes. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And you probably do not want to take that long. 

Mr. HELLER. Well, I appreciate the time and the efforts to hold 

this particular hearing, Ranking Member Wolf, for the opportunity 

to spend a few minutes with you. 

What I am trying to do here and encourage is for Congress to 

fully fund the U.S. Department of Justice’s DNA Analysis and Capacity Enhancement Program to the authorized level of $151 million. 

We had a tragic experience in my congressional district back in 

2008 that allowed the awareness, continued awareness of my constituents for the need of greater investment in reducing these DNA 

backlogs. 

Some of you may or may not remember the national news report 

of a 19-year-old woman, college student at University of Nevada, 

Reno named Brianna Denison who was abducted, strangled to 

death, and left in a vacant field in southeast Reno. And, fortunately, law enforcement was able to use that DNA to determine 

who the abductor was and who the murderer was in this case and 

the fact that it was a serial offender. They were able to do that 

through DNA evidence. 

But, unfortunately, like most states, the backlog in DNA evidence in Nevada was more than 3,000 samples, so the local law enforcement community petitioned and was able to raise enough 

money, roughly $300,000, so they could take that backlog and remove that. And thanks for that effort, that suspected killer now of 

Brianna Denison is now in jail. 

So I think that the message in that is that clearly with law enforcement in the State of Nevada, there are extreme efforts to try 

to reduce this backlog and the results and the response from the 

community itself shows you that there is a real support from the 

American people to help and is committed to fighting these crimes 

through this DNA technology. 

So that is my argument here today. I think it is critical that we 

make sure that we help these law enforcement officials through the 

latest and greatest technology and through this DNA technology so 

that I could urge Congress that we could be more effective in this 

21st century by allowing these DNA matches and otherwise aid 

more than what has been 51,000 cases since its inception. 

So, anyway, I think that we send a great message, a good message to our law enforcement community in supporting their crime 

fighting activities by fully funding the appropriate amount which 

is $151 million. 

And I want to thank you for the time and effort, what you are 

doing here today, and allowing me to spend a few minutes with 

you. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
33 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. I am 

sure the Committee is very supportive of these programs to the extent our budget allows. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. No questions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. HELLER. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for your testimony here today. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

Next the Committee would like to welcome another colleague, 

Carolyn McCarthy. 

Carolyn, welcome to the hearing. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
34 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 57370A.022
35 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 57370A.023
36 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 57370A.024
37 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan. Thank you, 

Mr. Wolf. Appreciate being here today again. I am here to basically ask again for $375 million to improve the 

instant background check system. This goes back to 2002 when we 

actually passed a bill here in the House and then the Senate. The 

President Bush at that time signed it. 

Basically what it does is we have an awful lot of people out there 

that fall through the slips of not having the background checks before they buy their guns and we saw that unfortunately in Virginia 

Tech and we saw that in a shooting in my own district. And it happens unfortunately too frequently. 

What I am asking is also just as my colleague had talked about, 

our states do not have the money to update their computers. We 

have courts across this country that basically do not put the information in that it needs to know. As we know, a computer is only 

as good as the information that is in it. 

You have been very helpful in the past and I appreciate that, but 

we still have a long way to go and I am hoping that you might be 

able to help us out. I know you have my full testimony, so I am 

not going to go through all of that. The other thing that I am asking for is requesting $65 million 

in additional funding for ATF. ATF, we have been hiring more personnel, but, unfortunately, a lot of that personnel is not doing the 

job that they are needed to do, to basically look at the bad apples, 

the bad seeds of the gun stores that are selling guns illegally, not 

keeping track of their stock. 

Right now they are supposed to be checking the stores once a 

year. With the manpower they have, it would take between five 

and ten years to be able to go through and inspect every licensed 

dealer in the country. This gap allows corrupt dealers to go many 

years without being suspected or even caught. 

Again, the ATF would be given the funding to hire at least 125 

investigators and 250 agents to form investigation teams tasked 

with tracking down and prosecuting gun traffickers around the 

country. 

I am pleased to see that the President has put money in, especially with the problem that we are seeing along the Mexican borders. Those particular guns that are coming into this country unfortunately are making it to many of our states. 

And so I think the ATF certainly deserves an increase to help 

them do their job, especially in this time of need, not only on what 

is going on in Mexico, but also looking at, you know, the terrorists 

that are coming into this country. 

I am one of those that do believe that we have a problem with 

people sneaking into this country and we must do everything possible to make sure they do not get their hands on any kind of ammunition or any kind of guns. And I certainly hope that I might 

be able to get your support as you go through this process. And I 

will be more than happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Carolyn, thank you very much for your testimony here today. 

And we are putting a tremendous emphasis on trying a Southwest Border Initiative, trying to identify the sources and to prevent 

the kind of trafficking that is occurring that is supplying Mexico 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
38 

with most of the guns it has. So we are very cognizant of it, partially because of testimony like yours here today. Appreciate that 

testimony and we look forward to being as responsive as we can. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. I have no questions. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Carolyn. 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Next the Committee would like to welcome Mr. 

Elbridge Coochise. Mr. Coochise is testifying on behalf of the Independent Review Team. 

Mr. Coochise, welcome to the hearing today. How are you doing? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Pretty good. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Good. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Good. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM 

WITNESS 

ELBRIDGE COOCHISE, CHIEF JUSTICE, RETIRED, INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
39 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 57370A.025
40 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 57370A.026
41 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 57370A.027
42 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 57370A.028
43 

Mr. COOCHISE. I am Elbridge Coochise. I am the Team Leader 

of the Independent Tribal Court’s Review Team. We have been—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Coochise. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Huh? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Coochise, is that the way you pronounce it? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Actually, the proper is Coochise, but I just go by 

Coochise. That is easiest for most people to say. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say it one more time. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Coochise. Say it from here. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Coochise. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Yeah. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. I fumbled here. Thank you. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And pardon me for mispronouncing your name. 

Mr. COOCHISE. That is fine. I probably could not say yours right 

half the time either, so thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say it. Let me hear you say it. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. No, no. Say my name. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Huh? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Say my name. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Isn’t it Mollohan? 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. That is pretty good. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Okay. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. COOCHISE. I am here representing the Independent Tribal 

Court’s Review Team. We have been out on the road reviewing 

Tribal Courts, CFR, Code of Federal Regulations Court for four 

years now. We have 69 as of last week. 

And part of the project is also to go back and help some of those 

courts that need assistance and to not only just help the court process along but to develop policy for the systems. 

And I am here to request funding for the Tribal Courts. It is still 

on average that tribes get funding for their court systems at 26 

percent of what is needed. So they are not fully funded and most 

of them either have part-time courts or if they have a few of them 

who have extra income, they can pay for their systems. 

And we do, as our team recommends, support the President’s 

2011 proposed budget of seven percent, but because of the shortage, 

we request again that the Committee propose or appropriate the 

$58.4 million that was approved in the Tribal Justice Act, but, if 

not, at least increase the funding another ten percent from the past 

year. 

And we do thank the Committee for the increase in funding and 

to maintain the set aside in the Department of Justice Justice 

Service Program. The request is to again support the hiring and 

training of court personnel. 

And there is a new bill going through the Congress right now. 

And especially judges, if they are going to do the recommended sentencing, are going to be required to be attorneys. And a number of 

our judges are not law trained in Indian Country, mostly because 

of lack of funding to provide salaries which also goes to the Appellate Court. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
44 

A lot of our Appeals Court judges in the different Tribal Courts are paid $25.00 an hour even though they are attorneys, so they 

are actually doing pro bono work. And there is a limit to how much 

they can do and there are backlogs of appeals in a number of 

courts. 

But the other thing is a lot of our courts are still in condemned 

buildings. We were just in the one in New Mexico last week and 

most of us got sick because of the asbestos and whatever was in 

there. And so they need funding to fix up their buildings or get new 

buildings. 

And the other is the state of the art. Most of our work on corrective action has been support, trying to get their CMS data collection systems operating. Part of the problem is lack of funds because 

those systems run between $60 and $80 thousand a year. And then 

to license them to each person that uses is usually $5,000 to pay 

for a license. And so if you have three or four clerks, that is still 

a big chunk of the budget. 

And the other is regarding security. Security in Tribal Courts is 

almost nil. In fact, a number of times, we went to a court and we 

were greeted by inmates when we went in the court. And they are 

walking through the halls with the judges and the court personnel 

because there is not enough staff. And so the security needs to be 

made and then development of codes and financial code systems. 

And we certainly appreciate what the Committee has done last 

year and the funds that it appropriates are well used. But, again, 

because of the grant process, we have seen a number of Drug 

Courts that started and developed well and then after three years 

without further funding, they had to close the doors. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Why aren’t they receiving further funding? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Because their grant processes are one year or 

three years. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And so there is not a source of money to sustain 

them? 

Mr. COOCHISE. No. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And this is federal grant, competitive grant? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Yeah, awarded at the Department of Justice. And 

most of the tribes that do the Drug Courts do not have enough to 

do that let alone the other regular court systems. And so once they 

start up, one tribe had seven different grants, not just from DoJ, 

but others, and they all seem to end on the same period. So they 

are in a world of hurt right now. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. There needs to be some coordination, some 

real attention given to what kind of funding, sustainable, dependable funding stream Tribal Courts can rely upon and the whole 

tribal justice can rely upon. And that is an issue that is very much 

of interest to us, to me. 

Mr. COOCHISE. At this point, there is really not any coordination 

because each tribe is or most tribes in Indian Country—there are 

300 courts in Indian Country and most of them are small tribes. 

So they do not have the revenue of the economy. Only the few that 

have gaming maybe have enough to support their court systems. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. COOCHISE. But most of them are dependent on federal funding. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
45 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. What other Appropriation Committees do you 

get funding through, Interior? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Interior. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. For tribal justice issues? 

Mr. COOCHISE. Yeah. Interior—— 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Is that where you get most of your funding 

for—— 

Mr. COOCHISE. Yeah. There was $11.9 million and then this year, $10 million. There was a $10 million increase. So it is up close to 

$22 million, which is the first time the courts have gotten additional funding. And those are contracts, so they are ongoing. They 

go up and down, but they are at least ongoing. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we are looking at this issue very seriously, 

recognizing the kind of budgets we have, but we do want to work 

with you on this. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Okay. And we appreciate what you have done 

thus far, but, like I said, we hope that the Act that was adopted 

by the Congress can be funded so that our court systems can operate more fairly as far as services and process. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. There are just so many problems starting with 

the scarce resources, but then there are also all the jurisdictional 

issues that make it terribly difficult to deal with tribal justice 

issues effectively. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Three hundred court systems and then even then, 

you have got 558 or so federally recognized tribes. So only half the 

tribes have their own court systems. The others are in 280 states 

where states have jurisdiction. So those are some of the jurisdictional issues and problems that we face. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, we have an opportunity to sit down and 

talk about this more. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Okay. We appreciate any input and assistance 

you can give. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. 

Mr. COOCHISE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Next the Committee would like to welcome Mr. David Bean who 

will testify on behalf of the—— 

Mr. BEAN. Puyallup. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Puyallup Tribe of Washington. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BEAN. That was a great job. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yeah. Thank you. Welcome to the Committee. 

We appreciate your coming and we look forward to your testimony. 

And your written testimony, of course, will be made a part of the 

record. 

Mr. BEAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON 

WITNESS 

DAVID BEAN, PUYALLUP TRIBE OF WASHINGTON 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
46 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 57370A.029
47 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 57370A.030
48 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 57370A.031
49 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 57370A.032
50 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 57370A.033
51 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 57370A.034
52 

Mr. BEAN. Chairman Mollohan, members of the Subcommittee, 

my name is David Bean. I am here today on behalf of my Chairman, Herman Dillon, Sr., who is at home under doctor’s orders. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, we are sorry he could not make it today. 

Please extend our best wishes. 

Mr. BEAN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

On behalf of the Puyallup Tribe Indians, I would like to thank 

you for the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the fiscal year 

2011 budget for the U.S. Department of Justice and for the Subcommittee’s continued support of critical tribal issues and programs. 

And thank you for your past support. I raise my hands and give 

thanks to all the support you have given to these important issues. 

We look forward to working with you to ensure that adequate funding for important Department of Justice programs are included in 

the fiscal year 2011 budget. 

The Puyallup Reservation is an urbanized tribe. We are located 

south of Seattle. Our reservation encompasses 18,000 acres. Within 

those boundaries are the cities of Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Edgewood, 

Federal Way. We provide services to over 4,000 members and over 

25,000 federally recognized Native American and Alaska Natives. 

We currently operate a law enforcement department that consists of one chief of police, 26 commissioned officers, two reserves, 

and nine detention officers. 

In today’s limited funding in Indian Country for law enforcement, only two of our positions are funded by the BIA. The remaining personnel in the facility’s operation and maintenance are funded with tribally earned income in the amount of $5.7 million annually. 

We presently have strong working relationships with local jurisdictions and for the past several years, we have had interagency 

local agreements with Pierce County Department Police and the 

Tacoma Police Departments. 

This allows our officers to be cross-deputized and allows them to 

arrest, make arrests under the neighboring jurisdiction, and turn 

them over to the local jurisdiction. So it provides a good working 

relationship with the local law enforcement agencies. 

Interstate 5 runs through our reservation and it is considered a 

major drug corridor. With this growing population, gang related activities, and the impact of manufacture of methamphetamines in 

the region, service of our law enforcement division are exceeding 

maximum response capacities. 

While there are many Department of Justice programs that are 

in need of increased funding such as Tribal Courts, community-oriented policing services, tribal youth programs, and the Violence 

Against Women Act, we would like to talk to you today about our 

justice facility. 

In an effort to protect the safety and welfare of our tribal community and surrounding communities, we have initiated design 

and construction of a 46,000 square foot Justice Center located 

within our reservation boundaries. The total construction cost is estimated to be around $23.8 million. 

The Center will provide necessary facilities for the delivery of 

justice services, including a correction facility with 46 beds, a law 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
53 

enforcement command center, and a judicial Tribal Court center. 

Phase one involves the construction of a 46-bed, 17,000-square-foot 

corrections facility at a cost of $9 million. 

Our tribe was successful in securing fiscal year 2009 Department of Justice ARRA grant funding in the amount of $7.9 million. 

While the construction of this facility happening currently, the 

tribe is ever mindful of the need to provide for the corresponding 

funding for the operation of the detention service at this facility. 

We are meeting with the Bureau of Indian Affairs now so that 

when we open in fiscal year 2012, we have the necessary resources 

to operate the facility. 

We urge the Appropriation Committee to fully support the BIA 

funding levels that will ensure that these facilities, once built, can 

be used as Congress intended. We also urge you to direct the Department of Justice and the BIA to advise Congress as to the expected funding needs for fiscal year 2012 for the Puyallup facility 

as well as other facilities funded by ARRA grants. 

While we greatly appreciate the Committee’s support for detention facility construction, there is a desperate need for other broader public justice and safety facilities funding. Many tribal facilities 

including police departments and Tribal Court buildings are dilapidated and present hazards for our employees and the public who 

seek services at these facilities. 

We urge the Committee to support expanded use of bricks and 

mortar dollars to include not just detention services but for broader 

programs including police departments and Tribal Courts. 

At Puyallup alone, we are requesting a special appropriations for 

the construction of phase two and three of our Justice Center 

which will be our police department and Tribal Courts. The total 

cost of phases two and three are estimated at $14.8 million. The 

new Justice Center will provide Puyallup Tribe with facilities necessary to carry out our responsibilities in overseeing and administering the tribal justice system and will better enable effective regional cooperation and coordination with our sister jurisdictions. 

This approach matches directly with the efforts of the Department of Justice and Bureau of Indian Affairs to maintain open 

communications, cooperate in strategic program development with 

the goal of addressing tribal justice needs on a holistic basis, rather 

than the existing compartmentalized method of implementation of 

programs, that complement each department’s effort and funding. 

These types of efforts should be encouraged and supported throughout Indian Country. 

And, again, I raise my hands and say thank you. Thank you for 

the opportunity to share our needs with you here today. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, you are very welcome. And we look forward to reviewing your testimony more carefully. 

Are you also going to testify on behalf of the National Congress 

of American Indians? 

Mr. BEAN. No, sir. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Oh, okay. I am sorry. 

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bean. 

Mr. BEAN. Thank you. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you very much. We look forward to following up and working with you. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
54 

Mr. Keel, thank you. 

The Committee would next like to welcome Mr. Jefferson Keel to 

the hearing. He is present and will testify on behalf of the National 

Congress of American Indians. He is also the Lieutenant Governor 

of the Chickasaw Nation. 

Mr. Keel, welcome to the hearing today. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

WITNESS 

JEFFERSON KEEL, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, CHICKASAW NATION; 

PRESIDENT; NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
55 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 57370A.035
56 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 57370A.036
57 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 57370A.037
58 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Thank you for 

allowing me this opportunity today to testify before you. 

Across the nation, tribal leaders have underscored the importance of public safety in budget consultations over the years and 

emphasize the need for more resources. 

Today the inadequacy of public safety resources poses a direct 

threat to native citizens and the future of Indian Country. 

The National Congress of American Indians is encouraged that 

the Administration continues to support the increases for tribal 

programs at the Department of Justice. 

The Department of Justice requested a total of $448.8 million for 

public safety initiatives in tribal communities, $256 million of 

which will fund tribal grants. This is a substantial increase over 

the DoJ’s fiscal year 2010 funding levels for tribal-specific programs. 

The Department plans to award fiscal year 2010 and subsequent 

years’ appropriations to tribes under a consolidated grant process. 

This new approach is based on comments from tribal leaders and 

the intention of this new approach is to provide additional flexibility to target resources where tribes really need them. 

The Department proposes new bill language that would designate a seven percent tribal set-aside totaling $139.5 million from 

all discretionary Office of Justice programs for tribal criminal justice assistance. 

DoJ proposes to eliminate bill language contained in prior years’ 

appropriations acts that had specific funding amounts for tribal 

justice programs such as prison construction, Tribal Courts, alcohol 

and substance abuse, reduction assistance, and youth programs. 

We ask the Subcommittee to consider if core tribal justice programs require a base amount of resources so that the fiscal year 

2011 spending bill or report should direct the Department to allocate final fiscal year 2011 funding at no less than the 2010 enacted 

levels. 

Other programs and our testimony are outlined in our written 

testimony. 

The funding increases included in the DoJ’s budget request are 

necessary to strengthen tribal law enforcement infrastructure. 

NCAI supports the DoJ budget request for fiscal year 2011. 

The Administration and Congress provided a remarkable amount 

of $225 million under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act for DoJ for the tribal facility’s construction. An example of that 

investment is that the ARRA has allowed the Rosebud Sioux to pioneer a new model for Indian prisons. The jail is being designed to 

cultivate a sense of culture and identity among inmates as a way 

of changing a penal system that often contributes to further alienating prisoners from the community and the hardening of criminals. 

The penal system across Indian Country, underfunding, and outdated facilities leave inmates with a lack of basic amenities, sanitation, and safety. These poor conditions, likened to developing countries, inevitably mean crime is rampant within prison walls, serving to educate even the most petty of criminals in the ways of hard 

crime. The Rosebud corrections facility administrator said, and I 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
59 

quote, ‘‘Prison turns our tribal members into hardened criminals. 

They come out much worse than when they went in.’’ 

Beyond the deteriorating infrastructure, the Rosebud Prison has 

reached its capacity and, thus, the Tribal Court faces the dilemma 

of either overcrowding the prison or accepting its limited ability to 

punish crime. 

The Rosebud facility will provide 65 immediate jobs during the 

construction phase and is projected to create an impressive 100 

long-term jobs, this in an economy with an 85 percent unemployment rate. The new facility will hold 200 inmates and implement 

a dramatically new type of incarceration. It will rehabilitate its inmates through exploring their sense of identity during the course 

of their imprisonment. 

This prison will aim to restore the sense of community and it is 

just one example of the potential successes that adequate resources 

for public safety in Indian Country can foster. The need for these resources, upwards of $8.4 billion, dwarfs the 

amount provided even in ARRA funding. The amount provided for 

this line item has fluctuated over the last few years with an average of about $10 million each year. NCAI requests that the support 

provided for detention facilities is at least maintained at the fiscal 

year 2010 level of $10 million for 2011. 

The 2010 Census is upon us and NCAI has been very active in 

promoting American Indian and Alaska Native participation in this 

event to avoid the historic undercounts of native people. However, 

in 2010, there will be no long form survey to ask the detailed questions about social and economic characteristics which the American 

Community Survey has replaced. 

The census publishes its annual ACS data only for areas with a 

total population of all races of 65,000 or more. The only reservation 

that falls into this category is the Navajo Reservation. Data for 

areas with a total population of 20,000 or more is published in 

three year estimates. 

With the census long form gone and no data of equivalent quality, tribal leaders will lose the kind of information they have historically relied upon to measure the well-being of many of our communities. 

The Administration has proposed a $44 million increase in fiscal 

year 2011 for the ACS to increase the sample size to improve track 

level data accuracy, enhance field and telephone center data collection, conduct a 100 percent nonresponse follow-up operation in remote Alaska and Indian reservation areas, and for additional review of three- and five-year data. And NCAI supports this badly 

needed increase. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward 

to working with this Committee. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Keel, for your testimony 

here today. 

We will review your testimony more carefully. Your concerns 

about the Census is something I want to follow up on in addition, 

obviously, to the funding needs you have that really are so inadequately met. And I am pleased to see this Administration coming 

forward with a real effort to address that. 

Mr. KEEL. Absolutely. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
60 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. And I want you to know that this Committee 

last year within our means made every effort to address it as well. 

So we just need to find the money here to—— 

Mr. KEEL. Well, we certainly appreciate that. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN [continuing]. Address it. 

Mr. KEEL. And we appreciate all of your efforts. And I want to 

thank you once again. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Okay. Well, we look forward to visiting with you 

to see how we can do the best we can do. 

Mr. KEEL. Thank you again. 

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Thank you for your testimony here today. 

I am going to ask Mr. Fattah to assume responsibilities for the 

Committee, to take the Chair, and I’ll excuse myself because I have 

to go. 

I thank all the witnesses who have testified and all those who 

are waiting to testify. 

And, Chaka. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH [presiding]. Okay. We will have Congressman Farr. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
61 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 57370A.038
62 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 57370A.039
63 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to apologize to those sitting behind me today. As a former 

County Commissioner and Supervisor, I am very sympathetic to 

their needs. 

But I am here to talk about the big NOAA, the whole budget in 

the Department of Commerce. And I appreciate your willingness to 

get us time to do this. 

You know, if you look at that map behind you, you just get an 

impression of how much blue versus green or how much ocean 

there is compared to land. And if you look at the map specifically, 

you will see that the populations of this world, the vast majority 

of people live on those coastal communities. The biggest cities in 

the United States are on the coast. And perhaps Chicago is on a 

big lake coast. 

But those are the communities that are really dependent on what 

we call a coastal economy and it can be everything from tourism 

to fishing to transportation and so on. 

What NOAA’s responsibility is, they have got two halves. One is 

the air, the weather, and the other is the oceans. And, unfortunately, this President’s budget calls for a huge increase in the observing systems in space at the expense of cutting programs in the 

ocean side, in the wet side. 

And I think they do that with putting a lot of real issues in jeopardy. As you know, there is the whole question of fisheries and 

NPR just this morning had the fisheries and Chesapeake Bay, 

what is going on there. If we do not have a way to better measure 

our fish take and our understanding of fisheries and the biology of 

it—it is still not an exact science—we do it at huge peril to the 

planet. 

And I have a NOAA weather station in my district, but it is right 

next to a Navy weather station. And what I would recommend is 

that the Committee—I am not on this Committee—but you ought 

to require that the NOAA weather people link up and do more collaboration with the military because the military does have all 

those satellites and all those computers to document it. 

And I do not know how much sharing there is where we are just 

going on it and we are going to have to have this as civilian information versus military. But it is an arms race and it is a very expensive one. And by adding more to the air side or to the weather 

side at the expense of the ocean side is, I think, wrong for this 

Committee to follow the President’s recommendation. 

Of the $5.5 billion that NOAA gets, $2.2 billion goes to satellite 

programs, almost half of the entire budget. And that is not as 

many jobs as what is related to all of those sub-programs that are 

on the wet side. So I am very keen on trying to make sure that 

the wet side gets their fair share. 

And I think any cuts in the wet side is really unacceptable because it is a time when we are really having to spend more. And 

that is basically my message. 

There is one thing in here about catch shares. You are going to 

hear it is a very controversial, very smart kind of business practice, 

that essentially what you do when you go out in the oceans now 

is you have a limited season and a limited take. And if the season 

sat today and it only goes for a month, then all the fish you are 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
64 

going to catch have got to be caught in that one month and it is 

get out there and catch as many as you can because whoever gets 

the most after you reach a tonnage limit, they cut it off. 

The catch share is, look, we will sell you a share and you go out 

and catch that fish any time you want. So, frankly, for the fishermen selling fish, you have a more stabilized market. It is not a 

huge supply and then no demand, you know. It just goes like that 

now. 

You also make fishermen go out in really bad weather because 

they have got to catch it within their time limit, so they are taking 

a lot of risks that they should not be taking. 

And the other thing catch share does is it puts a value on every 

fish rather than just a big mass tonnage and that way, you end up 

with a much better knowledge, get better price, and a better knowledge of not having to ruin the fisheries, wipe them all out. And 

that is what is happening in our oceans, you know, the fishermen 

are saying there are fewer and fewer fish. 

There are fewer and fewer big fish because all the big fish are 

the reproductive fish and we have caught them. Some fish take 40 

years before they become reproductive. And we catch them, you 

know, before they ever reach that age and then we wonder why the 

fish are disappearing. 

So there are just tons of issues, not that you have to get into the 

micro side of it, but catch share is a very important new issue before this Committee. And I would be glad to answer any questions 

you might have. 

My only plea here is do not just give all that money to the satellite business at the expense of the wet side. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you for your testimony. 

I think I am a signatory on the letter with the 50 colleagues on 

this matter. So obviously I am sympathetic. 

And I think that you are right that there should be an opportunity for NOAA to collaborate with the Navy and with the military on the satellite side and the coastal populations, and the survival of and the health of our oceans is critically important. 

So I want to thank you for your contribution to the Committee’s 

work. We will study your testimony, at least our staff will, and we 

will try to incorporate some of what has been suggested here as we 

go forward. So thank you. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

that. 

And I will just, parting way, I am a big fan of the Drug Courts. 

It has nothing to do with NOAA, but it is part of the Justice Department. Those courts have really done a remarkable job in our 

area and I hope you will keep funding them. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. And thank you. 

Chairman Wolf, did you have—— 

Mr. WOLF. No questions. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. How are you, sir? 

Mr. WOLF. I am doing good. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Then we have Chairman Bart Gordon of 

the Science and Technology Committee. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
65 

Let me welcome you and your testimony will be appropriately 

referenced in the record, but take as much time as any Chairman 

should take to make their point. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TENNESSEE 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
66 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 57370A.040
67 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 57370A.041
68 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 57370A.042
69 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will try to be appropriately brief, but I thank you and Mr. Wolf, my former acrossthe-hall neighbor, for being here today. 

And I also want to thank you really for the good relationship as 

authorizers and appropriators we have had and particularly our 

staffs. I mean, I think as Mr. Wolf and I were just talking about, 

they know more about a lot of this, about all of this than we do. 

And we are fortunate they are working together well because we 

have got some things to figure out. 

Let me just give you a quick overview. I recognize that this is 

a difficult time always, I guess, for appropriators. There are more 

needs than money. We see enormous budget deficits and so we are 

all concerned about how do we get there. You know, then when you 

start freezing domestic spending, it makes the problem even worse. 

You have got to pick winners and losers or, I guess, less losers and 

those that lose even less. 

But I want to sort of paint a quick picture for you. There are approximately six and a half billion people in the world. And of those 

that are working, half make less than $2.00 a day. That is not the 

race we want to get into in trying to compete on wages which 

means that we have to work at a higher technical level or our kids 

and grandkids are going to wind up inheriting a national standard 

of living less than their parents, the reverse of the American 

dream, which means I think that we have got to invest in R&D, 

which then leads to innovation, which leads to jobs, which leads to 

more prosperity. I noticed this morning that Intel, they had a $10 billion profit for 

the quarter and the stock market went up. And I remember talking 

to the folks at Intel a while back and they said, well, when you 

have a down time, that is when we invest. That is when we try to 

do more in our R&D so that we can get ahead of the curve. And 

it has paid off for them and I think that it will pay off for us. 

So with that, we have given you our or your staff our various 

numbers that on the big view go along with the President’s request. There are some differences within it. But the bottom line to 

all that is that we are on an effort to double our spending in R&D. 

Now, you think, well, that is, you know, that is a lot, but we are 

trying to do it in a responsible way over ten years. 

Mr. Wolf remembers when, I guess, Mr. Gingrich led us in doubling NIH and that was five or six years, you know. Ten years, I 

think, is a very—again, I would like to do it more, but we are trying to be responsible and so that is the course that we are on. And 

I think that this budget will reflect that well. 

I will be happy to go into specifics if you would like me to. 

Mr. Wolf asked me about NASA and that is something that is 

on all of our minds. But, you know, we have gotten ourselves into 

a situation where the mission at NASA simply was not related to 

the funding, to the money that was given to it. And so somewhere 

we are going to have to step up and decide. 

I think most of us or many of us do not like the idea of canceling 

Constellation. That is the one problem. The other problem is most 

of us think it is unrealistic to put $6 billion more a year into Constellation to make it work. So we sort of have two ends of this that 

are not really working. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
70 

It is our intention to have an authorization for you this year 

which hopefully will be some guidance. The President has modified 

his original proposal. He is speaking tomorrow in Florida and we 

hope that we are going to learn more about that. 

You know, as I was telling Mr. Mollohan earlier, I normally 

think I know most things about most things, but I can tell you I 

have not figured this one out. And we are going to continue to try 

to work with it, massage it. 

Mr. Culberson is very interested in this. We want to work with 

him. We want to work with all of you. But that is really, you know, 

that is sort of where we are going right now. 

And so with that, again, the bottom line here is that if we are 

going to get out of this mess, we have to invest in our R&D. And 

we are going to try to present to you a responsible way to do it, 

again not as much as we would like. There will be less losers than 

others, but that is the category we hope that we can be in. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that in your Committee today, one of your Subcommittees 

is in a markup on the America Competes Act and your great leadership in this whole arena has been critically important. 

And Congressman Wolf who has served alternately between the 

Chair and Ranking Member of this Committee has made a very 

good suggestion that earlier on in this process that we start to look 

at all of the different agencies that have various programs related 

to the intellectual development of our young people, you know, 

flowing into these STEM related fields. 

And I think that is part and parcel of what you tried to do with 

the America Competes Act is to get a focus on this. We have a 

dearth of American, native-born American students pursuing 

science at the highest levels, pursuing terminal degrees and 

postdoctoral. 

In fact, most of our universities in their graduate schools in engineering and these other fields are filled with students who come 

from other parts of the world which is great that they are coming 

here to learn, but then they are taking that knowledge back. 

And we have now crossed a major river with the majority of the 

patents being sought in America are not being sought by domestic 

individuals or concerns, but by foreign concerns, and that just 

shows you as goes the engineers, as goes the products, and as goes 

the economic competition down the road. 

So we have a lot of challenges and I think that your testimony 

today is right on point about the need to make these investments 

and to actually increase our investments over time and to make 

sure that we flow that in a way in which we are reaching our 

young people at a time when we can start to move them in the direction of the pursuit of knowledge in the hard sciences. 

So I know my colleague probably has a comment or questions, so 

I will yield now. 

Mr. GORDON. Could I just respond to that real quickly? 

Mr. FATTAH. Yes. 

Mr. GORDON. I mean, we could have a day seminar and I would 

love to do that on this topic because it is so important, but I know 

we cannot do that now. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
71 

Just like with energy, I am someone that says we have got to do 

it all. When it comes to STEM education, I say we have got to do 

it all. We certainly want to keep those foreign students, you know. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am not knocking them. 

Mr. GORDON. I mean, we want to keep them here in many 

things. But we also, as you point out, we want to grow. 

And let me tell you a theme that we have tried to do in a number 

of ways, areas, and I will show you what we are doing here in 

STEM education. There is limited resources and so one way we can 

invest more is by spending what we have better. 

And what we have found is that in many areas, there is multiple 

agencies that are working on different research, nanotechnology, 

for example. There are 12 different agencies and about $2 billion. 

So we set up an umbrella so we could better coordinate that. We 

did the same thing with water. And we are doing that with STEM 

education. There is something like 130, I think, 7 different STEM 

education programs across the federal government. 

And so part of the America Competes Act, which we will get out 

of our— really we are merging four different Subcommittees at the 

end of this month and then we will have it on the floor next week 

or next month. We are trying to coordinate that STEM education. 

And what we are finding among other things is that women and 

minorities are under-represented. And our best bump is if we can 

get those homegrowns, you know, up and going. And we are making special effort in that. 

So I think you are going to see that when we come out with this 

bill that we are going to make investments in STEM education, but 

we are going to make them smart and try to coordinate them. 

And the other thing that we are doing is, sort of the theme is 

we are asking the private sector, whether it is, again, nano, STEM, 

water, solar, a lot of areas where we are coordinating this, is having a private sector council tell us what do you need, what are the 

skills that you need. So we can also try to massage those programs 

for the jobs that are out there. 

And I am sorry, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the Chairman Gordon for his service. Our offices 

were across from each other. I actually think of you almost every 

Sunday because my scheduler married one of your top people. 

Mr. GORDON. Right, right. 

Mr. WOLF. And they go to my church. 

Mr. GORDON. Yeah. 

Mr. WOLF. And I see them every Sunday and you sort of flash 

back into mind. I also want to thank you publicly, too, for what you 

have done on the science and America Competes. I think you have 

sort of forced this Congress. We tried through the appropriations 

process, hopefully done a good job, but I think you forced it to address an issue that it has been reluctant to kind of deal with. 

And so I want to thank you publicly for that and hope as you 

leave, wherever you go, that this will be sort of a priority because 

I think your pulling it together has made all the difference. And 

I want to thank you for that. 

I have one question with regard to the science, the NASA issue. 

It was the article that was in today’s New York Times where ArmVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
72 

strong has come out and said others find the essentials of the Administration’s plan flawed, not just the presentation. 

In a letter to the President reported Tuesday by NBC, Mr. Armstrong, Neil Armstrong, the Commander of Apollo 11, along with 

James A. Lovell, Jr., the Commander of Apollo 13, and Eugene 

Cernan, the Commander of Apollo 17, wrote, quote, ‘‘For the United 

States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century to 

be without a carriage to low earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond earth orbit for an indeterminate time 

into the future destines our nation to become one of a second or 

even third rate stature.’’ 

And there are a number of others, Mr. Chairman, if I can just 

submit for the record, of other comments. 

But I appreciate you are going to have a bill. Would it be helpful 

for us to restate again telling the Administration that it cannot 

move ahead so that we do not lose this over the next couple months 

to give you an opportunity to sort of come back with a proposal? 

And I am referencing in the supplemental to carry language there. 

Would that make sense for us to do? 

Mr. GORDON. Certainly I would support it and not oppose it. I 

would tell you that they have testified. We have had them testify 

before our Committee that they do not have that authority, that 

they recognize what your Committee had done last year. 

We had written them a letter about that. I guess as folks that 

have run for election, part of our mantra is repetition. And so it 

certainly will not hurt to do that again, but that is the law and 

they have acknowledged that. And so I think it would, you know, 

serve us well to do it again. 

And let me also, going back to the authorization, I thank you for 

your kind words. I am hoping that particularly in the R&D that 

this is sort of a nonpartisan zone. Every bill that we have gotten 

out of our Committee since I have been Chairman has been not 

only bipartisan, it has been overwhelmingly bipartisan and that is 

the reason we have been able to get it passed on the floor. 

And so we are going to bring you some, you know, again, some 

bills or some buckets that need to be filled up, but they will be 

buckets that will have been created in a bipartisan way. 

Going back to NASA quickly, what I have found is we have had 

a variety of people that tell us what they do not like and what they 

do not want to do. I am trying to find out what they do want to 

do and, you know, what you are willing to pay for. And so we are 

in that process of having hearings. As I say, the President is going 

to make another statement tomorrow and I think we are gradually 

moving toward hopefully a consensus there. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Good. Again, thank you for your service. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank you for your comment. 

Let me just say that I think we all are quite thrilled that the 

President is going to do this all day session focused on what the 

mission going forward is going to be in terms of NASA and that 

no President really has done this kind of meat and potato work on 

this before and the fact that even as there have been so many calls 

to cut spending that the President’s budget calls for an increase in 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
73 

NASA, I think, shows that they have a prioritization in terms of 

the work of NASA. 

The question is, as you frame it, you know, is what do we do? 

Where do we go and how do we go? And the choice points in the 

decision package in totality has to be analyzed and I think we are 

going to see part of that with the President’s visit. 

So I want to thank you for your testimony both verbal and in 

writing. And we will act accordingly. Thank you. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. 

I guess one final point, if I could. I know some of my friends do 

not agree with me, but I think it is good that we have come to this 

point. It was unsustainable what we were doing. Somewhere we 

had to have a time out. Somewhere we have got to talk about what 

we are going to do with NASA, where we are going to go, and get 

everybody on the same page. It is going to be a difficult discussion, 

but we have got to wind up doing it. 

And I think one element of that may be we are going to have to 

look at what are the international components also. Where can we 

partner with other countries in a strategic way that helps us and 

does not harm us in some way? That is another way we can bring 

our resources in. But, you know, we needed this time out and we 

have just got to talk about it and we have got to figure out where 

we are going. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Thank you very much. 

Okay. Congressman Olson, your moment has arrived. Let us welcome you and welcome your written testimony to the record, but 

feel free to make whatever comments you would like to make and 

entertain any questions. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF TEXAS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
74 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 57370A.043
75 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 57370A.044
76 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Fattah. I would 

like to thank you for inviting me today. Thank you to you, Ranking 

Member Wolf, for holding today’s hearing. 

And I appreciate the opportunity to convey to you my deep concern with the proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program 

by NASA as outlined in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

Chairman Mollohan indicated in the Committee’s hearing with 

Administrator Bolden that NASA was at a pivot point and it is. 

The budget proposal raises more questions than answers. It throws 

away what we know in exchange for the unknown while disregarding the will of the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I truly believe a drastic action like this cannot be 

taken until we have sufficient answers to the questions we have 

asked. And I feel we are still far from that at this time. 

NASA provided framework parameters this past week. However, 

stating where program offices will be housed is one. Laying out 

what they are going to be doing is another. 

Some of those questions include where are we going in space and 

when? And if when those things are determined, what are the safety standards we need to develop to get there? Will those safety 

standards and procedures be different for commercial carriers than 

the ones we have currently? What technologies does the Agency envision it needs to explore? Why are we willing to waste billions already invested in Constellation to move in this radical new direction? 

One very critical question that needs to be addressed was asked 

by Science and Technology Committee Chairman Bart Gordon who 

just testified before me. What is our backup if these commercial op 

companies fail? 

The current path of the Agency was endorsed by two Congresses 

in the 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Act. And last year’s Appropriation Bill stipulated very clearly that a change of direction 

would require congressional input through the Appropriations process. 

The proposed change has also been met with a near unanimous 

opposition in Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, and regardless of whether you have a NASA facility in your district and 

state. 

This is most apparent on the Science and Technology Committee. 

Members have raised concerns over the negative impact of our national security, on the local and national workforce and the economy, on the ability to inspire young professionals to study and 

work in the STEM fields and unseating America’s hard-won leadership in human spaceflight. 

I believe canceling this program is too costly and too risky. Our 

nation cannot afford to waste resources. And by resources, I do not 

mean just money spent, but technologies developed, a skilled workforce, and a framework to enable progress in the future. 

Tomorrow the President will be in Florida. And it is my hope 

that he will convey and assure the American public we will be a 

nation of space explorers, not wanderers. America’s leadership in 

space was earned through failures and successes and while we do 

not accept failure, we do learn from it. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
77 

It would be unacceptable to fail because we did not seek to find 

the answers that can enable this Congress, this Administration, 

and most importantly the American public to get behind the same 

program moving forward. The American people deserve these answers and this Congress should demand them. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this opportunity to speak 

to you. I look forward to working with you in the future. 

And I was going to ask to introduce the letter from Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Cernan, and Mr. Lovell, but my Ranking Member was 

way ahead of me on that curve and that just sort of shows you the 

unanimity here in the Congress and opposition that is planned. 

And I am happy to answer any questions and yield back my time. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

And as best as I can tell, you are suggesting that the Committee 

reject the Administration’s proposal on Constellation and provide 

additional funding for the Constellation Program? 

Mr. OLSON. We should reject the Administration’s—— 

Mr. FATTAH. And what amount? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. We should reject the Administration’s proposal and have a discussion with the Administration. That is what 

has been lacking in this—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Do you have an amount? We are appropriators, so 

we—— 

Mr. OLSON. Oh, yes, sir. I mean, you know, the Administration 

talks about the Augustine Commission panel and the need for two 

to three billion dollars over the course of the next couple, four 

years. I believe we can find the money within NASA’s existing 

budget. And, in fact, we have asked—— 

Mr. FATTAH. So you are not asking for an increase in NASA’s 

budget? You want it found within the budget? 

Mr. OLSON. We can find it within the budget, sir, but we also 

should increase it. I mean, this is a national security priority. It 

is the—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I know that. 

Mr. OLSON. These are the high-tech jobs. 

Mr. FATTAH. I need you to answer my question. Now, the budget 

is already proposed by the President to increase the NASA budget. 

You are saying within that dollar—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Amount, you think that we should consider two to three billion to continue the Constellation Program? 

Mr. OLSON. We should certainly consider reprogramming some of 

that money, sir. What NASA—— 

Mr. FATTAH. That is fine. I am not trying to get you—— 

Mr. OLSON. Okay. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. In a catch 22. 

Mr. OLSON. No, no. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am just trying to understand what you are saying. 

Mr. OLSON. No, no, no. I mean, I appreciate that. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. OLSON. But NASA, to me, NASA is human space exploration. 

Mr. FATTAH. No. I got that part. 

Mr. OLSON. Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. I am just trying to get to the numbers. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
78 

Mr. OLSON. No, no. But we are fundamentally shifting here. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Mr. Olson for his leadership, too, on this issue. 

And I think the Committee perhaps in the supplemental ought to 

carry the language that I referenced with regard to Mr. Gordon, 

Chairman Gordon, so they cannot move ahead. But I believe there 

is almost no support and I think the Armstrong—I think that is 

the first time we have heard from Neal Armstrong for years. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. WOLF. The fact that he came out. I think the only astronaut 

we have not heard from is a person who I have always admired is 

former Senator John Glenn. But overall there is almost no one that 

is for the Administration’s plan. 

Now, I think perhaps the best way within the budget allocation 

is to get some of the very best minds. I am reluctant to say who 

they are, but I have talked to many, and they believe and they 

agree with Mr. Olson that within the allocation, you can put together a man space program that really is sound and secure whereby the United States will continue to be number one. 

And the very thought of us losing the lead to the Russians, losing 

the lead to the Chinese, losing the lead, and so hopefully we can 

do that. 

And I think the fact that Chairman Gordon will get some authorizing bill coming out, but hopefully we can make sure because I 

worry, and I think they are accurate, the Administration is moving 

so fast in certain areas and contracts are being shut down that 

they may almost do this by almost kind of without the Congress 

even really having involvement. We are waiting to see what the 

President says tomorrow. 

Mr. OLSON. Yeah. 

Mr. WOLF. I think Mr. Olson is right. And hopefully he will in 

the supplemental be able to prohibit them from doing anything to 

put the Congress on record and then get the very best minds within the allocation that you can continue what we have in the man 

space program. And when you look at the Armstrong letter, but 

also the letter from all the other astronauts that was—— 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Sent was very, very powerful. But I 

thank the gentleman. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. OLSON. If I could make one more comment, Mr. Chairman. 

I mean, we have asked the Administration to help us out with this, 

to come up with a proposal that is in the exploration—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me just say to you we do not have to bash the 

Administration. The Administration is going to lay out their plan 

tomorrow. The Committee reserves the right to decide NASA’s 

budget. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right? 

Mr. OLSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. FATTAH. The President makes a submission. And as you 

have suggested, for instance, we could within the allocation proVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
79 

gram money the Constellation or some alternative program in 

terms of man flight. And we have, as we did last year, been very 

clear about our opinion. It is unuseful to create a dynamic where 

we cannot build a consensus with the Administration as we go forward. 

I assume what you want is an appropriate outcome, right? 

Mr. OLSON. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. OLSON. And I have had numerous conversations with General Bolden to that effect. Tell him I am looking forward—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. OLSON [continuing]. To working with him because we both 

share the same goal, U.S. number one dominance in human 

spaceflight, which we have had for the last 50 years. And I look 

forward to working with this Committee to make sure that that 

does not change. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let us have Samantha Harvell, National Juvenile 

Justice Delinquency Prevention Coalition. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE DELINQUENCY 

PREVENTION COALITION 

WITNESS 

SAMANTHA HARVELL, SENIOR DIRECTOR, EARLY CHILDHOOD AND 

JUVENILE JUSTICE POLICY, FIRST FOCUS CAMPAIGN FOR CHILDREN, NATIONAL JUVENILE JUSTICE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION 

COALITION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
80 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 137 57370A.045
81 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 138 57370A.046
82 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 139 57370A.047
83 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 140 57370A.048
84 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 141 57370A.049
85 

Ms. HARVELL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you today regarding fiscal year 2011 

appropriations related to juvenile justice programs. 

My name is Samantha Harvell and I am the Senior Director for 

Early Childhood and Juvenile Justice Policy with the First Focus 

Campaign for Children, a bipartisan children’s advocacy organization here in D.C. 

The Campaign advocates directly for legislative change in Congress to ensure that children and families are a priority in federal 

policy and budget decisions. 

Today I am testifying on behalf of the National Juvenile Justice 

Delinquency Prevention Coalition. The Coalition represents more 

than 50 national organizations working together to advance federal 

policy and practice, to achieve juvenile justice reform, delinquency 

prevention, and community safety. 

I come before you today to urge your investment in programs 

that benefit vulnerable youth and families in order to maximize the 

chance that all of our children grow up to lead healthy, productive 

lives. 

President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2011 includes significant new investments in our nation’s children. However, even in a 

year of increased investment, juvenile justice programs were grossly underfunded by the Administration’s proposal. 

The persistent lack of attention to this vulnerable population is 

alarming and threatens both public safety and our future economic 

security. As we work towards a brighter future for all of America’s 

children, our Coalition respectfully urges you to support renewed 

forward-thinking investments in federal juvenile justice programs. 

Specifically, we have four requests. 

First and foremost, we ask that you restore funding for core juvenile justice programs to sustainable fiscal year 2002 levels. This 

would include Title 2 and Title 5 programs authorized under the 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, the JJDPA, the 

Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, and the Juvenile 

Mentoring Program. 

These funds support a wide range of state and local initiatives 

designed to help at-risk youth stay on the right track and ensure 

that first-time offenders get back on track toward productive adulthood. Despite the clear need for these programs, many have suffered drastic cuts since 2002. 

The impact of continual decreases in funding, a total decline of 

nearly 50 percent over the past eight years, means that youth and 

families are not served and safeguarded as intended by Congress. 

Second, we ask that you restore funding for the Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention as a separate line item in the 

budget and provide them adequate resources to fulfill their authorized mission. 

As the sole federal agency providing leadership in the juvenile 

justice arena, OJJDP must have the capacity to provide a full 

range of services. A fully funded OJJDP will have the resources 

necessary to identify best practices, educate practitioners across 

the country, and support the implementation of successful models. 

Unfortunately, in recent years, a significant decline in funding 

and the ultimate merging of OJJDP within the broader Office of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
86 

Justice Programs from a funding perspective has weakened the 

focus on juvenile justice issues and eroded the Agency’s status as 

a leader in the field. 

Third, we ask that you support President Obama’s request to 

eliminate all earmarks in the JJDPA Title 5 Program and Part E, 

New Initiatives. 

Over the past several years, an increasing number of earmarks 

have meant that many of the core juvenile justice programs, particularly Title 5 of the JJDPA, have not been funded at sufficient 

levels. In fact, last year, more than 90 percent of appropriated 

funds were earmarked, leaving only $5 million to fund all Title 5 

programs across the country. 

Fourth and finally, we ask that you support President Obama’s 

request for funding to create three new programs which are critical 

to scaling up evidence-based, cost-saving measures and delinquency 

court improvement, disproportionate minority contact evaluation, 

and gang and youth violence prevention and intervention. 

These new initiatives will save money in the long run and ensure 

that struggling youth are being identified and supported early, appropriately, and efficiently. 

We thank you again for your consideration of these recommendations. Our written remarks include a more in-depth discussion of 

and justification for these funding needs. And we look forward to 

serving as a resource for you in the coming weeks and months. 

As you know, this funding is a critical investment in our nation’s 

children and youth. It supports our most vulnerable young people, 

giving them a better chance to grow up to lead healthy, productive, 

and meaningful lives. 

Happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you for your testimony. And I 

do not have any questions and I do not have any other of my colleagues at the moment. So thank you very much. 

Ms. HARVELL. Great. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. Gerard Lynch, Esquire. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS (RISS) 

WITNESS 

GERARD P. LYNCH, ESQUIRE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL 

INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS (RISS) 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
87 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 57370A.050
88 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 57370A.051
89 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 57370A.052
90 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 57370A.053
91 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 57370A.054
92 

Mr. LYNCH. Good morning, Congressman Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. How are you? 

Mr. LYNCH. I am doing fine. 

It is indeed a privilege to once again appear before this Subcommittee to talk about the Regional Information Sharing System 

or the RISS Program. 

RISS is a nationwide information sharing program consisting of 

six centers and a technology support center. RISS provides services 

to state, local, federal, and the tribal law enforcement and criminal 

justice agencies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the 

United States territories, Canada, Australia, and England. 

RISS participation has grown to more than 8,500 criminal justice 

agencies and 97,000 access offices in the system. They represent 

hundreds of thousands of law enforcement agencies across the 

globe. 

RISS enhances the ability of criminal justice agencies to identify, 

target, and remove criminal conspiracies and activities while promoting officer safety. 

RISS is different than other programs. RISS offers access to multiple intelligence databases, connects disparate systems, provides 

essential investigative services, including analytical support, investigative research, equipment, training, field services, and technical 

assistance. 

There are more than 600 resources available via the RISS secure 

intranet known as RISSNET. The owners of these resources rely on 

RISSNET for its proven and secure infrastructure. 

In addition, RISS enhances officer safety through its RISS Safe 

Program and offers extensive gang resources to law enforcement 

and criminal justice community. In many cases, the agencies would 

not otherwise have these services available to them. 

RISS’ existing infrastructure is used as the connection backbone 

for numerous systems, thereby eliminating development costs for 

new systems. Almost 100 systems are connected or pending connection to RISSNET. They include 32 hybrids across the country, 36 

state agencies across the country, 28 federal and other systems. 

In addition, through RISSNET, users can query 26 different systems simultaneously. RISS has been an essential partner in many 

nationwide information sharing initiatives. Most recently the IntraAgency Policy Committee which was formed within the jurisdiction 

of the Executive Office of the President identified RISSNET as one 

of the four SBU CUI networks necessary to be involved in the 

intraoperability initiative. 

RISS’s participation in this endeavor is critical and will ensure 

local and state law enforcement representation. 

The President’s 2011 budget addresses the need to support state 

and local law enforcement, crime fighting tools, and national security. Yet, the budget includes RISS, a central component to support 

these initiatives, at $9 million which is a reduction of $36 million 

from 2010. 

If a reduction of this magnitude occurs, it will have profound effects upon the criminal justice community and will cripple the ability of RISS to provide vital services to our law enforcement and 

public safety agencies. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
93 

A reduction would result in its inability to maintain RISSNET, 

the elimination of RISSIntel, RISS Safe, RISSGang, RISS ATIX 

and the elimination of the six RISS centers. Information sharing 

would revert to pre–9/11 days. 

Cases that would have been resolved effectively and efficiently 

using RISS services may not be resolved in a timely manner if at 

all. And hundreds of highly skilled professional employees would 

lose their jobs. 

It is imperative that RISS’ funding for 2011 at a minimum be re- stored to 2010 levels of $45 million. RISS has requested $65 million 

for 2011 and this will support increased demand for the RISS Safe, 

border initiatives, gang programs, the pawn shop database, RISS 

ATIX, and the Fusion Center partnerships among many others. 

Performance indicators show how strongly RISS has grown and 

the number of users on the RISSNET system. Over the last three 

years, cases in which RISS services were utilized resulted in 15,632 

arrests and more than $158 million in seizures. 

RISS operates one of the nation’s most important information 

sharing networks, supports investigative case resolution, and enhances the Office of Safety. It is critical that continued and additional funding be targeted toward RISS so it can continue to effectively serve our criminal justice community. 

On behalf of all of the RISS centers nationwide and RISS directors, I appreciate this opportunity to provide this testimony. And 

I hope that the Committee sees fit to continue the support that it 

has given the RISS Program over the many years in the past. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you for your testimony. 

You know, obviously the Committee last year provided a great 

appropriations for it relative to the President’s request this year 

and we will have to review the entire situation as we go forward. 

But thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. LYNCH. You are more than welcome. 

Mr. FATTAH. Marion Blakey, Aerospace Industries Association. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

MARION BLAKEY, PRESIDENT & CEO, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
94 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 57370A.055
95 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 57370A.056
96 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 57370A.057
97 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 57370A.058
98 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 57370A.059
99 

Ms. BLAKEY. Good morning. 

Mr. FATTAH. Good morning. 

Ms. BLAKEY. I very much appreciate the opportunity, Congressman Fattah and Ranking Member Wolf, to testify before this Committee today. It is not the first time I have been here and I am 

very grateful again for the opportunity because I am testifying regarding the fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA and NOAA. 

AIA, the Aerospace Industries Association, very much appreciates the efforts of this Congress and this Subcommittee to keep 

our civil space program healthy. 

The current budget request for NOAA provides $5.5 billion, an 

increase of $700 million. A substantial portion of this increase is 

for the procurement of much needed weather satellites and climate 

study systems. And we are very pleased with this increase and recommend that the request be fully funded. 

We are also encouraged that NASA’s proposal extends the International Space Station through the year to at least 2020 and funds 

valuable earth and space science missions, and also renews technology development and innovation and promotes commercial 

spaceflight. 

As Congress debates the extent to which the U.S. will rely on 

commercial space providers for cargo and human carriage into 

space, it will be essential that NASA receive the full $19 billion 

proposed in the President’s budget. 

There are a few issues as we all know, though, that require your 

attention. The proposed cancellation of the Constellation Program 

at the same time as the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle 

would cause residual impacts to the space industrial base and the 

highly trained space workforce in both the private and the public 

sectors. 

Congress should ensure that plans and necessary funding is directed to help effectively transition both the NASA civil workforce 

and the contract workforces into the proposed programs. 

It is critical to remember that in space, it is the workforce, the 

engineers, the skilled technicians that are the backbone of our industrial base. It is also critical to define a specific strategy that 

sets clear goals and time lines for human exploration beyond low 

earth orbit. Such strategy would have the necessary funds to 

achieve the desired goals. 

Moving the discussion to aeronautics for a moment, AIA is encouraged by the 12 percent increase to the fiscal year 2011 budget 

request. AIA urges Congress to adopt this fiscal year request including essential investments in NASA’s environmentally responsible aircraft, verification and validation of complex software systems, and the unmanned aerial systems operational and safety research. 

We are concerned with the Administration’s proposal for out-year 

funding for NASA’s ARMD aeronautics particularly because this is 

the area that is responsible for critical research for the next generation air transportation system that we are all depending upon 

to set our old radar-based system aside and correct for the delays 

and the environmental problems of our current air transportation 

system. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
100 

The proposed investment fails to keep pace with inflation, representing an annual decline in real dollars of two percent. This is 

going to have a detrimental effect on the advancement of Next Gen. 

Finally, the state of education of our young people which I know, 

Congressman Fattah, has been a major focus for both of you all, 

it is truly alarming. This is evidenced by poor preparation for 

science, technology, engineering, and math, the STEM fields, low 

graduation rates of students in those fields, especially when compared to other nations, and the lack of interest in STEM fields 

overall. 

The latest national test scores show our students are below proficient. But perhaps even more telling is our students’ attitudes towards STEM education. I have to tell you I was truly shocked by 

a study that was done by Raytheon recently that shows that most 

middle school students say they would rather do one of the following activities instead of their math homework. Guess what they 

are? Clean their room, eat their vegetables, go to the dentist, or 

take out the garbage. Now, come on. That is where math is ranking 

right now. 

To that end, we are very supportive of efforts to improve STEM 

education. We ask your Committee to continue to support, encourage, where possible increase the funding for various STEM education initiatives within your jurisdictions. 

For example, one of the things I think is interesting is that Representative Suzanne Kosmas of Florida is drafting a bill called 

Space to Schools. It is modeled after a program we think has been 

very successful, the Troops to Teachers Program. 

The bill aims to incentivize displaced aerospace workers, and, of 

course, the space coast and around the country is at issue here, to 

pursue second careers as STEM educators, allowing students the 

opportunity to be taught by teachers with really firsthand knowledge of our nation’s space program. 

Now, to help bring enthusiasm for the aerospace industry and 

STEM education, AIA is being pretty innovative. We run the Team 

America Rocketry Challenge or TARC for middle and high school 

students. TARC starts off with regional competitions with students 

teamed in many cases with real rocket scientists and the qualifiers 

then come to Washington, D.C. for the national competition. 

The challenge requires them to achieve a designated flight time 

and altitude all while returning safely a raw egg payload. And this 

year, we are doing it without parachutes. It is going to be challenging. 

So we invite all the members of this Committee to come out to 

the competition. It is on May 15 out in McLean, Virginia. 

Congressman Wolf, I would very much love to see you there right 

in the back yard if you are possibly interested because we do think 

it is going to be great and there are going to be teams from your 

district competing. 

Over the past 50 years, space systems and technologies have increasingly become a critical part of our nation’s economic, scientific, 

and national security capabilities. Our space capabilities are a 

source of huge national pride and an investment in science and 

R&D is needed to maintain U.S. global leadership. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
101 

I was very pleased about the emphasis on that in the recent discussion here. Investments made to NASA, NOAA, STEM education 

are investments made to our nation here on earth. It is essential 

that funding remain stable and robust to achieve a strong economy, 

advance technology growth, and protect the welfare of our citizens. 

I would like to thank the Committee for your time and attention 

to all this. Thanks very much. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you. It is a pleasure to see you 

again and we have met on a number of occasions both in and outside of this Committee room. So thank you very much. 

And, Ranking Member Wolf, do you have a question or comment? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome Ms. Blakey here. I appreciate her testimony. 

And I think we are really going to have to get the business community to be saying what you are saying in a more vocal way. The 

business community, particularly the large businesses, have been 

very silent on these issues. Periodically you will get someone to 

give a speech. But other than that, I think your comments are very 

on point. They are very important. Yet, we just have not seen the 

leadership from the— I am not saying aerospace— but from all the 

business industry. So I appreciate what you are saying. 

The fact that we are falling behind is so troubling to me. It is 

hard to even explain it. And, yet, I see it getting worse if we do 

not dramatically turn it around because we are faced with this economic situation of the entitlements are eating up, this is eating up. 

I appreciate your testimony. 

Last year, 50 percent of the STEM funding lay on the table. It 

was never used. This Committee did put an amendment in last 

year asking the National Science Foundation, NSF, to come up 

with best practices for how do you get young people—first, second, 

third, fourth, and fifth grade—to be active and interested. 

Ms. BLAKEY. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF. And we are waiting for their report. But, again, thank 

you for the testimony. I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BLAKEY. May I just mention one thing because it might be 

helpful to know? We have very recently formed a coalition for business and industry for STEM to coordinate all of our programs because we do spend tremendous amounts of money, $10 million a 

year just in aerospace, on STEM programs. 

But the issue of pulling it together, really knowing what is working and how we can leverage these, we are working pretty hard 

and working with the White House on it. So we will give you all 

a periodic update on that because I hope—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Ms. BLAKEY [continuing]. It will be helpful. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BLAKEY. And I will work with the business community. Believe me. This has been a shock to the system regarding NASA’s 

current decision. So we will work with them. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

NASA’s aeronautic support team, Bruce Hoogstraten. 

Mr. HOOGSTRATEN. Yes, sir. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
102 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Mr. HOOGSTRATEN. Hoogstraten. 

Mr. FATTAH. Hoogstraten. Okay. All right. We will take your 

written testimony for the record and feel free to make whatever 

comments you would like. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NASA AERONAUTICS SUPPORT TEAM 

WITNESS 

BRUCE HOOGSTRATEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NASA AERONAUTICS 

SUPPORT TEAM 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
103 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 57370A.060
104 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 57370A.061
105 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 57370A.062
106 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 57370A.063
107 

Mr. HOOGSTRATEN. I appreciate the time to come here today. 

Congressman Fattah, Ranking Member Wolf, my name is Bruce 

Hoogstraten and I am the Executive Director for the NASA Aeronautics Support Team which is located in Hampton, Virginia. And 

I also currently Chair the Governor’s Virginia Aerospace Advisory 

Council. And I appreciate the opportunity today. 

I thought I was going to be in a drastic minority until Ms. 

Blakey did come up and actually support dollars being appropriated and the money going through the Aeronautics Program. 

And Chairman Gordon kept saying all he hears is what people 

do not like. Well, I am here to tell you what I do like about the 

current President’s proposed budget. 

Last year when I gave testimony to the Subcommittee and we 

were all waiting on the fiscal year 2010 budget request from the 

new Administration, we really did not know what to expect. And 

as fate would have it, there were indeed two significant changes 

from the previous year. A new aeronautics Green Aviation Program 

was introduced and a stabilization of the aeronautics budget, which 

previously had been targeted for cuts year in and year out. 

But to Ms. Blakey’s point as well, the run-out is something I 

would like to also talk about. This year’s budget request is an even 

greater improvement. It requests an additional $72.6 million over 

the fiscal year 2010 request for NASA’s Aeronautics Program, and 

specifically has a $23 million increase for the second year of the 

Green Aviation initiative, as well as over $30 million for a program 

integrating UAVs into the national air space. 

The current proposed budget, of course, is quite controversial as 

we have been hearing today, but we encourage Congress to follow 

the Administration’s new path with regards to aeronautics research. 

The danger to all the other NASA programs and budgets from 

potential massive Constellation overruns has been clearly laid out 

by the Congressional Budget Office. If Constellation is allowed to 

continue in its current format, it would likely devastate other 

NASA science, aeronautics, and earth science programs in the 

years to come. 

Considering the urgent needs of understanding the planet’s climate and our effect on it and the massive overdue modernization 

of an air traffic control system, we believe that the Administration 

path with regards to aeronautics is the correct one. 

We urge the Committee to support the new grand vision and 

challenge for NASA’s aeronautics in the form of the Green Aviation 

initiative. The NASA workforce at Langley, Glenn, Ames, and Dryden centers for the past decade have been developing incremental 

improvements to aviation safety, fuel consumption and performance, noise control technologies, and emissions, among other areas. 

While these activities have been very worthwhile and have 

helped spur some innovation and design and performance, they 

have certainly not been transformative in any area or in the aggregate. 

While the initial investment in the Green Aviation Program is 

appropriate at roughly $80 million annually, it will need to grow 

incrementally each year to enable a true technology design demVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
108 

onstration that eventually gets, we feel, to about $300 million a 

year over the next four to ten years. 

To free the bonds of innovation that have constrained the NASA 

aeronautics researchers, the Congress must also insist that NASA 

build a budget of this program in the coming years to allow it not 

just to do fundamental research but also real applied research that 

will test these concepts in the real world environment. 

If NASA will commit to undertaking research for this program 

at technical research levels one through six in the next decade, I 

am sure NASA, with the help of industry, can generate a new subsonic green commercial aircraft that may use up to 75 percent less 

fuel and emit a fraction of the harmful greenhouse gases of today’s 

aircraft. 

Once again, I want to thank you for your time today and I would 

be happy to entertain any questions. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, thank you very much. 

We are under some time constraints, so we will reserve at least 

for myself any questions at this time. But I do thank you for your 

testimony. 

Ranking Member Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. HOOGSTRATEN. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Congresswoman Yvette Clarke, let me welcome you to the Committee and your written testimony will obviously be reported for 

the record. But feel free to make whatever extensions on that you 

would like to make at this time. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. YVETTE CLARKE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
109 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 183 here 57370A.064
110 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 184 here 57370A.065
111 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 185 here 57370A.066
112 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 186 here 57370A.067
113 

Ms. CLARKE. Certainly. Thank you very much, Chairman Fattah, 

Ranking Member Wolf. 

It is my honor to be here to speak on behalf of the education and 

Assistance Corporation, Incorporated which basically is treatment 

alternatives for safer communities. And the program provides alternatives to incarceration for substance abuse offenders throughout 

New York City’s metropolitan area. 

The program provides a cost-effective, responsible alternative to 

expensive and ineffective incarceration, saving taxpayers more 

than $17 million last year alone. 

More than 600 offenders annually are enrolled in the AC’s Brooklyn TASC Program. This program reduces crime, reduces jail and 

prison populations, and helps individuals in neighborhoods across 

the city. 

Studies by the nation’s leading criminal justice researchers have 

shown that ATIs reduce jail time and successfully treat people in 

the community without compromising public safety. ATIs are meeting the diverse needs of people they serve while enhancing the 

quality of life for the city’s most challenged communities. 

TASC programs work to establish treatment accountability by 

ensuring that offenders receive the appropriate type and level of 

treatment and that the offender is attending treatment regularly, 

treatment is progressing, and the agency to which TASC referred 

the offender is providing effective treatment services. 

The Brooklyn TASC Program operated in King’s County Criminal Court for jail, bond, non-violent, misdemeanor offenders, and 

MICA-classified offenders whose substance abuse is related to their 

criminal activity. 

Brooklyn TASC is widely used by the courts and District Attorney’s Offices and has an ever-growing caseload of offenders with 

multiple needs: mental illness, HIV, unemployment, and homelessness, in addition to severe and chronic drug and alcohol addiction. 

And TASC manages drug cases by moving the offenders through 

the criminal justice process and into drug treatment, simultaneously providing monitoring services as an adjunct to the criminal 

justice supervision. 

Despite the acknowledgments within the criminal justice system 

of the value of Brooklyn TASC, the program faces substantial cuts 

to funding by the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives. 

Without adequate funding, Brooklyn could see a significant increase in jail and prison populations at an even greater expense. 

And this in and of itself seems to be a bit ironic, because the overcrowding and early release due to budget constraints our city jails 

and state prisons are facing is due, of course, to budget shortfalls 

due to the ongoing fiscal crisis. 

The drop in New York City’s crime rate has increased opportunities in the city and is critical to New York city’s future. 

An investment in alternative to incarceration programs like 

Brooklyn TASC is an investment in people who with the right mix 

of services, programs, and supervision, and opportunities for 

change could return to their communities to lead crime-free lives. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
114 

Therefore, it is my honor to ask for $500,000 in this fiscal year’s 

budget for EAC’s Brooklyn TASC Project. And I would ask that you 

support this critical need for funding. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this Committee today. And I am available to answer any questions you may 

have about this important program. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me thank you for your testimony and say 

that between both Ranking Member Wolf who has been really at 

the vanguard of a lot of the efforts around drug treatment, and the 

Second Chance Program, and just working with alternatives to incarceration, and myself, there is a lot of empathy for these types 

of efforts all across the country. 

We thank you for your testimony. And the Committee will do all 

it can to seek to be helpful as we go forward. 

Ms. CLARKE. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. And our last witness in this segment the 

Honorable Sue Bell Cobb, National Association of Drug Court Professionals. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT 

PROFESSIONALS 

WITNESS 

HON. SUE BELL COBB 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
115 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 57370A.068
116 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 57370A.069
117 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 57370A.070
118 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 57370A.071
119 

Ms. COBB. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wolf. 

It is good to see you again. 

I am Sue Bell Cobb, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of 

Alabama. And I am honored to have the opportunity today to testify on behalf of drug courts throughout the nation, which have 

proven to be our nation’s most effective and fiscally responsible justice program. And I know already that both of you all are advocates. 

So I want to ask you and urge you to consider that your budget 

include a minimum of $65 million for the Drug Court Discretionary 

Grant Program, which is at BJA, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice. 

This is the most effective and efficient way to ensure that drug 

courts throughout the nation are not forced to shut their doors at 

what we all agree is a terrible economic time. 

The President’s budget, while there is funding, it is for unauthorized problem-solving court’s initiative, which, of course, drug courts 

are your best known example of a problem-solving court. 

The President’s budget had $57 million for problem-solving 

court’s initiative. And it also included funding, thank goodness, for 

substance abuse treatment within some of these criminal justice 

programs. 

But I am deeply concerned, as are the judges throughout the nation who are such huge believers in drug courts, that there is not 

direct funding for the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program. 

While problem-solving courts certainly have merit, and they do, 

mental health courts and others that you can think of, this is siphoning money from drug courts. And it could possibly have a disastrous effect. 

The President’s budget proposes $56 million for drug treatment 

courts at the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA. 

But this is critically needed funding—and you all know how desperately it is needed. The treatment is such a huge part of it. It 

goes towards the expansion of drug courts capacity. But it will only 

be effective if we have the funding for the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program. 

For the past 15 years, the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program has struck the proper balance between government oversight, 

and local innovation, and bringing in local partners. 

By focusing on the core infrastructure, drug courts—through the 

implementation, enhancement, national research, training, and 

technical assistance have become the most important, cost effective, 

and research validated program we have to combat the scourge of 

substance abuse and the crime, of course, associated with it. 

At a moment in our history when federal government must make 

judicious economic choices, and we understand that, why would we 

suddenly abandon the one thing that it shows is so unbelievably effective? 

As a nation we annually spend, and I know you all know this, 

$60 billion on corrections, an investment that really has done very 

little to stem the cancer of crime, so much of it caused by drug and 

alcohol abuse. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
120 

Half of the nation’s prison population is clinically addicted to 

drugs and alcohol. And in Alabama unfortunately our number one 

provider of drug and alcohol treatment is in our prison system. 

Upon their release, nearly all of them relapse. Eighty percent of 

them will commit a new crime. In my home state of Alabama, we 

have seen firsthand the impact of drug courts. 

I am proud to say—and I just want to hold this up. I may want 

to submit it later for you all. But when I became Chief Justice we 

had 14 drug courts. In three years of our placing a priority with 

the judges on drug courts, you now see that we only have five counties that don’t have a drug court or aren’t in a planning stage for 

a drug court. 

In Alabama we have the most overcrowded prison system in the 

nation and the least funded. You can see why I am here. And we 

have attempted to incarcerate ourselves out of this problem. And 

obviously it hasn’t worked. 

But because of drug courts and because of our trying to change 

the concepts and the philosophy of our judges, we not only flattened the commitments to prison, but we have seen a slight decrease, which is a big thing for us. 

As Chief Justice, I feel like I have an obligation to make sure 

that whatever we do, number one, it is public safety. It is about 

public safety. And as we mete out justice, that it be done effectively, efficiently, and with the greatest impact for public safety. 

And this is the reason why that I have made it a passion to push 

ardently for drug courts in Alabama. 

And I am not alone. As you know, the Conference of Chief Justices, our association of the chief justices throughout the nation, 

which I am proud to be a member of, represents the highest judicial officers in the state. And the conference, CCJ is what we call 

it, has called drug courts, ‘‘The most effective strategy for reducing 

drug abuse and criminal recidivism among criminal offenders.’’ 

I have been asked by the President to serve as Chairman of the 

Evidence-Based Practice Sentencing Committee for the Conference 

of Chief Justices. And I can assure you that all of the chief justices 

and the court administrators are adamant in their support of datadriven solutions to drug-induced crime. And that answer is, and 

they believe that answer is, model drug courts. 

Today we have over 2,400 communities with drug courts. And 

that has evolved as you all know over the past couple of decades. 

The drug courts have been the answer where traditional sentencing 

has failed. 

Model drug courts put judges in the transformation business. 

And I say it in two ways. It is not just transforming the inmates 

and the offenders, because what we really see is that we are—actually our motto in Alabama now is that we are—going to do the 

hard work of fixing people, not the easy work of filling prisons. And 

it is more judges spending more time. And that is what drug court 

entails. 

But it is also the transformation of the transformation. One of 

my drug court judges says that after a 20–year term as one of the 

hot circuit court judges in a metropolis county, he says that, ‘‘Nothing means more to him than his drug court.’’ That not only has he 

been seeing the transformation of lives but it has transformed him. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
121 

Because of his drug court work, he believes that he truly is a better 

husband and better father because of being involved in drug court. 

Recently a cost-related meta-analysis, the most rigorous scientific 

tool to researchers, has released staggering results. Drug courts 

produced an average of $2.21 in direct benefits to every dollar invested. These savings of course, and you all know, have stemmed 

directly from reduced rearrests, law enforcement contacts, court 

hearings, less demand for jail and prison beds, and, of course, the 

impact of drug victimization. 

There are other numbers. Studies have reported economic benefits ranging from $2.00 to $7.00 for every dollar invested. The result has a net economic benefit to local communities ranging from 

$3,000.00 to $13,000.00 per drug court participant. 

And these savings can also be measured, of course, in the lives 

restored and reunited families and communities. And I must say 

businesses as well, because you can imagine you go to a drug court 

graduation you will always have a business person come up to you 

and say, ‘‘You know, you all have saved one of my best employees. 

Thank you.’’ 

Drug courts provide an outstanding return on investment. And 

70 percent of the approximately 120,000 seriously addicted individuals who voluntarily enter drug court complete it. And 75 percent 

of them remain arrest free, which we cannot show that with other 

methods. 

And these results are not short lived. I mean we find that there 

are years. And the thing about drug courts is we have got the data 

to prove it. Substance abuse has had a role in crippling state budgets. States annually spend on average $65,000.00 to build a bed, 

$23,000.00 to maintain that bed. 

For operations, state and local governments and certainly Alabama have traditionally leveraged that federal investment. We 

have gotten very little of that money. But our legislature, thank 

goodness, has recognized the importance and has helped us with a 

very small investment that has helped us have the growth that 

that map indicated. 

But that federal investment is about nine to one, which I think 

you can see that this is something with the little bit of money. And 

what we have asked is not little, but it is enough when you spread 

it across the entire nation that it can mean great things. 

And if we don’t have it, we do stand the chance of drug courts 

closing their doors. $65 million for fiscal year 2011 appropriation 

for drug courts at the Department of Justice will reduce the fiscal 

burdens facing the states and ensure the continuation of one of the 

most successful state/federal funding partnerships. 

And I think this is very meaningful. The historic 1994 Crime Bill 

authorized $1 billion for drug courts. But only an investment of 

about 40 million, an average of 40 million, has ever been dedicated 

to drug courts during those intervening years. And that is not 

enough even though we have done a lot with it. 

The Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program has proven an invaluable funding stream. You know, it is what targets the drug 

testing, the case management, the evaluation, the supervision, and 

training needs to our court system. Please help us help our local 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
122 

officials, both judges and district attorneys and law enforcement, do 

their jobs to save lives. 

We are all keenly aware of the historic economic times in which 

we are now faced. Now more than ever we must focus on cost-effective, evidence-based practices that reduce drugs and crime and 

ease the financial burden. 

I know the President is a big believe in drug courts. And I am 

sure that it was thought that the flexibility was what is needed. 

But from the court officials I can assure you, our most urgent plea 

is the continued support, specifically of drug courts. 

I respectfully ask that this Committee consider restoring funding 

for drug courts at the Department of Justice Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program at a modest level of $65 million. 

And in addition I ask that the Committee maintain what the Administration has asked for as far as treatment and maintain those 

proposed funding levels for drug courts at the Center for Abuse 

Treatment. Only then can we ensure that the 20 years of progress 

that I know that both of you are aware of can continue and is not 

undone. 

My thanks to the Committee for letting me have the opportunity. 

Though I have been in a hearing room many, many, many times, 

because I have been a judge for 29 years, this is my first opportunity to testify before Congress. So thank you for giving me that 

opportunity to speak on behalf of something that I believe with all 

my heart is a huge part of the answer. 

And I will be more than happy, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Wolf to answer any questions you and Congressman Schiff 

might have. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me thank you. We are honored to have you 

as a representative of a state judiciary system all across the country. 

It was the chief justice of the Pennsylvania court that had me 

in a leadership role in developing our drug court system in Pennsylvania, which has worked very, very well. And the studies by the 

National Institute of Justice have shown, you know, that drug-influenced criminal activity is really what is driving a lot of the incidents of crime. And if we don’t deal with the underlying cause, we 

are really not going to be successful here. 

So let me thank you for your testimony. I don’t have any questions. But I will yield to the Ranking Member. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

Welcome. Thank you for your testimony. Two questions very 

quickly. I remember when you spoke at the conference that Pew 

put on. Have you been in touch with them, because they are working on their best practices? 

Ms. COBB. Absolutely. And Pew is basically staffing the committee that I now chair. And what we are trying to do is to raise 

it as a priority amongst the chief justices that they will go back 

and really try to help judges understand that we have got to reevaluate our sentencing philosophy and make sure that our sentencing decisions are based on data. 

Mr. WOLF. Well that is important, because when the Pew people 

come out I think that is—hopefully I think it will be this summer 

or fall. That will really get a lot of interest. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
123 

Secondly, how is the state of Virginia now? Our new governor 

has been very supportive when he was in the General Assembly. 

Overall how does Virginia do in drug courts honestly? 

Ms. COBB. As far as I know, very well. Chief Justice Leroy 

Hassell, your chief justice, of course it has been a major priority. 

He has worked on other issues as well as far as indigent defense 

and other things. 

But Virginia also has a sentencing commission. And I think you 

have worked together with that to really reevaluate your sentencing policy. You have got an outstanding sentencing commission 

in Virginia. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. COBB. And they have worked and put emphasis on this as 

well. 

Mr. WOLF. So they are doing well. Okay. 

Ms. COBB. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. COBB. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chief Justice, let me thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. COBB. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. I am going to turn the Chair over to my colleague, Mr. Schiff. And we are going to bring in the 11:15 cohort 

of witnesses. 

Mr. SCHIFF [presiding]. The hearing will resume. And our first 

witness is Aaron Houston of the Marijuana Policy Project. He is the 

Director of Government Relations. 

And welcome, Mr. Houston. We appreciate your testimony today. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT 

WITNESS 

AARON HOUSTON 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
124 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 57370A.072
125 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 57370A.073
126 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 57370A.074
127 

Mr. HOUSTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Schiff and 

distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Aaron Houston, 

Director of Government Relations for MPP. That is the largest 

marijuana law reform organization of the United States. 

And we believe that the greatest harm associated with marijuana 

is the arrest and imprisonment of seriously ill people in particular 

who need medical marijuana with their doctor’s approval. 

While MPP requests no specific budgetary line item or amount 

today, we do urge the Subcommittee to consider possible report language related to the use of DOJ resources in the fiscal year 2011 

bill in the areas that I have outlined today as ways that we believe 

that the DOJ resources may be better utilized. 

As the Chairman is aware, since 1996 voters and legislatures in 

14 states have passed laws providing for the use of medical marijuana. And, unfortunately, under the Administration of Former 

President George W. Bush, the DEA targeted persons and entities 

involved in the sale or production of medical marijuana even when 

those targeted persons were in compliance with state laws. 

MPP opposed these enforcement activities because we believe 

this was a bad policy. These resources could be put to better use 

elsewhere. 

And perhaps there is no better example of how wasteful and misguided these DEA raids proved than testimony elicited by Congressman Culberson on a regular basis indicating that federal law 

enforcement authorities are so overwhelmed at the Tucson sector 

of the Mexican/U.S. Border that persons caught crossing the border 

with up to 500 pounds of marijuana are unlikely to face prosecution. 

We very much appreciate that President Obama, both as a candidate and once he was in office, expressed that the DEA should 

focus on more important priorities than targeting medical marijuana patients and providers who comply with the state’s laws. 

And as you know on October 19, 2009, Deputy Attorney General 

David Ogden issued a memorandum to U.S. attorneys related to investigations and prosecutions in states authorizing the use of medical marijuana. The memo clarified the department’s positions that 

as a general matter resources, federal resources, in states should 

not be focused on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws. 

And I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and the members of this Subcommittee as well as the 

members of the full Committee and Congressman Hensche for 

working to include language in last year’s Committee report for 

this bill urging the department to issue its policy on medical marijuana prosecutions in writings. We very much appreciate that effort. 

Getting to our recommendations, one we would ask is that the 

Subcommittee urge the department to strengthen its policy related 

to those involved in medical marijuana activities and prosecutions 

of those persons. 

And two, and perhaps more poignantly important for budgetary 

reasons, in cases where states are furloughing prisons due to budget crunches, we would ask that you encourage the department to 

encourage states to certify that no inmates who are convicted of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
128 

crimes of violence, including sexual assault, will be released before 

non-violent offenders whose soul offense involves marijuana sale, 

cultivation, or possession. 

Hitting on the first recommendation first, strengthening Attorney General Holder’s policy on DEA rates with the presumption of 

state control. As more states have gained experience in implementing medical marijuana laws, the role of the state in regulating 

this area of policy has evolved. Some earlier state laws are vague 

and do not include licensing. Well more recent laws generally provide for clear regulation. 

This had led to a great diversity in the manner in which each 

of the 14 state medical marijuana laws is carried out. For example, 

in California, there is no state licensing of dispensaries. And although localities may license the collectives there that are authorized under state law, not all have done so. 

Conversely, New Mexico provides for the direct state licensure of 

marijuana growers. And Rhode Island recently finalized rules and 

regulations for oversight of medical marijuana compassion centers. 

And the District of Columbia City Council, in fact, is finalizing an 

amendment to voters initiative right now to license dispensaries. 

In short, the problem is that when that clear and unambiguous 

compliance with state law, the standard laid out in the Ogden 

Memorandum of October 19, is a very high standard to reach. 

And moreover, even if a person, in fact, is in compliance with the 

state law—but it may not be clear and unambiguous—if that person is prosecuted by federal authorities, they have no right whatsoever to raise the fact that their activities were legal in a federal 

court. There is no mention of medical marijuana allowed whatsoever. 

And in addition I should note that allowing state authorities to 

handle violations in state court the most just and equitable outcome in general, since persons acting in good faith compliance with 

state law have no defense. 

And Congressman Farr’s Truth in Trials Act would actually remedy that injustice, allowing defendants in federal court to tell the 

truth about state law allowing them to dispense or use marijuana. 

Number two, we would ask that you urge the Department of Justice to consider conditioning grant awards for state and municipal 

correction systems on those system certifications that no inmates 

convicted of crimes of violence, including sexual abuse and assault, 

will be or have been furloughed before any non-violent marijuana 

offenders whose sole offense related to the possession, sale, or manufacture of marijuana. 

The Associated Press, Mr. Chairman, reported a disturbing trend 

on March 31. Noting that, ‘‘Inmates convicted of violent crimes are 

among those being freed early from California jails to save money, 

despite lawmakers’ promises that they would exclude most dangerous prisoners and sex offenders.’’ An Associated Press review of 

inmate data showed that some of the freed criminals were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, battery, domestic violence, 

and attacks on children and the elderly. 

The article goes on to note that similar programs, furlough programs, were initiated or expanded in a dozen other states. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
129 

MPP believes other committees in the House should consider legislation that would specifically provide for withholding funds from 

states that fail to certify that they’re releasing non-violent marijuana offenders ahead of violent felons. 

But in the meantime, we would appreciate the Subcommittee’s 

attention to early release programs and the sequence of release for 

various offenders. Prioritizing the release of people whose only 

crime is marijuana-related just makes sense. 

So Chairman Schiff and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to appear. And would 

welcome any questions you have. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much. I had just a couple of questions. One, did you mention that in Mexico they license growers of 

marijuana? 

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, sir. Both New Mexico and Rhode Island provide for some direct state licensure of marijuana. 

Mr. SCHIFF. You said New Mexico. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Oh, I am sorry. I thought I heard you say Mexico. 

Okay. 

I want to ask you about California, which seems to be an epicenter of conflict over the issue at the moment and L.A. even an 

epicenter within the epicenter. 

How do the enforcement actions in L.A., if at all, relate to federal 

government policy? Is there a federal issue there, or is this purely 

a local ordinance and enforcement issue? And more broadly, the 

ballot measure in California, how does that square with federal law 

on the subject? 

Mr. HOUSTON. Very interesting questions. To address the first 

part of your question first, essentially the local ordinances and municipal regulations of marijuana, medical marijuana, in California 

dictate what that state law is. 

And so the Ogden Memo really lays out that state law is the deciding factor. That compliance with state law is the deciding factor. 

And, of course, in the case of California, the state law allows for 

the municipalities to license it or regulate it themselves. 

And, of course, our concern is that if a person who is acting in 

compliance with the local ordinances in L.A., which are different of 

course from Mendocino County regulations and regulations all over 

the rest of the state. In other words, these are complicated, and 

they are different around the state. 

That compliance with those may not be entirely clear, even if a 

person, in fact, is in compliance. And that if the person were arrested by federal authorities rather than state authorities on a federal warrant, they would end up in federal court and have no ability whatsoever to explain that they in fact were in compliance. 

To address the second part regarding the ballot measure in California the impact of that with respect to the Ogden memo, interestingly, Mr. Chairman, federal law provides for no recognition of 

medical marijuana whatsoever. 

And so it is interesting to consider legally from a preemption perspective the idea that if the Ogden Memo is the only memorialization or formalization in some way of the federal government recogVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
130 

nizing medical marijuana, that marijuana that is legal for all purposes would presumably be treated the same way. 

And not to say that the department would not focus on those. 

The department probably would focus on the wholesale supply of 

marijuana if the ballot measure passes, I am assuming, or would 

focus on some large-scale suppliers. 

But the Ogden Memo has laid out that now, as of October 19, 

we now have a formalization of the federal government recognizing 

medical marijuana, that even something called medical marijuana 

exists. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Houston. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well thank you very much for testifying. 

Mr. HOUSTON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Our next witness is Gabrielle Martin from the National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216, AFGE/AFL–CIO. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EEOC LOCALS, NO. 216, AFGE/ 

AFL–CIO 

WITNESS 

GABRIELLE MARTIN 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
131 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 57370A.075
132 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 57370A.076
133 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 57370A.077
134 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 57370A.078
135 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 57370A.079
136 

Ms. MARTIN. Good morning. Good morning members of this Committee. 

I want to take the time to thank you for having us here to testify. We have come here a number of years in the past. You have 

been quite supportive of the program at the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. And you have done things like increase 

our funding and given us strong bill language to help guide the 

agency in trying to address the extreme workloads that it is facing. 

In many ways this Administration has made clear that jobs are 

important. And in some ways EEOC is a gatekeeper to those jobs, 

whether they are being created and whether people are able to 

keep their jobs and get promoted. 

Our number one task, again, is for additional funding. And we are asking for $385 million to help ensure that EEOC’s fight to 

eradicate discrimination in the workplaces can be an effective one. 

When I say effective, what I am talking about is our extreme 

backlogs. This year we will have 100,000 cases backlogged. We 

have lost 25 percent of our staff over the last ten years. And we 

predict that our backlogs for fiscal year 2010 will be above 100,000. 

And for fiscal year 2011, we will see more than 100,000 charges 

come in. And our backlog will be at about 110,000 cases. 

And I am trying to find a way to make those cases real, because 

we all hear huge numbers. This weekend I had the opportunity to 

attend a ceremony recognizing young women who had aspirations 

in the field of aviation. They were young girls. And I thought what 

they all said was I want to fly airplanes. And I wondered whether 

they would be victims of discrimination as they sought to find those 

dreams. 

So there were six girls awarded. And I wondered will EEOC ever 

see any of those six young ladies in its doors. And I certainly hope 

not, because EEOC toils long and hard every day. 

We have cases where our staff have found on behalf of people 

who are disabled, people from different cultures or national origins, 

races, sexes, ages. We run the gamut. And every day there is a 

headline about what we do. 

But every headline also represents someone who is waiting. And 

it is taking about 294 days for individual cases to be investigated 

and a determination made. And that is not just the individuals who 

are waiting. But that is also our employers who are saying if I have 

done something wrong tell me. If I haven’t, please let me go and 

go about the business of running my business. 

So those things are really, really important. And when I think 

of 294 days I said, ‘‘Gee, what if I had a cavity, and it took 294 

days for a dentist to be able to say, ‘You have got a problem with 

your tooth.’ ’’ What would have become of my tooth in that 294 

days? And that is what we leave the public to suffer when we can’t 

get to their cases any sooner. 

We have seen retaliation charges rise ten percent because of the 

length of time it takes. And because of the length of time, I think 

that is what helps contribute to the large numbers of charges coming in our door. 

We are not taken seriously. If we can’t be that gatekeeper, then 

it is really the public that suffers. And it is the Administration’s 

concern about jobs that is caught up in the process. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
137 

So funding that is a huge number. What would it help us do? It 

would help us reverse that trend of losing 25 percent of our staff. 

It would help us reduce the trend of 294 days to resolve those 

cases. And it would also help in other programs at EEOC as well. 

EEOC has a hearings program for federal sector employees, because they are in a different process. Again, here is a place where 

there are fewer than 100 judges to serve all the federal employees 

in this country and in our overseas satellites if you will and installations who request a hearing on their federal sector cases. They 

are waiting about 279 days to get their cases heard. 

It will also help our litigation program in that the commission 

can be that premiere enforcer of civil rights in employment. It 

means that we will continue to be able to take the initiative. And 

we will continue to send a message through the press and the people that we are able to help that discrimination in the workplace 

won’t be tolerated in this country. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify 

again. I hope I have been able to help you understand EEOC’s 

plight and its challenges. 

We do have a new Chair. And we are hoping that that will work 

out well for us, because in the past there may have been questions 

about the direction the Commission was going. 

So we are also requesting bill language and report language, 

which increases our funding to $385 million, provides for more 

staff, and we are looking for a ceiling of 3,000. We currently have 

about 2,200 on board. 

And that you continue to provide oversight. As the agency is restructured, it has not always been necessarily a good thing in 

terms of being able to provide service to the public. But also directing EEOC to do one thing. And that is to look at their intake system. Currently that backlog of 100,000 cases is serviced by the 

same people who are bringing in what was last year 93,000. And 

it is expected to be 100,000. 

So until the agency takes a hard look at that and says we need 

one group of people to work the intake and one group of people to 

work the cases here and help reduce the backlog, I don’t think we 

will see a change there. But the union has given them a plan, 

asked them to look at it, and we hope to hear from them soon. But 

we are hoping that direction from this Committee will help them 

address that so that the public we serve gets better service from 

us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. No. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you so much for your testimony today. 

Ms. MARTIN. Thank you for your time this morning. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

Our next witness is B. Diane Williams from the Safer Foundation. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
138 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

SAFER FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

B. DIANE WILLIAMS, SAFER FOUNDATION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
139 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 57370A.080
140 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 57370A.081
141 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 57370A.082
142 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 57370A.083
143 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Good morning. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I thank you for inviting the Safer Foundation to 

testify before you today. 

Safer is a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Chicago, 

Illinois. It’s been operating throughout the State of Illinois and in 

parts of Iowa. Our work focuses on reducing the number of crime 

victims and improving public and community safety. 

We do this by supporting the efforts of people with criminal 

records become productive law-abiding members of their community. We provide a full spectrum of services, including education, 

employment, and detention-focused case management. This year 

we are on track to serve 14,000 people with criminal records. 

While my written testimony offers information on the achievements of the Safer Foundation and the Illinois Department of Corrections, in my oral remarks I want to note the importance of your 

funding the Second Chance Act and initiatives like the Council of 

State Government’s National Reentry Resource Center. A meeting 

convened by CSG and John Jay College on Monday and Tuesday 

of this week allowed a group of national experts to provide prime 

investment strategy that could be implemented through the Second 

Chance Act. In supporting this work, you are reducing both shortterm and long-term costs to the American people, while also reducing the number of U.S. citizens who become victims. For that we 

thank you. 

Over the past decade we at Safer have seen the demand for our 

services grow from 2,000 in 1995 to 14,000 in 2010. This growth 

is directly related to the increasing number of individuals involved 

in the criminal justice system. Communities are devastated by the 

increase, and need to adopt planned and coordinated support systems. 

With the assistance of Congress and the Departments of Justice 

and Labor, Safer has designed and implemented a number of successful research-based programs. Through Safer’s career services 

personnel, clients are able to find unsubsidized employment and 

stay out of prison. This success demonstrates the strong link between employment and recidivism reduction, and I urge this subcommittee to continue encouraging collaboration between the Department of Justice and Labor. It would certainly be nice to have 

HUD involved in that, as well. 

Reentry impacts not only those being released from prison, but 

also their families and the entire community. This is especially 

troubling given that these communities are disproportionately 

home to low-income minority families, high rates of crime, and 

have few of the needed social services and supports. Communities, 

specifically families, need the tools and resources to help their 

loved ones succeed. Through the decisions that lead to success or 

failure, though they fall most heavily on the returning individuals, 

these individuals must be empowered to make the right decisions 

through clear pathways to success. 

The critical funding authorized for the Second Chance Act and 

appropriated by this Committee, provides assistance to states, local 

government, and community-based organizations concerned with 

prisoner reentry. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
144 

On behalf of our clients, Safer Foundation sincerely thanks the Committee for its leadership this past year and the $100 million 

included in the fiscal year 2010 budget. We strongly support the 

President’s request for $100 million for fiscal year 2011. Recognizing the current fiscal environment and the pressures of an increasingly large budget deficit, we urge you to consider the average 

cost per year of incarceration. The cost of reentry is far offset by 

the savings received as a result of the recidivism reduction. 

When Illinois had reached the historic recidivism rate of 54.6 

percent, Safer’s clients returned to prison at the rate of 22 percent, 

less than half that of the state rate. 

In closing, I would like to again commend the Chairman and 

each of the members for their efforts to address the needs to reform 

incarcerated individuals as they return to their communities. And 

I’ll be glad to answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I just wonder—thank you for your work. The numbers add up, just as you mentioned—when we avoid re-incarceration, we avoid taking on a huge additional cost that is far better 

for the individual and society, and far cheaper, as well, if we can 

find a way to redirect people into productive pursuits. 

So I appreciate the work you are doing. And I think it is absolutely vital, and in California, where we are being bankrupted by 

our high incarceration costs, it is more important than ever. So 

thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your work. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. I have had an opportunity 

to meet with the Director of programs from California who has 

asked that we participate in his thinking around how to integrate 

the communities and people returning so that they can be successful when they return, as well. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, we are going to have a lot more folks returning 

to the communities without much supervision as a result of our 

budget problems. So we need all the help we can get. Thank you 

very much. 

Our next witness is Ann Harkins of the National Crime Prevention Council. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL 

WITNESS 

ANN M. HARKINS, NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
145 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 57370A.084
146 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 57370A.085
147 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 57370A.086
148 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 57370A.087
149 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 57370A.088
150 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 57370A.089
151 

Ms. HARKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here 

today. For 28 years the National Crime Prevention Council has 

been providing practical, research-based information on proven and 

cost-effective processes and practices to citizens, law enforcement, 

and community leaders. McGruff the Crime Dog carries our message. 

NCPC strongly supports the Byrne Competitive Grant Program and encourages the Subcommittee to appropriate $40 million for it 

in fiscal year 2011. In addition to full funding, NCPC respectfully 

requests that the Subcommittee insure that two essential crime 

prevention functions are funded within the program in fiscal year 

2011. The Subcommittee has supported these functions for 15 

years, and our hope is that the Department of Justice will continue 

investing in them. 

The first function is an independent, non-governmental national 

repository and clearinghouse on best practices. Local law enforcement deserves the best materials on effective crime prevention 

practices. I don’t know a single prosecutor or a single law enforcement officer who wouldn’t prefer to prevent a crime rather than 

prosecute or investigate it. Congress’s substantial investment in 

Byrne/JAG and other state and local assistance programs will 

mean more if local law enforcement has access to those best practices. 

The second essential function is a strong national advertising 

campaign to reach citizens with evidence-based crime prevention 

methods. A national public education campaign has been shown to 

have a tremendous impact in changing individual and collective behavior to prevent crime. NCPC designs messages and provides 

training on crime prevention practices with proven outcomes based 

on the highest standards of research. 

Our commitment to promoting the most effective crime prevention pools and messages is based on the National Crime Prevention 

Council’s capacity to monitor crime prevention research, to identify 

what works, and to transmit evidence-based practices to and 

among the field. 

In 1980 the Department of Justice and others formed the National Crime Prevention Council, a public/private partnership to establish a national crime prevention campaign. The most visible portion of the campaign features McGruff and his signature message 

that inspires all Americans to ‘‘take a bite out of crime’’. 

Prior to that campaign, Americans thought that crime prevention 

was solely the responsibility of law enforcement. Over 30 years of 

campaigns generated $1.5 billion in donated advertising at a very 

modest cost. I am proud to report that today citizens and community groups realize that crime prevention is everyone’s business. 

Although the campaign has not been funded with the same financial commitment from its Federal founders in the past few 

years, an ongoing crime prevention campaign is essential to maintaining 30 years of progress. NCPC is committed to that effort, and 

as you join us in that commitment, we also commit to leveraging 

the Federal investment in crime prevention through expanded public/private partnership. 

The Subcommittee has historically made significant investments 

in a number of important crime prevention programs. On behalf of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
152 

the NCPC Board of Directors, its staff, and the thousands of crime 

prevention practitioners across the country whom we represent, I 

want to thank you for that support. 

Thank you again for allowing me to appear today as Congress 

works to prevent crime. Please consider NCPC and McGruff your 

active partners in empowering citizens to work with law enforcement to build safer communities. 

Finally, McGruff, the Crime Dog, celebrates his thirtieth birthday on July 1. We hope you will join us in honoring this great public/private partnership that McGruff represents. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much for your testimony and for 

your work. And I share your conviction that, to the degree that we 

can develop best practices and disseminate the information, it is 

much better than relying on anecdotal reports of success which we 

hear in great abundance, not withstanding seeing a lot of the statistics go in the other direction. 

So thank you for your good work and please give McGruff our 

birthday wishes. 

Ms. HARKINS. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. I will. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So he’s 30. That would make him 210 in dog years, 

right? He has been around a long time. 

Ms. HARKINS. That is right. He has 83 percent unaided recognition and 80 percent of kids listen to his messages. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And much higher favorables than any of us in Congress, that is for sure. We stand in envy of Mr. McGruff. 

Ms. HARKINS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. Our next witness is Susan Millward 

from the Animal Welfare Institute. That is good timing, is it not? 

Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE 

WITNESS 

SUSAN MILLWARD, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
153 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 57370A.090
154 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 57370A.091
155 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 57370A.092
156 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 57370A.093
157 

Ms. MILLWARD. Thank you very much for allowing me to testify 

today. 

My name is Susan Millward, and I am the Executive Director for 

the Animal Welfare Institute. I will be addressing activities under 

the Department of Justice and the Department of Commerce. 

We wish to commend the OJT for awarding a grant to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys for its new program of training 

technical support and other assistance for COPS research, members of the law enforcement community, and others to enhance the 

prosecution of animal abuse and animal fighting crimes. We are 

proud to support this effort and to have been APA’s partner for the 

first national training conference upon which the new program is 

built. 

We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide $720,000 to 

the Bureau of Justice’s assistance to national animal cruelty and 

fighting initiatives and to continue its interest in addressing animal-related crime. The connection between animal abuse and other 

forms of violence has been firmly established and animal abuse is 

occurring everywhere in the U.S., and certain acts are felonies in 

46 states and the District of Columbia. But a felony in one state 

may still be a misdemeanor in another, making vigorous enforcement of the law and prosecution of violators key, which is where 

the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys’ program comes in. 

APA recognizes that preventing and prosecuting these crimes not 

only benefits animals, but the entire community by reducing overall levels of violence. The APA’s program provides training, publications, technical assistance, and on-line resources, and it has assembled an advisory council to identify issues, strategies, and resource 

needs. Support of the APA’s program sends a very strong message 

to prosecutors and law enforcement that crimes involving animals 

are to be taken seriously and pursued vigorously. 

This recognition raises the issue of tracking such crimes. The 

animal protection community has long urged the FBI to include 

animal cruelty in its crime reporting system enabling the tracking 

of these offenses, a better understanding of the practices associated 

with animal abuse, and the characteristics of the perpetrators, and 

identification of when and where such crimes occur, thus facilitating more effective interventions. Yet, animal abuse statistics are 

recorded under the category of ‘‘other’’, making them inaccessible 

for retrieval and analysis. 

In response to a request from this Subcommittee and the former 

Chairman, Frank Wolf, the FBI acknowledged substantial benefits 

could be achieved through the inclusion of animal cruelty data in 

its reporting system, but it has not sought to capture and report 

it in a usable form despite the link, ironically first identified by the 

FBI, between animal cruelty and other crime and other behavior 

common among serial killers. 

A simple solution would be to add ‘‘animal’’ to the victim segment 

of the incident report. No new data elements would be created, and 

no segments would be expanded. We respectfully ask the Subcommittee to direct the FBI to give serious consideration to this 

simple proposal. 

While we support funding worthwhile programs, such as those of 

the DJA, we cannot support funding for programs whose outputs 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
158 

conflict with the interest of the American people. The United 

States stands on the brink of the dismantling of one of the cornerstone measures in American conservation and leadership, the moratorium on commercial whaling. Despite assurances by the current 

administration to find a planned transparency and that the commercial whaling moratorium is a necessary conservation measure, 

U.S. influence is now being used to broker an ad hoc deal at the 

International Whaling Commission which would allow for a resumption of commercial whaling and legitimize the commercial 

whaling of Japan to conduct it in the guise of scientific research 

and permit the expansion of the international trade in whale products. 

The U.S. delegation to the whaling commission claims that the 

U.S. position on the deal has yet to be determined, but it both initiated the process and was the leading proponent of finding a compromise for the whalers. This deal is not acceptable to our organization or, we think, the vast majority of American citizens. We 

strongly oppose killing whales for commercial gain. 

Time is short. The deal will be presented to the whaling commission in June. We urge the Committee to demand that the United 

States position on whaling and its opposition to the current deal be 

provided forthwith, and that any future funding of NOAA’s IWC 

program be contingent on the provision of complete and satisfactory answers, as well as maintaining the historic U.S. leadership 

role in protecting whales and opposing commercial whaling. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I 

think you raise a number of good issues that we need to follow up 

on. And the suggestion in terms of the FBI database and how they 

report and track is worth pursuing. 

And I am also very interested in what you had to say about the 

whaling issues. It reminds me of a very powerful advertisement on 

preservation of whales that talked about how every part of the 

whale was used for some different purpose, but the very end tag 

line was nothing is wasted but the whale itself, which I thought 

was a very powerful message. 

Ms. MILLWARD. Right. And nowadays, actually, they do not need 

to use any part of the whale any longer. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am not surprised. Well, thanks for your testimony. 

Mr. Honda? 

Thank you again. 

Ms. MILLWARD. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Our next witness is Tracy Velazquez of the Justice 

Policy Institute. Ms. Velazquez, welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE 

WITNESS 

TRACY VELAZQUEZ, JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
159 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 265 57370A.094
160 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 266 57370A.095
161 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 267 57370A.096
162 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 268 57370A.097
163 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 269 57370A.098
164 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

testify before you today. 

I am here as the Executive Director of the Justice Policy Institute, a research and policy organization working to reduce incarceration in America, to express our disappointment with the proposed 

Department of Justice Budget. In our view, this budget will perpetuate the misplaced priorities and ineffective policies of our criminal 

justice system. 

Rather than helping financially strapped state and local governments, increased spending on prisons and policing will swell their 

ranks and costs and incarcerations. Rather than attacking the racial disparities existing in the systems, this budget will certainly 

magnify them. Instead of investing in juvenile justice improvements and programs to serve at-risk groups, this budget will only 

further the cycle of incarceration that has characterized this country’s history for the past three decades. The administration has requested almost $700 million on top of 

a billion dollars from ARRA for law enforcement services through 

the COPS program. At a time when crime rates continue to fall, 

there is no legitimate rationale for spending scarce Federal dollars 

on over-policing. 

The other day I heard an ad on the radio for a local college which 

advised listeners to train for law enforcement since that is where 

the Federal Government was putting its jobs money. If a goal of 

this expansion is to create jobs, there are a host of other professions we could invest in that would have a greater impact on public 

safety. There were no ads for addiction counselors, even though 

most people in jail and prison meet the criteria of substance abuse 

addiction. There were no ads for teachers, though most people in 

jail and prison do not have a high school diploma. There were no 

ads for social workers, even though many families are struggling 

in communities that offer limited opportunities. 

By investing in more policing rather than in people and effective 

services, we are guaranteeing that we will be paying for more prisons for years to come. 

There is well-deserved praise for Senator Webb’s Second Chance 

Act which helps people leaving prison re-integrate into communities. Making it after prison is difficult, especially in a tough economy, for having a conviction on your record is a resume ticket to 

a rejection pile. And while we do support this funding for re-entry, 

it is equally urgent for you to focus your spending away from areas 

that will grow the number of people with convictions. 

Our research shows that more policing results in more arrests for 

people with low level, non-violent drug offenses. Even well-meaning 

programs like Drug Court, can widen the net of criminal justice 

control as a lack of community treatment pushes police and judges 

to funnel people through the justice system. Likewise, mental 

health courts are a poor substitute for community-based mental 

health care, which is unavailable and unaffordable to many Americans. 

Back in 2006 Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act. JPI strongly 

urges you to strike from this budget funding to induce states to 

comply with this Act. While we all want to keep our families, and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
165 

especially our children safe, Jenny sex offender registries, particularly by including these on them, is counterproductive to public 

safety and expensive for states. 

Finally, we urge Congress to consider the public safety impact 

that can be gained elsewhere in the budget. For instance, for every 

dollar invested in drug treatment in the community, there is a savings of $18 in crime-related costs. And funding for community and 

mental health services block grants has not risen in years. If we 

could increase high school completion rates by one percent, researchers say the U.S. could save over a billion dollars a year in 

reduced crime costs. 

With the inclusion of $210 million in the U.S. Department of 

Education Budget for Promise Neighborhoods, it is clear that the 

Administration does understand the value of community investment. This program in particular has the potential to produce lasting improvements in communities around the county through integrated education, health, employment, and social services, all of 

which are tied to reductions in justice system involvement. By rejecting over-spending on policing and prisons, Congress and the Administration could fund programs like this at a higher level, improving life trajectories and public safety at the same time. 

Inasmuch as the budget expresses our vision for the future, we 

urge you to reject a future that trades jobs for imprisonment and, 

instead, uses its resources to create a healthier, more prosperous, 

and safer society through positive investment in people and communities. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much. I want to ask you what the 

status is of efforts to provide drug treatment on demand for people 

who are incarcerated. And maybe you can address how you think 

the Feds are doing on it and the states, it seems insanely counterproductive not to have drug treatment available for any inmate 

with a substance abuse problem. When you release someone with 

a substance abuse problem back into the general population, you 

should be surprised, I think, when they don’t recidivate. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Right. It is a challenge, both for mental health 

care and substance abuse. And, you know, obviously, we prefer people got their services before they had justice system involvement. 

But it can be effective if it is well done. And what we have also 

seen is that some states are beginning to look at making sure people are connected with services when they leave a prison or jail. 

I think that some changes to the way the Medicaid works, that 

would keep people from falling off Medicaid when they are incarcerated, and Social Security, would also help, because you have sort 

of a doughnut hole there when they leave, oftentimes, before they 

get reconnected to services, which is where we see a lot of people 

end up recidivating. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I am pretty sure I have heard from some of my constituents about the prohibition on people who have a felony conviction being able to live in government subsidized housing. When you 

have young people released from custody who were living with one 

of their parents or both their parents or grandparents, they now 

have a conviction. They are ineligible to live with their family without jeopardizing the family’s subsidized housing. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
166 

How much of an issue is that? Is there anything—— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I think it is a really large issue. And part of the 

problem is that different localities all do it differently. And, you 

know, what we would like to see is the Federal Government at 

least say—right now you can have an arrest on your record and in 

39 states, you can be barred from public housing. 

So what happened to innocent until proven guilty? So even if 

your arrest is later cleared up, they can deny you access to public 

housing, and your family, as well. So, you know, we would really 

like to see the Federal Government at least put up a ban on barring people from public housing if they don’t have a conviction, and 

certainly create more uniformity so that unless there is sort of a 

pressing public safety issue, to really create some standards that 

would not eliminate people from the ability to access public housing 

when they need it most. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Honda. 

Mr. HONDA. Good morning, and thank you. I was interested in 

your comment on COPS. And a lot of the comments I don’t disagree 

with it, but do you think that there is something good in almost 

every program that we have, essentially, with state and local government we have cut them way back. They are going to need as 

much help as they can get from the Feds, because it didn’t happen 

overnight. 

And so are there programs that you are pointing to that are successful that addresses your issues that were funded by COPS? 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Well again, what happens at the local level is 

quite variable. And, you know, our concerns with COPS, and to an 

extent, with Byrne/JAG is, for instance, multi-jurisdictional task 

forces, which the Rand Foundation found in their report, are increasingly catching people with misdemeanor offenses and incarcerating them. And that’s not a good use, in our mind, of public resources. 

I mean, I think one of the things that some communities have 

done is in terms of creating gang intervention programs, as opposed to gang suppression programs. So we have seen some of that. 

But a lot of it is really, you know—we talked with someone in the 

Mayor’s Office in Baltimore. And they are planning to increase 

their patrols in Baltimore, above and beyond what they’ve traditionally been. And we just want to insure that if you can picture 

in any area, if you have a lot of resources, eventually you are no 

longer looking at the most pressing public safety issues, but you 

are keeping busy. And we do not want to have policing at a level 

that you start to see over-policing in areas, particularly areas 

where they traditionally have majority minority communities 

which queue people up into the system. And often those are people 

who need treatment more than they need incarceration. 

Mr. HONDA. So what we are looking at is best practices that 

would be word-smithed into the authorization area, and then have 

them look at some other way of—— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. I think that would help. I also just think it is 

a lot of money. I mean, they have a billion dollars that they got 

from COPS for ARRA, two-thirds of which is still available. And 

the reality is I know you have to make tough choices. And we feel 

that investments in things like addiction treatment and mental 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
167 

health treatment actually give you a better bang for your buck in 

terms of public safety. 

Mr. HONDA. Now, you know, I don’t disagree. I think that when 

you are talking about addiction and we talked about another arena 

of activity that would probably have more than—well, we have 

compartmentalized everything so that nothing seems to be interacting with each other. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Yeah. I agree. And, you know, we would love to 

see some sort of a public safety impact statement for things like— 

you know, I think the Promise Neighborhood Programs will have 

a very large public safety impact. And I don’t think that is figured 

in to when people consider the benefits of it. And likewise when 

you look at education funding or other kinds of funding. I think 

that the public safety impact is throughout the budget, and some 

of those ways I think will promote a stronger community and a 

stronger America in the future. 

Mr. HONDA. Then we probably should be looking at how our 

state’s law enforcement folks trained in community policing and, 

you know, refocusing on that. But, you know, statements, you 

know, you have to do this or that, and I was just looking for something that, given that—— 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Right. And I agree. I think that there are some 

best practices, especially around the Byrne/JAG grant that, you 

know, we would like to see implemented. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Ms. Velazquez. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you. 

And our last witness on this panel is Lorraine Cole, Dr. Lorraine 

Cole of YWCA USA. Dr. Cole, thank you for being with us. 

Mr. HONDA. Is she going to lead us in the song, or what? 

Mr. SCHIFF. What’s that? 

Mr. HONDA. Nothing. I thought she was going to lead us in a 

song. 

Mr. SCHIFF. In a song? I don’t think so. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

YWCA USA 

WITNESS 

LORRAINE COLE, PhD, YWCA USA 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
168 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 281 here 57370A.099
169 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 282 here 57370A.100
170 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 283 here 57370A.101
171 

Ms. COLE. Every 15 seconds in the United States a woman is hit, 

slapped, kicked, or punched by a man that she knows. 

Good morning, Mr. Congressman, Congressman Honda and 

Members of the Subcommittee. And I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. I’m Lorraine Cole. I’m CEO of the YWCA USA. 

And as Congress begins its work on the appropriations priorities 

for the 2011 budget, I want to call to your attention one priority 

in particular. The critical need for transitional housing programs 

for victims of domestic violence. 

President Obama’s budget request to Congress recognized that 

the supply of transitional housing facilities does not meet the great 

demand. The YWCA appreciates the $25 million requested for transitional housing for funding for violence against women programs 

at the Department of Justice; however, the critical need in this 

area is greater than the President’s request. We urge the Subcommittee to fully fund the transitional housing program at the authorized level of $40 million. 

Of nearly 300 YWCAs nationwide, about one-third have domestic 

violence services with housing facilities. When a victim of domestic 

violence leaves her abuser, her immediate need for herself and her 

children is the safety of an emergency shelter. The stay in an emergency shelter is typically limited to no more than 30 days, but most 

women need more time to re-establish their lives and move toward 

self-sufficiency. 

Transitional housing programs can provide living accommodation 

for an extended period ranging from six months to two years. And 

YWCA transitional housing programs also provide legal services, 

life skills, child care, job assistance, and other vital support. 

The YWCA in Wheeling, West Virginia, for example, shelters 

2,000 domestic violence victims each year, but it can only accommodate five women in its transitional housing facility. And that 

YWCA provides the only transitional housing in the entire northern panhandle of the state. This means that many women are 

forced back into abusive situations, a scenario recurring far too 

often nationwide. Last year the National Network to End Domestic 

Violence reported that about 5,537 requests for shelter or transitional housing went unmet within just one 24-hour period. 

The Department of Justice reports that grant requests for transitional housing for domestic violence far exceed the available funds 

each year. In fiscal year 2009, 261 applications were received requesting over $62 million. In fiscal year 2010, it is expected that 

only 55 to 60 grants will be awarded. And so our request for full 

funding at the $40 million level is modest compared to the need. 

A young woman who escaped to the YWCA in Wheeling West 

Virginia with three children eight times during a three-year period 

was able to enter their transitional housing program. She began 

working full time, became a full-time student, graduated and saved 

enough money to qualify for her own Habitat for Humanity’s home 

where she lives today with her three children. 

In the four minutes I have spoken to you today, 16 women have 

been victimized in this country. The need for additional resources 

is clear. 

Thank you for your commitment to this issue. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
172 

Mr. SCHIFF. Dr. Cole, thank you for all your work and that of 

YWCA chapters all over the country. We have some extraordinary 

ones in my district, and they do fantastic work. 

Mr. Honda? 

Mr. HONDA. Well, let me add my thanks, also. And the YW does 

really extensive work on also identifying children who are abused 

working through the schools. And I think that that is one of the 

areas that we probably need to engage public schools a little more 

aggressively so that we can help dissipate that whole chain of 

events that happens to youngsters and families. So again, thank 

you for your work. 

Ms. COLE. Thank you. We have just celebrated our hundred and 

fiftieth anniversary. We are the oldest and largest women’s organization in the country. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Fantastic. I guess Mike remembers well when you 

were founded. Thank you, Dr. Cole. 

We’ll take a brief recess while we—— 

Mr. HONDA. I wish I had paid attention. 

Mr. SCHIFF [continuing]. While we get the next panel ready. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. HONDA. [Presiding] Good morning. I guess you all know the 

format. Witnesses have four minutes of testimony. We have an 

hour, and we’ll stick to the four minutes and then it may just be 

longer. So kick me underneath the table. 

So let’s see, SEARCH. Kelly Peters is not here? 

Ms. PETERS. That is me. 

Mr. HONDA. Gregory, you are so eager to testify. 

Mr. KEPFERLE. I’m eager to go. No. That is okay. Ladies first. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

SEARCH 

WITNESS 

KELLY PETERS, SEARCH 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
173 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 290 here 57370A.102
174 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 291 here 57370A.103
175 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 292 here 57370A.104
176 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 293 here 57370A.105
177 

Ms. PETERS. Well, good afternoon. And thank you, Mr. Chairman 

and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear 

here today and for your support over the years. 

I am Kelly Peters. I am the Deputy Executive Director of 

SEARCH. SEARCH is a non-profit justice support organization created by the state and comprised of state governors’ appointees. 

Each state pays dues annually. And we are headquartered in California. 

SEARCH’s mission is to promote the effective use of information 

and identification technologies by justice agencies. We requested a 

$500,000 earmark for the SEARCH Justice Information Sharing 

Technical Assistance Program. 

For over 40 years, SEARCH has earned a stellar reputation for 

providing impartial, on-site technical assistance and training to 

state, local, and tribal justice agencies in planning, implementing, 

and managing their information sharing efforts. This House of Representatives recognized our work just this past November in the 

form of House Resolution 851. SEARCH has also been a key partner with the U.S. Department of Justice and a founding member 

of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative. 

For over 20 years SEARCH has operated the National Technical 

Assistance and Training Program, which provides no-cost support 

for small- and medium-sized justice agencies. We assist them with 

implementing effective information sharing systems that are also 

compatible with other local, state, regional, tribal, and national 

systems. And that program also delivers high-tech crime investigative training to our nation’s investigators. We have reached over 

28,000 justice practitioners through this program. 

This year, recognizing the rapid developments in technology and 

information sharing, the lack of technical resources that the state 

and locals are facing, and the enhanced Federal Grant funding to 

the field, particularly through the Recovery Act, SEARCH has updated and improved our program offerings and proposes to implement a focused local program for California. This program will assist state and locals in California, but also create tools, resources, 

and models for use in other jurisdictions. 

And the need for funding really is clear. Congress and the Administration have a renewed focus on justice problems that we 

have discussed here today: Youth and gang violence, jail and prison 

crowding, successful reentry programs, Second Chance Act programs, evidence-based policing, and successful tracking of potential 

terrorists, arsonists, and bombers. And quite clearly, a strong information sharing backbone is critical to support better decisionmaking in all of these areas that I just mentioned, which in turn 

means improved public safety. 

And, meanwhile, over the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice has developed numerous tools and models and 

standards and strategies to assist with information sharing. But, 

quite frankly, these tools are very complicated to use and implement. Many state and local agencies require expert technical assistance to adopt them. And SEARCH can provide that expertise 

while simultaneously preventing wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. 

Furthermore, SEARCH helps states develop privacy policies governing the collection and use of information and to protect indiVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00177 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
178 

vidual privacy and civil liberties in a network environment. 

SEARCH is doing work all over the country on information sharing 

initiatives, from helping the California Department of Justice meet 

national standards for information sharing to working with West 

Virginia’s Kenowah County’s prosecutor’s office in collecting an 

automated prosecutor case management system to assisting Marin 

County, California, develop a secure network solution for the law 

enforcement and fire agency to working with the city of Virginia 

Beach and partner agencies in Hampton Roads region to create a 

regional plan for their interoperable communication and to working 

with Hawaii to develop privacy policies for their statewide information sharing initiative. Ultimately, in all the work that SEARCH 

does, it develops resources for the rest of the country by replicating 

successful implementation strategies and transferring those strategies to other states and locals. 

Finally, on a related note, I want to share with you SEARCH’s 

support for another program in the CJS appropriations bill, the 

Byrne Competitive Grant Program. We support the goal of distributing funds on a competitive basis to national programs that can 

demonstrate compelling use for that funding. But those programs 

should have a chance to compete for meaningful amounts. And 

SEARCH believes that funding in the range of at least 65 million 

is the minimum necessary to permit a workable and effective competitive grant program on a national basis. 

So in conclusion, Congressional support for the SEARCH Justice 

Information Sharing Technical Assistance Program is vital to 

leveraging the heavy Federal grant investment in information 

sharing initiatives, and creating a foundation for success in public 

safety decisionmaking. And investment of 500,000 will be leveraged 

many times over by sharing the results realized with the rest of 

the nation those best practices that we’ve been talking about. 

So on behalf of SEARCH, its governor’s appointees, and the thousands of justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network 

and who benefit from SEARCH’s efforts, I thank you for your time 

and opportunity to appear here today. And I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. Five minutes. 

Ms. PETERS. Oh, did I? I timed it. It was four. I’m sorry. 

Mr. HONDA. No. No. 

Ms. PETERS. I apologize. 

Mr. HONDA. No. I am only teasing you. So if you work in California, then I suspect that—how is that working out, creating models for the rest of the other states. And we have it there. And my 

sense is that you are like an umbrella for the entire state and you 

try to bring it all together and have some coherence between and 

among all these programs. So asking about interoperability is the 

subset of all that. 

Where are we in the State of California in terms of that drive 

to have all the parts of the states become interoperable, they don’t 

run into each other, and is there an issue around the availability 

of broad band that allows folks to travel up and down without interference with others or competing with the private industry area? 

Ms. PETERS. Excellent question. And you know your broad band 

stuff. I would say generally, in California, there are several major, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
179 

major efforts under way. Certainly, in L.A. County and the San 

Francisco Bay area and Sacramento and then state-wide with the 

Department of Justice to develop information sharing capabilities. 

I think the really good news is the work that has been spearheaded by the U.S. Department of Justice to help develop standards has educated the field. I think that most of these efforts, although we’re not done with information sharing and interoperability, these efforts are being synchronized so that we are creating 

capabilities that will interplay and interact with each other as 

agencies build their information sharing systems. 

In terms of interoperability, the broad band issue is huge. We 

have been following what’s happening with the D-Block Spectrum. 

It’s absolutely critical that we can get that out and developed to 

public safety agencies, because they need that type of capability— 

that bandwidth that broad band provides to accomplish their important law enforcement efforts. Right now, for example, the killer 

app in policing and public safety is being able to share video. You 

need a big pipe to be able to share that information. And until that 

spectrum is built out and allocated to public safety agencies, I 

think they will continue to face some challenges in doing so. 

So I guess in general, California, I think all the efforts are moving along in a synchronized way. There’s a lot of work to go. And 

we are certainly all following that broadband issue and hoping to 

make some inroads on that in the very near future. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. I would be interested in getting some sort of 

report back that sort of speaks to what the gaps are in those areas 

among the counties within the state. 

Ms. PETERS. We would be happy to do that for you. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Ms. PETERS. We will follow-up with you. Thank you. Thank you 

for your time. 

Mr. HONDA. The CEO of Catholic Charities, Gregory Kepferle. I 

appreciate your enthusiasm. Good morning. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

CATHOLIC CHARITIES 

WITNESS 

GREGORY KEPFERLE, CATHOLIC CHARITIES 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
180 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 302 here 57370A.106
181 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 303 here 57370A.107
182 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 304 here 57370A.108
183 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 305 here 57370A.109
184 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 306 here 57370A.110
185 

Mr. KEPFERLE. Chairman Honda, Members of the Committee. 

My name is Greg Kepferle. I am CEO of Catholic Charities in 

Santa Clara County in San Jose. And I thank you for the opportunity to testify for continued and expanded funding for community-based juvenile justice programs. 

Aaron Carrera lives in one of the most impoverished and gangimpacted communities in San Jose. He had all the indicators of 

being gang impacted. He hung around with youth that were gang 

involved and made very bad decisions. One day, he got stabbed. 

Catholic Charities staff from the Washington United Youth Center were the only friends to visit him in the hospital. None of his 

gang-banger buddies. He turned to us for help, and he changed his 

life around through relentless support. He finished high school, and 

now, two years later after the incident, he is going to college and 

is on a second term upon the city of San Jose’s Youth Council. 

There is a critical need nationwide to invest in promising youth 

like Aaron. The Catholic Charities U.S.A. network serves 8.5 million Americans each year, including 134,553 youth served through 

juvenile justice programs in 63 agencies. Locally, they offer continuing prevention and intervention programs with a very high success rate. But we are now faced with the potential elimination of 

our main youth center. 

It helps to understand the environment these youth are in. San 

Jose is reported to have more than 250 street gangs. A number of 

youth in our program come from families involved in gangs for several generations. Low incomes, high dropout rates, and minorities 

with twice the average arrest rate. 

Catholic Charities serves over 9,000 children and youth in Santa 

Clara County, including programs for at-risk youth, youth probation and vocational employment services, gang intervention and 

prevention, juvenile hall visitation and family services, including 

mentoring and reentry and youth centers. 

We rigorously measure outcomes both through quantitative and 

qualitative measures. We track success through school attendance, 

change in developmental assets, re-involvement with the juvenile 

justice system, as well as the quality measures. Based on what I 

have seen, our staff are not just changing lives, but saving lives. 

So how do they do it? What works? What we know works: caring 

adults that are culturally confident, consistently present, and nonjudgmental; intensive skilled case management by trained professionals; coordination among service providers; wrap-around services; a safe, structured environment; a continuum of care from prevention to early intervention for intensive engagement; and finally, 

faith, hope, and love. 

My staff members tell me these kids come from a place of no 

hope. The only life they know is gang life. We know change is possible. At Catholic Charities we believe in the youth, that they have 

the power within themselves to succeed. We plant the seeds of 

hope, and we care. The staff have deep compassion for the youth 

and their family members, going above and beyond what a given 

contract may require. But we can’t do it without your help. 

Saving our kids needs to be a national priority. We can’t abandon 

our youth to the hard life in the streets or jails. It costs too much 

in human lives and in real dollars. A year in the state juvenile deVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
186 

tention facility in California costs over $252,000 per youth versus 

only $1,271 per youth for community-based prevention and intervention services a year. One dollar a year invested in communitybased prevention and intervention and alterative services saves 

taxpayers $200 a year. 

Mr. Chairman, our recommendations to the Appropriations Committee are to save money by, first, maintaining and increasing 

funding for juvenile justice programs, including a priority of investing funding in early prevention and intervention, as well as funding proven community-based alternatives to incarceration. And secondly, reducing the bureaucratic barriers to funding and services 

for faith-based community organizations. 

Finally, while we tend to use jargon and talk about ‘‘at-risk 

youth’’, ‘‘gang-impacted youth’’, et cetera, we need to remember 

these young men and women are persons, human beings worthy of 

dignity and respect and compassion with enormous potential for 

good in our community. Together, we can change life for good. 

Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. Since you are local, I have an advantage, 

I guess. Given what you have said, and making the dollars go further, and what other community groups are you working with to 

make that dollar go further and what kind of coordinations are you 

looking at that will extend that dollar further out into the community and so that that network will go further out and help these 

young people? What are some of the things that—what are the dynamics that are going on in our communities that keeps this issue 

about youth gangs so high on our radar screen that we don’t seem 

to have a handle on it? 

Mr. KEPFERLE. So the two questions, one, the partners, and then 

some are the dynamics. 

The partnering—we are part of the Mayor’s Gang Prevention 

Task Force in San Jose that Mayor Chuck Reed chairs. And a number of other service providers are part of that, as well as the probation and the D.A.’s office and we have school representation on 

there, as well, California Youth Outreach and the Firehouse. At 

our Washington Youth Center, we also partner with a number of 

community-based groups, the neighborhood associations, Strong 

Neighborhood Initiatives, those other organizations. And then also, 

in the Franklin McKinley school district, with the school district 

itself, doing an intensive outreach, block by block, neighborhood by 

neighborhood, based on the Harlem Children’s model. And we’re 

hoping to apply to the Promise Neighborhood Grant for that. 

So there are a lot of community partners working together. The 

question is, okay, how effective are we, because this issue still 

seems to be continuous there. One of the things that we are seeing 

is in the last two years, the number of violent gang incidences have 

started to drop. And, you know, there could be a number of explanations for it. 

Is it because—some people will say, ‘‘Well, it is because more 

kids are being locked up.’’ Which is true. The Latino youth are 

being locked up at twice the rate of the youth on average. 

Others are saying, ‘‘Well, it is because of the effectiveness of the 

intervention and prevention programs.’’ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
187 

I am not sure that we have the full evidence for that matrix or 

that continuum right from that enforcement side and the prevention side. What we do know works is the prevention side. So why 

are we still having the issues with the kids? One of the things that 

we see is with kids that are struggling with—some of the things 

that we are seeing is kids that have learning disabilities are dropping out of school or are not engaged in school. So that the dropout 

rate with kids with learning disabilities and minority, what is their 

sense of hope? What is their sense of promise? Who is the caring 

adult in their life? What sort of engagement do they have with 

their parents? And what are the pro-social factors within the community? 

So what we are seeing is that with these kids that are coming 

to us, they are often more attracted to the gangs, like the wannabe’s, right, because here is somebody that, at least, seems to be 

looking out for them. Here is a group that they can belong to. And 

if they are struggling with issues of identity and belonging—a good 

Erik Erikson model—they are trying to find a home for themselves. 

We need to provide that alternative to the gang. 

Mr. HONDA. I would be interested in some written response to 

the coordination that you are doing with juvenile courts, probation, 

the schools, and how much responsibility is being placed upon the 

principals of those schools that are part of that network. 

Mr. KEPFERLE. All right. 

Mr. HONDA. That might be beyond your scope of responsibility, 

but it may be information that we can use to replicate that kind 

of combined effort. The other agencies did get some funding. And 

I am just curious how you guys are going to be sharing those funding so that you focus back on the youngsters and of keeping those 

school kids in sight. 

Mr. KEPFERLE. I would be happy to provide that written information for you. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KEPFERLE. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. National Space Grant Alliance. Mary Sandy. Right? 

Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL SPACE GRANT ALLIANCE 

WITNESS 

MARY SANDY, NATIONAL SPACE GRANT ALLIANCE 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
188 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 316 here 57370A.111
189 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 317 here 57370A.112
190 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 318 here 57370A.113
191 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 319 here 57370A.114
192 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 320 here 57370A.115
193 

Ms. SANDY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify 

today on behalf of the National Space Grant Alliance, which is a 

coalition of 52 Space Grant Programs, one in every state, plus 

Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. I am Mary Sandy. I direct the Virginia Space Grant Consortium and also chair our Space 

Grant Alliance. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Alliance is requesting $45.6 million, the 

same amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2010; however, 

every space grant program in every state could make constructive 

use of additional funding. Let me tell you why Space Grant is important. 

First, we have an established functioning, viable grassroots network in every state in this country. The network has a proven 

track record of identifying, attracting, supporting, educating, and 

training students and young professionals in much-needed STEM 

fields: Science, technology, engineering, and math. The network 

consists of 867 colleges, universities, plus industries, non-profits, 

governmental organizations, and other affiliates, all of us working 

together to strengthen STEM education, build that pipeline of 

needed scientists, engineers, technologists, those workers, and 

building research capabilities at our nation’s universities. 

Secondly, Space Grant offers a broad variety of and a very 

unique set of programs and experiences for students and for faculty. Last year, 4670 students received college level scholarships 

and fellowships and were placed in paid internships with NASA 

centers and industry. That is a very key part of our program. In 

addition, 86 percent of our Space Grant programs have student-led 

flight programs. And I can tell you from experience, these kinds of 

programs that range from rocket and balloon missions to small satellites, very small satellite flights, like Landsat and Cubesat are 

just the best kind of real-world educational experience for the students. They build very strong connections with NASA personnel 

and industry personnel, as well. In 2007, 2200 students and 300 

faculty were actively involved in these kinds of projects. And those 

numbers have been growing over the past two years. 

Through Space Grant, a hundred and forty-seven courses in 

STEM were either brought out new or revised. And in addition, 

nearly 19,000 elementary and secondary teachers received professional development and participated in our program. And nearly a 

hundred and forty-five thousand students were actively involved in 

the Space Grant Program. 

A third point I’d like to make is that Space Grant has a fine 

record of working with and reaching under-represented minority 

students in STEM activities. Last year 21,500 students participated in higher education programs. Of these, 21 percent were 

from under-represented groups, and 40 percent were female. Space 

Grant is engaging the entire spectrum of our nation’s citizens in 

STEM education or course development and research. 

And the outcome of these Space Grant activities is dramatic, because we do longitudinally track our higher education students. 

Right now, 82 percent of Space Grant student awardees are either 

in active STEM careers with NASA or with industry, or are pursuing advanced STEM degrees. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
194 

As I said earlier, we are requesting $45.6 million in support. 

Without this support Space Grant would be forced to reduce its affiliates, cut back on our programs, decrease our contributions to 

workforce development, decrease the number of scholarships and 

fellowships we are able to give, and it would diminish our ability 

to serve as leaders in our state for STEM education and workforce 

development. 

In summary, Space Grant is delivering a remarkable number of 

high quality educational experiences for a very small investment. 

For every dollar that NASA invests in Space Grants, our state programs return an additional dollar and twenty cents. And I can tell 

you in Virginia we leverage every dollar five to one. 

Space Grant is a sound investment in America’s future and 

should be expanded, not reduced. I wish that I had more time to 

talk about our program in Virginia, because I’m very proud of it, 

and it has been very successful, but I’ve included statistics in our 

written testimony. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today and to appear before you. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you very much. The stats are important for 

me, because it gives me a more refined picture of the folks that are 

working with you and for whom you are working. And what is it 

that you do that keeps you on the edge in terms of reinventing 

yourself and becoming even more acquainted in finding youngsters 

and seeking out women who have, or young ladies, who are in middle school or younger to engage them in—are there groups that you 

work with that are non-traditional groups like Shift and other 

groups? 

Ms. SANDY. Yes. Certainly, we work with under-represented minority groups to a large extent. But to address the middle school 

level that you just talked about, in Virginia we have several innovative programs. One is the Governor’s Academy for Innovation 

and Technology and Engineering. And in that program, we bring 

seventh and eighth graders in for technology exploration Saturdays 

that involve NASA personnel and industry personnel from Northrop Grumman, Canon, and other organizations. And it is a 

chance for them to really do hands-on technology based activities 

and learn about the careers and opportunities that are available for 

them. 

So we take that group, and we pipeline them into summer academy-type experiences in ninth and tenth grades, and then into specific curriculums at the high school level, and then we help to pipeline them again into community college and higher education experiences. And those have been tremendously successful activities. 

We also work with a Gear-up Grant from the Department of 

Education. It begins at sixth grade. And I could go on and on. But 

we are always looking for innovative problem-based, real-world 

kinds of activities where we can engage students and show them 

successful role models and help track them, too, along their pathway. 

Mr. HONDA. Great. Thank you so much. 

Ms. SANDY. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. National Wildlife Federation, Jaime Matyas. Did I 

say it right? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
195 

Ms. MATYAS. Good afternoon. Jaime Matyas. 

Mr. HONDA. Matyas. 

Ms. MATYAS. I can be almost anybody. Good morning. 

Mr. HONDA. You want to put your name tag over that one there, 

or just set it aside. Thank you. Not that I would not call you Jaime. 

But it’s Jaime. 

Ms. MATYAS. It is Jaime. My Spanish has improved, though, 

after the last number of years. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

WITNESS 

JAIME MATYAS, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
196 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 328 here 57370A.116
197 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 329 here 57370A.117
198 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 330 here 57370A.118
199 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 331 here 57370A.119
200 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 332 here 57370A.120
201 

Ms. MATYAS. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Wildlife 

Federation and our more than four million members and supporters, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name 

is Jaime Matyas. I am the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer of the National Wildlife Federation. And Congressman 

Honda, I want to start by thanking you for your personal ongoing 

leadership and support of environmental education funding. 

Well, National Wildlife Federation supports numerous programs 

under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. The purpose of this testimony today is to recommend funding levels for specific environmental and climate-change education programs at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science 

Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These are programs that we believe are vital to NWF’s mission to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future. 

NWF’s top legislative priority in Congress is to pass comprehensive climate-change legislation. And as we address climate change 

and transition to a clean-energy economy, we must insure our education infrastructure keeps pace and that America remains competitive globally. To do this, we must invest in education. 

We applaud the Subcommittee for its leadership in creating new 

climate-change education programs at NASA in fiscal year 2008 

and at NSF in fiscal year 2009. In our experience, teachers need 

resources, training, and support to effectively, accurately, and objectively teach this complex issue, which is so central to the future 

of their students. 

The conservation and environmental education communities urge 

the Subcommittee to grow these programs in fiscal 2011 by funding 

NSF climate-change education program at $30 million, NASA at 

$15 million, and to create a new climate-change education program 

at NOAA funded at $10 million. 

We very much appreciate the recent increases for NOAA’s environmental literacy grants program, and urge the Subcommittee to 

grow it to $20 million in fiscal year 2011. We also urge increased 

funding for the NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training Program, or BWET, to $16 million in fiscal year 2011. Both of these 

programs have strong support as evidenced by the March 19 passage of H.R. 3644 on the House floor, the Ocean Coastal and Watershed Education Act. The goal of this legislation is to formally 

authorize both of these NOAA programs. The bill passes by bi-partisan vote of 244 to 170 and has the support of more than 125 organizations ranging from National Wildlife Federation to National 

Science Teachers’ Association to Trout Unlimited. 

In the past 12 years an impressive base of research has been developed that demonstrates the positive effects of environmental and 

nature-based education on improving academic performance and 

overall student learning. The data collected from many peer-reviewed sources included improved statewide test results, higher 

scores in science and math, higher student interest in science, 

fewer discipline problems in the classroom, and more even playing 

field for students in under-resourced schools. 

There is no question that environmental education is a significant and useful tool for advancing STEM education in the U.S. to 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
202 

provide our nation with needed intellectual capital such as scientists and engineers who will continue the research and development essential to the economic growth of our country. 

Again, thank you for your ongoing leadership of environmental 

education funding, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I have submitted written testimony providing further details 

about the programs referenced, and welcome any questions. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you. I’m still the only one here. This 

is good for me. So you have all these programs that you are running. How do we get the consciousness of individuals throughout 

this country, not just here on the Hill or no the east coast or the 

west coast, but in areas where traditionally you would have policymakers that come back and say, you know, ‘‘This is not manmade,’’ 

or, you know, ‘‘It is partly manmade,’’ and they don’t see a need 

or a sense of urgency. How would these programs move youngsters 

to become our agents of change, because they’re the ones that told 

me, ‘‘No, dad, that is recycling here, and wet paper, you know, garbage goes,’’ and just push that pressure up to policy makers for 

which that could be looked at more anxious about being on time? 

Ms. MATYAS. The citing that you mentioned of the importance of 

youth being the active engagers of the adults in decision-making 

roles is an important element of many of the programs referenced 

here. The need, as you identified, can be achieved, as we have seen, 

with recycling and other efforts by expanding an education effort 

at elementary, middle, and high school levels to raise the education 

level—that knowledge and inspire and equip kids to actually urge 

their adults in their lives to make a difference. We have seen a 

number of cases—college students, for example—actually coming to 

Washington, D.C., to raise concern about their future and empowerment. 

In addition, coalitions among conservation, education, jobs, and 

other organizations is an important element. A number of the efforts at National Wildlife Federation engaged at a state and national level is enhanced by unlikely partners at all of these junctures, again, to raise awareness to equip children, to equip educators to understand the problems, to understand science and math 

and then to understand the changes that can be brought about as 

a result. 

Mr. HONDA. And the greater media of the print and electronics? 

I am not sure that we see enough of instructional kinds of information that is coming out that should make us stop chopping vegetables and looking at what is going on. 

Ms. MATYAS. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Are there activities within these programs that we 

are looking at that move towards more instruction of the community here that we have? 

Ms. MATYAS. Absolutely. In fact, one of the programs that is an 

international program that National Wildlife Federation and over 

250 schools are a part of in this country just in the last several 

months, it’s called Eco Schools. I can submit a formal record of the 

program. 

But it is a program that requires involvement of the school, of 

a portion of the student body—50 percent of the organizing comVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
203 

mittee for each of these schools needs to be made up of students. 

The other portion is administration, parents, and members of the 

community. And it is all about raising awareness, doing energy audits, curriculum development, to not only improve the school’s 

knowledge, curriculum, energy use, but of the entire community. 

There is an education benefit. There is a community organizing 

benefit. There are absolutely cost savings benefits from energy and 

water use that those schools, then, can reapply and reinvest actually in curriculum and educator training and other needs. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. 

Ms. MATYAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HONDA. It just seems like more activity needs to be done to 

integrate all the stuff so that we’re not compartmentalizing our instruction, our activities but trying to bring it together so that when 

we say ‘‘STEM’’, it is not only engineers, it is every child should 

have that understanding so that they become a more conscious consumer of goods and information. 

Ms. MATYAS. We share that belief. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. Having said that, we are going to go 

smaller, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular 

Biology, Mr. Gregory Petsko. You all got different names on. Is that 

a requirement in science? 

Mr. PETSKO. No, but it probably ought to be. 

Mr. HONDA. Welcome, Gregory. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BIOCHEMISTRY AND 

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 

WITNESS 

GREGORY A. PETSKO, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR BIOCHEMISTRY AND 

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
204 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 341 here 57370A.121
205 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 342 here 57370A.122
206 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 343 here 57370A.123
207 

Mr. PETSKO. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. For those of 

you unfamiliar with my society, it represents about 12,000 scientists and students from every state in the Union. It is a member 

of FACEB. You’ll be hearing from them shortly. 

I am honored to be here to express our strong support for the 

President’s request for the National Science Foundation for fiscal 

year 2011. Since in the overall budget so many agencies and programs have received much smaller increases than the NSF or none 

at all, we are encouraged that the Administration’s continuing to 

demonstrate that it understands how important science is as an 

underpinning for the country’s continued economic growth and 

prosperity. Nevertheless, we hope the Congress will view the President’s request as a floor, not a ceiling when considering funding 

levels for the agency in the coming months. 

ASBMB considers NSF to be one of the most underfunded agencies in the Federal Government. NSF funds the majority of academic research in a wide variety of disciplines. NSF sponsored research gave us the laser, gave us the whole field of nanotechnology. 

I could give you lots of other examples. 

NSF also receives far more proposals than it can possibly fund. 

For example, in fiscal year 2009, NSF was able to fund about 

25,000 research grants, and that is about a 28 percent success rate. 

That means about one in four research grants were funded. And, 

of course, that includes stimulus money for that year. And NSF 

projects that in 2011 the agency will fund about 39,600 research 

grants, and although that is an increase over what the agency 

funded in 2009, the success rate actually drops to 20 percent, only 

one in five applicants getting funded. Thus there is a huge group 

of researchers out there who could be funded if money were available. Sadly, unless Congress acts, this tremendous pool of American talent is going to languish. 

We are, of course, very appreciative that the President has pro- posed an almost eight percent increase, almost $500 million dollars, bringing the NSF budget to $7.424 billion; however, in a perfect world, and we all know there is no such thing, we would like 

to see the budget increased to 7.68 billion to conform to the recommendation of FASEB, which, again you’ll hear about in a moment. This would allow funding several programs we believe need 

additional support. 

ASBMB usually views the NSF budget as a whole since our 

members receive funding from a number of different programs, not 

just the Biological Sciences Directorate. Nevertheless, we are 

pleased that that directorate goes up almost as much as the agency 

overall, because certain programs within Bio are even more underfunded than the agency as a whole. 

The Chemistry Division of the Mathematics and Physical 

Sciences Directorate fairs somewhat less well. The President proposed less than a six percent increase there. We hope Congress can 

make sure this division gets a little bit more money when the agency budget is finalized. 

However, the two areas where we consider it vital that adjustments be made are in education and human resources and major 

research instrumentation. The President’s proposing only a 2.2 percent increase for education and human resources in 2011. You have 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
208 

heard from two previous witnesses about the importance of education. I don’t have to go into other reasons why science education 

is so important. And these have been detailed by reports that go 

back to the 1980’s and are called things like ‘‘A Nation at Risk’’ 

and ‘‘The Gathering Storm.’’ They have been most recently described in ‘‘Above the Gathering Storm.’’ It’s sad that the problems 

that were so eloquently inscribed in those reports are still with us 

in large measure, and it is our hope that we, as a nation, can actually begin to provide a level of funding for science education that 

does justice to its importance. Speaking personally, I love doing research, but training the next generation of scientists is the most 

important thing I do. 

A second area where we have got concern is flat funding for the 

major research instrumentation program. Funding for advanced instrumentation in most universities is in serious trouble, and instrumentation is vital for a robust research enterprise. We hope Congress can address this problem, as well, when it writes the final 

budget. 

Finally, we want to encourage NSF, as it studies how to spend 

this increase, to avoid the siren song of new initiatives that have 

grandiose names, but in the end merely serve to take money away 

from what we think is NSF’s strength, the core research funding 

found in its various programs, divisions, and directorates. These 

core research programs may not seem as glamorous and they may 

not sound as new, but they are where the vital work of this agency, 

fostering innovation and creating new knowledge and new industries, is best exemplified and carried out. 

But to summarize, Congressman Honda, our overall impression 

of the President’s proposed NSF budget is good. But the increases 

are needed and welcome. We certainly applaud the President for 

finding the money for an increase in these extraordinarily difficult 

budgetary times. That said, we hope Congress can do a little better 

in the areas I mentioned to build upon the momentum created by 

the stimulus package in 2009 and 2010. We risk frittering away 

those gains, otherwise. 

I am happy to take any questions you have. Thanks. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. And I think you have described some of 

the aftermath of non-attention that has gone on. I have been here 

since 2001. So I think it started somewhere around there where the 

attention and the resources and funding have dissipated or went to 

zero. And I think that the President has taken the opportunity to 

indicate where his priorities are by putting real money and showing that—and I think that it is good that we keep saying, ‘‘But it 

is still not enough.’’ 

You mentioned ‘‘Nation at Risk’’ and ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm,’’ both which concluded that our students are not 

achieving compared to the other countries. I would like your reaction to this comment. First of all, neither one of them went into the 

characteristic of the population that we are looking at. They have 

not looked at the changes that our country has gone through and 

adjustments we have made. Third, and we end up keeping the 

pressure on the victims that we have identified as being the perpetrators of that. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
209 

Where is that change? And you said ‘‘level of funding.’’ Where 

does ‘‘level of funding’’ work in this whole picture of trying to address our youngsters’ educational experience? 

Mr. PETSKO. To be honest with you, I might have written those 

reports a little differently, because I think we need to distinguish 

more than we sometimes do between training the next generation 

of scientists, which is very important, and increased science literacy for the general population, which I actually think is even 

more important and which gets short shrift. 

I think making the general population more literate is something 

that needs to be done early in K–12 and high school education. But 

I also think that all aspects of science, both scientific literacy for 

the general population and training our next generation of scientists, depend most heavily on people getting a hands-on experience with what it is like to do science as early as possible. If they 

have not gotten it by the time they get to college, they ought to get 

it there, because it is only in the doing of science that you really 

understand what makes it what it is and that you gain an appreciation for its power as a way of finding out things about the world. 

I work on trying to cure Parkinson’s and Lou Gherig’s Disease. 

And in my lab there are 22 senior scientists, graduate students and 

post-doctorates. Working alongside them are 15 undergraduates— 

freshmen, sophomores, juniors, seniors, and that is much more important than actually training the graduate students and post-docs, 

getting those 15 undergraduates hands-on experience with doing 

research. I couldn’t do that if NSF didn’t give us money to fund 

those students in the summer months, for example. 

That is the sort of thing that an agency like NSF can do at the 

individual level. When you get down into the lower grades, it is a 

much tougher problem. Not working in that educational sphere, I 

hesitate to offer a comment, except that my own belief is that it 

is only hands-on doing of science that really gives people an appreciation for what it is all about. 

Mr. HONDA. And thank you. I would agree with you on that. It 

could be re-written in a different way. And a discussion on the facilities our youngsters have been taught in, I am wondering whether that is not archaic, that is not keeping up with the times and 

the way we learn anyway. And with nano coming along, we learned 

that things change when you get too small, even characteristics. So 

the rules change. All that—simple principles to understand is not 

being reflected, I think, in the way we take our instruction and try 

to have that daily instruction work so that youngsters are not awed 

into thinking that it is too complicated, but rather the daily occurrence that you only understood—— 

Mr. PETSKO. I actually agree with you. I think we need to 

rethink the way we talk about these things in an educational 

sense. I teach freshman chemistry, which as the biggest course on 

campus, has hundreds of pre-meds. And I could teach that course 

with exactly the same book and exactly the same notes that I used 

when I took the course 40 years ago. That is not right. We have 

got to change that. And I have, in fact, been part of a committee 

formed by the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes and the American Association of Medical Colleges trying to figure out how to 

change that. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
210 

We have got to fix that, because as you say, the things that have 

happened have changed the way we think about things, the way 

we talk about things, the way we do things. Our education of scientists is not reflecting that as fast as we need to be. Our education of lay people in science is not reflecting that. 

Mr. HONDA. We demand our technology to be agile, but we don’t 

demand that of our public education system. 

Mr. PETSKO. Well put. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you so much. I appreciate your thoughts and 

your insights. 

Mr. PETSKO. Thanks for listening. 

Mr. HONDA. The American Society of Plant Biologists. Now we 

are going to get more specific. Sally Mackenzie. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS 

WITNESS 

SALLIE A. MACKENZIE, Ph.D., AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
211 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 353 here 57370A.124
212 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 354 here 57370A.125
213 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 355 here 57370A.126
214 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 356 here 57370A.127
215 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I, likewise, am here to express gratitude for the funding 

proposed for the National Science Foundation. And I appreciate the 

opportunity to speak. 

So I am Sallie Mackenzie. I am a professor of plant genetics and 

the Director for the Center for Plant Science Innovation at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. And I am here today representing the 

American Society for Plant Biologists. In my own career, the National Science Foundation has had tremendous impact not only in 

providing research funding to my own lab over the past 20 years, 

as well as allowing us to sponsor professional meetings of members 

of our research group, but, most importantly, by insisting without 

compromise on a U.S. scientific research environment that is both 

diverse and inclusive of women at all levels. 

The ASPB, American Society for Plant Biologists, is an organization of more than 5,000 researchers, educators, graduate students, 

post-doctoral scientists, not only in the 50 states, but throughout 

the world. Our mission is to promote the growth of plant biology, 

communicate research in plant biology, promote the interests of 

plant scientists in general, and although many of our members are 

focused on plants, basic plant research, we are keenly aware of the 

applied ramifications of our findings. 

As you realize, plants are vital to our very existence in providing 

food, feed, the oxygen that we breathe. But research in plant biology is making fundamental contributions in sustainable development of better food, fabrics, building materials, currently our fuel 

security, our environmental stewardship, and in understanding 

basic biological principals that underpin improvements in health 

and nutrition and all Americans. 

But the amount of funding invested in basic plant research is relatively small when compared with the impact this research has on 

the multi-billion dollar sectors of our nation’s economy, primarily 

in energy and agriculture. The fiscal year 2011 NSF budget overview released in February would fund the NSF at $7.4 billion in 

fiscal year 2011, and ASPB enthusiastically supports this request 

and encourages proportional funding increases across all of the 

science disciplines supported by NSF. 

The NSF Directorate of Biological Sciences, known as BIO, is a 

critical source of funding for non-biomedical research. It supports 

discoveries ranging from molecules to cells, ecosystems to biosphere. Within BIO the plant genome research program has profoundly influenced our understanding of bio-fuel crop, human nutrition, the impact of climate change on agriculture, the roles of 

plants in ecosystems. 

ASPB asks that the plant genome research program continue to 

be in separate funding lines within the NSF budget as in years 

past, and that sustained funding growth continue for this program. 

We also ask that the PGRP be funded at the highest possible level 

in fiscal year 2011. 

NSF is also a major source of funding for the education and 

training of American scientific workforce. NSF education portfolio 

impacts students at all levels in the science pipeline, as you were 

hearing just a minute ago, and also offers programs focused on outreach and engagement of under-represented groups. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
216 

ASPB encourages further development of the NSF education and 

training program, such as post-doctoral research fellowships in biology, graduate research fellowships, faculty early career development programs. ASPB is committed to cultivating success in underrepresented groups in plant biology; therefore, it is important to us 

that NSF maintain strong support for programs dedicated to broadening participation. With this in mind, we have concerns about the 

proposed consolidation of minority serving programs into the comprehensive broadening participation of undergraduates in the 

STEM program. If this new program does move forward, we would 

like that the Subcommittee consider insuring distinct funding 

amounts for Hispanic serving institutions, historically black colleges and universities, and tribal colleges and universities within 

the comprehensive program to insure that these institutions remain key producers of members of the STEM workforce. 

Finally, if the Subcommittee oversees the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy appropriations, ASPB asks that the 

Subcommittee direct OSTP to coordinate interagency development 

and implementation of a strategy to address the recommendations 

made in the National Research Council’s report entitled, ‘‘A New 

Biology for the Twenty-first Century, Insuring the United States 

Lead the Coming Biology Revolution’’. The report accurately lays 

out the current status, potential, and challenges for new biology, 

and how increased efforts in these areas can address major societal 

and environmental challenges. The NSF has a critical role to play 

in an interagency strategy initiative in this area, as do other agencies, including the Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Institutes of Health. 

So to conclude, sustained funding growth for the NSF and its biodirectorates is of critical importance to the plant biology community and ASPB members. The promise of such funding growth 

would lend encouragement to the hardworking undergraduate, 

graduate students in my own lab and across the country to continue on in science. But, more importantly, support for the NSF ultimately will lead to promising discoveries with vital applications 

to energy independence for this country, human health, agriculture 

and our environment, which will also help assure America’s competitiveness. 

Thank you for listening to my remarks. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, thank you for sharing your remarks. You had 

a comment there that you were recommending a separate funding 

for an activity. I forgot what the activity was, but—— 

Ms. MACKENZIE. For the plant genome research program. 

Mr. HONDA. And why is that? 

Ms. MACKENZIE. The plant genome research program was the 

program that was initially envisioned to allow us to do a lot of the 

genomics research and up to date that has meant a comprehensive 

sequencing of the genomes of many of our major crop plants. The 

corn genome, the soybean genome, all emerged from that program. 

The amount of information and the power that comes from that information, the scientific power, is immense per dollar spent. So it 

has been extremely productive and valuable for the plant science 

community in allowing us to understand and identify the genes 

that are going to be critical components for improvement of our 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
217 

crops, both for biofuels, as well as for water use efficiency, as well 

as for nutrition. 

Mr. HONDA. Should I just move my mouth? I was just wondering 

if you had any thoughts on arabidopsis information? Whatever the 

hell that means. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Thank you for bringing that up, because that is 

an important issue. 

Mr. HONDA. No, I am only messing with you. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. So the thing is that when we began the plant 

genome program, of course there is an immense amount of information that derives when we do genomics research—— 

Mr. HONDA. Right. 

Ms. MACKENZIE [continuing]. Just like the human genome. And 

this has been a critical need. Where do we keep that information? 

How do we store it? And how do we disseminate it as quickly as 

possible? The problem is that right now we have a certain amount 

of funding to get the initial data, but there is not sustained funding 

to maintain those databases that allow that recurrent access to all 

of the scientists, essentially of the world, who need access to those 

data. So it is critical both that arabidopsis research continue, 

arabidopsis is the model plant species we sequenced first, it actually is the model that we used to, it would be like a mouse for 

studying the human genome. It is the model that tells us the most 

fundamental information about plants. 

Mr. HONDA. I thought it was the fruit fly. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. It would be very similar to the fruit fly in studying animal biology. And understanding how to maintain these databases is going to be critical. I mean it is, if we lose that information 

once we have gained it, or if we cannot disseminate it quickly, then 

we essentially impede the ability to be innovative, as innovative as 

possible. 

Mr. HONDA. So you are saying that we do not have a method? 

Or we just do not have a place? 

Ms. MACKENZIE. We do not have a mandate for sustainable funding to allow that to continue. So we have the database in place. 

There is widespread dissemination of information. But there is a 

critical concern that that requires sustained funding to allow that 

database to be maintained year in, year out, and to be infused with 

new data, with the new innovations, with new collections of information that will sustain it and implement and broaden our understanding as we go further. 

We started out with genome sequence. We moved to protein collections. We have now moved to metabolic collections of information. These are huge collections of information and the database, 

maintaining a database that will integrate that information is 

going to be critical to the whole piece. And then remember that we 

are integrating not only arabidopsis, corn data, soybean data, there 

are a lot of plants out there that we care about economically in this 

country. 

Mr. HONDA. And so maintaining all that data, you are saying 

that we have to have sustainable funding for the activities—— 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. That create that data. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
218 

Ms. MACKENZIE. And part and parcel to that will be to maintaining the infrastructure for the data—— 

Mr. HONDA. So you do not want to separate the data storage and 

maintenance from the creation of more information. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. That is correct. But in addition, if you were to 

simply fund NSF without mentioning the plant genome program 

then there is nothing that actually even directs the effort toward 

either the production of those data or the maintenance of it, which 

is why we ask for it to be a separate line. 

Mr. HONDA. Is there any place where we can place all this scientific information, whether it be the plant, or the information you 

are talking about, whether it is stem information that we gather 

from the grass that we gave out, because we do not have that either. Is there one massive repository of information where scientists, and students, or the general community can access that information, or is that—— 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Is that what we would need? Or we just want something that—— 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA [continuing]. Is more specific? 

Ms. MACKENZIE. So the databases are in place, they grow daily. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. And they are integrated. You can find human 

genome data and fruit fly genome data and plant genome data all 

available. However, it is the maintaining of that process, those 

databases have to be funded each year. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. It sounds like, the President has committees 

that probably can advise him to do that also, and have something 

from the, his committees that advise him on, like, OSTP, and other 

committees that get together and hit him with it. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Yes. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. True. But here we are discussing the funding to 

NSF and that critical line item is important. 

Mr. HONDA. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Ms. MACKENZIE. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. We appreciate it. Federation of American Societies 

for Experimental Biology, Dr. William Talman. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR 

EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY 

WITNESS 

DR. WILLIAM T. TALMAN, PRESIDENT-ELECT 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
219 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 368 here 57370A.128
220 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 369 here 57370A.129
221 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 370 here 57370A.130
222 

Dr. TALMAN. Thank you, Mr. Honda. Thanks very much. I really 

appreciate having an opportunity to testify before you, and to represent FASEB. And through this opportunity to reach the Subcommittee and the general Committee as well. FASEB, if you do 

not know, is a society, a federation of twenty-three biomedical scientific societies, with 90,000 members. FASEB’s members really 

sincerely appreciate your ongoing commitment to innovation and 

science, and we respectfully request a fiscal year 2011 budget for 

the National Science Foundation of $7.68 billion. And as Greg 

Petsko commented a few moments ago, that is a bit above what the 

President has recommended, or requested, and we applaud that request. But for the following reasons we support a higher number. 

As a biomedical science and neurologist practicing medicine at a 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical center and at a university 

hospital, I come before you in full support of adequate funding for 

all fields of science, not just biomedical science which I represent. 

It is abundantly clear to me that the work we do in medicine and 

in life sciences in general has been tremendously enriched by discoveries in physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering. And 

I am pleased to join my colleague, Professor Kate Kirby, who will 

present in a few moments from the American Physical Society, in 

appearing before you to support NSF today. 

The rapid development of imaging techniques, including magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and computerized tomography all were supported through NSF, and they 

are examples of an intersection between medicine, biomedical research, and the physical sciences. For example, magnetic resonance 

imaging, or MRI, has revolutionized my own specialty neurology as 

it has many others. The use of MRI has saved lives, it has improved care, and it has led to reduction in costs that have prevented unnecessary surgery. It has also led to the prevention of unnecessary admissions to hospital. It expedites therapeutic intervention and thus can lead to both diagnosis and care at an earlier time 

of disease. 

In addition, NSF in conjunction with the Department of Energy—and this is an example of its ongoing rather than past 

achievements—and in collaboration with the National Eye Institute, has helped to fund a team of ophthalmologists. Forgive me, 

but just without making the assumption, eye doctors, okay? Engineers, and neuroscientists to create the first ever artificial retina. 

This device is able to restore some sight to those who have lost vision due to retinal disease. By 2011 the research team expects to 

start clinical testing on a version that will allow for reading and 

face recognition with this artificial retina. 

Last year Congress provided a generous and much needed investment in science when it included the NSF in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The legislation allowed federal science 

agencies to start groundbreaking research projects, to upgrade facilities and equipment at research institutions across the U.S. And 

furthermore, the ARRA funding expanded the scope of important 

ongoing research. The majority of the ARRA allocation for NSF was 

spent on high quality research proposals for which funding was not 

previously available. And these awards supported projects related 

to nanotechnology, which you Mr. Chairman have mentioned, cliVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00222 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
223 

mate change, and the development of new drug delivery systems. 

Past experience tells us these funded projects will expand job opportunities and foster commercial activity through the broader 

economy. 

Timely, valuable, and in great demand, ARRA funds are doing 

much to advance knowledge in all fields of science. However, unless 

preparations are made to continue this support, many of the newly 

funded research projects will be halted, and jobs will be terminated. To truly fulfill the promise of our investment we must renew 

our commitment to sustained, predictable growth in research funding rather than the ups and downs. This is an essential element 

in restoring and maintaining both national and local economic 

growth and vitality, as well a maintaining this nation’s prominence 

as the world leader in science and technology. 

The competition to receive a research grant from NSF is fierce. 

It has already been mentioned by Greg Petsko. But that is for good 

reason. NSF has a history of identifying scientific talent very early 

in its development, and funding some of the most promising research and research investigators in this country. For example, 187 

U.S. and U.S.-based researchers who have won a Nobel Prize were 

funded by NSF early in their careers. 

NSF is also committed to achieving excellence in science, technology, and engineering, and math education, STEM if you will, 

and supports a wide variety of initiatives aimed at preparing 

science teachers, which you have already heard about, developing 

innovative curricula, and training the next generation of scientists. 

For example, the Integrated Graduate Research and Training, or 

IGRT program, supports doctoral degree programs that foster collaborative and interdisciplinary training in emerging scientific domains. IGRT trainees have produced several important breakthroughs already, including more efficient fuel cells, one of the first 

steps toward sustainable and renewable energy generation, as well 

as rehabilitation methods to speed recovery of patients who have 

experienced a stroke. 

Since it was established in 1950, NSF has funded and fueled innovation, energized the economy, and improved health and quality 

of life for all Americans. In the years ahead, funding for NSF will 

allow the agency to accelerate discovery, promote transformational, 

interdisciplinary research projects, and foster innovative approaches to science education and training at all levels. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB’s support for the 

National Science Foundation. I would be happy to answer any 

questions, but I appreciate both your attention and that of the 

staff. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. And since you 

mentioned Dr. Kirby, we will bring her on with the American Physical Society, and then if there are questions for the both of you we 

will direct them to both of you. 

Dr. TALMAN. Indeed. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. Good afternoon. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
224 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY 

WITNESS 

KATE KIRBY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
225 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 378 here 57370A.131
226 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 379 here 57370A.132
227 

Ms. KIRBY. Good afternoon. Mr. Honda and other members of the 

Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am 

the Executive Officer of the American Physical Society, which represents 48,000 physicists in universities, industry, and national 

laboratories. I am pleased to have the opportunity to thank you in 

person for your past support of the National Science Foundation. 

As a former member of academia and a research physicist myself, I can speak personally about the critical role NSF plays in advancing the frontiers of American science and in training America’s 

next generation of scientists. Here, I will concentrate on two salient 

issues. The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for NSF, 

and a problem I see looming on the horizon for NSF in fiscal year 

2012, which this Committee could ameliorate in the fiscal year 

2011 appropriations bill. 

For fiscal year 2011 I am heartened by the administration’s continued commitment to doubling the budgets of the NSF, the DOE’s 

Office of Science, and the core programs of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. This plan has drawn strong bipartisan support. That is no accident. Science and technology have 

been the drivers of America’s economic growth ever since the end 

of World War II. For decades we have led the world in discovery 

and innovation, so much so that we have become complacent in our 

primacy. 

But today, as you well know, other nations are catching up, and 

in some cases surpassing us. To sustain our economic growth and 

to keep high skilled jobs within our borders, we must commit ourselves to educating the scientific workforce of the future and to providing the young scientists of today with the resources they need 

to keep our nation competitive at the scientific frontiers. The President’s proposed budget would keep us on track to do just that. His 

requested increase of 6.4 percent for NSF, especially within a budget that keeps much discretionary domestic spending frozen at fiscal 

year 2010 levels, reflects the importance of the Foundation’s role 

in achieving those goals. I urge the Committee to support the 

President’s request. 

However, I must express my concern about the wide disparity in 

the funding recommendations among the Foundation’s different directorates. While I appreciate the government’s need to focus 

science on compelling national technology needs, I believe NSF 

nonetheless must adhere to its primary mission to support basic 

science, mathematics and engineering across all disciplines in academia. The proposed budget, which contains a disproportionately 

large increase for engineering, could substantially alter the balance 

of NSF’s programming. I believe that this deserves significant scrutiny and debate before it is implemented. 

I am pleased, however, that the President’s request provides a 

stronger NSF focus on the biological sciences to help fill gaps in a 

critical area of research not addressed by the programming at the 

NIH. 

Let me now turn to a concern about future NSF budgets. As this 

Committee knows, NSF allocated $2 billion of ARRA money to new 

grants, most of which support the training of graduate students. In 

accord with the terms of the Recovery Act, grantees received threeyear funding up front with no commitment for future year continuVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00227 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
228 

ation. Today it is only the rare graduate student who is able to 

complete his or her research in the three years or less. If an ARRA 

grant ends precipitously, as the three-year term suggests it will, 

many graduate students will face serious disruptions in the support of their education. 

To address the issue, NSF has suggested that it will need substantial new resources in the fiscal year 2012 budget far beyond 

even a 7 percent or a 10 percent increase. In a severely constrained 

fiscal climate I am concerned that adequate funding will not materialize. Therefore, as my predecessor recommended to this Committee last year for fiscal year 2010, I urge that $300 million to 

$500 million of the increases in the fiscal year 2011 NSF funding 

be devoted to one shots, such as new faculty laboratory renovation, 

rather than new three-year grants. 

Although such an approach will not help reduce the current problem of unacceptably low proposal acceptance rates, it will alleviate 

the shortfall the Foundation will face in fiscal year 2012 for grant 

continuations. And the precipitous shortfall in my mind is the more 

important issue. 

In closing, let me again express my appreciation for the Committee’s strong support for the NSF and for science at NASA and 

NIST. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I 

would be glad to answer questions. 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you. The consistent admonition I hear is 

thank you for doubling the funding, keep it up, and with the ARRA 

it is an opportunity to sort of inject some monies that have not 

been there for a long time. And you are looking at the fourth year, 

and I think that that is wise. And I think that this is an opportunity for them to also figure out how they are going to be adjusting their game table so that these things will not just be a one-time 

shot but, you know, there will be some sustainability there. And I 

hope that while we are getting to the third year, we will have the 

financial picture of our country somewhat in order so that we can 

start really looking at some serious long term funding. So I appreciate that. 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Richard 

Anthes. 

You were not a weather forecaster, were you, on TV, or anything 

else like that? 

Mr. ANTHES. Yes, I am an old weather forecaster, a former 

weather forecaster. I can still do a pretty good job. It is nice to see 

you again. 

Mr. HONDA. Welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC 

RESEARCH 

WITNESS 

RICHARD ANTHES, PRESIDENT 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
229 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 386 here 57370A.133
230 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 387 here 57370A.134
231 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 388 here 57370A.135
232 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 389 here 57370A.136
233 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 390 here 57370A.137
234 

Mr. ANTHES. Thanks for inviting me, Mr. Honda. Nice to see you, 

Dixon, you are looking good. My name is Richard Anthes and I am 

President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 

or UCAR, a consortium of seventy-five North American universities 

that serve the atomospheric and geosciences research community 

and university community. This is our fiftieth birthday as well, we 

have heard other birthdays. And since 1960 UCAR has managed 

the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, under support of the National Science Foundation and more recently other 

agencies. 

On behalf of the atmospheric sciences community represented by 

UCAR, I along with my colleagues who have just recently testified 

here, strongly support the President’s 2011 request for NSF, 

NOAA, and NASA. This would be record investments in Earth 

sciences, thereby ensuring that the U.S. stays at the forefront of innovative research and operational systems that are essential for 

the health of our planet and our citizens. 

Jobs in Earth sciences, supported by Earth sciences, are some of 

the most highly leveraged in this country. The return is many fold 

in areas of technology, innovative products, and tools that help 

solve societal problems. And as others have testified, and is pretty 

obvious, science is essential to the country’s long term economic recovery. So I urge the Committee also to support the President’s request for the National Science Foundation budget as authorized by 

the America Competes Act. 

NSF’s Geosciences Directorate provides over 60 percent of the 

university-based basic research in geosciences, or Earth sciences. 

And this broad and diverse academic field contributes knowledge 

that is absolutely necessary to understanding climate change. And 

yes, Mr. Chairman, climate change is real. It is getting more certain as every year passes. And if you want to ask me a question 

later that you asked one of the earlier witnesses about educating 

the public and how can we do better, I might have an answer. 

But there is also, in addition to climate change, the immediate 

impacts of extreme weather, water resources, dynamics of water resources, solar effects on Earth, space weather effects, and so on. 

And as we have been reminded by geologic hazards around the 

world, it seems like this year is going to be a record year for earthquakes in all different parts of the world. 

Regarding NASA, we understand that the administration has 

had to make some tough choices, and in this budget those choices 

have been made. Until I read the President’s 2011 budget I was, 

as Chairman of the NRC Decadal Survey along with Berrien 

Moore, discouraged about our country’s commitment to Earth 

sciences. But the fiscal year 2011 budget for NASA’s science account, particularly the request for Earth sciences, cheers me up 

greatly. It brings us closer than others to being able to achieve the 

goals that we set forth in the decadal survey. 

So I urge you to support the President’s $1.8 billion request for 

NASA’s Earth sciences, including the $170 million to relaunch the 

orbiting carbon observatory, which as you know failed on launch 

about a year ago. 

I also urge you to fully fund the President’s $2.2 billion request 

for NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite Data and InformaVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00234 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
235 

tion Service, or NESDIS, including the $1.06 billion request for the 

new joint polar satellite system which was previously the civilian 

component of NPOESS. And given NOAA’s new responsibilities 

NESDIS will need to sustain this elevated level of funding into the 

near future so that it can fix the problems with our operational satellite system that have plagued us for many years. I think they are 

moving on the right track now. 

Regarding the creation of NOAA’s climate services, UCAR supports NOAA’s plan to restructure its existing climate programs. 

And we are working with the agency to ensure that the new service 

takes full advantage of the atmospheric science observational systems, datasets, models, housed at NCAR and other places. 

Mr. HONDA. To take advantage of your last minute, why do you 

not address yourself to what can we do better? 

Mr. ANTHES. On climate change education? 

Mr. HONDA. Yeah. 

Mr. ANTHES. Well, I have been thinking about this. And there 

have probably been thousands of power point slides given around 

the world describing why we know climate is changing and why it 

is warming. And so that is almost overkill. So I tried to say, ‘‘Well 

if I had only three slides and ten minutes to convince an educated 

person like yourself, but who is not a climate scientist, what three 

slides, in ten minutes; and how would I use those three slides in 

ten minutes?’’ 

And I came up with three slides, and I can do it in ten minutes 

but not today. If you have ten minutes of your time sometime in 

the future I would be happy to try it out on you. But the essence 

is that the observations, the most compelling one is the observations of sea surface change, ocean temperatures are increasing over 

the last twenty-five years. And the oceans do not lie. They do not 

care about a cold winter in Washington, or a big snowstorm somewhere. They integrate the effects of warming over the entire Earth. 

And there are only two ways that the oceans can, the sea level can 

rise. Sea level can rise by a warming ocean, because the water expands, and melting glaciers over land. And both of those are occurring. And so that is one of the three slides, and I do not have time 

to describe the others. 

But I think somehow being able to talk to the public—the public 

is the ultimate policy maker—that is what we need to do to communicate this very real scientific fact and the impacts it will be 

having on future generations. Thank you. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, I would be interested in the three slides. And 

with that, I will turn the microphone and the chair over to Congressman Ehlers. And we will take a short break, and then you 

have the gavel. Oh, you are going to come and testify? Ah, I am 

sorry. 

Mr. EHLERS. Do you want to put me on the Committee? 

Mr. HONDA. By the way, Dr. Ehlers is one of the supporters of 

the many things that we want to see happen. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, and just in connection with the previous 

speaker, it occurred to me that a good campaign for my district 

would be that I want climate change in the sense that your district’s weather would come to my district. That would be very popular in Michigan. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
236 

Mr. HONDA. In the words of anti-obesity, fat chance. No, we love 

to share, do we not? Yeah. 

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. Yes, right. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

TESTIMONY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

WITNESS 

HON. VERN EHLERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
237 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 398 here 57370A.138
238 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 399 here 57370A.139
239 

Mr. EHLERS. I thank you very much for squeezing me in. The 

schedule has been very tough today and I appreciate you taking 

the time. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

you, and as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Research 

and Science Education, which we spent all morning at a hearing 

on, and as a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, I work with my colleagues to support and strengthen several agencies of great importance to our nation’s technological innovation capacity. The core of that capacity depends on basic research. And I believe a vigorous research base is crucial to our national economic security. And given enough time I could certainly 

justify that broad statement. 

But to that end I ask you to give high priority to scientific research and development, as well as math and science education in 

fiscal year 2011 by funding the National Science Foundation at 

$7.4 billion; the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

better known as NIST, at $950 million; and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA, at $5.6 

billion. For NSF and NIST these amounts would continue a doubling path for funding for these agencies that was established as 

early as 2006. 

I do not need to remind you that in the early 1990’s we did that, 

established a doubling path for National Institutes of Health, and 

the Congress has carried that through over the years. The point is 

simply that they have reached the plateau after the doubling. But 

there are other areas, particularly NSF and NIST, that also needed 

doubling, and the Congress and the President have both recognized 

that by establishing doubling levels. 

I recognize that these are large increases at a time when the outlook for many other agencies and programs is significantly more 

austere in fiscal year 2011. I believe this sustained commitment to 

basic research and education will be more challenging this year 

than ever before, but I sincerely thank this Subcommittee for sharing this commitment in the past. 

Let us discuss NSF in more detail. Since 2006 the administration 

and many members of Congress have sought to put the scientific 

research agencies on a budget doubling path. The timeline of this 

doubling has varied from five to ten years, but there has been common agreement that sustained funding increases for science and 

engineering are directly tied to our national economic competitiveness. And also, as I said earlier, you can make a strong case that 

it is also tied directly to our national security. Supporting the NSF 

is critical to maintaining our preeminence in science and technology. NSF investments are aimed at the frontiers of science and 

engineering, where advances in science and technology underpin 

our ability to meet many of the challenges that America faces 

today, including securing the homeland, preventing terrorism, fostering innovation, and economic development, as well as educating 

our children to be able to compete in the knowledge-based global 

economy. $7.4 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2011 will continue this 

important work. In March seventy members of the House signed a 

letter to Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Wolf endorsing 

this request. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
240 

NIST is one of our nation’s most critical science organizations. 

Almost every federal agency and U.S. industry sector uses the 

standards, measurements, and certification services that NIST labs 

provide. The future of many cutting edge technologies depends on 

the research and technical expertise of NIST. My request is that 

you provide $950 million in fiscal year 2011 for NIST. This sum 

would allow for an increase to the manufacturing extension partnership program which helps our small companies compete in the 

global economy. And that program has been very, very important 

to my state, but also to many other states, because they have really 

brought to the forefront the need for improving our manufacturing 

work in this nation and how we can produce products that are competitive worldwide in spite of the difference in wages, just because 

we have the better technology and the better innovation. In the 

economic downturn states like Michigan are struggling to reach the 

state matching requirement to participate in the program. Increasing the federal share of responsibility would help, and that is under 

consideration in the Science Committee right now. 

Finally, I ask that you consider funding NOAA at $5.6 billion for 

fiscal year 2011. This amount will strengthen NOAA’s important 

science forecast and efforts to sustain our oceans and Great Lakes. 

And you heard from the previous witness about the importance of 

the oceans. 

In summary, I respectfully urge you to give high priority to scientific research and development, and math and science education 

in fiscal year 2011, by funding the National Science Foundation at 

$7.4 billion, NIST at $950 million, and NOAA at $5.6 billion. My 

staff and I would be happy to help answer any further questions 

you might have about these priorities as you prepare the Subcommittee’s appropriations bill. Thank you again for allowing me 

to testify today. 

And let me just also relate this to the testimony of the previous 

witness, who was talking about Earth sciences. And it is a very 

personal example, because my son happens to be a geophysicist 

who had done research and taught at the University of Michigan, 

as well as Caltech and the University of Washington. And he recently, this is an example of reverse brain drain. He moved to Germany last summer. Got a better offer, better research facilities, and 

above all more research funding to carry on his research in Germany than he was able to obtain from the National Science Foundation. I am not blaming you or the National Science Foundation 

for my son’s defection, but that, the ability to get appropriate research funding is a very important factor for any scientist. And he 

took advantage of that opportunity. There were other factors there 

as well, which I will not get into. But I just wanted to mention 

that. 

Mr. HONDA. Well, I am sure there will be an opportunity for him 

to come back. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, we hope so. 

Mr. HONDA. And bring back some important work. 

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, right. Well thank you very much for taking 

the time to listen to me. 

[Recess] 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
241 

Mr. KENNEDY [presiding]. Good afternoon, everybody. It is a little 

nicer to be able to sit rather than standing out there. That was my 

call, just so you know. So we will have witnesses speak for about 

four minutes. Do we have a, like, light or anything? Or do we just 

go with the flow? All right, so I am not the bad guy. But if you 

have a prepared statement, obviously we will take that for the 

record. And then Tina, maybe what we can do is have you kick us 

off? 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF FISHERMEN AND THEIR 

COMMUNITIES 

WITNESS 

TINA JACKSON, PRESIDENT 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
242 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 407 here 57370A.140
243 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 408 here 57370A.141
244 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 409 here 57370A.142
245 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 410 here 57370A.143
246 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 411 here 57370A.144
247 

Ms. JACKSON. No problem. First of all, thank you for allowing me 

to testify today. It is in opposition of NOAA’s budget towards the 

fisheries portion of their request. I have submitted my written testimony to the Committee in regards to the figures and the reasons 

why their request should be denied. 

There are some major concerns within the industry that should 

be acknowledged. It is very likely that catch shares, which is the 

portion of the fisheries appropriation that NOAA is asking for, for 

$54 million I believe, will collapse not only the industry but the infrastructure supported by it. It will cause massive job losses on a 

level that have been overlooked by most. 

Forty-two percent of America’s economy comes from coastal communities, just like ours in Rhode Island, across the nation. There 

is no doubt that catch shares are going to consolidate the fishing 

fleets, but also upon the collapse of these coastal communities 

there will be devastating effects on our nation’s economy. Who is 

going to be forced to make up a large portion of that 42 percent 

but every other American across the nation? Every other taxpayer 

that is already burdened enough by these tough economic times. 

Billions upon billions of tax dollars have already been wasted 

over a thirty-three years period of failed management plan after 

failed management plan by their own admission. At what point do 

we say enough is enough? Do we allow them to continue to waste 

more money on this agency? Or do we have a responsibility to 

make the necessary changes to stop the implementation of another 

program that is bound for failure at the cost of the very livelihoods 

of the fishermen and their families. And once that is gone, it will 

not come back. Once a permit is lost, a fishing permit, the fisherman cannot get it back. 

We also must look at the catch share programs from around the 

world that have failed and collapsed the economies of the very 

countries who implemented them, Iceland in particular. They are 

scrambling now at this point to gain control of their fisheries back 

from the corporations that ended up having them due to the privatization. 

The United Nations also deemed catch share as illegal under 

international law, the covenant of civil and political rights, which 

this country recognizes, and signed onto this covenant in 1992. 

Why are we not recognizing this international illegality? 

NOAA and EDF, a corporate minded environmental group, has 

been touting the legalities of Magnuson for years. But there are 

legal standards in Magnuson that they are legally required to adhere to, and they have blatantly disregarded these standards again 

and again with no consequence to their actions. There have been 

several misinformed statements to the congressional committees on 

several issues, such as 95 percent of the northeast fishermen have 

volunteered for this program. If the referendum was held, as Magnuson requires by law, you would see that 95 percent of the fishermen, northeast and Gulf fishermen, are highly opposed to sectors 

and catch shares and are in no way eager to implement this program. 

Also falsely stated is the idea that NOAA’s requested increase is 

needed for observer ship and dockside monitoring for fiscal year 

2011. As every boat owner or permit holder are required to pay in, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
248 

they are required to pay for this portion of the program for 2011 

with the predicted amounts totaling more than $26,000 per year 

per boat, again placing a serious financial burden on an already 

strained profit margin by owners and crew. 

NOAA’s definition of overfishing is this. When vessels are landing more than the species are reproducing. If every stock in American waters is on the increase, as supported by the latest trawl surveys just released, then overfishing is no longer occurring. If overfishing were occurring every stock would be in decline, and that is 

certainly not the case. 

Also with the inevitable privatization of the industry as a whole. 

One only has to look at the Alaskan fisheries already having been 

in catch shares. Since the privatization every stock has been in a 

decline due to the nature of corporate owners to only care about the 

bottom line, the almighty dollar. The consolidation was immediate 

and lost forever, and it is estimated that all the fleets nationwide 

will be consolidated by 50 percent to 75 percent and that is a loss 

that is not acceptable. 

If this administration is so concerned with jobs then why do our 

jobs not count? It will cost the government not a single dime to 

keep fishermen working. And given the questionability on NOAA’s 

science that industry has proven wrong over and over again, it is 

not understandable as to why consolidation of the fleet is necessary. Last year we lost over $500 million in underharvested fish 

in the Northeast alone. 

Also of concern is the huge shift from days at sea to allocations. 

It renders every boat worthless, in the respect that the currency 

was days at sea, it was attached to the boat itself. Now with allocations being attached to the permits, it is completely devaluing the 

property of the owner and said vessels. 

Also, back in the eighties and nineties, the late eighties, early 

nineties, capital construction fund encouraged fishermen and people to buy boats and to go fishing. Not with a ten- or twenty-year 

business plan but with a plan that was meant to be a lifetime and 

into a generation for their sons or possibly selling the business, 

later down the road. Now that business plan can no longer work 

for those who invested the hundreds of thousands of dollars that 

they have in a days at sea program. 

Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All right, thank you. It was very comprehensive 

but maybe we can get into some detail in some of the questions. 

What perhaps is best, as we go through the list of folks who are 

going to be testifying on this issue, and then ask questions that 

will probably pertain to almost everybody’s testimony in some fashion or another. And that way we will get everybody just initially 

up to get their testimony, and then ask everybody to respond in response to these questions that will pertain to everybody’s testimony. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
249 

Mr. KENNEDY. But thank you very much. Well, can we just have 

then the next person who is going to speak on this particular issue? 

Is it Michael? Yeah, Michael. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

LOVE FISHERIES 

WITNESS 

MICHAEL E. LOVE, OWNER 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
250 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 419 here 57370A.145
251 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 420 here 57370A.146
252 

Mr. LOVE. Thank you very much for having me, Congressman 

Kennedy, staff. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about this. I 

would say first of all I am representing Maine here, although I was 

born in St. Luke’s Hospital in New Bedford. My father fished out 

of New Bedford for twenty-odd years, years ago. But anyway, moving along, I am also in opposition to funds being spend on the catch 

shares and so forth. 

Catch shares and the ITQ, which is basically a backdoor way of 

saying ITQ, it may work in some fisheries. Years ago for a while 

I was a captain of factory trawls in the North Pacific. And in that 

fishery, large, far flung fishery, single species type of thing, I guess 

it seems to work better for that situation. 

In New England we have a multispecies fishery, many different 

fish, many different stocks and so forth in the complex. And essentially to make this work each fisherman has to pretty much become 

a Wall Street options trader. We have to try and figure out, you 

know, say sixteen ancillary species. You have got about twenty different things you are trying to figure out, what the various costs 

of those species are going to be. Not to mention what the price of 

diesel fuel might be, and trying to figure all of this out and make 

a business plan is next to impossible. 

Catch shares also tend to favor, because you are doing it on a 

pound by pound basis versus, what we have now is an opportunity, 

a days at sea, a time. You have a time opportunity to fish. If you 

screw up your opportunity to fish, if you are not that skillful, well 

you do not do so well. The fish that you miss, they go on to live 

another day. So what we have right now is basically conservation 

positive. 

Under catch shares, because the larger fish can combine with the 

smaller ones with multiple vessels, and essentially balance their allocations, each little species throughout the fleet, different fish are 

caught in different areas. So a fleet owner, which is why I believe 

this also violates Magnuson, discriminates against individual boat 

folks because they have one boat that can only be in one place at 

one time. The large fleet owner, on the other hand, can balance 

across his fleet his various catch share levels of each species. And 

he can have some boats in an area where there are a lot of stocks, 

and then the other vessels, some other kind of clean up boats in 

yet another area at the same time, and taking down his various 

amounts of species allocation kind of simultaneously. 

I with a single vessel cannot do that because my boat can only 

be in one place at one time. So if I am going to have to work in 

haddock and George’s, and yet I have to keep some of my choke 

species, of say gray sole, that is more of a Gulf of Maine thing. I 

cannot do it simultaneously. I have to first fish one and then the 

other. So anyway, I believe it discriminates against the single boat 

person in favor of the larger one. 

Also, it was also maybe brought up earlier, we are shifting 

money from research, which we need good research. Out of research towards the catch shares. And, in general, I could go on and 

on, many things. I submitted this testimony earlier online. And 

just to say that the catch shares, at least in multispecies in New 

England, is a terribly complicated, expensive system to run. And I 

believe that the vast majority of Maine fishermen, certainly, and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
253 

I believe many up and down the coast, are totally against it. And 

with that I will end my time. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. Well maybe you could stay there, and what 

we could do is just have Tina come up for just a minute. Both of 

you, because you both have the same perspective and it would be 

nice to have both of your input. So the permit would go to a fishing 

operator, not tied to a boat operator? 

Ms. JACKSON. At this present time, yes, I believe that is correct. 

Mr. LOVE. Yes. For instance my permits, I have three permits I 

bought. Each permit is on a boat. I have two little skiffs in the 

backyard. Under government rules, they are both hooked up to the 

satellites at 20,000 synchronous miles above Earth, sending their 

signal, but to be legal that is the way we do it. And they have permits. And I lease the days at sea from those permits over to my 

operative vessel. And I lease from other people, too. So I could at 

least do myself, but other people do that. And with the days at sea 

it runs, that is the way it works. And—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. You know, just to give you an anecdote, and you 

can tell me how this applies. We have seen, one operator in New 

Bedford be the operator for about 85 percent of the commercial 

fishing. They are just, they bring it in, they pack it, they ship it, 

I mean, it is out. But basically they put all the others out of business, okay? I mean, there used to be hundreds and hundreds and 

hundreds of individual fisherman, but now it is one, and it is a big 

profit making corporation. 

Mr. LOVE. I am very familiar with it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. So, then the idea is, what I am interested 

in is the way of life. In Rhode Island amongst the fishermen that 

I represent, it is a way of life, it is a tradition, it is a family heritage. And it is also part of the make up of our state in terms of the 

connection to our state. 

So people want to preserve that way of life. But they are threatened by, that the ocean is the commons. Okay? Everybody has a 

right to the commons. To subsist, to live off of, and to provide for 

their family. But, what we are having is corporate takeover of the 

commons. And that is pushing out the individual’s ability to have, 

to sustain a livelihood. And so I would like you to give me a picture 

as to how this policy takes that concept and furthers it in the 

wrong direction, if you understand what I am saying? 

Mr. LOVE. Well I can—— 

Ms. JACKSON. You want me to go and then you will elaborate? 

Okay, I will give it a shot. 

Basically, the sector that maybe five boats belong to, each individual boat and/or permit holder is allocated a certain portion of 

fish based on their history, no longer on their days at sea. Say one 

person owned 60 percent of that sector’s allocations. What ends up 

happening is it gives them the right to take their 60 percent—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. They can buy up all the permits? One person? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, yeah. There is no cap on stacking. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay, see that is the, that is the thing. 

Ms. JACKSON. That has been a big problem and it has been a big 

concern. And we were at the advisory committee to New England 

Fisheries Management Council on Tuesday in Boston. And a motion was made to recommend a cap on permit stacking. The only 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
254 

problem with that is that if somebody already owned 60 percent of 

their fleet, which has already happened. We are down to the line, 

we have only got two weeks left. They already own it. We cannot 

force them to sell it. What the cap will do is prevent them from 

selling 60 percent all at once. But then again, one corporation could 

have several subsidiaries, and say it was a 10 percent cap. That 

10 percent could go to one corporation, and then the subsidiary 

could get the other 10 percent. So in essence, the corporation will 

still end up owning 60 percent of that particular fishery. So. 

Mr. LOVE. Well I will just say, I will be maybe a little more blunt 

about it. In essence now for a period of time we have had a group 

of companies that are very closely, closely held, and they are represented by a particular New England Fishery Council member 

who basically during this time while he is voting on these things 

and choosing allocation time frames and so forth, has basically 

been amassing the largest single block of quote share out there. 

And this group is a member of a sector of Maine. I am also a member in the sector, and they are probably going to throw me out in 

a little while if they, get the testimony. 

But basically a sector is, it is a group of people. But most people 

do not have a choice. Some of the people pushing the sector concept 

and themselves have made what they call the days at sea common 

pool, the people using still the old system, and made that by design 

so untenable that you are going to fail if you have to stay in the 

common pool. 

So you have no choice but to join a sector. And so I have had to 

join a sector. And essentially a sector, and the problem is the big 

guy in a sector can basically, because his boats by poundage can 

outvote everybody else even, get a boat tomorrow and say, ‘‘Michael, you are done. See you. Bye.’’ Or he might just vote tomorrow 

and it could be anything. Because it is a group that you have to, 

once you are inside the sector it is a wild west. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yeah, right. 

Mr. LOVE. There is no oversight. There is none, and in fact the 

secrecy is amazing, how there is no transparency. It is a terrible, 

terrible way to do things. And so that is what has already happened. And so there needs to be just a huge pause in the whole 

thing until people can really see what is really going on here. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, we will have to move on because I have 

other people to testify. But let me just say, I look forward to following up. You can speak with Ben. And obviously, Adrienne of our 

staff. But as far as I am concerned, and we will work when we 

mark this up, I am going to get to follow up with NOAA. It is absolutely the wrong policy for our country—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. To be privatizing the commons. It 

goes against our Constitution, which is these are the people’s lands, 

it does not belong to anybody. Okay? It is the ocean, it is the land, 

it is the air we breathe. This is not privately held. That is why this 

administration is trying to charge people for the pollution they put 

in the air. Because you know what? That air does not belong to 

anyone. It belongs to all of us. When we breathe it in, and it is 

someone else’s pollution, they have better have paid for that pollution to clean it up. Because it is the byproduct of a production procVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
255 

ess. It is not free when they get to dump their garbage into the air. 

Just like it is not free when someone gets to go out there and buy 

up the whole market, so to speak, of what is able to be caught. And 

then my fishermen do not get to go out there and fish because 

there are not enough permits left to go out there and subsist in a 

livelihood because of a market that is rigged against them, to be 

able to have a livelihood. And we ran into this with the lobstering 

in my state just a couple of years ago. They capped it. You know, 

you had generations of college kids being able to come back and 

over the course of a summer be able to just go out there and throw 

traps out and lobster. They capped the number of traps the average 

person could throw out. It did away with this whole notion of a 

whole summer opportunity for kids. 

Ms. JACKSON. Just like they are actually looking to cut our effort 

again another 50 percent in Rhode Island, I just wanted to make 

you aware. And also, only one-third of Rhode Island’s ground fish 

fleet signed up for sectors. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I want to follow up with you on that notion 

of the Magnuson requirement for the referendum, and whether 

that was pursued. Because it is process equals substance. The way 

the process is managed will equal what the actual outcome is. So 

if there is not a fair process, the end result. And I have been out 

on these ships, these trawlers on many, many occasions. And they 

are not going to catch stuff that is not in there. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. This notion that they are out there trying to take 

endangered species, if they are endangered they are not catching 

them. So they are after, they want to catch stuff that is out there. 

And they can ship it anywhere in the world. And the stuff that we 

do not, dogfish, I mean, we are like what are they, they ship them 

over and make lots of money, and we will not tell them where they 

are making the money, because they will not want to go out and 

eat in those places in the world when they buy their fish and chips 

in those places. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. But that is where they make the fish and chips 

in some of these other places—— 

Ms. JACKSON. But we have lost our market for that, though. That 

is another large portion of the problem, due to the science that 

there was not enough dogfish. And in the latest trawl surveys, 62 

percent of every single trawl was dogfish. And we have been complaining about there is so much dogfish we cannot get away from 

it. And it is impossible to get it out of your net. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I want to take some of the scientists who 

say some of these low stocks with me when I come out on—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Very good. They are more than welcome to come 

on our boat. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Just because it would be just very good. There is 

nothing like seeing to believe. Anyway, and then taking the money 

from the research, I would also like to get some feedback on that 

as well. 

Ms. JACKSON. Feedback on that? Absolutely. 

Mr. KENNEDY. But thank you very much for your participation. 

And it is a way of life that we need to protect. Thank you. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
256 

Now we have Thomas Capps from the American Business Council. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN BUSINESS COUNCIL 

WITNESS 

THOMAS CAPPS, PRESIDENT, CAPPS SHOW COMPANY 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
257 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 433 here 57370A.147
258 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 434 here 57370A.148
259 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 435 here 57370A.149
260 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 436 here 57370A.150
261 

Mr. CAPPS. Thank you for allowing me to appear. My name is 

Thomas Capps, I am President of Capps Show Company, 

headquartered in Lynchburg, Virginia. We employ 196 people in 

our main office and warehouse in Lynchburg and our factory in 

Gretna, Virginia which is in one of the state’s highest unemployment areas now. 

The factory was purchased from a company called CraddockTerry, which was founded in 1888 and had nine factories and made 

36,000 pairs a day. They basically closed as a result of their inability to compete with foreign competition. And it is really not too 

hard to understand. I mean in most of the countries that manufacture in volume, especially shoes as you would know from Massachusetts, there are no labor laws, there are no wage laws, there are 

not environmental laws, there are no safety laws. All that, obviously, adds to the price of the product. 

So I am here on behalf of my company and 795 other small firms 

that are certified in TAA for firms program. I am here to ask the 

Subcommittee to include as authorized a $50 million appropriation 

for the trade adjustment assistance for firms program in the Department of Commerce 2011 budget. 

Our company was certified in 2006 by the trade adjustment assistance group. And although we were economically challenged we 

were able to match the grants that they approved on a dollar for 

dollars basis. Some of the things that we did, we basically upgraded websites, we put in an RFID radio tag program which enabled us to win our latest federal contract, a Defense Department 

contract for the men’s issue shoe for the Army and the Marine 

Corps, the dress oxford. 

But our most challenging project was in 2006. And we were having horrible inefficiencies in manufacturing, and also with personnel. And with the help of Maytech we were able to contract with 

consultants from Virginia Tech and Clemson University. They 

helped us solve our problems. And as a result, we are making twice 

as many shoes per man hour per day now than we were in 2006. 

Also, the close customized relationship that we have with TAA 

firms has allowed our company to have sales increases, where we 

are up 45 percent in sales, 68 percent in earnings, 16 percent in 

productivity, and 34 percent in jobs since 2006. 

But the demand on these programs is even higher than ever. 

There were 8,000 inquiries since 2006. 38 percent increase in certification since 2008. The gap between demand and funding is widening. There is about an $18 million backlog now. And since 2005 

they have created over 48,000 jobs in manufacturing and the return on investment is about 749 percent. And as a taxpayer and 

a manufacturer, I think that is a very wise way for us to use our 

tax dollars. 

Manufacturing and jobs go hand in hand. And we have done well 

in the shoe business, and a lot of it is as a result of the help we 

have had from Maytech. And I would urge the Committee strongly 

to support the funding for this organization. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Excellent. Very well put. We share all the same 

interests from where I am coming from. And do you have any kind 

of part of advertising issues, manufacturing have been made in the 

United States in the process of the sale of the shoe? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
262 

Mr. CAPPS. Well I know fifteen years ago there were twenty manufacturers in the State of Maine alone. And now we are the largest 

women’s manufacturer east of the Mississippi. I mean, there are 

very few manufacturers left. But we are doing very well because 

there, we make a good product, we have very skilled workers, and 

in towns like Gretna, Virginia, the town revolves around this business. I mean, you have got 1,350 people there. If we were not 

there—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. Do you label anything in the shoe as made in 

America? 

Mr. CAPPS. Oh, yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yeah, because people, I have actually talked, just 

anecdotally, but I have found it a lot, people actually make a point 

of trying to find stuff that is made in America, as difficult as it is 

these days. 

Mr. CAPPS. Fortunate the government, Defense Department 

shoes have to be made with domestic materials and 100 percent domestic. But we also make women’s dress shoes and men’s dress 

shoes in sizes a widths, again, 100 percent domestically. 

Mr. KENNEDY. One point I would ask you to bring to the business 

council in addition to the work we are going to do on the TAAs, 

in the Department of Labor we have the ILO, the International 

Labor Organization. That is the U.S.’ opportunity to enforce child 

labor standards overseas. Ultimately down the road, I mean, the 

world is smaller, and smaller, and smaller. Our way of life is going 

to depend directly on the enforcement of more international standards. So, while we need to continue to try to get better teeth in the 

laws of trade agreements so that we cannot import products from 

other countries that do not adhere to basic standards that we have 

to adhere to, in addition to that we need to strengthen our international oversight of countries that are exporting to us. And I just 

make that as a point that the business community actually ironically has a very strong, strong interest in the ILO, the labor enforcement internationally. Because they are dealing with it here. 

So their direct interest is to make sure that that is adequately 

staffed. 

It is interesting because the business community here, ‘‘Oh, we 

have got another federal regulator, another federal this, or another 

federal coming down, breathing down our back.’’ Well, we need to 

have people doing it to their competitors elsewhere in the world 

where they are not getting anybody to inspect. And that is the ILO. 

So just as a point of interest down the line, because ultimately it 

is a smaller and smaller world and we have an interest businesswise to do that. 

Mr. CAPPS. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You bet. Thanks. Now we have Leonard, come on 

up from the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
263 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT 

UNIVERSITIES—BOARD ON OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE 

WITNESS 

LEONARD PIETRAFESA, NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
264 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 444 here 57370A.151
265 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 445 here 57370A.152
266 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 446 here 57370A.153
267 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 447 here 57370A.154
268 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. Congressman Kennedy, on behalf of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities Board on Oceans and 

Atmosphere, and the National Constellation of—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. And Sea-Grant Universities? 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. And Sea-Grant Universities as well. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Right in Rhode Island with that one. 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. And the Constellation of Institutions of Higher 

Learning that APLU and BOA represent, I thank you for this opportunity to provide support of and recommendations for the proposed fiscal year 2011 budgets for NOAA, NASA, and NSF. We strongly support the administration’s request of $5.554 bil- lion for NOAA, $7.424 billion for NSF, and $5.006 billion for NASA 

science account. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Let me stop you there. 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. Yes, sir? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there any money that is moving from, you 

know, to support this other thing that we were talking about with 

this catch program, catch shares enforcement? Should any money 

that is going to that perhaps be going to some of this research programs? 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. That I do not know specifically, but I can find 

out, yeah. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am sure you could use it. 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. I was the Chair of the NOAA Science Advisory 

Board for half a decade, so I can find those things out if necessary. 

I will do so, sir. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. What we could do with those dollars if you 

had them, would be good to know. 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. Right, thank you. President Obama’s fiscal year 

2011 budget request to Congress for NOAA, NSF, and NASA is 

bold, wise, and laudable. And will lead, for example, to the expansion of weather, including space weather, climate derivatives, industries, and renewable energy industries, and thus create new 

jobs for the nation. I would like to comment on aspects of the agency budgets and additional perceived needs that the scientific community has come forth with. 

For NOAA, NOAA provides important services vital to our economy and national security. Extreme weather events, like the recent 

snowstorms that affected the Washington, D.C. region, clearly demonstrate the immediate impact that weather can have on a region. 

NOAA’s support of environmental research and education via cooperative institutes and programs such as those in the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and Sea Grant are critical to university research, education, and outreach. 

However, we do raise a major concern. The need for increased 

support of the nation’s in situ environmental observing networks. 

As reported in several prior and recent National Research Council 

studies, for example this one just released, the needs are particularly acute for urban areas, mountain, ocean, and coastal regions, 

and for documenting climate variability. Vertical profiles of state 

variables, such as water vapor, wind, and temperatures, air sea 

fluxes, that is heat and momentum fluxes between the air and the 

ocean, and waves and currents are virtually nonexistent. Over land 

the primary recommendation is for the placement of LIDARs, 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
269 

which collect vertical observations from the ground up to two miles. 

And for the oceans the highly successful Argo network needs support as it begins to seriously age. In the case of coastal ocean regions, estuaries, and the Great Lakes where there is a paucity of 

data, a recommendation is for the build out and major enhancement of the existing NOAA national data voice center network of 

atmospheric and coastal ocean observing systems for improved forecasting particularly by the national centers for environmental prediction. 

Now to NASA. BOA is heartened by the administration’s request 

for NASA’s expanded and enhanced science mission. Without the 

tools developed and implemented by a NASA, Earth systems scientists would have a much less complete picture of the interconnected functioning of the planet’s oceans, atmosphere, and land. 

Also, the NASA data archive is a treasure trove of environmental 

resources that researchers have come to depend upon. And through 

its support for young scientists and graduate students, the NASA 

science mission supports bold innovation. BOA applauds the special 

attention that the White House has paid to the restoration of 

NASA science. 

NSF. NSF is critical to U.S. basic research and supplies almost 

two-thirds of federal funding for university-based fundamental research in the geosciences. Through facilities such as the Ocean Observatory, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, and the NCAR 

Wyoming Supercomputer, NSF provides the academic community 

with advanced shared capabilities it would not be able to afford 

through individual institutions. Together NASA, NOAA, and NSF 

provide critical Earth observations and research funding for scientists working to increase our understanding of natural phenomenon of economic and human significance. 

BOA thanks the Committee for its continued support of these 

critical agencies. And thank you, Mr. Kennedy, for taking the time 

to review our recommendations of the Association of Public and 

Land-Grant Universities and the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you. Let me just say how in awe I am of 

just both your education and years of service in the science community. It is just an amazing contribution you have made to the 

science advancement in our country, and we are very fortunate to 

have people of your caliber who have given so much in a country 

where we need to be doing more to celebrate the sciences and those 

who have made a life out of them. I mean, we do so much to celebrate all these other things in life, with money and fame and 

power. And if we did half as much of that in the areas of life where 

we need to, such as the area where you have dedicated your life, 

hopefully there would have been more people who would be doing 

what you have been doing with your life, in advancing such important areas like you have, which have such a direct impact on quality of life and sustainability in the world of so many people in such 

direct ways that most folks cannot draw the correlation with because the science is not very widely disseminated and understood. 

So the work that you do, I also am advocating for more funding 

for this type of research and understanding, is really appreciated. 

And I can tell you the Speaker is very much interested in making 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
270 

sure our country does not fall behind as a world superpower in the 

area of research and science, education, and of course we have been 

living off the past in terms of the dollars that we have been spending in the past in terms of research. So in terms of the oceans and 

the climate, obviously that intersection is something we are very 

familiar with with URI and the work that is being done there in 

terms of climate, and the relation between that and the Midwest. 

We would not think that the oceans would have anything to do 

with what is going on with farmers out in Iowa but that is why 

people in the sciences are so important because they show the 

interrelatedness of all of our lives. 

So I will just say to you, we had a big conference in my state 

on the Mission to Planet Earth. You know, again, why does space 

matter? I mean, you get to see the impact in a global way of what 

is happening to our planet. So I will just tell you in terms of these 

points that you made, we will take them. We have got your detailed submission of your testimony. And I know we will be following up on the specific points that you made and highlighted in 

this brief couple of minutes that you have given us to just hit the 

top lines that you wanted us to address. And Adrienne will be in 

contact with you because definitely, she is our top staffer on the 

community. 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. I will get back with you with the questions. And 

also—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. And just double up on definitely the big things 

that you want to highlight with us. Okay? 

Mr. PIETRAFESA. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You bet. Thank you. Bill, welcome. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

MARINE CONSERVATION BIOLOGY INSTITUTE 

WITNESS 

BILL CHANDLER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
271 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 456 57370A.155
272 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 457 57370A.156
273 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 458 57370A.157
274 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 459 57370A.158
275 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 460 57370A.159
276 

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is William 

Chandler. I represent the Marine Conservation Biology Institute, a 

nonprofit conservation organization based in the State of Washington. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on some of NOAA’s conservation programs. I am going to address 

four of these that we had in our written statement, which are not 

all of them but they are the ones that I would like to highlight 

today. 

First of all, I would like to start out, Mr. Chairman, by letting 

the Subcommittee know that the Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery 

Program that the Subcommittee has supported for the last two 

years with an increased budget of twice what it was receiving a 

couple of years ago, your support of that program has absolutely 

rejuvenated it. As one who monitors the program carefully, I go to 

Hawaii several times a year, this is one of our key projects, and 

I can assure you that your support has been critical in getting this 

program moving again in the right direction. Let me give you some 

examples. 

They have hired a recovery program coordinator for the first 

time. They have also started the practice of having winter field 

camps again up in the remote Hawaiian Islands where a lot of 

these seals live. Before those seals were just ignored during the 

winter and nobody knew what was happening to them, and nobody 

was doing anything to take care of them. They have added new 

staff. They are getting outreach and education programs going. And 

probably most importantly, Mr. Chairman, NOAA has actually 

partnered with a private, nonprofit organization who is going to 

care for wounded seals in a facility that the private organization 

is building itself. So NOAA has a private sector, and it is going to 

be able to help that program tremendously. For 2011 the administration has recommended only $3.6 million for seal recovery in contrast with the $5.7 million this Committee 

has been giving it. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this would pretty 

much reverse engines on this program and negate the progress 

being made. So I would urge the Committee to hold steady with at 

least the $5.7 million that you have been supporting for the seal 

in the past. $3.8 million of that would go to research, and $1.9 million for management. 

I would also like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that all of that 

money that the Committee decides to give the monk seal this year 

be put in a seal line item to show that the Subcommittee intends 

this recovery effort to be ongoing, aggressive, and sustained. 

Marine debris is another area I would like to address. NOAA’s 

marine debris program has been level funded at $4 million since 

2008. Public awareness of marine debris has grown tremendously 

in the last five years, I would say. I provided a couple of photos 

to the Committee to show the kind of horrific impacts that marine 

debris has on wildlife. This is a seal that cannot eat any longer. 

This is an albatross, Mr. Chairman, that has over 100 pieces of 

plastic in its belly, which basically led to its demise. It is hard to 

imagine that things like this which I find in the parking lot of my 

Metro station actually can get in the ocean and wind up in the 

belly of these magnificent birds. They are dying by the tens of 

thousands in the Pacific from this kind of ingestion. So we would 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
277 

like to see this program towards prevention, and we are recommending an appropriation of $10 million this year to allow the program to start doing more preventative programs. So that would be 

$6 million above the $4 million that they are giving. We have to 

get to the prevention problem. 

A third area of interest to us is the deep sea coral ecosystems 

that we recently discovered lying off our coast. Scientists need to 

learn more about the nature and the ecological roles and the 

threats to these systems so that they can do the right things to protect them. Funding for this program went up to $2.5 million in last 

year’s budget, and there is still a great need, though, for mapping 

and identifying these ecosystems. We recommend an additional 

$4.5 million this year for that program. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that MCBI supports the President’s request for $11.5 million for research on ocean 

acidification and its potentially catastrophic effects on marine life 

and on the industries that depend on them. The fishing industry, 

and seafood industry is very concerned about the growing acidification of the oceans and what that might do to their stock. So we 

strongly support this program at the $11.5 million amount. 

That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. And again, I want 

to thank you for your time and your interest in marine life in the 

oceans on this Subcommittee. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Beautiful. Thank you for your testimony and your 

stewardship of our world. What is going on in terms of the international collaborative efforts on the coral monitoring? 

Mr. CHANDLER. There are a lot of things happening in the international arena on corals, not only on deep sea corals, of course, but 

on the shallow water corals that people are more familiar with 

when they go to places like Hawaii or the South Pacific or the Caribbean. So NOAA does have a liaison office where they try to stimulate international programs in terms of coral protection. In the 

deep sea field they are doing some of that, but right now they are 

focused pretty much on trying to get a handle on what is going on 

in the United States. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Is there anything about, we were talking about 

fishing before, but in terms of the big, those that, like, drag the 

stuff along the bottom? 

Mr. CHANDLER. Well the fact of the matter is, there is nothing 

more destructive to a deep sea coral than a trawl, a bottom trawl, 

that is rolling over those corals. Either with rollers, or heavy 

weighted nets. They can crush and destroy those areas. So the idea 

would be to try to identify the most significant ones and try to 

guide the fishing industry not to go there. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well there has got to be a plan. And as a government guy, I mean, I am looking for, is there a bill? Are there regs? 

I mean—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. Well, the deep sea coral program, about which I 

am testifying, does require NOAA to provide this information to 

the Fishery Management Councils to let them know where these 

deep sea corals are. They have a voluntary responsibility to protect 

the corals, it is not mandatory. So it is up to the councils. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay, so maybe you could give us some more information on that? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
278 

Mr. CHANDLER. I could. I could give you more details. I would be 

happy to do that. But essentially right now in federal waters deep 

sea coral protection is not obligatory, it is encouraged. But the 

councils do not have to obey any regulations about the destruction 

of these areas. 

Mr. KENNEDY. It does not make a lot of sense for us to be pouring a bunch of money into researching and protecting and all the 

rest and then turn a blind eye—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. I agree with you. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. When we are doing, when we are 

weighing in on all kinds of federal regs on these fishermen and everything else—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. I agree with you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I mean, it is just like one hand does not know 

what the other is doing. So if you could give us some, kind of how 

do we bring some coherence to that? 

Mr. CHANDLER. I absolutely can. 

Mr. KENNEDY. That would be great. And on the marine debris, 

if you could just follow up on it and what we could do to help put 

some money aside in the Navy’s budget. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Okay. I will be happy to do that. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Because Navy is the biggest owner of coastal property around the world. And we have had some issues that, I mean, 

they are our protector. They do their job. But, you know, they have 

got a lot of historic stuff that is in our waterways that are—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Posing hazards not only to our marine life but also to, you know, boaters and everything else. Because this stuff is all over in my state. I mean, we have had to 

have private folks take this stuff out because—— 

Mr. CHANDLER. Pick it up? Mm-hmm. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Anyway, maybe you could tell, because there is 

obviously a lot more money in Defense to clean up the— 

Mr. CHANDLER. And Mr. Dicks is our Congressman, so we can 

talk to him about that as well. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Hey, good point. And you are in the right state to 

advocate for that. That is, let us definitely talk about that. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Yes, okay. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Thank you so much. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KENNEDY. All right. Yeah, David Bedford. You are next. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION 

WITNESS 

DAVID BEDFORD 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
279 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 470 57370A.160
280 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 471 57370A.161
281 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 472 57370A.162
282 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 473 57370A.163
283 

Mr. BEDFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Committee. You have my written testimony. 

So I think what I will do is I will just land on a couple of the high 

points in there. 

The general issue area that I am speaking to is the implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which is a treaty between the 

United States and Canada—— 

Mr. SCHIFF. Right. 

Mr. BEDFORD [continuing]. To conserve and share harvest of 

salmon on the West Coast. They are farm migrating species. And 

they do spawn within the United States, travel into Canada, and 

then back again. 

There are two particular lines in the budget that I want to speak 

to. One of them is the Pacific Salmon Treaty line item in the National Marine Fisheries Service budget. A second one is the Chinook Letter of Agreement line item in the NOAA budget. 

We have the situation that the United States entered into this 

treaty with Canada in order to conserve salmon. Yet we find that 

the states are far better equipped to deal with salmon conservation 

and management than the federal government. 

Therefore, the kinds of responsibilities that have been undertaken by the United States under this treaty are fulfilled in principal measure by the states of Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. 

We receive base funding for implementation of treaty programs 

through these line items that I have indicated in the budget. However, the level of funding that we receive is projected by the President for the coming year to be $5.612 million. We view our costs 

as being $9.708 million. And that is a product of a very serious 

zero-based budgeting exercise undertaken by all of the states in 

January of this year. 

We have been able over the past years to backfill the needs for 

funding by reaching into other funding sources. So, for example, 

the states have used Dingell-Johnson funding. They have used 

anadromous fisheries grants, another line item in the NOAA budget in the past but which was excised from the budget in this past 

year. We have used Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery. We have 

used state general fund dollars. 

But with the economy where it is now, with the changes that 

have been made to the federal budget, with the increasing costs 

that we have for the kind of intensive conservation-based management that we have to undertake, we are not in a position to be able 

to continue to backfill the needs that we have. 

So we find ourselves now really hitting the wall on this. So we 

are working hard to try to see if there isn’t some way that we can 

succeed in getting adequate base funding on this, so that the states 

will again be able in their status of sort of filling the shoes of the 

federal government in this international agreement to be able to 

continue doing the kind of intensive conservation-based management that we have been doing. 

And thank you very much. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Excellent. Give me anecdotally the activities that 

go into this that costs all the money, in terms of the monitoring, 

conservation, all the rest. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
284 

Mr. BEDFORD. For fisheries management you have got two basic 

issues, how many fish do you have and how many are being impacted in one fashion or another. 

So we are in a position where we are monitoring resources, monitoring fisheries, accounting for the spawning stock so that we can 

keep track of productivity. It is a very involved kind of process. 

We are doing that in rivers from the Oregon coast up to Cape 

Suckling in Alaska, which is a distance of a couple of thousand 

miles. It is a very geographically broad undertaking. 

Mr. KENNEDY. On the one hand you said the states are better at 

it. But state budgets can vary from state to state. And you are 

looking at a whole species. Why wouldn’t the feds be better at 

doing it since they are immune from state—they may not be immune from economic and budgetary problems, but at least the monitoring may not differ as much. 

Mr. BEDFORD. As a matter of sort of the traditional police powers 

of the states they manage these fisheries. Now the federal government has undertaken management of salmon fisheries outside of 

three miles. 

But the states still have the responsibility for all of those populations once they get inside three miles and then in the spawning 

grounds. So the states are then in a position where they have responsibilities that the federal government can’t stand in their shoes 

to undertake. 

Furthermore, you have a great interest on the part of the states 

on these fisheries, because they are huge economic drivers for the 

economies of the states. So they have had in place management 

programs since a time that the federal government took much interest in it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. One last question is with respect to the tribes, Native American, they have sovereignty over their lands. So what, 

kind of requirements do they have in terms of adherence? Since it 

is a federal law, it is—they have got the—— 

Mr. BEDFORD. Well thank you very much for that question. I 

have narrowed the discussion to the states because of the venue 

that I am in. 

The tribes, of course, have co-management responsibilities in the 

states of Washington and Oregon. And so they stand basically in 

parallel with the states in trying to conserve and manage salmon 

resources. 

However, the interests of the tribe are something that we try to 

deal with in dealing with the Department of Interior and their 

budget. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. 

Mr. BEDFORD. And we are, again, following up on that. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. 

Mr. BEDFORD. But I didn’t think the venue was appropriate to 

pursuing it. 

Mr. KENNEDY. No. But I appreciate you bringing that up. And if 

you could do a little memo for us on that, because it would make 

a difference. 

Thank you very much for your testimony and for being here. 

Mr. BEDFORD. Well thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Mr. KENNEDY. You bet. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
285 

So Anthony from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

ANTHONY CHATWIN, PH.D. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
286 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 481 here 57370A.164
287 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 482 here 57370A.165
288 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 483 here 57370A.166
289 

Mr. CHATWIN. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Fattah, for the opportunity today to testify. I am Anthony Chatwin. I am the Director of Marine and Coastal Conservation at the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation. I have submitted written testimony, so I am 

just going to hit on the more important items. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Awesome. 

Mr. CHATWIN. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation was 

established by Congress back in 1984 to promote public/private 

partnerships. We are fully authorized to receive appropriations. 

And in the early 90s we became NOAA’s official foundation. And 

as such, we work with the agency to help implement their priorities. 

The way we operate is we take federal dollars, and we match 

them with private dollars. And we give them out through our grant 

programs. Today we have given out over 10,000 grants to over 

3,000 grantees around the country. And we have a strong history 

in providing grants to coastal communities and fishermen around 

the country. 

In fact, an example of that is we have a Marine Debris Program 

that was mentioned earlier. Marine debris is an issue, where we 

give grants to fishermen and to ports to clean up derelict fishing 

gear. We have a partnership with NOAA where we get federal 

money. And we have a partnership with Covanta Energy. And 

through that partnership, we place bins in ports, in key ports, including many in New England, where fishermen can at no cost get 

rid of the derelict fishing gear rather than dump it at sea. And that 

then is taken and burned as energy. So that is just an example of 

the type of program that we run. 

Now it is a win-win solution. And it is that win-win solution oriented focus that we want to apply to two other areas that are priority for NOAA. One has to do with the catchers that we also discussed earlier. We have a Fisheries Innovation Fund for which we 

are seeking an appropriation, a request of $3 million. And we also 

have identified partners in the private sector that are interested in 

matching NOAA’s dollars in that program. 

And the grants we would direct to helping build the capacity of 

small-scale fishing interests, both commercial and recreational, to 

participate in the design of the catch share programs. Catch shares 

can be an effective fish and management tool if designed appropriately. And a key to that design is the participation of the interested parties in that design. So that is what our grants would be 

focused on. 

And that builds on an experience that we have. We provided a 

grant in the Chesapeake Bay with Blue Crab Fishery in Maryland. 

In fact, we co-funded it with the state of Maryland. And we promoted a fishermen-to-fishermen exchange. Our grant enabled the 

crabbers to go to Canada and learn firsthand from fishermen in 

Canada that had been under a catch share fishery for a long time. 

And they have come back with a renewed interest and some improved insights in how to make a system like that work for them 

and preserve their way of life, which is so important. 

The other area of focus of our request is we are requesting $2 

million for our Marine Protected Areas Fund to help NOAA in its 

implementation of marine spatial planning at the site level. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
290 

And, again, in the spirit of fostering collaboration, which is a 

hallmark of our grant programs, the grants would be destined to 

helping local, state, tribal, and users to participate fully in marine 

spatial planning process. 

So in conclusion—— 

Mr. KENNEDY. For what purpose? 

Mr. CHATWIN. To minimize conflicts. An example is in Stellwagen 

Bank, a marine sanctuary, national sanctuary where there was 

conflict between the resources that the sanctuary was trying to protect, the right whales, and the shipping lanes. 

The marine spatial planning process allows them to come together and what has resulted, and this is called for in the policy, 

the draft policy anyway, is they have changed the shipping lanes 

and implemented some speed adjustments so to minimize the conflicts with the resource there. 

And in conclusion, all the federal collars that we receive we double by matching one-to-one with private interests. And we make 

sure that they are well used to benefit fish and wildlife and the 

communities that depend on them. 

So we look forward to working with the Subcommittee on this. 

And I am happy to take any questions. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Well thank you for your testimony. Thank you for 

the work that you do. 

Obviously in light of the earlier testimony on the catch shares, 

I am, you know, interested in your perspective on the comments 

that I made on that. And you alluded to it a little bit. 

And I notice your history is, obviously, working throughout Latin 

America helping a number of countries implement sustainable fishing programs and the like. And I know you know the way of the 

world is follow the money. 

Mr. CHATWIN. Right. 

Mr. KENNEDY. The key to environmentalism obviously, as you 

know, is investing people in the environment. And you can’t just 

have a handful of people own the environment and then be the 

only—because they are the only ones that are going to care. 

So we have to have—we can’t just have a couple of people— 

bunch of people buy up all the permits. And that is what this catch 

share thing is. It seems to me it is a perpetuation of that. It is misguided, or whether it is planned or not, that is what is happening. 

Mr. CHATWIN. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I don’t know whether it was anyone’s intent or 

not. But it has eliminated the best conservationists we have. And 

that is the, you know, one or two boat owner family-run operations 

that have been going generations that went out there and did their 

fishing for sustainable livelihood. 

Now we have got these factory ships. They sit out underneath 

the Pell Bridge. They are five stories high. They come in from all 

over the world. They just scoop up the menhaden and just freeze 

them. You know, they ship them right out. I mean, it is just disgusting. It has totally perverted anything that you would ever 

think is something called fishing. It doesn’t resemble fishing. It is 

mining the oceans. 

So as far as I am concerned I am going to do everything I can to eliminate the catch share program. This $54 million, if I have 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
291 

anything to say about it as co-chair of this Committee, it is going 

to be gone. I am going to tell Mollohan this is one of my priorities. 

Gone from this budget. So I know you are trying to partner up because it is $54 million. 

It is big, fat and sits out there in the budget. You say, hey, we 

want to partner up with this. This is a chunk of money. 

But I am saying to you come back to us with what you would 

ideally like to see that money spent on. Not because it is there and 

you say oh we better get in with this new catch share program, because that looks like where the money is. 

If you had that money and were to implement a new novel way 

of trying to—if you had to recreate sustainable fishing, which allowed people from the local area to fish, what would it look like 

given your experience? Because I have noticed you have been part 

of this. 

You have heard proposals from not only our own country, 

Equador, Brazil, Latin America, Panama, Peru. You have been all 

over the world. I noticed your whole history here. It is terrific. So 

you have got a lot of perspective you can give us on this. 

Mr. CHATWIN. Sir, just one comment I would share. I think that 

small-scale fishermen everywhere are at a disadvantage, a competitive disadvantage. And so there need to be mechanisms to help 

even that out. 

And one example in Brazil, for example, is where they assign, 

and this happens in Mexico as well, they assign exclusive use 

rights to a community to a certain piece of the bottom. So that 

works for a lobster fishery for example. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I got you. 

Mr. CHATWIN. So the way I see catch shares, yes, it is interesting 

that there is this big budget associated with it. But that is a mechanism that can work in favor of the small-scale communities, because there is a mechanism in there to allocate an amount of the 

cash to the community. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Okay. 

Mr. CHATWIN. And that mechanism doesn’t exist today. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Good. Well that is the kind of input that might 

be able to work to keep me from—— 

Mr. CHATWIN. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Doing everything I can to kill this 

thing. So, yes, could you just give us—— 

Mr. CHATWIN. Sure. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. How to write this thing better? 

Mr. CHATWIN. It would be a pleasure. We will follow up with 

Adrienne. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Do you know Riverkeepers? 

Mr. CHATWIN. Yes. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. So that is a good—— 

Mr. CHATWIN. Excellent. 

Mr. KENNEDY [continuing]. Program in the northwest for the 

salmon thing. They are great. 

Mr. CHATWIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Now it is Chaka Fattah from Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly 

Love. He will be a lot nicer to the rest of you. But I will just say 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
292 

for the record I allowed them to at least sit. They were standing 

before I got here. I don’t know what it was about Honda that made 

them stand in the hallway. But I have that one up on them. 

Thank you all for your patience. 

Mr. FATTAH [presiding]. I did an earlier session, so it is good to 

be back. And we have now a Philadelphian who is doing an extraordinary job, transplanted Philadelphian by way of Colorado, 

leading Big Brothers Big Sisters, doing an extraordinary job of running an agency that is serving and helping millions of young people 

across our country. And we want to welcome you to the Committee. 

Everyone should know that there are going to be some votes at 

some point very soon. You see the speaker up. That means that the 

elephants have gathered. And the grass is going to get trampled. 

So there is going to be votes. So I will try to move this along so 

that everyone can get their testimony in and that you don’t have 

to wait for us to go vote and come back an hour after that, so go. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF AMERICA 

WITNESS 

KAREN J. MATHIS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
293 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 494 here 57370A.167
294 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 495 here 57370A.168
295 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 496 here 57370A.169
296 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 497 here 57370A.170
297 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 498 here 57370A.171
298 

Ms. MATHIS. Thank you, Congressman Fattah. It is wonderful to 

be here with you. And may I just say for the record that right now 

Big Brothers Big Sisters is representing and mentoring 4,000 children in Philadelphia alone. 

And I think it is important for the purposes of this hearing 

today, Congressman, to note that just eight years ago only 1,500 

young people were being mentored in Philadelphia. That incredible 

increase was due almost entirely to a grant from OJJDP. So that 

puts this issue in a particular light. 

I would like to thank you and the Committee for allowing us to 

speak on these appropriation issues. As you are aware, Big Brothers Big Sisters it the nation’s largest and oldest evidence-based 

mentoring program. Our mission is to help youth reach their potential. 

We are a grassroots organization. We have 360 local agencies. 

And right now we are serving 260,000 children in over 5,000 American communities. 

There is strong evidence that our model works to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. And in this context, Big Brothers Big Sisters must express its very sincere and respectful concern with the President’s proposed fiscal year 2011 

budget. 

Now we all recognize, certainly in the non-profit sphere as well 

as the profit, the budgetary pressures our nation and our government is under. We understand that these cuts might produce shotterm savings. However, we cannot afford the lasting impact such 

cuts would have and impose on the most vulnerable of our youth. 

And, you know, we are going to spend more money downstream 

when these same young people become victims or regretfully some 

of them become perpetrators of crime. 

We in the mentoring and youth development segment are very grateful for the $20 million increase in youth mentoring grants this 

last year. But a 55 percent decreasing in funding for the President’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget would have devastating 

consequences. 

There are over 26,000 children right now waiting to be mentored 

just at Big Brothers Big Sisters agencies. And we have volunteers 

who are ready to mentor. But without funding, we cannot make the 

matches. 

And so President Obama’s call to service created a wonderful uptick in volunteer queries. But without the funding that is provided 

by OJJDP and other governmental agencies, we can’t make those 

matches. 

And as our economic crisis continues, and we all know it will 

take a while to come out of that, the demand for mentors, in particularly hard hit communities, just continues to rise. 

OJJDP last year, for example, had 2,000 applications for these 

funds. It awarded 63 grants. The need is clear. To reduce the budget by 55 percent would be catastrophic. 

We know that volunteer mentoring is cost effective. The independent sector has valued a volunteer hour at $20.25 an hour. 

With 264,000 Big Brothers and Big Sisters volunteering approximately three hours a week for 50 weeks a year, that in-kind contribution is over $800 million a year. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
299 

Now think where the United State Government gets that kind of 

leverage and does that kind of good, not just for this generation but 

for future generations as well. 

The reach, the impact are huge. The success and development of 

our subsequent generations, the legacy we are going to leave for future generations, is truly at stake with this budgetary proposed 

cut. 

We know we are evidence based. We know we are cost effective. 

And we know mentoring is a reliable pathway for this generation 

to ensure the success of future generations. 

Our testimony more fully explains our position. Congressmen, we 

thank you for the opportunity. I would be delighted either here, 

with your staff, or back, of course, in our congressional district to 

answer any questions you might have. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well let me thank you for your testimony and for 

the great work that you are doing. I think that the Committee has 

demonstrated in the past its significant support for and interest in 

the work of Big Brothers Big Sisters. 

And I know you have been doing some extraordinarily good work 

with particularly the best fraternity in the world, Alpha’s, who are 

working with you to get more African-American men involved in 

mentoring programs through out college fraternity system. 

So let me thank you for your work. I am not going to belabor the 

point. I want to get everyone’s testimony on the record so thank 

you. 

Ms. MATHIS. Thank you, Congressman, appreciate it. 

Mr. FATTAH. And you can let Senator Grassley know I think you 

are doing a great job, all right? 

Ms. MATHIS. Thank you, sir. We do try to take every nickel and 

stretch it to a quarter. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Ms. MATHIS. And I will excuse myself, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. 

Zygmont Pines, Esquire. I served with Chancellor Raynes and 

Jim Mundy years ago. We worked on creating the drug court in 

Pennsylvania. Welcome. And you will enter your testimony for the 

record. And you can make whatever comments you would like to 

make. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 

WITNESS 

ZYGMONT A. PINES, ESQ. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
300 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 505 here 57370A.172
301 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 506 here 57370A.173
302 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 507 here 57370A.174
303 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 508 here 57370A.175
304 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 509 here 57370A.176
305 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 510 here 57370A.177
306 

Mr. PINES. Good afternoon, Congressman Fattah. It is a pleasure 

and an honor to be here before you today. Arthur Raynes was my 

mentor, so he was a special man in my life. 

I am the Court Administrator of Pennsylvania and the co-chair 

of the Security Committee for the Conference of State Court Administrators, otherwise known as COSCA and the Conference of 

Chief Justices. 

On behalf of COSCA, I come before you with two requests. One 

to fund a threat assessment component of the Court’s Security Improvement Act at the authorized level of $15 million. And, two, to 

fully fund the state court system grants under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. 

Security as you know is a compelling problem for both state and 

local courts where approximately 32,000 judges sit every day. The 

security of our judicial system is fundamental to our cherished concept of democracy and respect for the rule of law. 

The written statement, which I have submitted to the Subcommittee, gives a glimpse of the severity of the security problems 

in our courts. The range of security incidents is indeed alarming. 

Attempted murders, bombs, assaults, threats to kill presiding 

judges, litigants with weapons, and white powder incidents are 

common. 

Some statistics, for example, 22 percent of California jurors receive threats in a 12-month period. New York’s judicial system had 

3,200 security incidents just in 2009. In Texas there is a 100 percent increase in reported security incidents from September 2009 

to February 2010. And recently the Massachusetts Judge’s Conference reported that more than half of their judges have been 

threatened during their judicial careers. 

There is a critical need for state court systems to establish and 

maintain comprehensive criminal incident threat assessment reporting systems. Courts need your support in their ongoing efforts 

to document and track security incidents and threats. 

Courts can do this only through uniform and comprehensive information systems. The beneficiaries of such effective databases 

will be our courts, the public, and certainly law enforcement. 

I thank the Committee for including language in last year’s report encouraging the Bureau of Justice Assistance to support the 

establishment of threat assessment databases based on core elements. 

Unfortunately, because of insufficient funding, there has been no 

progress with BJA on that front. We are hopeful that a congressional appropriation for a threat assessment database will be a catalyst, a needed catalyst, for much needed action. 

In addition, I come before you and ask for full funding of the 

state court system grants under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. The state court system grants authorized $125 million 

for fiscal years 2010 and 2011. 

The NICS Court System Grants is another important aspect of 

security that impacts all of society. The purpose of the grant is to 

assist state court systems to set up comprehensive record management systems that combine full case criminal data, including case 

dispositions, sentences, and warrant information. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
307 

Frankly state courts have struggled to comply with NICS. NICS 

is about saving lives and protecting people from harm by not letting guns and explosives fall into the wrong hands. 

The creation of informational systems would enable courts and 

law enforcement to depict all sentences and dispositions associated 

with a defendant on one screen. 

We find ourselves in a period of increased public hostility and 

tension. The proliferation of anti-government and hate groups, as 

well as emotionally unstable aggrieved litigants, is a clear warning 

to all of us that the improvement of security and reduction of risk 

must be our priorities. 

As Chief Justice Ronald George of California remarked in 2006, 

‘‘Courthouses must be a safe harbor to which members of the public come to resolve disputes that often are volatile. Once courthouses themselves are perceived as dangerous, the integrity and efficacy of the entire judicial process is in jeopardy.’’ 

Congressman Fattah, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity. And we welcome any questions you may have. And certainly thank you for your support. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well you have had an extensive and continuing career working to improve the efficient operation of our courts. And 

I want to thank you for your public service. And if we have any 

questions we will submit them for the record. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. PINES. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. We will have our next witness, Craig 

Schiffries. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Mr. SCHIFFRIES. You did very well. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right. 

Mr. SCHIFFRIES. Better than me. 

Mr. FATTAH. Your moment has arrived. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 

WITNESS 

CRAIG M. SCHIFFRIES, PH.D. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
308 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 517 here 57370A.178
309 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 518 here 57370A.179
310 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 519 here 57370A.180
311 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 520 here 57370A.181
312 

Mr. SCHIFFRIES. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Geological Society of America in support 

of increased federal investments for the National Science Foundation. 

My name is Craig Schiffries. And I serve as Director for Geoscience Policy at the Geological Society of America. The Geological 

Society founded in 1888 is a scientific society with over 22,000 

members from academia, government, industry in all 50 states and 

more than 90 countries. 

The Geological Society of America joins with the Coalition for 

National Science Funding and other organizations in recommending an appropriation of at least $7.424 billion for the National 

Science Foundation in fiscal year 2011. It is an increase of $552 

million or eight percent compared with the enacted level for fiscal 

year 2010. 

This funding level would uphold the President’s budget request 

for the National Science Foundation. However, it is well below 

NSF’s fiscal year 2010 authorized funding level of $8.1 billion 

under the America Competes Act. 

The rationale for increased investments in science are clear. 

Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security. Federal investments in research pay substantial dividends, according to the National Academies report, ‘‘Rising above the Gathering Storm.’’ 

Economic studies conducted even before the information technology revolution have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in U.S. income per capita was due to technological 

change. 

The earth sciences are critical components of the overall science 

and technology enterprise. It is particularly important to significantly increase NSF’s investments in earth science research and 

education. This is necessary to meet challenges posed by human 

interactions with earth’s natural systems and to help sustain these 

natural system and the economy. 

Increased investments in NSF’s earth science portfolio are necessary to address such issues as natural hazards, energy, water resources, and climate change. 

Let me just highlight a couple of examples. Natural hazards, 

such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, floods, 

droughts, and hurricanes remain a major cause of fatalities and 

economic losses worldwide. An improved scientific understanding of 

geologic hazards will reduce future losses through better forecasts 

of their occurrence and magnitude. The devastating earthquake in 

Haiti on January 12, 2010, that killed an estimated 200,000 people 

and the enormous earthquake in Chili on February 27th, emphatically demonstrate the need for increased NSF investments in fundamental earth science research that stimulates innovations in 

natural hazards monitoring and warning systems. 

Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of 

society and to national security. Improved scientific understanding 

of these resources will allow for their better management and utilization, while at the same time considering economic and environmental issues. This is particularly significant because shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as new research enaVerDate Mar 15 2010 18:56 Jul 27, 2010 Jkt 057370 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A370P2.XXX A370P2

hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
313 

bling technologies become available. For example, the new energy 

economy may require large quantities of rare earth elements, or 

other scarce elements that are unevenly distributed on earth and 

poorly understood. We need improved scientific understanding of 

these resources before we attempt to deploy them on enormous 

scales. Research in earth science is also fundamental to training 

and educating the next generation of earth science professionals 

and increased NSF investments in earth science education at all 

levels are needed because knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to science literacy, and to meet the environmental and resource 

challenges of the 21st century. 

There are extraordinary scientific opportunities in the earth 

sciences. In October, 2009, NSF’s advisory committee released a 

major report, GeoVision, unraveling earth’s complexities through 

the geosciences. That report states, ‘‘Society stands at the crossroads. With the growing problems of resource deprivation, energy 

sustainability, environmental degradation and climate change, we 

wonder if protecting the health of the planet while achieving widespread economic prosperity can become a reality.’’ The NSF report 

provides a vision for the future of research in the geosciences as 

focused on fostering a sustainable future through a better understanding of our complex and changing planet. The report articulates a path to achieving its vision. It recommends a new emphasis 

on interdisciplinary research in order to achieve reasons and scientifically sound policymakers. The challenges ahead for the geosciences, the report says, are understanding the behavior of complex and evolving earth, reducing vulnerability, and sustaining life, 

and growing the geosciences workforce for the future. 

In conclusion, the NSF budget request for fiscal year 2011 is 

being considered at the same time as the America COMPETES Act 

is being reauthorized. The America COMPETES Act set the stage 

to double the NSF budget over seven years. Despite overwhelming 

bipartisan support for America COMPETES, appropriations for 

NSF have fallen short of the authorized doubling path in the regular appropriations bills for fiscal years 2007 and 2010. NSF received three billion dollars in economic stimulus funds under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This one-time 

injection of funding is very helpful, but sustained growth in NSF’s 

budget is needed to achieve the objectives of the America COMPETES Act. 

So the Geological Society of America joins with the Coalition for 

National Science Funding and other organizations in recommending an appropriation of at least $7.424 billion dollars for NSF 

in fiscal year 2011. 

We are grateful to the House Appropriations Subcommittee for 

its past leadership in increasing investments in the National 

Science Foundation, and other science agencies, and we thank you 

for your consideration of our recommendation to appropriate $7.424 

billion dollars, for the National Science Foundation in fiscal year 

2011. 

Mr. FATTAH. I thank you. Now you keep mentioning a testimony 

that there was a percentage of income increases that could be directly correlated to a scientific development? 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
314 

Mr. SCHIFFRIES. Right. That was from the National Academy’s 

report called, ‘‘The Gathering Storm’’, published in 2007. 

Mr. FATTAH. What was the percentage again? 

Mr. SCHIFFRIES. That report estimates that 85 percent of the 

measured growth in U.S. income capita was due to technological 

change, and they make the case that the technological change 

comes from advances in science. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. Thank you very much. Let me thank you for 

your testimony. 

William Davis. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 

WITNESS 

WILLIAM DAVIS, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
315 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 528 here 57370A.182
316 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 529 here 57370A.183
317 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 530 here 57370A.184
318 

Mr. DAVIS. Congressman Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. How are you? 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STEVENS. Now your written testimony is going to be entered 

into the record. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Mr. STEVENS. But you can feel free to go beyond that. 

Mr. DAVIS. What I’d like is to take my couple minutes and expand on a couple of points and add another or so. 

Mr. STEVENS. Okay. 

Mr. DAVIS. While the support provided by NSF is in fact only 21 

percent of the total federal budget for basic research conducted in 

colleges and universities across the country, it is a very important 

resource and it provides 57 percent of federal support for research 

in the social sciences, and so for fields like my association’s discipline, anthropology, but also political science, economics, and the 

other social sciences, this is a critical amount of support that 

undergirds and supports the research that’s being done within 

these fields. 

Even more than that percentage in anthropology, the $92 million 

that has been spent by NSF over the last three years to support 

anthropological research, and it’s in archeology, cultural anthropology, physical anthro and linguistics, is in fact, 60 percent of all 

of the federal support that goes into these fields. So it is even more 

significant in the case of anthropology. 

While there are a few other sources for federal support in anthropology, this is the kind of thing that supports the work such as 

those that I mention in my written testimony, and I won’t go over 

those. These projects, however, are simply examples of the kind of 

groundbreaking research that has been the source of the generation of new knowledge in areas of major public policy concern, such 

as incarceration and rehabilitation. The reduction of the frequency 

and damage of well fires, which was another one. A third one, the 

relationship of chronic disease to reproductive maturation. I would 

also note that NSF has provided support to my own association, 

the American Anthropological Association for the development of a 

museum exhibit that’s now traveling the country on the subject of 

race, and is serving as a tremendous stimulus for public conversations and public education in all the places in which that exhibit 

is being viewed. 

Other anthropological projects of equal importance could have 

been conducted, are being conducted in colleges and universities 

around the country. I use these only as examples. 

We believe that the nation’s investment in science and technology reaps benefits for years to come and we believe that those 

benefits far outweigh the level of federal support that’s expended. 

I urge the Committee to provide full support requested by the 

President for the National Science Foundation in the 2011 budget, 

and thank you very much for receiving our testimony. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, I know that in a bipartisan way the Subcommittee is quite interested in support along the lines of your testimony. We do have obviously fiscal pressures on us and we have 

many of our fellow citizens who believe the federal government 

should be free from spending money, and the last thing in the 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
319 

world that we should do is actually tax anyone for important federal priorities. So it’s important to put these matters on the record 

and the reasons for requests for spending, and we appreciate you 

coming. There is a vote on the floor, and we’re going to proceed forward, so Rachel Poor, your moment has arrived. Your written testimony is going to be put in the record, but the Committee is very 

interested in anything you’d like to add. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP OF SCIENCE 

SOCIETY OF AMERICA, SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF 

AMERICA 

WITNESS 

RACHEL POOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY, CROP SCIENCE 

SOCIETY OF AMERICA, SOIL SCIENCE SOCIETY OF AMERICA 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
320 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 536 here 57370A.185
321 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 537 here 57370A.186
322 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 538 here 57370A.187
323 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 539 here 57370A.188
324 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 540 here 57370A.189
325 

Ms. POOR. Good afternoon, Congressman Fattah. The American 

Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the 

Soil Science Society of America appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today in support of the National Science Foundation. 

Many of our members, scientists’ fundamental research depends 

on grants from NSF’s biology, geosciences, and education and 

human resources directorates. For this reason, we fully support the 

administration’s request for $7.424 billion for fiscal year 2011, 

which is roughly a six percent increase over last year’s funding. 

While we understand that Congress faces tough economic choices 

in these times, we find that funding for basic science research is 

crucial to America’s continued economic and intellectual prominence, and that it pays high dividends in the future. For instance, 

agricultural research, for every dollar spent, produces nine dollars’ 

worth of food for malnourished people in food insecure countries. 

Basic science research has produced many other exceptional technologies and tools. For example, an NSF grant funded the physics 

research that led to magnetic residence imaging, known as the 

MRI, and nuclear residence magnetic spectroscopy, or NMR, technologies that have transformed medicine. 

In the discipline of soil science, NMR is used to characterize organic matter in environmental samples, a critical diagnostic for 

evaluating and understanding global carbon cycles and climate 

change. Basic research funded by the National Science Foundation 

has led to advances with applications in agriculture, environmental 

protection, manufacturing, and the national defense. 

America’s universities are still among the most respected in the 

world, but American students are falling behind in science and 

math compared to those in other developed countries. University 

budgets are extremely tight, forcing university researchers to look 

elsewhere for funding. Many of our best and brightest students no 

longer seek advanced science degrees because they find that business, law, and medicine promise more lucrative careers. As a result, the agronomic crop and soil sciences, in particular, have suffered. 

Many of our members depend heavily on federal funding for their 

research which has led to increased crop yields, reduced environmental impacts, and new sources of fuel. As other funding has 

dried up, research grants funded by the NSF have become increasingly competitive. As an example, today we are hosting a member 

from the University of California, Emerson, who’s a soil scientist 

in town for a poster session. He has four different grants from the 

NSF, totaling about 1.3 million dollars. One of his projects that he’s 

working on currently addresses the problem of waste from the 

dairy industry in California’s Central Valley, which has many large 

dairy operations, and in some counties, more cows than people. 

Each dairy cow produces 60 gallons of waste a day, and this 

waste has many nutrients that poison the ground water, and 

causes algae blooms and other toxic experiences. His research is focusing on ways to turn this dairy waste into Bio-Terre, which is a 

lightweight substance that can be easily transported to other areas 

in need of fertilizer and possibly also used as fuel source. 

We hope that you will continue to strongly support funding for 

the National Science Foundation, and especially the bio, geo, and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
326 

ehr directorates. Thank you again for providing the Agronomy, 

Crop, and Soil Societies the opportunity to testify before the House 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science 

today. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, let me thank you for your testimony and I see 

that you graduated from Johns Hopkins, my wife’s alma mater, so 

even though you didn’t get a chance to go to University of Penn U, 

obviously you have done well, notwithstanding. 

Ms. POOR. Were you at homecoming last weekend? 

Mr. FATTAH. No, but seriously, thank you for your testimony, and 

would you like to identify your guest that you said that you 

brought with you? 

Ms. POOR. I do have a guest. He’s not here. He’s actually in a 

pro-visit right now. 

Mr. FATTAH. Oh, okay. All right. 

Ms. POOR. He’s meeting with one of the California congressmen. 

Mr. FATTAH. All right, you can submit for the record his name 

and information. That would be great. All right? 

Ms. POOR. Okay. 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The witness provided the following information 

for the record:] 

Today we are hosting Dr. Teamrat Ghezzehei, a Soil Science Society of America 

member from the School of Natural Sciences at the University of California, Merced. 

He is a soil scientist, in town for an NSF poster session. He has four different 

grants from the NSF, totaling about $1.3 million. One of his projects that he is 

working on currently addresses the problem of waste from the dairy industry in 

California’s Central Valley, which has many large dairy operations, and, in some 

counties, more cows than people. Each dairy cow produces 60 gallons of waste a day, 

and this waste has many nutrients that poison the groundwater, causing algae 

blooms and other toxic effects. His research is focusing on ways to turn this dairy 

waste into biochar, which is a light substance that can be easily transported to other 

areas in need of fertilizer, and possibly also used as a fuel source. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. 

Ms. POOR. Thanks. 

Mr. FATTAH. Tom Smith. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

WITNESS 

TOM SMITH, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
327 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 548 here 57370A.190
328 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 549 here 57370A.191
329 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 550 here 57370A.192
330 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 551 here 57370A.193
331 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 552 here 57370A.194
332 

Mr. FATTAH. Your written testimony will be, as we would say, 

spread across the record. 

Mr. TOM SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. You can expound to whatever degree you like given 

that there are less than eight minutes left on this vote. 

Mr. TOM SMITH. Thank you, Congressman Fattah. I very much 

appreciate the opportunity to be here today. I’d like to just mention, my name is Tom Smith. I’m a Deputy Executive Director of 

the American Society of Civil Engineers. We are very pleased to 

offer this testimony to add on to some others that you’ve heard in 

support of the funding for the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, and the National Science Foundation. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers is a non-profit technical 

society dedicated to advancing the science and education of civil engineers, of engineers, and advancing the profession of engineering. 

It was founded in 1852 and it’s the country’s oldest national engineering society. It’s a 501(c)3, not for profit organization. 

I would refer the members of the Subcommittee to the written 

testimony and I’d like to just cover a few other points that I think 

are important, particularly for U.S. competitiveness of the research 

and education programs at the National Science Foundation, and 

of equal importance to the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s core laboratories programs and standards activities. 

This Subcommittee no doubt has heard from numerous prominent 

scientific engineering and academic and industry groups, including 

those today, supporting these vital programs and ASCE would like 

to add our support to the President’s request of $7.424 billion for 

NSF, and then the $918.9 million for NIST. 

The importance of activities carried out by these agencies to the 

nation’s economic health cannot be overstated, certainly from the 

American Society of Civil Engineers’ perspective. I would like to 

take my time here today to focus on hazards mitigation in particular. With NSF and NIST as well as other federal agencies there 

exists a number of small but critical programs designed to mitigate 

the impact of natural disasters. These programs include the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, sometimes referred 

to as NEHRP, as well as the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program, and several others. These programs deserve Congress’ full attention and funding, and perhaps the earthquake recently in China helps to illustrate that, as well as Haiti and Chile. 

We actually have three assessment teams that are over in Chile 

right now, analyzing coasts, ports, oceans, impact in Chile. We 

have one also analyzing structures, and another analyzing additional infrastructures such as wastewater treatment plants, telecommunications facilities. 

So what we do is we send teams over there that analyze this and 

assess the impacts of that earthquake, and we come back and we 

figure out ways that we can learn from that, enhance our standards that are then adopted into building codes throughout the 

country, and even throughout the world. And it’s this National 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program that plays a big part in 

that in helping increase our preparedness for earthquakes in the 

future, and if you look at the impact of Haiti versus the impact of 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
333 

Chile, you’ll see that how important this is, being prepared for 

earthquakes. The death and destruction was far less in Chile. Each year the United States suffers an estimated $52 billion dollars in property damage, destruction of commerce, lost lives due to 

natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and 

earthquakes. A single major event such as a large scale earthquake 

or hurricane can cause between $80 billion dollars and $200 billion 

dollars in economic losses in the affected areas. The tragedy caused 

by hurricanes Katrina and Rita in August and September of 2005 

underscore the risk to society from natural disasters, and the importance of these programs. I will just sum up by saying that an 

ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and so this is money 

well spent, and I know you’ve got so many different competing interests for money as you referenced earlier. But I will say that this 

is truly money very well spent. This comes from the civil engineers 

who are designing modern civilization. 

Since 1977, NEHRP has provided the resources and leadership 

that have led to significant advances and understanding and the 

risks earthquakes pose and the best way to counter them. Under 

NEHRP, which includes activities at NIST and NSF together with 

operations at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 

U.S. Geological Survey, there has been a constant source of funding 

for seismic monitoring, mapping, research testing, co-development, 

mitigation and emergency preparedness. A national study and report by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Counsel entitled, ‘‘Natural 

Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities’’ has concluded that money 

spent on reducing the risk of natural hazards is a sound investment. On average a dollar spent on hazard mitigation provides the 

nation about $4 in future benefits. This type of research to be conducted under this program has the potential to increase the benefits greatly. 

The House recently approved H.R. 3820, that’s the Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Act of 2010. The bill which passed on a vote 

of 335 to 50 would reauthorize NEHRP for five years. The legislation authorizes NEHRP for five years, with a total authorized funding level of $176 million dollars in fiscal year 2011. Among the programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee the bill authorizes $66 million dollars for NSF, $7.7 million dollars for NIST 

under the NEHRP program. ASCE urges the Committee support 

the full authorized funding level for these programs. 

Another important program that has the potential to save lives 

and property is the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program that was created in 2004 by Public Law 108–360. As the 

events of 2005 on the nation’s Gulf Coast have so vividly illustrated, the nation remains highly vulnerable to major windstorms. 

This program was also reauthorized by H.R. 3820 for $26.3 million 

dollars for fiscal year 2011, and we urge Congress to support full 

funding levels for this. 

So let me just say in conclusion, ASCE really is the largest publisher also of civil engineering content. So again, over 30 technical 

journals, we rely significantly on engineers and scientists throughout the world, many of whom are funded by NSF and this information that is being used to develop standards that go into building 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
334 

codes in this country, and it is important to protecting the public 

health safety and welfare, and we urge your support. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank you for your testimony, and it goes 

without saying that the community agrees that an ounce of prevention is far preferable than a pound of cure. 

Everyone should stop looking at the clock. You know, there’s no 

possibility I want to miss this vote, all right? There are 300 plus 

members who have not voted yet. So even though the time is running out, the process will go on for a minute, and we have secured 

another member of the Subcommittee who is going to vote and then 

come to make sure that our two remaining witnesses fully get a 

chance to articulate their viewpoint. 

So we’re going to move forward, and I would ask Howard Silver 

to come forward now and speak on behalf of the Consortium of Social Science Associations. 

Mr. SILVER. If you need to go vote, I’ve got time. 

Mr. FATTAH. No, that’s fine. I have time, too. So you go right 

ahead, and we’ll get your testimony on the record. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS 

WITNESS 

HOWARD SILVER, PH.D., CONSORTIUM OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATIONS 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
335 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 560 here 57370A.195
336 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 561 here 57370A.196
337 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 562 here 57370A.197
338 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 563 here 57370A.198
339 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 564 here 57370A.199
340 

Mr. SILVER. I am Howard Silver, and I am the Executive Director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations, which advocates for federal funding for the social behavior on economic 

sciences. I will begin by establishing my Philadelphia bona fides. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now you definitely have my interest. If you’ve got 

any connection in Philadelphia you’re almost guaranteed to get 

what you want out of this Committee. So go right ahead. 

Mr. SILVER. Through my wife of 35 years, who was born and 

raised in Philadelphia and who graduated from Temple University. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well I spent a decade or so on the Temple Board 

of Trustees, she could have gone anywhere. If she went to Temple, 

that’s great. 

Mr. SILVER. Anyway, I am here in my short time to try and talk 

about five agencies under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee, 

which have significant impact on SB scientists, the research they 

conduct, the data they collect, analyze, and disseminate. First, the 

National Science Foundation. This is, as you know, the 60th anniversary of NSF. They remain the premiere basic research agency 

in the world. I agree with my colleagues who spoke earlier in urging your support for the President’s request of $7.424 billion. 

I also want to thank the Subcommittee for their support for the $3 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, 

and for the Subcommittee’s support for all of the disciplines that 

NSF supports. 

With regard to the fiscal 2011 budget for the social behavioral 

and economic science directorate, we are getting somewhat disappointed with the small increase. It’s 5.3 percent, and only about 

$13 million, but we understand that there are opportunities for scientists in a lot of the interdisciplinary cross directorate programs, 

including what ASA was calling CYS, cyber infrastructure in the 

environmental safety, health, and social ramifications of new technology, and the science and innovation policy. We are also delighted that Mridul Gautam, who happens to be a former President 

of COSSA, is now the Assistant Director for the SP directorate. 

As you know, the importance of the SB sciences and the research 

the scientists conduct to all of the problems that affect our nation 

and world, whether it be climate change, energy, terrorism, learning and ducation, we’re understanding political, economic, and social behavior, and like other disciplines supported by NSF, SB supported scientists, win Nobel prizes. Political scientist Elinor 

Ostrom, and economist Oliver Williamson, the two latest 2009 winners of the prize in economics. 

With regard to NSF’s education role, we strongly believe that the 

SB scientists have a role in STEM education, whether it be 

through the research conducted at the Science of Learning Centers, 

which is supported by SBE’s funding, which looks into how children and adults as well learn, to the research and evaluation programs of the Reese Division of the EHR which are scheduled for 

enhancements in the President’s 2011 budget. 

We are also strongly supportive of NSF’s role in enhancing diversity and broadening participation in the sciences. COSSA has 

taken a leadership role in the scientific community with a retreat 

that we put on in 2008 with a Congressional briefing in 2009, both 

which there’s a report and some slides from the presentations on 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
341 

our web page, and further activity will occur either in late 2009 or 

early 2010. 

Moving on to the Department of Justice. We thank the Subcommittee for it’s strong support of the large increase for the Bureau of Justice in the fiscal 2010 budget to revitalize the National 

Crime Victimization Survey, and we strongly support the increase, 

the $621⁄2 million for fiscal year 2011. We are delighted that the 

President has nominated a strong scientist, Jim Lynch, to head 

BJS. Hopefully one of these days the Senate will confirm him. 

This year, as you may note, the big increase has shifted to the 

National Institute of Justice. It is trying to revitalize that research 

arm of the department. We have strongly supported the request for 

$70 million. We are delighted that John Loeb, another strong scientist, has been nominated to run NIJ, and like Jim Lynch, one of 

these days the Senate will confirm him. 

You’ve probably heard for the last few years about the National 

Academy’s Report on the National Institute of Justice. I was told 

last week it will finally come to fruition probably the end of this 

month or the beginning of next month, and hopefully that will spur 

on the improvement of NIJ the way the earlier report on BJS has 

helped revitalized that. 

Social science research at NIJ is devoted to building an evidence 

base to crime and criminal justice policy. It is something that not 

only social scientists are trying to do, but it’s something police 

chiefs all over the country want. My written testimony has some 

quotes from police leaders from one end of the country to the other, 

asking, supporting research here. 

The Census. As we know, we have three days left to mail back 

our census forms, and before the Census Bureau starts the non-response follow-up, we strongly thank the Subcommittee for its support in getting the Census funded through all the difficulties it 

went through over the past three years. It’s interesting, I remember the 2010 Census Advisory Committee at the meeting last week 

in Suitland. We were already talking about envisioning the 2020 

Census, and what that would mean perhaps not having the postal 

service, for example. The Census Bureau is going to do a lot of research on the 2020, and so the support for the request for increasing the sample size of the American community survey is just very, 

very important to this effort as we go down the road. 

And finally, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has a big increase 

to $109.2 million. It’s a large percentage increase but we hope the 

Subcommittee can support it. BA wants to do four things, issue 

GDP reports by industry on a quarterly basis. They want to give 

us better measures of individual household income, they want to 

improve the foreign direct investment data that they have and improve the data on the energy sector, all very important to giving 

us a better picture of the American economy so that we can react 

in a much quicker way to jolts to it, such as the ones we’ve had 

in the past few years. 

Thank you for your time, your attention, and now you can go 

vote. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, thank you very much. You’re a very smart 

person since you married someone from Philadelphia. 

Mr. SILVER. I’ll tell her that. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
342 

Mr. FATTAH. But your judgment is in question if you sincerely 

believe the Senate is going to do anything at any point. But I want 

to recognize the former Chairman of the Committee who is going 

to sit in the chair, my great colleague, Mr. Serrano. The Yankees 

are going to lose this year. But he’s here, and I want the record 

to reflect that if Patrick Kennedy would have been more efficient, 

I would have gone through the last witness here, Anthony (Bud) 

Rock. 

Mr. SILVER. I just wanted to say that aside from my wife from 

Philadelphia, I came from the Bronx. 

Mr. FATTAH. That shows. 

Mr. SERRANO [presiding]. Okay, so now we will hear from Anthony (Bud) Rock. It sounds like a rock and roll singer. 

Mr. ROCK. I’ve heard that, actually. 

Mr. SERRANO. From the Association of Science-Technology Centers, Incorporated. 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010. 

ASSOCIATION OF SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, 

INCORPORATED 

WITNESS 

ANTHONY (BUD) ROCK, ASSOCIATION OF SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, INCORPORATED 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
343 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 572 here 57370A.200
344 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 573 here 57370A.201
345 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 574 here 57370A.202
346 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 575 here 57370A.203
347 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 576 here 57370A.204
348 

Mr. ROCK. Thank you very much, Congressman Serrano. Thank 

you for giving me the opportunity to speak here today and for your 

willingness to join in for the very last presenter at the sessions 

here today. My name is Bud Rock, and I’m the CEO of the Association of Science-Technology Centers. We are a non-profit organization of science centers and museums that are dedicated to advancing science education and furthering public engagement with 

science. 

I’m here today before you very briefly to urge the Subcommittee 

to consider reversing the administration’s proposed budget reductions in the area of science education programs at the National 

Science Foundation, at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and at NASA, as well. I have submitted written testimony for the record so I will be very brief today as the last presenter. 

Just to emphasize that our science centers are sites of informal 

learning, and they are geared for people of all ages, from all backgrounds, who will learn the basics of science and who will understand how science addresses itself behind very important issues of 

our day—the climate, energy, environment, health, nutrition, and 

disease, and a heavy focus today on the new technologies and their 

impacts on our daily lives. 

Mr. Chairman, we have nearly 500 member science institutions 

and we serve over 80 million visitors per year in our centers 

around the country. These centers are featuring interactive exhibits, they’re featuring hands-on science experiences, there are educational programs for children and for adults, but they are also assisting our nation’s teachers of science and technology and engineering and mathematics by offering workshops and instructional 

seminars and a variety of curriculum materials, as well. These are 

centers that range in scale from the largest centers, you certainly 

are familiar with the New York Hall of Science in New York, the 

Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, the Exploratorium in San Francisco, Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. These are all 

very large institutions. And they range right through to some very 

small institutions as well, those that are tied to universities and 

tied to other laboratories around the country. 

Our centers today are reaching 18 million students per year, and 

these are not just the school field trips that you tend to be most 

familiar with. These are centers that are offering classes and demonstrations. They are offering school outreach programs, they are 

offering science camps, resources for home schoolers. They are 

doing a great deal of work in the after-school programs and the 

youth development programs throughout the entire country. 

We hope that this Committee will continue to support the work 

that our science centers do and it’s through the National Science 

Foundation and NASA and NOAA that we look to this kind of support. This Subcommittee is responsible for approximately 40 percent of all the federal support for the STEM education programs 

that are so critical obviously to the nation’s economic strength. 

In the National Academy’s Report, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering 

Storm’’, there was a recommendation that the nation increase its 

talent pool, and that the emphasis be placed on K12 science and 

mathematics education. I just want to emphasize here today that 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
349 

in order to improve STEM education, we must draw on a full range 

of learning opportunities and experiences including those that are 

informal and non-school settings, and it’s for that reason that it’s 

hard to understand why the administration has proposed such 

sharp reductions in informal science education. The budget of 

NSF’s informal science education program, which has had no measurable growth for over five years now, would actually drop by 2.4 

percent in this budget. That’s $1.6 million dollars in a program 

that’s only funded at $66 million to begin with, while the entire 

agency is anticipated to grow over seven percent. 

NOAA and NASA, their education programs would each decline 

by over 20 percent, and that is really hard for us as science centers 

to grasp in the face of all that these programs have to offer. It’s 

particularly hard for us to grasp in view of the fact that the administration’s own initiatives are designed to improve the participation 

and the performance of American students in these areas of the 

STEM fields. 

I thank the Subcommittee for the emphasis that they’ve placed 

in the past on climate change education, for example, and I would 

argue that we should continue in that same vein and put an emphasis utilizing the science centers and their museums in areas 

such as energy education and energy and environment, and in 

health and in areas that focus on applications of the new technologies. 

We appreciate the tight fiscal constraints, and we understand 

that the Subcommittee is contending with these. Even so, we would 

respectfully request that the Subcommittee seek to reverse the reductions proposed by the administration for informal science education at these three agencies, NSF, NOAA, and NASA, and we 

would hope that you would consider revitalizing these programs at 

a rate that is similar to the administration’s growth trajectory for 

these agencies overall, particularly the National Science Foundation. 

My final point, Mr. Chairman, is that we look forward to the endorsement for informal science education that will be forthcoming, 

we anticipate in the Report of the President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology where we’ve had a lot of engagement in 

this regard. Clearly the administration recognizes the value of 

what we are doing. The question now is whether or not we can associate that value with the larger role of the agencies involved, 

NOAA, NASA, and NSF and see that they are recognized with that 

same support. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and be the 

last speaker here today, and for your willingness to join for this 

last statement. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SERRANO. Well, we thank you for your testimony. We can assure you that the fact that we have the first full day back where 

we run around and visit seven meetings at the same time is not 

an indication of how worthy your testimony is. We take it very seriously, and I know this Committee well. Just one point. It is a very 

difficult fiscal situation that we have, but there is a commitment, 

I know, from this Chairman, Chairman Mollohan, and from this 

Committee to do the best that we can because there is a commitment to those sciences and there is a commitment to STEM, and 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
350 

there is a commitment to making sure that we continue to move 

ahead, and you will see that as we go along trying to put this budget together. 

Mr. ROCK. Thank you very much for your commitment on that. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you. Thank you so much. I get to adjourn. 

[The following additional written statements were provided for 

the record:] 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARING
351 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 583 here 57370A.205
352 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 584 here 57370A.206
353 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 585 here 57370A.207
354 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 586 here 57370A.208
355 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 587 here 57370A.209
356 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 588 here 57370A.210
357 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 589 here 57370A.211
358 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 590 here 57370A.212
359 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 591 here 57370A.213
360 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 592 here 57370A.214
361 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 593 here 57370A.215
362 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 594 here 57370A.216
363 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 595 here 57370A.217
364 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 596 here 57370A.218
365 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 597 here 57370A.219
366 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 598 here 57370A.220
367 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 599 here 57370A.221
368 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 600 here 57370A.222
369 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 601 here 57370A.223
370 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 602 here 57370A.224
371 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 603 here 57370A.225
372 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 604 here 57370A.226
373 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 605 here 57370A.227
374 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 606 here 57370A.228
375 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 607 here 57370A.229
376 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 608 here 57370A.230
377 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 609 here 57370A.231
378 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 610 here 57370A.232
379 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 611 here 57370A.233
380 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 612 here 57370A.234
381 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 613 here 57370A.235
382 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 614 here 57370A.236
383 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 615 here 57370A.237
384 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 616 here 57370A.238
385 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 617 here 57370A.239
386 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 618 here 57370A.240
387 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 619 here 57370A.241
388 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 620 here 57370A.242
389 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 621 here 57370A.243
390 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 622 here 57370A.244
391 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 623 here 57370A.245
392 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 624 here 57370A.246
393 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 625 here 57370A.247
394 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 626 here 57370A.248
395 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 627 here 57370A.249
396 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 628 here 57370A.250
397 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 629 here 57370A.251
398 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 630 here 57370A.252
399 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 631 here 57370A.253
400 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 632 here 57370A.254
401 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 633 here 57370A.255
402 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 634 here 57370A.256
403 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 635 here 57370A.257
404 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 636 here 57370A.258
405 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 637 here 57370A.259
406 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 638 here 57370A.260
407 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 639 here 57370A.261
408 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 640 here 57370A.262
409 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 641 here 57370A.263
410 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 642 here 57370A.264
411 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 643 here 57370A.265
412 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 644 here 57370A.266
413 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 645 here 57370A.267
414 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 646 here 57370A.268
415 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 647 here 57370A.269
416 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 648 here 57370A.270
417 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 649 here 57370A.271
418 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 650 here 57370A.272
419 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 651 here 57370A.273
420 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 652 here 57370A.274
421 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 653 here 57370A.275
422 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 654 here 57370A.276
423 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 655 here 57370A.277
424 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 656 here 57370A.278
425 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 657 here 57370A.279
426 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 658 here 57370A.280
427 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 659 here 57370A.281
428 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 660 here 57370A.282
429 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 661 here 57370A.283
430 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 662 here 57370A.284
431 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 663 here 57370A.285
432 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 664 here 57370A.286
433 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 665 here 57370A.287
434 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 666 here 57370A.288
435 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 667 here 57370A.289
436 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 668 here 57370A.290
437 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 669 here 57370A.291
438 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 670 here 57370A.292
439 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 671 here 57370A.293
440 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 672 here 57370A.294
441 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 673 here 57370A.295
442 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 674 here 57370A.296
443 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 675 here 57370A.297
444 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 676 here 57370A.298
445 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 677 here 57370A.299
446 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 678 here 57370A.300
447 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 679 here 57370A.301
448 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 680 here 57370A.302
449 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 681 here 57370A.303
450 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 682 here 57370A.304
451 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 683 here 57370A.305
452 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 684 here 57370A.306
453 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 685 here 57370A.307
454 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 686 here 57370A.308
455 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 687 here 57370A.309
456 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 688 here 57370A.310
457 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 689 here 57370A.311
458 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 690 here 57370A.312
459 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 691 here 57370A.313
460 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 692 here 57370A.314
461 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 693 here 57370A.315
462 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 694 here 57370A.316
463 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 695 here 57370A.317
464 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 696 here 57370A.318
465 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 697 here 57370A.319
466 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 698 here 57370A.320
467 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 699 here 57370A.321
468 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 700 here 57370A.322
469 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 701 here 57370A.323
470 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 702 here 57370A.324
471 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 703 here 57370A.325
472 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 704 here 57370A.326
473 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 705 here 57370A.327
474 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 706 here 57370A.328
475 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 707 here 57370A.329
476 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 708 here 57370A.330
477 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 709 here 57370A.331
478 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 710 here 57370A.332
479 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 711 here 57370A.333
480 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 712 here 57370A.334
481 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 713 here 57370A.335
482 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 714 here 57370A.336
483 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 715 here 57370A.337
484 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 716 here 57370A.338
485 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 717 here 57370A.339
486 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 718 here 57370A.340
487 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 719 here 57370A.341
488 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 720 here 57370A.342
489 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 721 here 57370A.343
490 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 722 here 57370A.344
491 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 723 here 57370A.345
492 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 724 here 57370A.346
493 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 725 here 57370A.347
494 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 726 here 57370A.348
495 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 727 here 57370A.349
496 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 728 here 57370A.350
497 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 729 here 57370A.351
498 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 730 here 57370A.352
499 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 731 here 57370A.353
500 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 732 here 57370A.354
501 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 733 here 57370A.355
502 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 734 here 57370A.356
503 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 735 here 57370A.357
504 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 736 here 57370A.358
505 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 737 here 57370A.359
506 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 738 here 57370A.360
507 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 739 here 57370A.361
508 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 740 here 57370A.362
509 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 741 here 57370A.363
510 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 742 here 57370A.364
511 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 743 here 57370A.365
512 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 744 here 57370A.366
513 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 745 here 57370A.367
514 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 746 here 57370A.368
515 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 747 here 57370A.369
516 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 748 here 57370A.370
517 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 749 here 57370A.371
518 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 750 here 57370A.372
519 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 751/900 here 57370A.373
(i) 

W I T N E S S E S 

Page 

Acker, Bill ................................................................................................................. 1 

Alexander, Nick ....................................................................................................... 80 

Anthes, Richard ....................................................................................................... 228 

Arnold, Douglas ....................................................................................................... 498 

Bean, David .............................................................................................................. 45 

Bedford, David...................................................................................................... 278, 473 

Benoit, Jeff ............................................................................................................... 493

Blakey, Marion ......................................................................................................... 93 

Brandel, A. F ............................................................................................................ 417 

Brown, W. Y ............................................................................................................. 456 

Bye, Dr. Raymond, Jr .............................................................................................. 405 

Capps, Thomas ......................................................................................................... 256 

Carr, J. P .................................................................................................................. 362 

Carr, J. R .................................................................................................................. 439 

Carter, Jena ............................................................................................................. 459 

Chandler, Bill ........................................................................................................... 270 

Chatwin, Anthony .................................................................................................... 285 

Clarke, Hon. Yvette ................................................................................................. 108 

Cobb, S. B ................................................................................................................. 114

Cole, Lorraine .......................................................................................................... 167 

Coochise, Elbridge ................................................................................................... 38 

Crockett, L. R ........................................................................................................... 477 

Davis, William .......................................................................................................... 314 

de Poutiloff, M. B ..................................................................................................... 482 

Derene, Steve ........................................................................................................... 436 

Ehlers, Hon. Vern .................................................................................................... 236 

Farr, Hon. Sam ........................................................................................................ 60 

Fletcher, Kristen ...................................................................................................... 385 

Frank, Billy, Jr ........................................................................................................ 20 

Fremstad, Shawn ..................................................................................................... 380 

Gautam, Mridul ....................................................................................................... 14 

Goldberg, Dr. M. E .................................................................................................. 503 

Gordon, Hon. Bart ................................................................................................... 65 

Gropp, Robert ........................................................................................................... 362 

Harkins, A. M .......................................................................................................... 144 

Harvell, Samantha .................................................................................................. 79 

Heller, Hon. Dean .................................................................................................... 28 

Hensel, Nancy .......................................................................................................... 394 

Hoogstraten, Bruce .................................................................................................. 102 

Houston, Aaron ........................................................................................................ 123 

Huchra, John ............................................................................................................ 355 

Jackson, M. C., III ................................................................................................... 449 

Jackson, Tina ........................................................................................................... 241 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING
Page

ii 

Jones, Hon. W. B ..................................................................................................... 351 

Keel, Jefferson .......................................................................................................... 54 

Kepferle, Gregory ..................................................................................................... 179 

Kirby, Kate ............................................................................................................... 224 

Kucinich, Hon. D. J ................................................................................................. 353 

Lee, Anne .................................................................................................................. 399

Leopold, Bruce ......................................................................................................... 517 

Love, M. E ................................................................................................................ 249 

Lowell, Beth ............................................................................................................. 464 

Lynch, G. P ............................................................................................................. 86, 488

Mackenzie, S. A ....................................................................................................... 210 

Mandel, David .......................................................................................................... 469 

Martin, Gabrielle ..................................................................................................... 130 

Mathis, K. J .............................................................................................................. 292 

Matyas, Jaime .......................................................................................................... 195 

McCandless, Bruce, II ............................................................................................. 427 

McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn ......................................................................................... 33 

McClure, Thomas ..................................................................................................... 402 

Menashes, M. E ....................................................................................................... 444 

Millward, Susan ....................................................................................................... 152 

Morrison, Robert ...................................................................................................... 432 

Murphy, Charles ...................................................................................................... 508 

Olson, Hon. Pete ...................................................................................................... 73 

Osthus, Rebecca ....................................................................................................... 368 

Peters, Kelly ............................................................................................................. 172 

Petsko, G. A .............................................................................................................. 203 

Pietrafesa, Leonard ................................................................................................. 263 

Pines, Z. A ................................................................................................................ 299

Poor, Rachel ............................................................................................................. 319 

Riksen, Michael ........................................................................................................ 453 

Rock, Anthony (Bud) ............................................................................................... 342 

Saloom, Stephen ...................................................................................................... 412 

Sandy, Mary ............................................................................................................. 187 

Schiffries, C. M ........................................................................................................ 307 

Silver, Howard ......................................................................................................... 334 

Slippen, Dan ............................................................................................................. 365 

Sloan, Virginia ......................................................................................................... 389 

Smith, Scott .............................................................................................................. 8 

Smith, Tom ............................................................................................................... 326 

Stedman, B. J ........................................................................................................... 422 

Taber, R. B ............................................................................................................... 513 

Talman, Dr. W. T ..................................................................................................... 218 

Velazquez, Tracy ...................................................................................................... 158 

Walker, Captain David ............................................................................................ 514 

Williams, B. D .......................................................................................................... 138 

Zorn, J. E .................................................................................................................. 407 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with HEARING