U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–588 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–186 

THE IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

FEBRUARY 14, 2013—WASHINGTON, DC 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Ranking 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Montana 

CHARLES E. KIEFFER, Staff Director 

WILLIAM D. DUHNKE III, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening Statement of Chairman Barbara A. Mikulski ........................................ 1 

Sequester Impact ..................................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby ............................................................... 3 

Super Committee ..................................................................................................... 4 

Additional Submitted Statements From Members ............................................... 5 

Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy .......................................... 6 

Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin ....................................... 6 

Statement of Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of Management and 

Budget ................................................................................................................... 7 

Effects of Sequestration .......................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement of Daniel I. Werfel ................................................................ 9 

Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education ............. 11 

Smart, Targeted Change Needed, Not Indiscriminate Cuts ................................ 11 

Local Education Agencies Planning and Stability Would Be Undermined ........ 12 

Sequester Would Affect Most Vulnerable Students .............................................. 12 

Impact on Higher Education and Student Aid ...................................................... 12 

Impact Aid—Sequester Impact Affects This School Year .................................... 13 

Impact on Education Department Administration ............................................... 13 

Serious Ripple Effects From indiscriminate Education Cuts ............................... 13 

Impact on Ability to Remain Globally Competitive .............................................. 13 

Prepared Statement of Arne Duncan ..................................................................... 14 

Immediate Impact of Sequestration ....................................................................... 14 

Impact on State and Local Educational Agencies ................................................. 14 

Impact on Programs Serving the Neediest Students ............................................ 15 

Impact on Student Aid ............................................................................................ 15 

Departmental Management Impact ....................................................................... 15 

Investing in the Future ........................................................................................... 16 

Long-Term Impact ................................................................................................... 16 

Statement of Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development ............................................................................................. 16 

Department of Housing and Urban Development Programs ............................... 17 

Prepared Statement of Shaun Donovan ................................................................ 18 

Harmful Effects of Sequestration on Homeless and Other Vulnerable Populations Around the Country ................................................................................ 18 

Sequestration’s Damaging Effects on Families, Communities, and the Economy Across the Nation ......................................................................................... 19 

Statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 20 

National Security and Economy ............................................................................. 20 

Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano .............................................................. 22 

Impact on the Economy and the American People ............................................... 22 

Disaster Preparedness and Recovery ..................................................................... 23 

Border Security ........................................................................................................ 23 

Immigration Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security Investigations ....................................................................................................................... 24

Transportation Security .......................................................................................... 24 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................... 24 

United States Secret Service Investigations and Protection ................................ 25 

Department of Homeland Security Research and Development .......................... 25 

Department of Homeland Security Enterprise ...................................................... 25 

Statement of Hon. Ashton B. Carter, Deputy Secretary, Department of Defense ...................................................................................................................... 26 

National Security ..................................................................................................... 26 

Department of Defense Civilian Workforce ........................................................... 27 
Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of Ashton B. Carter .............................................................. 29 

How Sequestration Would Work ............................................................................ 30 

What Sequestration Means ..................................................................................... 30 

Near-Term Actions in Response to the Possibility of March 1 Sequester and 

Year-Long Continuing Resolution ....................................................................... 31 

Additional Actions That Will Need to be Taken Should Sequestration and 

a Year-Long Continuing Resolution Occur ........................................................ 31 

Longer-Term Effects of Sequestration and Reductions in Discretionary Caps .. 32 

Sequestration Must be Avoided .............................................................................. 33 

Sequester Impact on Education .............................................................................. 34 

Disadvantaged Children .......................................................................................... 34 

Impact on Title I and Children With Disabilities ................................................. 35 

Federal Housing Administration ............................................................................ 35 

Unlimited Authority ................................................................................................ 36 

Reprogramming ....................................................................................................... 36 

Return to Regular Order of Budget Process .......................................................... 36 

Flexible Funding ...................................................................................................... 37 

Flexibility in Distributing Sequester Cuts Not a Solution ................................... 37 

Discretionary Caps .................................................................................................. 38 

Statement of Senator Tom Harkin ......................................................................... 39 

Statement of Senator Susan Collins ...................................................................... 40 

Continuing Resolution ............................................................................................. 41 

Shifting Education Funds Among Programs Not a Solution ............................... 41 

Statement of Senator Patty Murray ...................................................................... 42 

National Organizations (Listed Alphabetically) .................................................... 43 

Regional, State, and Local Organizations (Listed Alphabetically, by State) ...... 52 

Housing ..................................................................................................................... 82

Sequester Would Hit Hard Already Fiscally Strapped Local Education Agencies ......................................................................................................................... 83 

Childhood Education ............................................................................................... 83 

Negative Impact of Larger Class Sizes .................................................................. 84 

Impact on Head Start .............................................................................................. 84 

Statement of Senator Dan Coats ............................................................................ 84 

Statement of Senator Tom Udall ............................................................................ 86 

National Security Labs ............................................................................................ 86 

National Nuclear Security Administration ............................................................ 87 

Impacts on New Mexico’s Military Installations ................................................... 87 

Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski .................................................................. 88 

Priorities ................................................................................................................... 89 

Indian Health Services ............................................................................................ 89 

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein ................................................................ 90 

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company ........................................................... 91 

Continuing Resolution ............................................................................................. 91 

Long-Lead Financing ............................................................................................... 91 

Statement of Senator Roy Blunt ............................................................................ 92 

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget ......................................................................................... 93 

Sequester Effect on Impact Aid Funds .................................................................. 93 

Impact Aid Money .................................................................................................... 94 

Onsite Inspectors ..................................................................................................... 94 

Statement of Senator Mary Landrieu .................................................................... 95 

Border Patrol ............................................................................................................ 96 

Statement of Senator John Boozman ..................................................................... 98 

Veterans Benefits .................................................................................................... 98 

Shortfall in TRICARE ............................................................................................. 98 

Federal Aviation Administration Disruption ........................................................ 99 

Air Force Cuts Facilities Maintenance Projects .................................................... 100 

Statement of Senator Jeanne Shaheen .................................................................. 116 

Sequester Costs ........................................................................................................ 117 

Program Costs .......................................................................................................... 117 

Office of Inspector General Staff ............................................................................ 118 

Statement of Senator Jerry Moran ........................................................................ 119 

National Bioscience Agro-Defense Facility ............................................................ 119 

National Institutes of Health Research Projects ................................................... 121 

Statement of Senator Mark Pryor .......................................................................... 122 

Furloughs ................................................................................................................. 122 

Industrial Base ........................................................................................................ 123 

Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander ................................................................ 124 
Page

V 

Mandatory Programs Savings ................................................................................ 124 

Entitlement Spending ............................................................................................. 126 

Statement of Senator Jeff Merkley ........................................................................ 126 

Budget Control Act of 2011 ..................................................................................... 126 

Education Is an Investment That Should Not Be Cut ......................................... 127 

Section 8 ................................................................................................................... 128 

Statement of Senator Thad Cochran ...................................................................... 129 

Statement of Senator Jack Reed ............................................................................ 129 

Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 

2009 ....................................................................................................................... 130

Contracts .................................................................................................................. 131

Statement of Senator Lindsey Graham ................................................................. 131 

National Security ..................................................................................................... 131 

Sequester Impact on the Nation’s Ability to Compete .......................................... 132 

Education Investment ............................................................................................. 133 

Diversity of Students Obtaining Graduate Degrees ............................................. 133 

Start of Sequester .................................................................................................... 134 

Sequestration Responses From Departments and Agencies ................................ 135 

Department of Agriculture ...................................................................................... 136 

Additional Sequestration Information ............................................................ 137 

Department of Commerce ....................................................................................... 140 

Department of Defense ............................................................................................ 142 

Department of Education ........................................................................................ 144 

Department of Energy ............................................................................................. 146 

Department of Health and Human Services ......................................................... 147 

Department of Homeland Security ......................................................................... 149 

Department of Housing and Urban Development ................................................. 150 

Department of the Interior ..................................................................................... 150 

Department of the Interior .............................................................................. 151 

Department of Justice ............................................................................................. 152 

Department of Labor ............................................................................................... 155 

Department of State ................................................................................................ 157 

Impact of Sequestration on Department of State and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development ..................................................................... 158 

Department of Transportation ................................................................................ 159 

Department of the Treasury ................................................................................... 160 

Environmental Protection Agency .......................................................................... 161 

Potential Impacts of Sequestration ................................................................. 161 

Air Programs ..................................................................................................... 161 

Enforcement and Compliance Programs ........................................................ 162 

Tribal Programs ................................................................................................ 163 

Research and Development Programs ............................................................ 163 

Water Programs ................................................................................................ 164 

Community Protection Reduced ...................................................................... 164 

EPA State Cleanup and Waste Program Cuts ............................................... 165 

Federal Bureau of Investigation ............................................................................. 165 

Impacts of Sequestration by FBI Program ..................................................... 166 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................................. 169 

Impacts of March 1, 2013, Sequester on Fiscal Year 2013 President’s 

Budget Request for NASA ............................................................................ 169 

National Science Foundation .................................................................................. 171 

Small Business Administration .............................................................................. 172 

Social Security Administration ............................................................................... 173 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 174 

Questions Submitted to Danny I. Werfel ............................................................... 174 

Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu .............................................. 174 

Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed ......................................................... 174 

Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg ....................................... 175 

Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester .......................................................... 176 

Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich ....................................................... 176 

Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran ................................................... 177 

Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran ...................................................... 177 

National Institutes of Health Grants ............................................................. 177 

National Institutes of Health Public-Private Partnerships .......................... 178 

National Institutes of Health Authorities ...................................................... 178 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ................................................. 178 

Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven ..................................................... 179 
Page

VI 

Questions Submitted to Janet Napolitano ............................................................. 180 

Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu ............................................. 180 

Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity—Risk to Federal Computer Systems ................................................................................................ 180 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief Fund—Impact 

on Recovery ................................................................................................... 181 

Sequester—Growing the Economy by Enhancing Travel to the United 

States ............................................................................................................. 181 

Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg ....................................... 182 

Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall ......................................................... 182 

Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich ....................................................... 183 

Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran ................................................... 183 

Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats ..................................................... 184 

Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran ...................................................... 184 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility ......................................................... 184 

Questions Submitted to Ashton Carter .................................................................. 185 

Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray ..................................................... 185 

Cuts to the Department of Defense/Mental Health ....................................... 185 

Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein ............................................... 185 

Intelligence Activities ....................................................................................... 185 

Prepared Statement of Feeding America ............................................................... 187 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program Administrative Funds ............... 187 

Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program ....................................... 188 

Senior Meals ..................................................................................................... 188 

Emergency Food and Shelter Program ........................................................... 188 

Prepared Statement of the Zuni Tribe ................................................................... 189 
(1) 

THE IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SH–216, Hart Senate 

Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Harkin, Murray, Feinstein, 

Durbin, Landrieu, Reed, Pryor, Tester, Udall, Shaheen, Merkley, 

Begich, Shelby, Cochran, Alexander, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, 

Kirk, Coats, Blunt, Moran, and Johanns. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Good morning everybody. 

Today, we are convening a hearing of the Appropriations Committee. It is the first hearing of the Appropriations Committee in 

the 113th Congress, and it is the first hearing with me as the 

chairwoman of the full committee. 

The focus of today’s hearing will be on the impact of the sequester on our Government agencies and on critical national functions 

that are important to the security, safety, and future of the American people. 

Today, as I take and assume this gavel, I am mindful of the history that has come before me, and I want to acknowledge the previous leadership of our outstanding chairs. 

It is a great honor for me to chair this full committee, but I think 

we all carry a special place in our hearts, in our presence here 

today, for Senator Daniel K. Inouye, who was a great American 

and a great chairman. 

This committee has an incredible history of excellent chairmanship on both sides of the aisle, and we also need to acknowledge 

the incredible roles that Senator Ted Stevens and Senator Robert 

C. Byrd have played. 

I want to acknowledge the wonderful cooperation I received from 

Senator Thad Cochran. On December 20, I became the chair of this 

committee. Senator Cochran was the vice chair, and he helped me 

in those early days to expeditiously move the Hurricane Sandy appropriations. I will be forever grateful for his steady hand, his wise 

counsel, and the direct assistance that he provided me. 

Now I want to acknowledge my ranking member, and in this 

committee it is called the vice chairman, Senator Richard C. Shelby. It is well known to many of the members of the Appropriations 

Committee in the Senate that Senator Shelby and I have a longstanding personal and professional relationship. We came to the 
2 

House of Representatives together; we served on the same committee; and we have served in the Senate together. 

I look forward to working with him as my vice chair in continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that has been characteristic 

of this committee. My relationship with Senator Shelby is based on 

mutual trust, mutual respect, and a desire to move things forward 

in a regular order. 

We know that we will disagree on matters of policy, but we feel 

that if we could agree on matters of process, and get beyond Government of ultimatum, Government by crisis, Government from 

lurching from one dramatic event after the other, and return to a 

regular order, that the country will be better governed, and the 

American people will be better served. 

This Appropriations Committee, I remind everybody, is one of 

only two congressional committees mandated in the Constitution of 

the United States—a revenue committee, to gather revenue, to operate the Government of the United States; the other is to make 

wise and prudent expenditures in the interest of the United States. 

We are constitutionally mandated. 

All other committees, except Finance and Appropriations, were 

created by the Congress to govern itself. We were created to help 

govern the Nation. 

SEQUESTER IMPACT

And this is what brings us to our hearing today. We are going 

to focus on the impact of the sequester. 

I think it is a bad idea. I think it is bad policy. I think it is bad 

economic policy. I think it is bad governance policy. And I really 

don’t like it. 

It is my goal, working with the leadership, to be able to find a 

way to vitiate the sequester and hope that the higher powers find 

a way to vitiate it for the 9 years that it is mandated. 

What we hope to accomplish today is to take a look at the impact 

of the sequester on the American people. 

I want to thank all of the panelists for coming. 

Mr. Werfel, we want to thank you. We are eager to get the overview from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 

Deputy Secretary Carter, we thank you, because you are going 

to speak about defense, and we have heard a lot about defense. 

And it has been well-heard and well-spoken. 

But there is a lot more to the security of the United States, so 

we look forward to hearing from you, Secretary Napolitano, on the 

impact on homeland security. 

In the United States military, those who wear the uniform will 

be protected in the sequester, and they should be. But there are 

others who wear a uniform to protect the United States of America, 

and what is the impact on them? 

Then we have to look on the future of our country, the day-today needs, the ability to build the middle class from the middle on 

out. And this is where, Secretary Donovan, we want to talk to you 

about the housing economy. What is it that we need to do? 

And, Secretary Duncan, you hold the future of America in your 

hands. Yes, we want to out-innovate, but first we have to out-edu-
3 

cate. So we want to hear about the impact of the sequester on educational reform. 

Whether we look at national security or our domestic agencies, 

I believe we are at a rendezvous with destiny. We must solve this 

problem. 

But I don’t think the American people quite understand the impacts where the sequester mandates an $85 billion cut, equally to 

be shared by the Defense Department and the domestic Departments. 

And though you are national security, Secretary Napolitano, your 

department is grouped in with the domestics, which is what homeland security is. 

I fear furloughs, layoffs, and services not delivered to the American people. I also have to cope, along with my Members here, with 

the issues related to the fiscal cliff where we already have to take 

$4 billion, also the issues of—because of implementing homeland 

security. 

So we want to look at the impact on these agencies. For me, it 

will be about jobs and community safety. Are we going to have air 

traffic controllers? Are we going to have security guards furloughed? What about the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug 

Enforcement Administration? What about the people who staff our 

Federal prisons? And in the area of health and education, I understand 4 million Meals On Wheels won’t be delivered. What are they 

going to do, go to a nursing home that is also shut down because 

we are cutting payments? We are cutting funding for special education, already an unfunded Federal mandate. 

So we are here to listen to you. 

And, of course, Deputy Secretary Carter, we know the impact, 

that when defense sneezes, the economy could catch a cold or pneumonia. I fear those layoffs or furloughs, not only on the dedicated 

personnel at the Department of Defense (DOD), but also shipyard 

workers that will affect several States. So we want to hear from 

you. 

So enough about hearing from me. Working with the leadership, 

I will seek to try to find a balanced solution of increased revenue; 

yes, strategic cuts; and a prudent look at mandatory spending. 

There needs to be a balanced solution where the burden isn’t borne 

just by cuts on domestic agencies alone. 

I would like to make sure the sequester doesn’t happen this year, 

but, again, not happen over the next 9 years. 

Now I would like to turn to my vice chairman, Senator Shelby, 

for his opening statement. We will go to the panel after that. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Chairwoman—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Mikulski. 

Senator SHELBY. Yes, Mikulski, I know that. I can’t—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Not Murkowski. She is long and lanky 

and Republican. 

I am a little bit—— 

Senator SHELBY. For Senator Mikulski, thank you for your kind 

words. 
4 

Today, we will hear from our witnesses on the impact of the sequester, which is appropriate and timely, I believe, because the 

cuts are poised to take effect in just 15 days. It should be noted 

that the sequester is something that the Congress and the President set in motion knowing full well that this day would come. 

The sequester will bring spending cuts that are automatic and 

across the board for most discretionary accounts. A rigid formula 

will determine how cuts are made, instead of what is best for economic growth, safety, and prosperity. 

Cuts will happen without regard to a program’s merit or efficacy. 

Some of the most severe cuts, as the chairwoman has said, will hit 

defense programs. 

Although we must reduce spending, it should be done, I believe, 

in a deliberate way. This is why I opposed the bill that created the 

sequester in the first place. 

SUPER COMMITTEE

The sequester was supposed to be a last resort if the so-called 

‘‘super committee’’ failed to agree upon measures to reduce the deficit. 

In the end, the super committee reached an impasse. It did not 

produce even a penny of deficit reduction. 

It has been more than a year since the super committee’s failure. 

Although we have seen the sequester coming, we haven’t taken any 

steps to fix it. In fact, the Congress has only delayed it further. 

This situation presents a perfect opportunity, I believe, for the 

President to exercise some leadership. Although he has called on 

the Congress to act, he has not put forward a proposal, on his own, 

with specific options. 

Also, when I hear the President and some Members of Congress 

say that the solution must include raising taxes further, I question 

their seriousness in fixing the overall problem. 

As the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) latest analysis 

shows, we do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending 

problem. Revenues are already on a path to increase and to return 

to levels that are in line with our historical average of 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). 

In contrast, Government spending remains high during the next 

10 years and is expected to grow beyond its 40-year average. This 

will occur even with discretionary spending caps and the sequester 

put in place by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). In fact, 

under current law, CBO estimates that discretionary spending will 

fall by more than 3 percentage points less than its historical average. 

The real driver of our debt is not discretionary spending, as we 

all know, but entitlement spending. As CBO reports, this combination of an aging population, rising healthcare costs, and an expansion of health insurance subsidies, will drive up the cost of mandatory programs. Absent reform of entitlements, this will lead to an 

unstoppable debt spiral. 

I believe the issue is only compounded by the cost of servicing 

our debt, which will rise from about $220 billion in fiscal year 2012 

to more than $850 billion projected in fiscal year 2023. By then, interest payments will equal 60 percent of our discretionary budget. 
5 

This growing indebtedness, as CBO states, poses an increased 

risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis, the likes of which we have never 

seen. 

The warning signs that we are moving toward a fiscal meltdown 

have been in place for a long time. The Congress has repeatedly 

failed to heed these signs. It has been years since the Congress has 

even had a regular order budget process with appropriation measures agreed upon by both Chambers. Instead, important decisions 

on spending and taxes happen at the 11th hour behind closed 

doors. 

I believe the American public deserves a transparent and accountable budget process that restores fiscal order. Sequestration 

should not be part of the process. It certainly is no long-term solution to our spending problem. 

It should be a cautionary tale for the Congress. The sequester we 

face today is the tip of the iceberg compared to the austerity measures that will be necessary in the future if the Congress does not 

act soon on comprehensive fiscal reform. 

I believe comprehensive fiscal reform must include both tax reform and spending cuts. One without the other is only a partial solution. 

In his State of the Union Address, the President reiterated what 

appears to be his goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 

years. That number alone sounds staggering, but when it is compared with our actual long-term unfunded obligations, $4 trillion 

barely scratches the surface. 

It is common practice here in Washington when faced with an 

overwhelming problem to define it down and then declare victory 

while pursuing half-measures. That is why I am concerned that the 

debate surrounding the sequester will become a diversion from the 

real problem facing us. 

The time for partial and temporary solutions is long past. What 

we need, I believe, is a collective acknowledgement of the problem 

and a comprehensive joint effort to reach a long-term solution. Anything short of that will inevitably place the American economy on 

an irreversible downward glide path. 

Today, we will hear about the dire consequences of the impending cuts. I do not doubt that they will be painful to bear for many 

agencies and people across the Federal Government. 

If there is a way to mitigate the pain while we continue to enforce some fiscal discipline, I am open to discussing it. But I believe 

it is very important to reemphasize that the sequester and whatever temporary solution we may devise is just a precursor to the 

main event. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby. 

ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS

Before we begin, any member who wishes to submit an opening 

statement may do so and they will be placed in the record at this 

point. 

[The statements follow:] 
6 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Madam Chairwoman, I commend you for the very energetic way you have taken 

on your new responsibilities, and for starting things off with this hearing. There is 

no more pressing topic. 

Although today’s witnesses will focus on the impact of sequestration on a number 

of Departments and agencies, there are consequences for the budget of the Department of State and foreign operations, which is about the national security of the 

United States. 

It might interest people to know that the entire State, Foreign Operations, and 

Related Programs budget amounts to 1 percent of the Federal budget, not the 15 

or 20 percent some mistakenly believe. 

That 1 percent is what we have to operate our Embassies and consulates in more 

than 290 locations, to carry out diplomacy, respond to humanitarian crises, and 

build alliances with security and trading partners. There are dozens of examples of 

how sequestration would harm these efforts, but I will mention just three: 

—Cuts in diplomatic security, at a time when everyone agrees we need to do more 

to protect our Foreign Service Officers overseas. Funding for local guards, diplomatic security personnel, and Embassy security would be reduced by $181 million from the current level. 

This would force the State Department to choose between reducing the number of local guards at overseas posts, delaying maintenance at existing facilities, 

or postponing construction of secure facilities to replace those that do not meet 

current safety standards—at a time of increasing attacks against U.S. overseas 

diplomatic posts. 

—Global health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for vaccines 

for children, women’s health, and to combat malaria and tuberculosis, would be 

cut by $468 million from the current level. 

A reduction of this size would end life-saving drugs to more than 165,000 people infected with the AIDS virus. It would result in thousands more deaths from 

malaria. Tens of thousands of people infected with tuberculosis will not receive 

treatment. 

—Funding for disaster and refugee aid would be cut by $156 million from the current levels. With 750,000 Syrian refugees and 5,000 fleeing the country each 

day, now is not the time to cut these programs. Other funds to help victims of 

drought, famine, and extremist violence in Mali, Somalia, and Sudan, and to 

prevent those crises from getting worse, will also be cut. 

These are real world consequences, not only for the people of those countries 

but for the security of the United States, and I want to be sure people are 

aware of what is at stake. 

I worry that we are losing sight of the fact that sequestration was included in 

the Budget Control Act of 2011 as an incentive to negotiate. The idea was that it 

would have such painful consequences that rational minds would replace it with a 

thoughtful and balanced approach to deficit reduction. 

Unfortunately, that has not yet happened, and time is running out. 

I thank each of the witnesses for being here to give voice to a side of the conversation we have not heard—the impact of nondefense cuts—and to explain what these 

cuts would mean to programs the American people depend on. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

Our national military strategy has long called on our military to be prepared to 

defend the United States on two fronts on two different continents. Today, the Department of Defense (DOD) is preparing to defend itself on two different fronts: sequestration and the threat of a year-long continuing resolution. 

These two fronts would hit DOD hard and have serious effects on our troops, the 

families that support them, and our industrial capabilities. 

For our troops, sequestration will mean an immediate impact on training and 

readiness. Eighty percent of Army combat units will have training events delayed. 

Fifty-five percent of Marine Corps combat units will have unsatisfactory readiness 

ratings. Navy ship deployments will be cut by nearly one-quarter. 

Sequestration would mean significant cuts to family support programs. For example, DOD has contracts to provide financial counseling services to military families 

to help deal with the pocketbook issues of having a loved one deployed to a war 

zone. There are also contracts for career resource centers, which help find jobs for 

military spouses when a family relocates from base to base. These contracts would 

be sharply reduced—or outright terminated—under sequestration. 
7 

We are also looking at significant job losses in the industrial base. These job 

losses are not just jobs building next-generation weapons that we may not need. The 

Navy estimates up to 30,000 layoffs at shipyards and depots that service the equipment we already own. The Army has estimated 5,000 layoffs at its own depots. 

There is a right way and a wrong way to save money in the defense budget. Sequestration is the wrong way. Across-the-board cuts hurt good programs by cutting 

them for no reason; and prolong bad programs by not cutting them enough. 

The right way to save money in the defense budget is to first go line-by-line and 

eliminate unneeded or redundant spending. In fiscal year 2012, the Defense Appropriations Act cut 775 underperforming programs to save $23.5 billion. In fiscal year 

2011, the bill cut 677 programs to save $18.1 billion. 

There have also been bills introduced in the House and Senate to give DOD unchecked transfer authority to deal with the effects of a continuing resolution. We 

all know that a continuing resolution is a bad way to run Government, but the answer is not to hand over the power of the purse to the DOD. 

The Congress needs to pass an appropriations bill to provide for DOD. If the DOD 

were to be under a full-year continuing resolution for the first time in its history, 

there would be no amount of transfer authorities and quick-fixes that would fix all 

the problems that would arise. There simply aren’t enough band-aids to address the 

problems of a year-long continuing resolution for defense. 

Fixing the sequester doesn’t simply mean looking out for DOD. Secretary Panetta 

spoke at Georgetown University and said: 

‘‘Let me also remind you that the sequester does serious damage to the nondefense side of the budget as well. It’s not just defense, it’s education, loss of teachers, it’s child care. I think the estimate is that some 100,000 children will be kicked 

out of Head Start. It’s about healthcare, 700,000 women and children will no longer 

receive nutritional assistance. It’s about a number of other programs that support 

our quality of life in this country. And our quality of life is important to our national 

security.’’ 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Now we are going to go to our panel, and 

I am going to explain how this is going to work. 

Ordinarily, we would have a series of panels. We would lead it 

off with OMB, then we would go to the domestics, and we would 

wrap up with national security. In the interest of time and efficacy, 

we are going to have one panel, one table, and then be able to ask 

the questions, hopefully, where we can get cross-communication 

going. 

Mr. Werfel, we are going to start with you, then Secretaries Duncan, Donovan, and Napolitano. Dr. Carter, we will wrap up with 

you. Then we are going to go to questions, alternating on both sides 

of the aisle, led off by Senator Shelby and myself, and then with 

Senators in the order of their arrival. 

So, Mr. Werfel, representing OMB, we know that Mr. Zients had 

obligations with Presidential responsibility, so, please, why don’t 

you go ahead and give us the view from OMB? 

And then I am not going to introduce everybody. We are going 

to keep it going. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL I. WERFEL, CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF 

MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. WERFEL. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, Vice Chairman Shelby, members of the 

committee, good morning. I am here today to discuss the automatic 

spending reductions known as sequestration currently scheduled to 

occur March 1 as well as the impacts of these reductions and the 

actions the administration is taking to prepare to implement sequestration, should it be necessary. 

I want to start today by reiterating a point that the administration has made on numerous occasions: Sequestration is bad policy, 
8 

and the administration believes that the Congress should pass balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it. 

EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION

If allowed to occur, sequestration would have significant and destructive consequences for domestic investments, national security, 

and core Government services. 

The cuts required by sequestration harm middle-class families, 

seniors, and the most vulnerable. The President believes that these 

indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts are not a responsible way to 

address our collective goals of balanced deficit reduction. 

Working together with the Congress, we have already made sig- nificant progress in this regard, enacting more than $2.5 trillion in 

deficit reduction over the past 2 years. The vast majority of this 

progress has come in the form of spending cuts with roughly $3 in 

spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. 

The President believes that we need to have a balanced approach 

to further deficit reduction that includes spending cuts but also includes common-sense tax reform that can raise additional revenue. 

As part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the date 

on which the President would have to issue a sequestration order 

was delayed by 2 months from January 2, 2013, to March 1, 2013. 

This delay was paid for in a balanced manner with $24 billion in 

deficit reduction split evenly between additional revenue and 

spending cuts. 

This approach set an important precedent of avoiding sequestration through balanced deficit reduction that combines additional 

revenue and spending cuts. 

Should the Congress fail to act in the next 2 weeks, a sequestration of approximately $85 billion will be ordered for the remainder 

of fiscal year 2013, split evenly between defense and nondefense 

programs. This will lead to a number of deeply troubling consequences in critical Government programs that we all depend on. 

It would mean fewer teachers to educate our children, less funding for schools to help disadvantaged students with disabilities, 

less research into life-threatening diseases. It would cut nutrition 

assistance for vulnerable populations and reduce funding for essential mental health programs. 

It would keep Federal agencies from conducting the inspections 

necessary to keep our food, our air, and our water safe and clean. 

It would make our country less secure at home, reducing our ability to protect our borders, stay ahead of emerging cybersecurity 

threats, and keep crime off our streets and out of our neighborhoods. And it would make us less safe abroad by causing critical 

degradations in the support for and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

There is no amount of planning that can avoid these damaging 

impacts. Prudence dictates, however, that the Federal Government 

take all reasonable steps to be ready to implement sequestration in 

the most responsible way possible. 

Accordingly, Federal agencies and OMB have been engaged in 

ongoing planning activities for months to determine how to operate 

under a potential sequestration, keeping in mind our primary responsibility to execute our core mission areas on the behalf of the 

American people. 
9 

Let me assure you that should a sequestration order have to be 

issued by the President on March 1, we will be ready to implement 

the law. But let me also reiterate, no amount of planning or preparation on our part, no matter how thorough or careful, can mitigate 

the significant and highly destructive impacts that sequestration 

would have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Sequestration is not a responsible long-term solution for deficit 

reduction. The long-term solution is a balanced approach of spending reductions and revenues that builds upon the significant deficit 

reduction we have already worked together to achieve, strengthens 

the middle class, protects investments critical to our Nation’s continued growth and prosperity, and avoids sequestration. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL I. WERFEL

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shelby, members of the committee, good 

morning. 

I am here today to discuss the automatic spending reductions, known as sequestration, required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), as amended, as well as the impacts of these reductions and the actions the administration is taking to prepare to implement the sequestration, should it be necessary, on March 1, 2013. 

I want to start today by reiterating a point that the administration has made on 

numerous occasions: sequestration is bad policy, and the administration believes 

that the Congress should pass balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it. If 

allowed to occur, sequestration would have a wide range of significant and destructive consequences for domestic investments, national security, and core Government 

services. The President believes that these indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts are 

not a responsible way to address our collective goals of balanced deficit reduction. 

Instead, what we need, and what the Nation deserves, is a comprehensive package 

of deficit reduction that balances additional revenues with targeted spending cuts, 

while continuing to make investments in research, education, and infrastructure 

that create jobs and strengthen the middle class. 

Working together with the Congress, we have already made significant progress 

in this regard, enacting more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the past 2 

years. The vast majority of this deficit reduction has come in the form of spending 

cuts, with roughly $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. The President believes that we need to continue to have a balanced approach to further deficit reduction that includes spending cuts as well as common-sense tax reform that 

can raise additional revenue. That is why he has put forward sensible reforms that 

would further reduce spending in Medicare and other entitlement programs as part 

of a broader plan to reduce the deficit by a total of over $4 trillion, the level economists and elected officials from both parties recognize is needed to stabilize our 

debt. This balanced approach, as opposed to the indiscriminate, irresponsible cuts 

imposed by sequestration, is the right path toward continuing to reduce our deficit. 

From the beginning, the inclusion of sequestration as part of the Budget Control 

Act of 2011 (BCA) was meant to be a forcing mechanism to encourage the Congress 

to pursue just this type of balanced deficit reduction. The BCA, which was passed 

with bipartisan majorities in both chambers of the Congress and signed by the 

President, reduces the deficit through two mechanisms. First, it establishes binding 

discretionary caps that reduce the deficit by almost $1 trillion over 10 years. Coming on top of hundreds of billions of additional discretionary cuts enacted earlier in 

2011, the caps reduce discretionary funding to its lowest level as a share of the 

economy since the Eisenhower administration more than half a century ago. These 

are significant and difficult cuts to discretionary spending that are already locked 

in, and they represented an important first step down the road toward balanced deficit reduction. 

Second, the BCA established a congressional joint committee charged with the 

task of developing a proposal that would achieve at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. However, last November the joint committee announced that it could not 
10 

reach agreement on a balanced, comprehensive deficit reduction plan. This failure 

triggered an enforcement mechanism of automatic funding cuts, known as sequestration, to achieve the required deficit reduction. In fiscal year 2013, savings would 

be achieved through a blunt, across-the-board cut to Federal funding, with the bulk 

of the reductions coming from discretionary programs. From fiscal year 2014 

through fiscal year 2021, the reductions in discretionary funding would be implemented by reducing the discretionary budget caps, and nonexempt mandatory programs would be sequestered each year. 

As part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) of 2012, the date on which 

the President would have to issue a sequestration order was delayed by 2 months, 

from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013. This delay was paid for in a balanced manner, with $24 billion in deficit reduction split evenly between additional revenue and 

spending cuts. This approach set an important precedent of avoiding sequestration 

through balanced deficit reduction that combines additional revenue and spending 

cuts, and the President believes that the Congress should adhere to this precedent 

in enacting additional deficit reduction. 

Should the Congress fail to act in the next 2 weeks, a sequestration of approxi- mately $85 billion will be imposed for the remainder of fiscal year 2013, split evenly 

between defense and nondefense programs. As required by law, the sequestration 

would be applied as a uniform percentage reduction to all non-exempt budgetary accounts, and the reductions would then be implemented equally across all programs, 

projects and activities (PPAs) within each account. While the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has not yet finalized the percentage reductions that would apply 

to all nonexempt accounts, our preliminary estimates indicate that sequestration 

would require a reduction of roughly 5 percent for nondefense programs and roughly 

8 percent for defense programs. Importantly however, these percentage reductions 

are based on the assumptions of a full year of budget authority. In reality, should 

a sequestration order have to be issued on March 1, agencies would be required to 

implement the cuts over the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, meaning that 

in many programs the effective cuts would be closer to 9 percent for nondefense programs and 13 percent for defense programs when compared to what agencies would 

spend during this period under normal circumstances. Any budgetary cuts of this 

magnitude would have significant repercussions, regardless of how they are applied. 

The sequestration would lead to a number of deeply troubling consequences in 

critical Government programs that we all depend on. It would mean fewer teachers 

to educate our children, less funding for schools to help disadvantaged students or 

children with disabilities, and less research into life-threatening diseases. It would 

cut nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations, reduce funding for essential 

mental health programs, and eliminate resources provided to small businesses and 

homeowners. It would keep Federal agencies from conducting the inspections necessary to keep our food, our air, and our water safe and clean. It would make our 

country less secure at home, reducing our ability to protect our borders, stay ahead 

of emerging cybersecurity threats, and keep crime off our streets and out of our 

neighborhoods. And it would make us less safe abroad by causing critical degradations in the support for and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Across the Federal Government, agencies will have to take significant and painful 

steps to implement sequestration. As my fellow witnesses today will testify, critical 

Federal grant and assistance programs would be cut, reducing or eliminating services and programs for millions of Americans. States and localities would see Federal 

aid slashed. The Department of Defense would have to reduce training and equipment maintenance for later deploying units, delay needed facilities maintenance, 

and significantly reduce investments in weapons programs. Core operations would 

have to be shut down or curtailed across nearly all Federal agencies. Businesses 

that work with the Federal Government would see their contracts reduced or terminated, which could lead to substantial job losses. And agencies would have to consider wide-ranging furloughs of hundreds of thousands of Federal employees, preventing them from carrying out their duties on behalf of the American people and 

slashing the paychecks they rely on to support their families. 

There is no amount of planning or preparation that can avoid these damaging impacts. Prudence dictates, however, that the Federal Government take all reasonable 

steps to be ready to implement sequestration in the most responsible way possible. 

Accordingly, Federal agencies and OMB have been engaged in ongoing planning activities for months to determine how to operate under a potential sequestration. 

In conducting this planning, we must keep in mind our primary responsibility to 

execute our core mission areas on behalf of the American people and take all appropriate steps to protect this mission to the extent possible. With that as a framework, 

OMB has instructed agencies to adhere to a number of specific guiding principles 

in their planning efforts, such as: 
11 

—identifying and addressing operational challenges that could potentially have a 

significant deleterious effect on the agency’s mission or present risks to life, 

safety, or health; 

—reviewing grants and contracts to determine where cost savings may be 

achieved in a manner that is consistent with the applicable terms and conditions, remaining mindful of the manner in which individual contracts or grants 

advance the core mission of the agency; 

—identifying the most appropriate means to reduce civilian workforce costs where 

necessary; and 

—taking into account funding flexibilities, including the availability of reprogramming and transfer authority. 

OMB has issued multiple memoranda to agencies to help provide guidance and 

clarity on navigating these issues, as well as held regular discussions with senior 

leadership across the executive branch. In September, OMB also issued a roughly 

400-page report providing detail regarding the reductions that would be required in 

more than 1,200 budget accounts in the event of sequestration, given certain assumptions specified by law. Let me assure you that, should a sequestration order 

have to be issued by the President on March 1, we will be ready to implement the 

law. 

That said, this preparation, while the prudent and appropriate thing to do, unfortunately diverts agencies’ time and attention from their core missions in service of 

the American people, to say nothing of the disruptive effects and anxiety it imposes 

on Federal employees, contractors, and their families. It is wasteful and inefficient 

for the Government to operate under this cloud of uncertainty and to divert resources to plan for extraordinarily disruptive contingencies that are within the Congress’ authority to avoid. 

Finally, it is important to reiterate that no amount of planning or preparation on 

our part, no matter how thorough or careful, can mitigate the significant and highly 

destructive impacts that sequestration would have. Sequestration is not a responsible way to reduce the deficit. Should the Congress require more time to reach this 

goal and finish the job of deficit reduction, the President has made clear that the 

right course is to pass a small package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would 

delay the damaging effects of sequestration until the Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution. 

Sequestration is not a long-term solution for deficit reduction. The solution is a 

balanced approach of spending reductions and revenues that builds upon the significant deficit reduction we have already worked together to achieve, strengthens the 

middle class, protects investments critical to our Nation’s continued growth and 

prosperity, and avoids sequestration. 

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION 

Secretary DUNCAN. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, 

and congratulations. And members of the committee, thank you for 

this opportunity. 

I just wanted to say quickly to Senator Kirk, great to see you 

again, great to be working with you. 

With your support, we have been able to help States, districts, 

and communities make changes that are bringing major benefits 

for all students, particularly the most vulnerable. 

The issue of sequestration is vital, and I appreciate this opportunity to testify about this topic once again. I hope the committee 

members will keep those most vulnerable students in the forefront 

of their minds, because they are the ones who will be hurt most 

if the Congress chooses to let sequestration happen. 

SMART, TARGETED CHANGE NEEDED, NOT INDISCRIMINATE CUTS

I want to be clear that I believe we absolutely have opportunities 

at all levels of Government to make spending on education more 

productive and more efficient. But boosting educational produc-
12 

tivity requires smart, targeted changes to programs, not indiscriminate across-the-board budget cuts. 

Sequestration would force us to cut crucial services, doing real 

damage to the life chances of millions of students. There is only unnecessary pain. There is no palatable plan B. 

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES PLANNING AND STABILITY WOULD BE

UNDERMINED

Here is who would get hurt with the sequester: The biggest cuts 

take effect next school year, the 2013–2014 school year, but their 

impact would start sooner. When I ran the Chicago public schools, 

we made hiring decisions in the spring, like pretty much every 

other district. Under sequestration, districts would have to plan to 

make do with less, meaning fewer teachers and staff, larger class 

sizes, fewer courses, less tutoring, and higher unemployment. 

This undermines the very stability and predictability every 

school system works so hard to achieve, and hurts families, children, teachers, and school staff. And the vast majority of school districts, obviously, will not be able to make up for these cuts at the 

local level. 

SEQUESTER WOULD AFFECT MOST VULNERABLE STUDENTS

When the cuts hit, not surprisingly, they will hurt the most vulnerable students the worst, because Federal education resources 

generally are targeted to those children with the greatest need. 

At the K–12 level, here is what that means concretely: Title I 

grants serve almost 23 million students in high poverty schools, 

and special education State grants help about 6.5 million special 

needs students. Sequestration would cut title I by $725 million, 

which could affect 1.2 million disadvantaged students and risk the 

jobs of about 10,000 teachers and support staff. 

In special education, we could be forced to cut almost $600 million, which would require States and districts to cover the cost of 

approximately 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff. 

And in early childhood education, we have seen some very tough 

cuts as well. In Head Start, some 70,000 students could be kicked 

out. And as the President talked about in his State of the Union 

Address, we are trying to do a lot more in terms of early childhood 

education, not go in the opposite direction. 

Doing that to our most vulnerable children is educational malpractice, economically foolish, and morally indefensible. 

IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND STUDENT AID

In higher education, the impact is just as destructive. We would 

have to cut back collection of student debt, decreasing payments to 

the Treasury, and fall behind on servicing up to 29 million student 

loans. We would also cut more than 70,000 students from grant 

and work-study programs that help needy students finance the cost 

of college. Clearly, that is not the path we want to go down to regain our place as the Nation that leads the world in college completion. 
13 

IMPACT AID—SEQUESTER IMPACT AFFECTS THIS SCHOOL YEAR

While those cuts don’t take effect until next school year, others 

will hit right away. And these cuts affect schools and programs 

that draw much of their direct funding from us, the Federal Government. 

Who would be hurt right away? Disproportionately, families of 

our military servicemembers, individuals with disabilities, and people living on Native American lands. 

Just to give you one quick example, in the Gallup-McKinley 

County public schools in New Mexico, which enrolls about 7,000 

students living on Indian lands, sequestration would cut almost $2 

million from Impact Aid, which makes up more than one-third of 

that district’s budget. These are young people we desperately need 

to invest more in, not less. 

IMPACT ON EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION

And we have already warned our own employees at the Department of Education of possible furloughs, which across-the-board 

cuts would force us to make. We have already made significant cuts 

in our Department’s budget, and we believe in continuing to look 

for efficiencies. 

SERIOUS RIPPLE EFFECTS FROM INDISCRIMINATE EDUCATION CUTS

But let me say this: Education isn’t just another line in the budget, just another Government expense. Education is fundamentally 

an investment. It is an investment in the future of our children, 

our communities, our competitiveness, and our country. High-quality education from cradle all the way through to career is the only 

way to build a strong and vibrant middle class and to foster upward economic and social mobility. 

At a time when most young Americans today don’t meet the minimum qualifications to enlist in the military, it is also an investment in our national security. 

Budgets, as all of you know, are not just numbers. Whether we 

as a Nation choose to invest in children and education is a crystalclear statement about our values. Children listen to what we say, 

but it is our actions and not our words that tell them whether or 

not we truly care. 

As President Obama said in his State of the Union Address, 

these are ‘‘. . . sudden, harsh, and arbitrary cuts that would devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research.’’ It 

would certainly slow down our recovery and cost us hundreds of 

thousands of jobs. 

IMPACT ON ABILITY TO REMAIN GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE

Internationally, I promise you, our competitors are keeping their 

education systems strong and striving to actually get better faster. 

Do we want to help our children successfully compete in a global 

economy, or do we want our country to drift in the opposite direction? 

Madam Chairwoman, you and I both know the Congress can take 

another better path. Sequestration would represent an uncompromising, rigid, tone-deaf Government at its worst. 
14 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I would echo the President in asking that you take the time to 

develop a budget that will permanently replace the sequester. As 

I testified last summer, the President and all of us here on his 

team remain ready to work with all of you on a long-term plan to 

cut the deficit while investing in strategic programs that will 

strengthen our families, our economy, and our global leadership. 

The American people deserve no less. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARNE DUNCAN

Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee: Thank you for this opportunity to talk about the impact of a March 1 sequestration on education programs. 

The across-the-board nature of the cuts would focus an ill-advised reduction on our 

grant programs and the funds we need to administer them. In short, sequestration 

would have a negative impact on the education of our Nation’s children and adults, 

reducing funding for teachers and other staff, cutting grants and work-study programs that help families pay for college, and potentially slicing payments to the contractors we rely on to administer our financial aid programs. 

Education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the Nation continues 

to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare all of its citizens to meet the 

challenges created by global economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Indeed, 

I can assure you that our economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their 

investments in education, and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of 

the indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required by sequestration. 

IMMEDIATE IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION

Some key programs would feel the impact of sequestration immediately. For example, many school districts qualifying for Impact Aid receive a high percentage of 

their overall funding from the Department and use the money during the current 

school year. Often the districts get the funds because they have large concentrations 

of children of military families or children living on Indian lands. These and other 

districts receive Impact Aid funds because the presence of Federal activities can 

both increase the number of students and decrease the local property tax base. Sequestration would eliminate roughly $60 million for Impact Aid Basic Support Payments for schools that are counting on those funds to meet the basic needs of students and to pay teacher salaries this spring, potentially forcing districts to make 

wrenching, mid-year adjustments. Many districts are already dealing with reductions of instructional and non-instructional staff and delaying needed building maintenance for buildings that are in serious disrepair. 

An example of the fiscal impact on these programs is that the Killeen Independent School District in Texas, which has 23,000 federally connected children, including 18,000 military dependents, would lose an estimated $2.6 million in Impact 

Aid funds. Similarly, the Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools in Gallup, New 

Mexico, would lose nearly $2 million of the funds the district receives from the Impact Aid program to help meet the educational needs of 7,500 federally connected 

children, including 6,700 who live on Indian lands. This impact is severe, given that 

Impact Aid funds make up 35 percent of the district’s total budget. 

In the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program, funds are used to provide 

services to individuals with disabilities to help them become employed. The grants 

fund operations during the current fiscal year, and the Department provides about 

80 percent of these operational funds. Thus, sequestration would immediately eliminate $160 million from funds supporting activities that help these individuals prepare for, obtain, or retain employment. In particular, counselor caseloads would likely increase, as would wait times for individuals to receive essential vocational rehabilitation services, hurting the effort to lower the unemployment rate for these individuals, which already is significantly higher than that of the general population. 

IMPACT ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

For Federal education programs that are forward-funded, the impact of sequestration would not reduce funding until the 2013–2014 school year, but local districts 

will be making decisions in April and May of this year about which jobs to cut and 
15 

which teacher contracts to renew. Districts will have to plan on less funding. Fewer 

teachers and staff could mean larger class sizes, fewer courses or subject areas, less 

tutoring for struggling students, reductions in counseling, and more difficulty in retaining recently hired teachers. And, local economies will suffer from the higher unemployment and the uncertainty of the staff. 

Survey data last year showed that 80 percent of school districts would not be able 

to make up the losses from sequestration, a finding that should not be surprising 

given that State and local budgets are only just beginning to recover from the recent 

financial crisis and economic recession. Any inroads they have made to rebuild or 

restructure programs as the economy recovers and local tax revenues increase would 

be undermined by a significant loss in Federal education funds. 

IMPACT ON PROGRAMS SERVING THE NEEDIEST STUDENTS

In particular, sequestration would hit hard at Federal, State, and local efforts to 

improve educational opportunities for the Nation’s neediest students and their families. Title I Grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) serve nearly 23 million students in high-poverty schools and Special Education State Grants help State educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs provide a free appropriate public education 

(FAPE) to roughly 6.5 million special needs students. Sequestration would reduce 

title I funding by some $725 million, potentially eliminating support to an estimated 

2,700 schools serving 1.2 million disadvantaged students, while also putting at risk 

the jobs of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides serving these students. Formula 

grants to States under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

could be reduced by as much as $598 million, which would require States and districts to cover the cost of approximately 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff who 

are needed to provide a FAPE for students with disabilities, placing additional burden on cash-strapped States and districts. 

IMPACT ON STUDENT AID

The law specifically exempts Pell grants from sequestration. The law also includes 

a special rule on student loans that specifies a small increase in the origination fee 

for loans made after the sequester order. This origination fee change would require 

adjustments in systems and records for those getting loans late in school year 2012– 

2013 and early in school year 2013–2014. 

Cutting mandatory administrative funds for Student Aid programs will affect the 

servicing of student loans by Not-For-Profit (NFP) contract servicers. Sequestration 

could require each NFP servicer payment to be reduced. The impact of reducing payments to the NFP student loan servicers would be significant and could adversely 

impact as many as 29 million student loan borrowers. NFPs may have to lay off 

or furlough many of their contract employees in States such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, and Utah. Some smaller NFPs may run operational risks and even be forced to close, disrupting service and potentially causing 

problems with payment processing for all student and parent borrowers they service. 

The Department also uses for-profit contractors to administer functions like 

FAFSA processing, Pell grant disbursements, loan originations, collections, and related tasks. The Department’s ability to collect defaulted student debt and provide 

high-quality services to borrowers once they are out of school would likely be hampered by sequestration, due to possible cuts in contracts with private-sector entities. 

If we do not collect on loans, fewer funds will be repaid to the Treasury, and our 

deficit will increase. That is the opposite of what sequestration is supposed to 

achieve. It is another illustration of why sequestration is a bad policy. To underscore 

the magnitude of the risk in this area, during the 2011–2012 award year, the Department delivered or supported the delivery of approximately $172 billion in grant, 

work-study, and loan assistance to almost 15 million postsecondary students attending more than 6,000 postsecondary institutions. 

The administrative cuts would hamper our aid delivery. Award funding would 

also be cut in campus-based college programs like Federal Work-Study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. Federal Work-Study would be cut by $49 

million, eliminating 33,000 students from participation. Supplemental Educational 

Opportunity Grants would be cut by $37 million, with a resultant reduction of 

71,000 recipients. 

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT IMPACT

The sequester also would likely require the Department to furlough many of its 

own employees for multiple days. The full repercussions are unknown, but extended 

furloughs would significantly harm the Department’s ability to prevent fraud, waste, 
16 

and abuse in the very large, complex student financial assistance programs. Furloughing employees also would hurt all the Department’s other activities, including 

making grant awards on a timely basis. 

INVESTING IN THE FUTURE

Sequestration is a bad policy. It cuts all programs by the same percentage, no 

matter the purpose or the performance. We need to replace sequestration with balanced deficit reduction that includes revenues. And we need to make smart spending investments within the discretionary caps established by the Budget Control Act 

of 2011. That’s what has been done at the Department of Education. From 2010– 

2012, 49 programs have been eliminated. Those programs didn’t work, had achieved 

their purpose, or could be done more effectively. The elimination of those programs 

saves $1.2 billion annually. Those savings have been largely reinvested in programs 

with a greater chance for success in improving education. We also saved $68 billion 

by reforming the student loan programs in 2010; unnecessary payments to third 

parties were eliminated. Much of those savings were reinvested in Pell grants, and 

some reduced the deficit. These are examples of selective cuts and investments 

where the Congress made choices based on performance and evaluations and costsavings. That is a much better approach than the mindless across-the-board sequestration. 

It’s also important to note that even without sequestration, domestic discretionary 

spending has already been declining. Nonsecurity discretionary spending is now on 

a path to reach its lowest level as a share of GDP since the Eisenhower administration. In addition, State and local spending has been cut due to the financial crisis. 

At a time when we are just starting to see signs of renewed economic growth, as 

well as the positive impact of historic education reforms in programs like Race to 

the Top and School Improvement Grants that will contribute to future growth and 

prosperity, it just makes no sense at all to undermine this progress through the sequestration of Federal education funds. 

LONG-TERM IMPACT

The long-term impact of sequestration could be even more damaging. By reducing 

education funding now and in the coming years, it would jeopardize our Nation’s 

ability to develop and support an educated, skilled workforce that can compete in 

the global economy. In addition to what you are hearing today from the Department 

of Defense, cutting education funding also could hurt our military preparedness, because we won’t have enough high school graduates for our uniformed services. Already, nearly 25 percent of American students who do not graduate from high school 

will not be able to serve in the military, and 30 percent of high school graduates 

still lack the basic math, science and English competency skills to pass the military’s entrance exam. Sequestration would only make this situation worse. 

I have given you many reasons why sequestration is a step in the wrong direction. 

I will stop now and be glad to answer your questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Secretary DONOVAN. Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chair Shelby, 

and the members of the committee, I particularly want to recognize 

Senator Murray, Senator Collins, the chair and ranking member of 

our Appropriations subcommittee, for their great partnership together and with us in making difficult but important decisions for 

our agency and for the country. Thank you, all. 

And thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the 

impacts of sequestration on the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and our programs. 

Should sequestration go into effect on March 1, the cuts would 

be deeply destructive to HUD programs and those who rely on 

them, including hundreds of thousands of middle class and low-income individuals. It would also cause significant damage to our Nation’s housing market at a time when it is helping to lead our economic recovery. 
17 

More specifically, sequestration would mean about 125,000 individuals and families, more than one-half of whom are elderly or 

disabled, losing assistance provided through the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program and becoming at risk of homelessness. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Sequestration would also result in more than 100,000 homeless 

and formerly homeless people, the majority of whom are families, 

disabled adults, or veterans, being removed from their current 

housing or emergency shelter programs, putting them at substantial risk of returning to the streets. 

Cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program, would result in 7,300 fewer low-income households receiving 

supportive housing assistance and threaten to add even further to 

the population of homeless Americans. 

Cuts to our Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control 

and related programs would result in more than 3,000 of the most 

vulnerable children not being protected from lead poisoning or 

other hazards in their homes. 

Cuts to housing counseling grants would result in 75,000 fewer 

households receiving vital foreclosure protection, prepurchase, rental, or other counseling. This means fewer families making responsible, informed choices and greater risk throughout the housing 

market. 

Sequestration will also have a broader, more damaging effect— 

economic impact—on our still-fragile local economies. While sequestration cuts $212 million from our HOME and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, communities lose nearly $500 

million in additional funding from private and other sources because they can no longer leverage those critical Federal dollars. 

Cuts to public housing authority budgets would mean more deferred maintenance and capital repairs on top of an existing capital 

needs backlog of more than $25.6 billion nationwide, endangering 

the future of these apartments, the families, and their neighborhoods. 

In 2012, CDBG created or retained almost 22,000 permanent jobs 

and more than 32.5 million people benefited from the CDBG. Sequestration would jeopardize those jobs and services as well. 

Indeed, across all of HUD’s programs, sequestration will likely 

result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs at a time when continued recovery depends on a stable job market, especially in our 

hard-hit construction industry. 

HUD initiatives and programs have been central to the recent recovery in the housing market, but our Department’s ability to perform critical activities that support the recovery will be severely 

hampered by sequestration as a result of furloughs that would be 

required for agency staff. 

Sequestration would jeopardize the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) ability to process loans at a time when FHA represents a substantial portion of all loan originations for the singlefamily market, including almost one-half of all first-time homebuyers across the country, as well as 25 percent of all new multifamily construction. That risks destabilizing the market and slowing our economic recovery. 
18 

Finally, sequestration seriously threatens our Hurricane Sandy 

recovery efforts. A 5-percent cut amounts to $3 billion from the 

Hurricane Sandy supplemental just passed by the Congress, taking 

away crucial funding for repair and recovery from housing, transportation, and other areas. 

Just as an example, the funding that would be cut from CDBG 

would help make necessary repairs to more than 10,000 homes and 

small businesses in the region. 

Whether it is the manmade disaster of the recession or the natural disaster of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has been central to recovery efforts, and we cannot afford to threaten them. 

As the President said on Tuesday, we know that broad-based economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit reduction 

with everybody doing their fair share, not an approach that clearly 

harms the middle class and the poor, and comes at the expense of 

our Nation’s economy. 

Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that was 

intended to ensure more measured and deliberate cuts would be 

made. It is my hope, and all of our hope in the administration, that 

the Congress can find a bipartisan solution to our budget and deficit concerns without risking our economic recovery and imposing 

the kind of serious damage that the sequester makes inevitable. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

I am eager to work with you and your committee in any way I can 

to help avoid sequestration. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHAUN DONOVAN

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the effects of the acrossthe-board Federal cuts that would result from the potential sequestration now 

scheduled for March 1, just 2 weeks from tomorrow. As the President stated last 

week, these arbitrary and indiscriminate cuts ‘‘will cost us jobs and significantly 

slow down our recovery.’’ With respect to the Department of Housing and Urban Develop (HUD) that I am privileged to lead, these cuts would be deeply destructive, 

would damage the economy, and would harm numerous families, individuals, and 

communities across the Nation that rely on HUD programs. 

HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION ON HOMELESS AND OTHER VULNERABLE

POPULATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY

The March 1 sequestration would have devastating effects on homelessness and 

on other vulnerable groups that HUD works with on housing needs across the country. In particular: 

—About 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and disabled individuals, could lose assistance provided through the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) 

program and be at risk of becoming homeless. The HCV program, which is administered by State and local public housing agencies (PHAs), provides crucial 

assistance to families and individuals in renting private apartment units. There 

may be even more families affected by the sequestration cuts to the extent that 

PHAs are forced to absorb annual funding losses in less than a full 12-month 

timeframe. In addition, since sequestration will also cut PHA administrative 

fees for the HCV program, numerous PHAs may find continued operation of the 

program financially untenable and thus stop operating the program entirely, 

which will harm even more families and individuals, including homeless veterans. 
19 

—Sequestration cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly homeless 

people, including veterans, being removed from their current housing or emergency shelter programs, putting them at substantial risk of becoming homeless. 

Much of this damage will be done through cuts to HUD’s Continuum of Care 

programs, under which formerly homeless families and individuals are quickly 

rehoused and given other assistance to move them toward self-sufficiency. In 

addition, the sequestration cuts would eliminate some of the key funding for the 

Nation’s shelter system for the homeless provided by the Emergency Solutions 

Grants (ESG) program. Because ESG is considered a critical glue, holding together the shelter system across the country, the cuts could have a ripple effect 

and force some shelters to close down altogether, with even more devastating 

effects. Over the last several years, we have made significant progress in reducing homelessness and in achieving the national goal of ending veterans’ homelessness. These sequestration cuts would lead us in the opposite, and tragically 

wrong, direction. 

—Sequestration cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS program would result in 7,300 fewer low-income households receiving permanent 

and short-term supportive housing assistance, including rent or utility assistance. This could result in some people falling into homelessness, which would 

further exacerbate this tragic problem. 

—Safe, decent, and affordable housing is desperately needed in Indian Country, 

and HUD is an important source of assistance. Sequestration cuts would mean 

that more than 900 fewer Native American families would be able to obtain 

housing loan guarantees. 

—Sequestration would cut important programs offered by HUD’s Office of Healthy 

Homes and Lead Hazard Control and related HUD programs addressing housing-related health hazards. As a result, more than 3,000 vulnerable children 

would not be protected from lead poisoning and other safety hazards in the 

home. Such danger to our Nation’s most precious resource—our children—would 

be another tragic result of the arbitrary cuts required by sequestration. 

SEQUESTRATION’S DAMAGING EFFECTS ON FAMILIES, COMMUNITIES, AND THE ECONOMY

ACROSS THE NATION

From HUD’s perspective, the March 1 sequestration would also have even broader 

harmful effects on middle class families, on communities, and on the economy across 

the Nation. Specifically: 

—Sequestration would result in 75,000 fewer households receiving foreclosure prevention, pre-purchase, rental, or other counseling though HUD housing counseling grants. This counseling is crucial for middle class and other families who 

have been harmed by the housing crisis from which we are still recovering, and 

are trying to prevent foreclosure, refinance their mortgages, avoid housing 

scams, and find quality, affordable housing. Studies show that housing counseling plays a crucial role in those efforts. Distressed households who receive 

counseling are more likely to avoid foreclosure, while families who receive counseling before they purchase a home are less likely to become delinquent on their 

mortgages. 

—The impact of sequestration would force PHAs to defer maintenance and capital 

repairs to public housing, leading to deteriorating living conditions and, over 

the longer term, risking the permanent loss of this affordable housing that 

serves 1.1 million of the Nation’s poorest residents. The cuts would also harm 

the local economies in the areas served by PHAs. PHA spending on maintenance and capital repairs results in expenditures for goods and services 

throughout local economies. Sequestration would also reduce the number of 

families served by HUD programs designed to help families in public housing 

become more self-sufficient. 

—The cuts caused by sequestration would prevent State and local communities 

that receive funding under the HOME Investment Partnerships program from 

building and rehabilitating 2,100 affordable housing units for low-income families. These cuts will have an even broader effect on local economies, particularly 

because historically, every $1 of HOME funding is leveraged with almost $4 of 

other governmental or private investment for the production or rehabilitation 

of affordable single or multi-family housing. This will mean fewer jobs in and 

more harm to local construction and related industries. 

—Sequestration will also result in significant cuts to community development 

funding for public services, facilities, and infrastructure improvements across 

the country. This will harm middle class families who rely on such services and 

reduce jobs in local economies across the Nation. These funds improve our local 
20 

communities, and also support jobs for construction workers and others who 

build or rehabilitate public facilities, infrastructure, and housing, and for those 

providing social services at the local level. Historically, it has been estimated 

that community development related funding over the past decade has sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies across the country. In 2012 alone, nearly 

21,800 permanent jobs were created or retained using CDBG funds and more 

than 32.5 million people benefited from CDBG funded public facilities activities. 

The negative effects of cuts in community development funding are multiplied 

because for every $100 of funding from HUD for such activities, another $150 

in other governmental or private investment in such community development 

is generated. In addition, these cuts will adversely impact confidence in the 

long-term sustainability of the private market rental housing that HUD supports. 

—Only weeks ago, the Congress appropriated community development and other 

funds for the recovery and rebuilding of the devastation caused by Hurricane 

Sandy and other natural disasters. The March 1 sequestration would force cuts 

to those crucial funds, preventing communities from making critical investments. This will not only prolong the suffering in a region that has been hit 

again this past weekend by a new storm. It will also cost jobs that would be 

created by full expenditure of the approved funding and slow the full recovery 

and rebuilding of a region that is critical to our economy. 

—Finally, sequestration would directly affect the employees who work for HUD 

itself, along with their families and communities. I am privileged to lead just 

more than 9,000 HUD employees around the Nation in 81 field offices around 

the country. Specific plans are still being reviewed and finalized, but we believe 

that furloughs or other personnel actions may well be required to comply with 

cuts mandated by sequestration. The public will suffer as the agency is simply 

less able to provide information and services in a wide range of areas, such as 

FHA mortgage insurance and sale of FHA-owned properties. 

CONCLUSION

As the President and many Members of Congress have made clear, sequestration 

is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that was passed to help ensure that action 

is taken on a balanced deficit reduction package, not as an actual method of deficit 

reduction via arbitrary budget cuts. I firmly agree with the President’s statement 

just last week that ‘‘our economy is headed in the right direction, and it will stay 

that way as long as there aren’t any more self-inflicted wounds coming out of Washington.’’ Sequestration is just such a self-inflicted wound that would have devastating effects on our economy and on people across the Nation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice 

Chair Shelby, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impacts of sequestration on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

DHS has a broad mission that touches almost every aspect of our 

economy. We secure our aviation sector, screening 2 million domestic air travelers each day. We protect our borders and ports of entry 

while facilitating trade and travel. 

Last year, our CBP officers processed more than 350 million people and facilitated nearly $2.3 trillion in trade. 

We enforce the immigration laws. We partner with the private 

sector to protect critical infrastructure. And we work with States 

and communities to prepare for and respond to disasters of all 

kinds, like Hurricane Sandy, while supporting recovery and rebuilding. 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMY

Put simply, the automatic budget reduction mandated by sequestration would be destructive to our Nation’s security and to our 
21 

economy. It would negatively affect the mission readiness and capabilities of the men and women on the frontlines. It would undermine the significant progress DHS has made over the past 10 years 

to build the Nation’s preparedness and resiliency. 

Perhaps most critically, it would have serious immediate consequences to the flow of trade and travel at our Nation’s ports of 

entry, including many ports represented by members of this committee. 

At the major international airports, average wait times to clear 

customs will increase by 50 percent. And at our busiest airports 

like Newark, John F. Kennedy, Los Angeles and Chicago O’Hare, 

peak wait times, which can already reach more than 2 hours, could 

grow to 4 hours or more. 

Such delays not only would cause thousands of missed passenger 

connections, they would have severe economic consequences at both 

the local and national levels. 

Furloughs of Transportation Security Officers will increase domestic passenger wait times at our busiest airports by more than 

1 hour. 

On the Southwest border, our biggest land ports could face waits 

of 5 hours or more, functionally closing these ports during core 

hours. 

At our seaports, delays in container examinations would increase 

up to 5 days, resulting in increased costs to the trade community 

and reduced availability of consumer goods and raw materials. 

Mid-size and smaller ports would experience constrained hours of 

operation, affecting local cross-border communities. And at cruise 

terminals, processing times could increase up to 6 hours, causing 

passengers, again, to miss flights, delay trips, and increase costs. 

Trade and travel are absolutely essential to our economy. Indeed, 

according to the U.S. Travel Association, 1 new American job is created for every 33 travelers arriving from overseas. And according 

to the International Trade Administration, each extra minute of 

wait times at our busiest southern ports can result in $116 million 

in economic loss. 

Sequestration would have serious consequences for our other 

missions. CBP would have to furlough all of its employees, reduce 

overtime, and eliminate hiring to backfill positions, decreasing the 

number of work hours equivalent to more than 5,000 CBP agents. 

The Coast Guard would have to reduce its presence in the Arctic 

by nearly one-third and surface operations by more than 25 percent, affecting management of our Nation’s waterways, as well as 

fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, port 

security, and other law enforcement operations. 

Under sequestration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE) would be forced to reduce detention and removal. We would 

not be able to maintain the 34,000 detention beds mandated by the 

Congress. Sequestration would reduce our investigative activities 

into things like human smuggling, counterproliferation, and commercial trade fraud. 

Sequestration reductions would require us to scale back the development of critical capabilities for the defense of Federal 

cybersecurity networks, and the Nation’s core critical infrastructure would also remain vulnerable. 
22 

Sequestration would have impacts on our Nation’s disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. It would reduce the DRF, 

the Disaster Relief Fund, by more than $1 billion, affecting survivors still recovering from Hurricane Sandy, the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and other major disasters across the Nation. 

And DHS grant funding would be reduced to its lowest level in 7 

years, leading to layoffs of State and local emergency personnel 

across the country. 

Threats from terrorism and the need to respond to and recover 

from natural disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts. 

Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of 

making significant reductions to our capabilities without placing 

the Nation at risk. 

DHS will continue to preserve our frontline priorities as best we 

can, but no amount of planning can mitigate the negative effects 

of sequestration on the security of the country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

As we approach the first of March, I urge the Congress to act to 

prevent sequestration and ensure the safety, security, and resiliency of the Nation. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JANET NAPOLITANO

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Budget Control Act 

of 2011 and, specifically, the sequestration that is currently mandated to be ordered 

on March 1. 

The President has made clear that the Congress can and should act to avoid sequestration in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. If allowed to occur, sequestration would be disruptive and destructive to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its missions, and our Nation’s security and economy. 

The automatic budget reductions—which must be applied in equal measure to virtually every program, project, and activity that DHS has—would negatively affect 

the mission readiness and capabilities of the men and women on our front lines. Sequestration would undermine the significant progress DHS has made over the past 

10 years to build the Nation’s preparedness and resiliency. 

Sequestration would roll back border security, increase wait times at our Nation’s 

land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security, 

leave critical infrastructure more vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster response 

time and our surge force capabilities, and significantly delay cyber security infrastructure protections. In addition, sequestration would necessitate furloughs of up 

to 14 days for a significant portion of our frontline law enforcement personnel, and 

could potentially result in reductions in capabilities across the Department. 

Today, I would like to provide you with specific examples of the potential impacts 

of sequestration on the Department and the consequences that will be felt by the 

American people. 

IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Sequestration would have significant impacts on our economy, including travel, 

tourism and trade. 

DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff and operate 329 ports of 

entry (POEs) across the country, welcoming travelers, and facilitating the flow of 

goods essential to our economy. Each day, almost 1 million people arrive at these 

ports of entry by land, sea, and air. In fiscal year 2012 alone, DHS processed more 

than 350 million travelers at our POEs, including more than 98 million international air travelers, as well as $2.3 trillion worth of trade. Trade and travel is 

absolutely essential to our economy. Indeed, according to the U.S. Travel Association, one new American job is created for every 33 travelers arriving from overseas. 

Any increases in wait times at the borders will have a direct impact on our Nation’s economy. A study commissioned by the Department of Commerce’s Inter-
23 

national Trade Administration found that border wait times at the five busiest 

southern border POEs result in an average economic output loss of $116 million per 

minute of delay. This study states that in 2008, delays cost the U.S. economy 26,000 

jobs and $6 billion in output. 

Reductions mandated under sequestration would require furloughs and reduced 

staffing at our Nation’s POEs and airport security checkpoints, increasing wait 

times for travelers and slowing commerce across the country. Reduced CBP staffing 

would make 4- to 5-hour wait times commonplace and cause the busiest ports to 

face gridlock situations at peak periods. In addition, furloughs of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) would substantially increase airline passenger wait times by as much as 1 hour at the Nation’s 

largest and busiest airports. Such delays would affect air travel significantly, potentially causing thousands of passengers to miss flights with negative economic consequences at the both the local and national levels. 

Additional effects of sequestration would be felt by the American public from reductions to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) fisheries law enforcement, aids to navigation, 

and other important activities that help ensure the safe flow of commerce along U.S. 

waterways and the protection of natural resources. These reductions will impact 

USCG’s ability to respond to issues impacting the U.S. Marine Transportation System that generates more than $3.2 trillion of total economic activity, moves 78 percent of foreign trade, and sustains more than 13 million jobs each year. USCG also 

will have to reduce its patrols of the 3.4 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone—impacting fisheries enforcement and resulting in more incursions by 

foreign vessels, exploiting our natural resources. Reduced USCG presence protecting 

the U.S. fishing industry would impact an industry which generates $32 billion in 

income and supports more than 1 million jobs annually. 

Reductions in the Department’s preparedness and grants programs as well as the 

Science and Technology’s (S&T) research and development (R&D) activities would 

affect first responders on the frontlines across the country. Vital assistance for State 

and local law enforcement efforts—such as training, technical assistance, security 

clearances, and connectivity to Federal systems and technologies—would all be 

scaled back under sequestration. 

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND RECOVERY

DHS, through its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), works closely 

with States, cities, tribes, territories, and communities large and small to help prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies of all kinds. We provide funding 

through homeland security grants, support training and exercises, assess State and 

local response capabilities and recommend needed improvements. We also support 

recovery and rebuilding efforts after a disaster. 

Cuts to FEMA would have significant, negative impacts on our Nation’s disaster 

preparedness, response and recovery efforts. 

Weeks after the Congress passed the recent fiscal year 2013 Disaster Assistance 

Supplemental Act (Public Law 113–2), sequestration would reduce the Disaster Relief Fund by more than $1 billion, affecting survivors recovering from Hurricane 

Sandy, the tornadoes in Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and other major disasters across the 

Nation, as well as the economic recoveries of local economies in those regions. Sequestration cuts could also require FEMA to implement Immediate Needs Funding 

Restrictions late in the fiscal year during what is historically the season for tornados, wild fires, and hurricanes, which would limit funding for new projects in 

older disasters. 

Finally, State and local homeland security grants funding would be reduced to its 

lowest level in the past 7 years, leading to potential layoffs of State and local emergency personnel across our country. 

BORDER SECURITY

DHS’s border security responsibilities are significant. Through CBP and USCG, 

we protect 4,000 miles of border with Canada; 2,000 miles of border with Mexico; 

and 2,600 miles of shoreline. USCG also ensures maritime security, protecting our 

Nation’s seaports as well as 95,000 miles of waterways. 

Facing more than $500 million in cuts, CBP would not be able to maintain current staffing levels of CBP agents and CBP officers as mandated by the Congress. 

Funding and staffing reductions from sequestration will increase wait times at 

airports, affect security between land ports of entry, limit CBP’s ability to collect 

revenue owed to the Federal Government, and slow screening and entry programs 

for those traveling into the United States. 
24 

Sequestration would force CBP to immediately begin furloughs of its employees, 

reduce overtime for frontline operations, and decrease its hiring to backfill positions. 

Specifically, beginning April 1, CBP would have to reduce its work hours by the 

equivalent of more than 5,000 CBP agents and the equivalent of more than 2,750 

CBP officers. 

Sequestration would also have significant impacts to USCG’s ability to protect our 

maritime borders. USCG is the principal Federal agency responsible for maritime 

safety, security, and environmental stewardship in U.S. ports and inland waterways, along the coasts, and on the high seas. While USCG is one of our Nation’s 

five armed services, it is also a law enforcement and regulatory agency with broad 

domestic responsibilities and legal authorities. 

To address reductions mandated by sequestration, USCG would have to curtail air 

and surface operations by more than 25 percent, adversely affecting maritime safety 

and security across nearly all mission areas. A reduction of this magnitude would 

reduce drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, port security, and other law enforcement operations. Furthermore, to achieve the level of reduction prescribed by sequestration, a significant level of ongoing maintenance and training would be deferred, with serious consequences for USCG’s future force readiness and mission effectiveness. 

IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

INVESTIGATIONS

DHS also has significant responsibilities with respect to immigration enforcement. 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) serves as the principal investigative arm of the Department and is the second-largest investigative agency in the 

Federal Government. 

ICE promotes homeland security and public safety through broad criminal and 

civil enforcement of approximately 400 Federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. ICE also identifies, apprehends, and removes criminal and other removable aliens from the United States. Last year, ICE removed 

more than 400,000 illegal immigrants including 225,000 individuals who had been 

convicted of felonies or misdemeanors. 

Under sequestration, ICE would be forced to reduce current detention and removal operations, potentially affecting public safety, and would not be able to maintain 34,000 detention beds as mandated by the Congress. 

ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) works in more than 200 cities 

throughout the United States and 47 countries around the world to investigate and 

dismantle transnational criminal organizations involved in smuggling and other 

cross-border criminal activities. Sequestration would reduce HSI’s activities, including human smuggling, counter-proliferation, and commercial trade fraud investigations. ICE would also be required to reduce or eliminate contracts for investigative 

support, including those for wiretaps under title III of the Omnibus Crime Control 

and Safe Streets Act. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Each year, transportation systems protected by TSA accommodate approximately 

640 million aviation passengers; 751 million passengers traveling on buses; more 

than 9 billion passenger trips on mass transit; nearly 800,000 daily shipments of 

hazardous materials; more than 140,000 miles of railroad track; 3.8 million miles 

of roads; and nearly 2.5 million miles of pipeline. 

TSA is the Federal Government’s lead agency for protecting our Nation’s transportation systems from terrorist attacks while ensuring the freedom of movement for 

people and commerce. TSA manages effective and efficient screening and security 

of all air passengers, baggage, and cargo on passenger planes. It also deploys Federal Air Marshals internationally and domestically to detect, deter, and defeat hostile acts targeting air carriers, airports, passengers, crews, and other transportation 

infrastructure. 

Sequestration’s mandated reductions would require TSA to furlough its frontline 

workforce and reduce its operations at our Nation’s airports, substantially increasing passenger wait times at security checkpoints. TSA would need to initiate a hiring freeze for all TSO positions in March, eliminate overtime, and furlough its 

50,000 officers for up to 7 days. 

CYBERSECURITY

DHS also safeguards our Nation’s cyber systems and networks, working in close 

partnership with the private sector. DHS is the Federal Government’s lead agency 

for securing civilian government computer systems, and through our National Pro-
25 

tection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), we work with our industry and Federal, 

State, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems. 

Reductions resulting from sequestration would require NPPD to scale back its development of critical capabilities for the defense of Federal cyber networks. Ongoing 

collaboration and information sharing between NPPD and its Federal, State, local, 

tribal, private sector, and international partners could also be limited. 

Full deployment of the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) intrusion prevention system, known as E3A, would be delayed. This delay would reduce 

our ability to detect, analyze, and build capabilities into NCPS to respond to emerging cyber threats. Deployment of a cyber diagnostics capability for the 118 Federal 

agencies would be affected, leaving departments and agencies less protected and delaying risk reduction features until at least fiscal year 2014. In addition, sequestration would disrupt long-term efforts to build a qualified cybersecurity workforce, 

leaving up to 20 percent of the positions at the DHS United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team vacant. 

U.S. Secret Service (USSS) agents conduct investigations responding to network 

intrusions and data breaches resulting in the theft of financial data and personally 

identifiable information on a daily basis. In fiscal year 2012, USSS prevented more 

than $1.9 billion in cyber crime fraud loss and identified more than $330 million 

in actual loss. Ongoing collaboration with law enforcement, the private sector and 

academia working to detect and suppress computer-based crime through its 31 domestic and international Electronic Crimes Task Forces would be severely weakened 

by furloughed staffing and reductions in funding. 

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE INVESTIGATIONS AND PROTECTION

USSS carries out a unique dual mission of protection and investigation through 

its 165 domestic and international offices. USSS protects the President, Vice President, visiting heads of State and Government, and National Special Security Events. 

It also safeguards the Nation’s financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the integrity of the economy, investigates electronic crimes, investigates 

threats against U.S. and visiting world leaders, and protects the White House and 

other designated buildings within the Washington, DC area. 

In addition to counterfeiting, USSS is the lead law enforcement agency for investigating credit and debit card fraud as well as other types of bank fraud. In fiscal 

year 2012, USSS investigations prevented more than $2 billion in potential loss to 

financial institutions and citizens. 

Furloughs and reductions in overtime would adversely affect the USSS workforce, 

and hinder ongoing criminal and protective intelligence investigations. All USSS 

Special Agents and Uniformed Division Officers would be subject to furloughs of up 

to 7 days. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Sequestration would also have significant impacts on the S&T, an agency which 

helps to strengthen our Nation’s security and resiliency by providing innovative 

technology solutions and knowledge products across the homeland security enterprise. S&T works closely with operators, scientists, and engineers to conduct research and development and provide critical homeland security solutions across our 

missions. 

Sequestration would force S&T to halt ongoing R&D efforts focused on countermeasures for bio-threats, improvements to aviation security and cyber security technologies, and projects that support first responders. Funding for the university network that provides essential R&D will face significant cuts, resulting in fewer new 

technologies available to meet current and emerging threats. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ENTERPRISE

Finally, under sequestration, DHS would be unable to move forward with important command and management infrastructure. DHS would have to scale back management integration efforts such as modernizing critical financial systems. This 

would hinder the Department’s abilities to provide accurate and timely financial reporting, facilitate clean audit opinions, address systems security issues and remediate financial control and financial system weaknesses. 

CONCLUSION

Hurricane Sandy, recent threats surrounding aviation and the continued threat 

of homegrown terrorism demonstrate how we must remain vigilant and prepared, 
26 

as a Department and as a Nation. Threats from terrorism and response and recovery efforts associated with natural disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts 

to DHS. 

Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities without placing our Nation at risk. If we are to 

continue to prepare for, respond to, and recover from evolving threats and disasters, 

we will need sufficient resources to sustain and adapt our capabilities accordingly. 

In order to sustain frontline operations while planning for declining budgets, the 

Department has already taken more than $4 billion in significant reductions and 

cost avoidances to administrative and mission support functions over the past several years. Further reductions mandated by sequestration will directly impact the 

Department’s frontline operations. 

While we will continue to preserve our frontline priorities as best we can, no 

amount of planning can mitigate the negative effects of sequestration. DHS simply 

cannot absorb the additional reduction posed by sequestration without significantly 

and negatively affecting frontline operations and our Nation’s previous investments 

in homeland security. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. The Department appreciates the strong support it has received from the Congress over the past 10 years. 

As we approach March 1, I urge the Congress to act to prevent sequestration and 

ensure the safety, security, and resiliency of our Nation. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Dr. Carter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ASHTON B. CARTER, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Dr. CARTER. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, very much, and 

Ranking Member and Vice Chairman Shelby. I thank you both, 

and this entire committee, very much from the bottom of my heart 

for having this hearing, and I will tell you why. 

We have been very concerned now, Secretary Panetta and I and 

the entire DOD leadership, about what we have called the devastating effects of the sequester on our Nation’s defense and everything we do. We have been talking about this for 16 months now, 

and now the wolf is at the door. 

NATIONAL SECURITY

I would like to describe to you some of the specific consequences 

of the sequester for national security. I should say, right at the beginning, that we have another contingency that is affecting us. It 

is not affecting my colleagues at the moment, which is the continuing resolution and the prospect that it would remain in force 

through the end of the year, for reasons I will explain shortly, that 

has a particularly near-term, deleterious effect on the Department. 

So for us, there are two things that come together. The first one 

is the sequester, which is scheduled to kick in just a couple of 

weeks’ time, and, for us, that requires us to remove $46 billion 

from our spending in the last 7 months of the fiscal year and moreover, as you all know, to do it in the dumbest possible way, from 

a management standpoint, which is account by account, item by 

item. 

The continuing resolution poses a different kind of problem for 

us. We have enough money in the continuing resolution. The problem is that it is in the wrong accounts, and, in particular, the operations and maintenance part is very much short, and that creates 

problems I shall describe shortly in the remaining months of the 

fiscal year. 
27 

So these two things come together to create what we have been 

calling, and what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have called, ‘‘a crisis in 

readiness’’ in the near term. 

In the far term, over the next 10 years, if the budgetary caps 

triggered at the same time—the sequester is triggered for fiscal 

year 2013—are sustained, we are not going to be able to carry out 

the defense strategy, the new defense strategy, that we crafted 

under President Obama’s leadership just 1 year ago. 

It is not that we don’t understand that DOD needs to make a 

contribution to the Nation’s fiscal situation and its resolution. That 

is why we have accommodated $487 billion in cuts over the next 

10 years. We are just beginning to make that enormous transition. 

That was on top of several hundred billion dollars worth of cuts 

that Secretary Gates began, eliminating unneeded and underperforming programs. And all of this is on top of the historic reduction 

associated with the winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I also understand that the taxpayer deserves very careful use of 

each and every DOD dollar that we do get from you. And that is 

why we have striven, and will continue to strive, to get better buying power for the DOD dollar and reform the acquisition system. 

But both a strategic approach to defense spending and efficient 

use of the taxpayer dollar are undermined by sequestration. And 

what is particularly tragic is that sequestration is not the result of 

an economic recession or an emergency. It is not because discretionary spending cuts are the answer to our Nation’s fiscal challenge. You do the math. It is not in reaction to a more peaceful 

world. It is not due to a breakthrough in military technology or to 

a new strategic insight. It is not because paths of entitlement 

growth and spending have been explored and exhausted. It is not 

because sequestration was ever a plan intended to be implemented. 

All this is purely the collateral damage of political gridlock. For 

our troops, for the force, the consequences are very real and very 

personal. The President has indicated his intention to spare military compensation from sequestration. And that is a very good decision and one that we intend to carry out. 

But make no mistake, the troops are going to feel this very directly in other ways. And I will just give you, I think, the principal 

example. There are many. 

Between now and the end of the year, we will need to sharply 

curtail training in all of the services. And so that means, for example, a brigade combat team that has returned from Afghanistan 

that is used to being at tiptop readiness—and that is what matters 

to this profession, and that is what we want to have matter to 

them—can’t train. And the Army reports that two-thirds of its brigade combat teams will be at reduced readiness by year’s end. And 

I can go through the same thing, true in the Air Force and so forth. 

So it is going to have a big effect on our uniformed people. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE

Likewise, also, for our much maligned civilians, you know, a lot 

of people think that DOD civilians are people who wake up in the 

Washington suburbs and get in a car and drive up I–395 and come 

to an office building here. They are not. Most of them work in de-
28 

pots. They fix airplanes. They maintain ships and overhaul ships. 

Eighty-six percent of them don’t even live in the Washington area. 

Forty-four percent of them are veterans. And on or around April 1, 

we will need to begin to furlough many of them, and to do that, 

for up to 22 days, which is the statutory limitation. 

And I have promised that when that happens, I am going to give 

back one-fifth of my paycheck to the Treasury for those last 7 

months, if we have to furlough people. I can’t be furloughed, because I am a Senate-confirmed Presidential appointee, but I am 

going to give back one-fifth of my salary. 

There is a real human impact here, is what I am saying. 

And in addition to the military and civilian personnel, the effects 

will be devastating on the defense industry, upon which we depend. 

The quality of our defense industry, second only to the quality of 

our people in uniform, is what makes our military the greatest in 

the world. And a technologically vibrant and financially successful 

defense industry is in the national interest. 

The act of sequestration and the longer-term budget cuts, and 

even the prolongation of uncertainty, will limit capital market confidence in our industry, and companies may be less willing to make 

internal investments in their defense portfolios. 

The turmoil is even greater for our subcontractors. Many of them 

lack the capital structure to withstand this kind of turbulence. And 

I will just remind you that 60 to 70 cents of every $1 we contract 

goes not to the prime contractor, but is in turn subcontracted out. 

Many of these are small businesses. We count on them for the vibrancy and new people, new talent, fresh blood in the defense sector. 

And above all, the sequester will cause a spike in program inefficiency by stretching out programs and driving up unit costs. So for 

the force—military, civilian, our industry—the consequences are 

very direct and devastating. 

I would like to close with an appeal, which is to de-trigger sequestration and also, very importantly to us, to pass appropriations 

bills not only for defense, but for all our Federal agencies for that 

matter. 

And in that connection, I would just like to add that, in the long 

run, national security rests on a strong economy. It rests on a 

strong industrial and engineering base. It rests on having science, 

technology, engineering, and math talent here in America. 

These are, I recognize, provided in other parts of the budget, but, 

indirectly, we depend upon them as well. And understanding the 

effect of sequestration for us managing in DOD, I understand the 

comparable problems that are arising for my colleagues around the 

table. 

The cloud of uncertainty hanging over our Nation’s defense affairs is already having lasting and irreversible effects. Ultimately, 

the cloud of sequestration needs to be dispelled and not just moved 

to the horizon. The magnificent men and women of DOD and their 

families deserve no less. They need to know that we are going to 

keep our commitments to them. Our partners in the defense industry and their employees need to know we are going to have the resources to procure the world-class capabilities they provide. 
29 

And perhaps most important, the world is watching us. The 

world is watching—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Secretary Carter, we have—— 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Dr. CARTER. I am almost done. 

Our friends and our enemies are watching us, Madam Chairwoman, and they need to know that we have the political will to 

forestall sequestration. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASHTON B. CARTER

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Cochran, Members of the Committee, thank you for 

holding this hearing on the effects of sequestration. I am not only pleased, but in 

fact eager, to testify before you. For over a year, Secretary Panetta and I, together 

with the uniformed leadership of this Department, have been warning of the devastating effects for national defense that will result from sequestration. 

Last August, I testified in detail to the impacts of sequestration that are specific 

to the Department of Defense, which include all the matters we will be discussing 

today in more detail, including furloughs, degraded readiness, maintenance cutbacks, and disrupted investment programs. I explained that these devastating effects would result from the size—and, for fiscal year 2013, the arbitrary nature— 

of the budget cuts that would be required under sequestration and the reductions 

in the discretionary caps mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). 

The consequences of sequestration and a lowering of the discretionary caps are 

serious and far-reaching. In the near-term, these reductions would create an immediate crisis in military readiness, especially if coupled with an extension of the continuing resolution under which we currently operate. In the long-term, failure to replace these large and arbitrary budget cuts with sensible and balanced deficit reduction would require this nation to change its defense strategy. 

I have long understood that the Department of Defense must contribute to the 

resolution of the Nation’s fiscal situation. That is why we already accommodated 

$487 billion in budget reductions versus the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget, and 

managed to do so in a manner consistent with our new defense strategy for the new 

era that America is entering. This $487 billion reduction, now even larger, was on 

top of budget reductions that began under Secretary Gates, when we cancelled many 

unneeded and poorly performing defense programs. 

I also understand that the taxpayer deserves careful use of every dollar we are 

given. That is why we have striven and must continue to strive to get better buying 

power for the defense dollar. 

Both of these efforts will be severely undermined unless the budget uncertainty 

and cloud of sequestration that hangs over this Department, its uniformed and civilian employees, and the industry that supports us, is lifted. 

What is particularly tragic is that sequestration is not a result of an economic 

emergency or a recession. It’s not because discretionary spending cuts are the answer to our Nation’s fiscal challenge; do the math. It’s not in reaction to a change 

to a more peaceful world. It’s not due to a breakthrough in military technology or 

a new strategic insight. It’s not because paths of revenue growth and entitlement 

spending have been explored and exhausted. It’s purely the collateral damage of political gridlock. 

We have long argued that the responsible way to implement reductions in defense 

spending is to formulate a strategy first and then develop a budget that supports 

the strategy. If the Department were forced to operate under the mechanistic sequestration rules and the continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year, 

it would achieve precisely the opposite effect by imposing arbitrary budget cuts that 

then drive changes in national security strategy. 

This is why I continue to urge Congress, in the strongest possible terms, to avoid 

sequestration by devising a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction package 

that both the House and Senate can pass and that the President can sign. I also 

strongly urge the Congress to pass fiscal year 2013 appropriation bills for all Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. 
30 

HOW SEQUESTRATION WOULD WORK

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 changed the dates and size of sequestration. The sequestration will now begin for the Department in about 2 weeks, on 

March 1, 2013; in addition, a second sequestration due to a breach in the discretionary spending caps for fiscal year 2013 is scheduled to be implemented on March 

27. Simply put, the combined effects of these two sequestrations will require the Department to cut roughly $46 billion from the annualized level of funding provided 

on the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, all in the last 7 months of the fiscal 

year. 

Sequestration cuts would apply to all of the DOD budget, including the wartime 

or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) portions, with only one significant exception. Exercising his statutory authority, the President indicated his intent to exempt all military personnel funding from sequestration. While I support the President’s decision to protect our military personnel from sequestration, as a result, 

other DOD budget accounts must be cut by larger amounts to offset this exemption. 

We estimate that all other accounts would be reduced by roughly 8 percent by the 

March 1 sequestration order, and by a total of about 9 percent if both March 1 and 

March 27 sequestration orders occur. (The Office of Management and Budget would 

eventually calculate the precise the sequester percentage and provide it in the sequestration order.) 

In addition to requiring a large and sudden reduction in defense spending for fiscal year 2013, the law requires that those reductions be accomplished in a rigid, 

across-the-board manner—account by account, and item by item. Cuts to the operating portions of the DOD budget must be equal in percentage terms at the level 

of appropriations accounts. (Examples of appropriations accounts in the operating 

budget include Army active operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve operation 

and maintenance, and Air Force Guard operation and maintenance.) For the investment portions of the budget, the dollar cuts must be allocated proportionally at a 

line item level of detail. More than 2,500 programs or projects are separately identified as line items and would be reduced by the same percentage. Within each operating account or investment line item, managers could decide how best to allocate 

the reductions. 

The continuing resolution also plays a deleterious role in shaping the fiscal year 

2013 budgetary landscape. The continuing resolution provides funding for OCO at 

the level requested in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2013. However, the current continuing resolution directs that the base budget remain at the level enacted 

for fiscal year 2012. That provides sufficient total base budget dollars to DOD, but 

the dollars are in the wrong appropriations. Compared to our needs for fiscal year 

2013, the continuing resolution provides too much funding in most investment accounts and insufficient funding in the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts 

that sustain day-to-day operations and military readiness. 

WHAT SEQUESTRATION MEANS

If sequestration is triggered, we will be required to make cuts of $46 billion from 

virtually every category of the budget, except for military personnel. Moreover, these 

cuts must be accommodated in the last 7 months of fiscal year 2013. The impact 

of these cuts will be compounded by the misallocation of funding under the continuing resolution. 

The combined effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution will be especially problematic for the Operation and Maintenance accounts, which most affect 

military readiness. So allow me to focus on O&M, and in particular on the O&M 

in the base budget for active forces, since this portion will be heavily impacted. As 

part of the overall cut of the $46 billion cut caused by the two sequestrations, these 

O&M accounts will be reduced by $13 billion from the annualized continuing resolution level. We must obviously protect the O&M dollars for our men and women in 

combat, which under sequestration rules we can only do by cutting base-budget 

O&M disproportionately—this results in an additional shortfall of $5 billion in active base-budget dollars. 

Then the continuing resolution comes into play. If it is extended in its current 

form throughout the year, it exacerbates problems because it does not provide 

enough dollars in O&M—adding an additional shortfall of $11 billion. 

Next, we are anticipating higher-than-expected wartime operating costs due to 

factors such as unexpectedly high operating tempo, increased transportation costs 

associated with difficulties experienced with Pakistan grounds lines of communication, and an expanded Persian Gulf presence to deal with contingencies in the region. This will add another $5 billion to $6 billion to the shortfall in active O&M 

dollars. 
31 

The cumulative effect of adding all these factors is a DOD-wide shortfall of about $35 billion compared to our fiscal year 2013 budget request (about 23 percent of that 

request) just in base-budget O&M dollars for Active forces. Some Services will experience base-budget O&M reductions much larger than 23 percent. The Army, for example, has a greater share of wartime operating dollars to protect and is also experiencing higher-than-expected use of wartime operating funds. 

Greatly adding to our concern is that we would have only about 7 months to accommodate these formidable shortfalls. The result in the near-term will be a readiness crisis. 

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF MARCH 1 SEQUESTER AND

YEAR-LONG CONTINUING RESOLUTION

Because the prospect of these developments is now all too real, and because the 

time in the fiscal year to absorb them is slipping away, on January 10 I authorized 

all Defense Components to begin taking immediate actions to slow spending in order 

to prevent even more dire consequences later in the year. I directed each of the Defense Component heads to report back to me by February 1 with a list of proposed 

actions and an implementation plan. I subjected the plans to three ground rules: 

first, protect wartime operations, urgent operational procurement needs, and 

wounded warrior programs; second, protect, whenever possible, key features of the 

new defense strategy and acquisition efficiencies; and third, ensure, to the extent 

feasible, that these near-term actions are reversible if action is taken to formulate 

a balanced deficit reduction deal that averts these developments. 

Let me provide you some examples of the steps that are now being taken: 

—Most services and defense agencies will institute civilian hiring freezes, with exceptions for mission-critical activities. DOD hires between 1,500 and 2,000 people per week. It is important to note that this freeze will disproportionately affect veterans, who make up 44 percent of the DOD civilian workforce. Hiring 

freezes will also be felt across the Nation, since 86 percent of DOD’s civilian 

jobs fall outside the Washington, DC metro area. 

—Most services and defense agencies will begin laying off a significant portion of 

our 46,000 temporary and term employees, again with exceptions for missioncritical activities. 

—Most services and defense agencies will curtail facilities maintenance. More 

than $10 billion in funding—mostly to contractors and small businesses—would 

be affected, translating into lost jobs in the private sector. The Air Force, for 

example, plans to cut facilities maintenance projects by about half, including 

cuts to 189 projects at 55 installations in 26 States. 

—As of March 1, services will begin cancelling ship and aircraft maintenance 

work for the third and fourth quarters. It is estimated that about 25 ships and 

470 aircraft will be affected unless we can reverse these actions. 

—The Army and other services are curtailing training not directly related to missions. 

—The Army has directed a reduction of 30 percent in base operating services relative to fiscal year 2012 levels and other services are also limiting base support. 

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE TAKEN SHOULD SEQUESTRATION AND A

YEAR-LONG CONTINUING RESOLUTION OCCUR

We are taking these steps now reluctantly, since they are obviously harmful, because we can no longer be confident that the March sequestrations and a year-long 

continuing resolution will be avoided, and by acting now we can make the damage 

in later parts of the year somewhat less severe. While these near-term actions will 

cushion the blow in later months, they are not nearly enough to accommodate a 

year-long continuing resolution or sequestration. If these unfortunate developments 

actually come to pass, in March we will have to take more drastic and irreversible 

actions. Accordingly, I also directed all Defense Services and Agencies to provide me 

by February 8 with a list of actions that they would take in the event that either 

budget contingency occurs. We are still formulating these plans, which are complex 

and require input from thousands of activities. We do not yet have complete information, but I can provide examples of the actions that the Defense Components 

have proposed to meet budgetary targets in fiscal year 2013: 

—All the Services and Agencies are likely to have to furlough most DOD civilian 

employees for an average of 1 day per week for up to 22 weeks. This action will 

seriously harm our ability to do important work, which will, in turn, harm national security: civilians fix our ships and tanks and planes, staff our hospitals, 

handle contracting and financial management, and much more. During this period, furloughs will result in a 20 percent cut in pay for civilians who support 
32 

our national defense—which will affect their morale. Senate-confirmed political 

appointees like me cannot be furloughed under the law. But if our employees 

are furloughed, I intend to give back to the Treasury the same portion of my 

salary, and I encourage all of us—executive branch and legislative branch—to 

do the same. In addition, these furloughs, like other spending cuts, will adversely affect economies in the communities where our civilians live and work. 

Savings from furloughs will be critical to meeting budgetary cuts by the end of 

the year. However, it is important to note that even if all 800,000 civilian DOD 

employees are furloughed to the maximum extent permitted by law, the savings 

of $4 billion to $5 billion will still leave us $41 billion short of our $46 billion 

total target. Thus, much more cutting of DOD spending will result, affecting 

many defense workers who are not direct DOD employees. 

—The Army will curtail training and reduce maintenance for units that are not 

scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan. This could put readiness for future contingency operations elsewhere at risk. By year end, about two-thirds of Active and 

most Reserve Brigade Combat Teams (excluding those in Operation Enduring 

Freedom) will be at reduced readiness levels. As part of accommodating the sequester cuts, the Army may have to cancel up to five full-spectrum training rotations at its premier training centers. 

—The Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours sharply and will reduce remaining weapon system sustainment funding by about 30 percent. Current planning 

suggests that most flying units (especially later-deploying units) will be below 

acceptable readiness standards by the end of fiscal year 2013. As a result, the 

Air Force will be substantially less able to respond on short notice to contingencies, which is one of their key missions. 

—The Navy and Marine Corps will be forced to cut back on readiness and fleet 

operations. That could include a reduction of one-third in operations of Navy 

ships and aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region and gaps in availability of Marine 

Amphibious Ready Groups. 

—DOD would be short between $2 billion and $3 billion in funds needed to pay 

for costs in the Defense Health Program. If we protect the operations of our in 

military treatment facilities, in order to maintain health readiness for Activeduty forces, then it is possible that DOD might not have enough funds to pay 

TRICARE bills toward the end of the fiscal year. 

—DOD will have to make cuts of roughly 9 percent in each of more than 2,500 

investment line items. These cuts will disrupt programs, add to unit costs, and 

damage the defense industry. 

Overall, these actions will seriously disrupt programs and sharply degrade readiness. The acute effects on O&M and readiness are of particular concern to the Secretary and me and the Department’s senior military leaders. The Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chairman, and all the Joint Chiefs recently signed 

a ‘‘28 star letter’’ stating: ‘‘The readiness of our Armed Forces is at a tipping point. 

We are on the brink of creating a hollow force.’’ 

LONGER-TERM EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION AND REDUCTIONS IN DISCRETIONARY CAPS

So far I have focused on the effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution 

in fiscal year 2013. But current law also reduces the budgetary limits for defense 

spending by about $50 to $55 billion in each year from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2021. These lower caps would constitute a second long-term budget cut as 

large as the one DOD has already carried out. Cuts of this magnitude will require 

that we substantially modify and scale back the new defense strategy that the DOD 

leadership, working under the guidance of the President, so carefully developed just 

a little more than 1 year ago. 

Last year, we emphasized that we were at a strategic turning point—a transition 

from the era of Iraq and Afghanistan to the security challenges that will define our 

future. 

The new strategy has five pillars: 

First, we said that our force has got be leaner, but also agile, ready, and technologically advanced. In other words, we wanted to absorb the lessons we learned over 

the last decade of war—the lessons of counterinsurgency, IEDs, rotational presence, 

intelligence and operational integration, adaptability—and apply them to the challenges of the future to create a new post-Iraq and Afghanistan concept of readiness 

for each of our services. 

Second, we said that we would continue our focus on the Middle East, which will 

remain an enduring commitment of the United States, but also execute our so-called 

rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, where so much of our future security and economic interests lie. 
33 

Third, we said we would strengthen our global alliances and partnerships to 

achieve shared objectives and to build the capacity of our security partners. 

Fourth, we said we would ensure that the United States military remains capable 

of confronting aggression and defeating any opponent, anywhere, anytime. 

Fifth, we said we would continue to invest, even in hard budgetary times, in future-focused capabilities and technologies, like cyber and space, as well as special 

operations. 

If the budget cuts described were sustained for the full 9 years, we would need 

to make substantial changes to our strategy that will directly diminish our military 

strength. Large reductions in force structure would almost certainly be necessary. 

These force structure changes would not happen instantly; in order to meet the new 

budget levels, we would almost certainly be forced to gut our acquisition programs 

in the near-term. This would cancel or significantly delay most of our major modernization programs until after the force reductions are achieved years from now. 

On top of this, we would have little choice but to reduce military compensation and 

reduce civilian personnel costs. 

The resultant force would not be able to rapidly respond to major crises in the 

world or to be globally positioned to deter our adversaries. To protect the most 

warfighting capability possible, this Department would need relief from constraints 

on how the Department manages non-warfighting costs, including such authorities 

as BRAC. 

Just as sequestration and the reductions in the discretionary caps will have devastating effects on the Nation’s defense force, it will also be harmful to the defense 

industry upon which we depend. The quality of the weapons systems produced by 

our defense industry is second only to the quality of our people in uniform in making our military the greatest in the world. As such, a technologically vibrant and 

financially successful defense industry is in the national interest. The act of sequestration and longer-term budget cuts, and even the prolongation of uncertainty, will 

limit capital market confidence in the defense industry, and companies may be less 

willing to make internal investments in their defense portfolio. The impact will be 

even greater on our subcontractors, who lack the capital structure to withstand turmoil and uncertainty. Of note, 60 to 70 percent of our defense dollars are subcontracted, and many of our subcontractors are small businesses. Above all, the sequester will cause a spike in program inefficiency by stretching out programs and driving up unit costs. 

Already, we saw the threat of sequestration drag on GDP growth in the fourth 

quarter of 2012, and consumer confidence took a hit over 2 months through January. According to private sector and CBO forecasts, sequestration impacts could reduce GDP growth in 2013 by over half a percentage point. That lost growth would 

deprive American workers of hundreds of thousands of jobs. 

In the long run, national security rests on a strong economy, and also on nondefense functions—like education, especially science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM)—provided in other parts of the Federal budget. The drastic nature of 

sequestration would obviously be harmful to these functions, as the other witnesses 

appearing today will describe in greater detail. 

Finally, we must be mindful that the world watches—our friends and enemies 

watch—and continued turmoil and uncertainty take a toll on our international reputation for excellence and resolve in national security affairs. 

SEQUESTRATION MUST BE AVOIDED

My testimony today makes clear that sequestration, especially if accompanied by 

a year-long continuing resolution, would be devastating to DOD—just as it would 

to every other affected Federal agency. The difference is that, today, these devastating events are no longer distant problems. The wolf is at the door. 

If we end up with an extended continuing resolution, we will need help from Congress in modifying the continuing resolution to get the dollars in the correct appropriations. We will also need Congress to support our efforts to use the reprogramming process to shift money so as to meet our highest priorities. 

But additional flexibility at this late date would do little to offset the devastating 

effects of sequestration since cuts of this abruptness and magnitude cannot be absorbed without significant and damaging cuts in nearly every budget category. Congress needs to deal quickly and broadly with our country’s deficit problems in a balanced way that the President can support. Then Congress needs to de-trigger sequestration and pass appropriations bills for all Federal agencies. Given that there 

is not enough time to accomplish these far-reaching actions before sequestration is 

triggered on March 1, I would urge that Congress at least delay sequestration. But 

as I have emphasized, the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Nation’s affairs is 
34 

already having lasting and irreversible effects. Ultimately, the cloud of sequestration needs to be dispelled, not just moved to the horizon. 

However it is done, we need relief from the twin evils of sequestration and a yearlong continuing resolution. The magnificent men and women of this Department, 

and their families, deserve no less. They need to know with certainty that we will 

meet our commitments to them. Our partners in the defense industry, and their employees, need to know that we are going to have the resources to procure the worldclass capabilities they can provide, and that we can do so efficiently. And perhaps 

most important, allies, partners, friends, and potential foes the world over need to 

know that we have the political will to implement the defense strategy we have put 

forward. 

Again, I want to thank the committee for providing us an opportunity to highlight 

our grave concerns. I welcome your questions. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

To our panel, thank you very much for this really compelling and 

at some points even riveting testimony of the consequences of this 

policy. 

As you can see, we have had an extraordinary turnout among 

members. We also have to recess by 1 o’clock. So we are going to 

follow the 5-minute rule, which I will impose on myself as well as 

on the members. And we would ask the panelists to give crisp answers so we can get in as much content as we can. 

The reason we need to have a targeted time is there is a Democratic caucus exactly on our proposal to vitiate the sequester. I 

know the other party is also pondering this. 

So we are going to get right on with it. We are going to recognize 

people in the order of arrival, and we look forward to these questions. 

SEQUESTER IMPACT ON EDUCATION

Secretary Duncan, I am going to go right to you. I have heard 

Secretary Condoleezza Rice, truly an iconic figure in American society, speak not only on national security, but she says repeatedly 

that education is the civil rights issue of this generation. Education 

reform began under President Bush the elder, President George 

W., and President Obama. 

Could you tell me the impact of the sequester on our bipartisan, 

multiyear commitment to educational reform to lift all boats and 

get our kids ready for the future? Is this going to derail it, dilute 

it, or just blow it out the window? 

DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN

Secretary DUNCAN. This would have a devastating impact. And 

again, the fact that it is so preventable, not that this is easy, but 

we know we can do better, makes this absolutely untenable. 

And as I have said repeatedly, and as Secretary Condoleezza 

Rice and others have said, if we are trying to level the playing 

field, if we are trying to help poor children, disadvantaged children 

enter the middle class, the only way to do that is to give them a 

high-quality education. 

This is the civil rights issue of our generation. It is an economic 

imperative. It is also an issue of national security. If you take any 

one of those by itself, that is a pretty big deal. You put those things 

together—— 
35 

IMPACT ON TITLE I AND CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. What is the impact? 

Secretary DUNCAN. The impact on just one piece of this, title I 

dollars, which go to help poor children, help the children with the 

greatest need, again trying to break cycles of poverty and social 

failure, as many as 1.2 million students would be impacted, 2,700 

schools. 

And if we fail to educate these children, what are they going to 

do? What is the option? 

For children with disabilities, where there is a tremendous need, 

we have done a lot to try and level the playing field, but, there is 

a long way to go. It would have a huge impact there as well. 

That is just simply, again, unacceptable to me. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

We also understand that housing—everyone in my business community says housing is one of the sectors to lead us out of the recession. They feel that the economy is poised for recovery, but fragile and vulnerable. 

Secretary Donovan, you are the housing guy, along with the Secretary of the Treasury, which is financing. Tell me what you think 

the impact of the sequester will be, essentially, on housing new 

starts, rehab, modernization, jobs, the supply chain from the lumberyard all the way up to big, big construction projects? 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION

Secretary DONOVAN. Senator, you really put your finger on it. As 

the President said in the State of the Union Address, housing has 

become one of the leading factors that is driving our recovery. And 

because of the critical role that the Congress created for FHA, we 

are absolutely central to that recovery at this point. Almost onehalf of all first-time homebuyers in this country today use an FHA 

loan to buy their first home. 

And let me just take one small example. One of the most important factors in our early recovery, particularly in the construction 

industry, has been multifamily construction. It has jumped dramatically. We drive about 25 percent of all that new multifamily 

construction. And even just to take a very small number of employees out by furlough or a lack of hiring, a hiring freeze, we believe 

just this year that there would be about $3 billion in financing for 

a particular kind of multifamily construction that would not happen, with all the ripple-effects of jobs. 

And that is just one small example. When you multiply that to 

look at, as I said, almost one-half of first-time homebuyers, 25 percent construction—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Well, isn’t the ripple effect in like the 

lumberyard, the brickyard, the pipe—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. It goes from the bricklayer or the plumber 

or the carpenter on the frontline. It goes to the window manufacturer. It goes to all of the ripple effects through our system that 

would be halted by that. 
36 

UNLIMITED AUTHORITY

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Secretary Carter, you outlined very compellingly what the sequester will be, and I know the other panelists 

will too. But I want to ask a question: ‘‘What is going to minimize 

the impact on defense?’’ And there are those that would like to give 

you unlimited authority to revise the defense budget without any 

recourse of coming to the Congress, somehow or another, to soften 

the blow. 

What is your position and what is the administration’s position 

in giving you unlimited defense proposal authority without any reprogramming authority? Or do you need something more definite, 

more reliable, and more sustainable? 

Dr. CARTER. That would take, my understanding, legislation. 

And I hope if there is legislation in the area affecting defense, it 

is one that dispels this problem once and for all. 

The other thing I will say is that, at this point in the fiscal year, 

with cuts of this magnitude, we have got to go where the money 

is. So we don’t have a lot of choice in the first place. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Do you want unlimited authority without congressional approval? 

REPROGRAMMING

Dr. CARTER. We would like some reprogramming authority. That 

would obviously help us toward the end of the year. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Inhofe has a proposal, and it is 

a bona fide one—we acknowledge that it will be out there and debated; I oppose it—which would give up congressional authority. I 

want us to have a real solution to the sequester to either vitiate 

it or to have a proposal go through the continuing resolution or 

something where every agency could reprogram and so on but could 

do it for the year. 

Right now, what they are talking about is just giving Defense, 

where you all can decide how to do it, but exempt everybody else. 

Dr. CARTER. As I said, at this point in the fiscal year, it doesn’t 

help us that much. And if the price of that is just kicking this can 

further down the road and having us continue to live under this 

uncertainty, that is not a very attractive prospect to me. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. My time is up. 

I know you will comment on that, Mr. Werfel. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. And after Senator Shelby, we go to Harkin, Collins, Murray, and Coats. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I think it is obvious that we need to return to regular order in 

the appropriations process. The chairwoman talked about it. I have 

talked about it. You have alluded to it. 

RETURN TO REGULAR ORDER OF BUDGET PROCESS

Do all of you agree that, in order to provide certainty, which we 

need for agency budgets, one of the issues here, do all of you support a return to the regular order of the budget and appropriation 

measures? 
37 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. That is what I thought. 

now, supporting it and doing it are two different things. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. This is why we have gathered here. 

Senator SHELBY. That is right. 

In the interest of reestablishing regular order and in the likely 

event that the sequester moves forward, would all of you consider 

transmitting budget amendments for fiscal year 2013 that would 

give you the flexibility to realign agency funding under new constraints? Assuming the sequester, I think it is a good assumption, 

goes into effect? 

Mr. WERFEL. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I will get the 

responses started. 

FLEXIBLE FUNDING

The administration would oppose a solution that kept the sequester in place and tried to reconstruct it in such a way that would 

try to dull some of the pain. We simply cannot cut $85 billion out 

of our budget over the next 7 months without creating significant 

problems and consequences across both defense and nondefense. 

And I think a critical point here is, when the sequester was put 

in place—and it was passed by bipartisan majorities in both the 

House and the Senate—there was not only agreement that it 

should drive a compromise and a solution to balanced deficit reduction, I think everyone agreed that it was going to be enormously 

harmful. And one of the ways it was going to be enormously harmful, it was going to carry on the backs of certain populations this 

burden of deficit reduction, the middle class, the vulnerable. 

And so the notion that we can live within an $85 billion cut by 

moving money around does not change the fact that we would still 

be in a world where who is bearing the burden of deficit reduction, 

it would be the middle class, the vulnerable. And all of the critical 

priorities that these secretaries talked about, it will not be possible 

to save all of them. We will see very, very harmful consequences 

with that. 

FLEXIBILITY IN DISTRIBUTING SEQUESTER CUTS NOT A SOLUTION

Secretary DUNCAN. If I could just add quickly, I think it is a 

great summary, but the idea of flexibility, you know, it sounds nice 

as a manager, but the choices here are just devastating. 

So the choice would be do we save title I and take more money 

away from children with disabilities? Do we cut more from homeless children to do more for English language learners? Do we cut 

Impact Aid to do more for STEM programs? 

None of these are good choices. We have to invest. 

And so the idea that somehow we can kick the can down the road 

and just try a little more flexibility leaves us in a situation in 

which just, again, many, many hundreds of thousands of young 

people will be hurt. 

Secretary DONOVAN. One other point I would add to that, to echo 

something Deputy Secretary Carter said, we are so late in the fiscal year, recognize we are halfway through the year. Just take one 
38 

example of a HUD program where we help a homeless veteran get 

off the street. We don’t do that directly. We provide funding to local 

partners who figure out what are the needs of that veteran, help 

them locate a place to live. 

And this late in the year to say, we are going to cut substantially 

from that program, means that you literally—you don’t have flexibility. You have to cut off existing funding for existing units in 

order to be able to achieve these cuts in such a short time. 

And no amount of flexibility would allow us, with this kind of 

both deep cuts but also precipitous cuts, to be able to do this in a 

way that would mitigate the great damage. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. At this point, ‘‘flexibility’’, and I put that 

in quotes, really isn’t flexible. There are only so many places we 

can get that kind of money. 

So, like my colleagues said, it is a Hobson’s choice. But there is 

no way we would get through sequestration even with just a topline number without serious cuts at airports, seaports, land ports, 

and all of the consequences that occur from that. 

Senator SHELBY. You have laid it out already, haven’t you, Dr. 

Carter? 

Dr. CARTER. I think so. 

Senator SHELBY. One last question, my time is running away. 

The President, in his State of the Union Address, I thought, laid 

out several new policies that would expand the role of the Federal 

Government. But he also said that nothing he proposed, and I will 

quote him, ‘‘should increase our deficit by a single dime.’’ 

Would any of the President’s new policies require an increase in 

discretionary spending? And if so, would the Congress be required 

to raise the caps on discretionary spending? And if the caps weren’t 

raised, would agencies face additional cost burdens to be borne 

within the current budget constraints? 

Mr. Werfel. 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, thank you for the question. 

It is premature for me to talk specifically about the President’s 

budget, which would capture a lot of the information that you are 

requesting. But let me say this, the President’s budget will build 

on the $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction that has been achieved to 

date. It will build on the framework from last year’s budget for $4 

trillion in total deficit reduction over 10 years. 

DISCRETIONARY CAPS

And I will point to you something that has been made public. 

When we issued our guidance to agencies to prepare their budgets, 

so we could submit a budget to the Congress, there was very clear 

direction that the discretionary caps that were put in place by the 

BCA that achieved $1 trillion of the $2.5 trillion that I just described are in place, and there are very tough choices that need to 

be made. 

And this is part of the President’s overall framework, that he is 

willing to make tough choices on domestic priorities, and those are 

embedded into the discretionary caps in the BCA. 

But moving forward, it does not mean we can’t still make critical 

investments in education, in infrastructure, in energy, while also 
39 

balancing our budgets by doing smart things on tax reforms and 

making other responsible spending cuts. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Excellent. 

Senator Harkin, the chair and subcommittee chair of the Labor, 

Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 

Subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN

Senator HARKIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I think, first of all, I want to disagree with those who say we 

have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk about that, it is like there is an 

assumption that somehow we as a Nation are broke. We can’t afford these things any longer. We are too broke to invest in education and housing and things like that. 

Well, look at it this way, we are the richest Nation in the history 

of the world. We are now the richest Nation in the world. We have 

the highest per capita income of any major nation. That kind of 

begs the question, doesn’t it? If we are so rich, why are we so 

broke? 

Is it a spending problem? No. It is because we have a 

misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth. All of this 

wealth that has been built up by hardworking Americans has been 

accumulated into fewer and fewer hands all the time. 

And then we have a tax code that is skewed toward the wealthy; 

a tax code riddled with loopholes; a tax code that encourages companies to offshore jobs, offshore their businesses; a tax code that allows a wealthy hedge fund manager to pay a lower rate of taxes 

than a nurse, for example. 

I think it is very interesting that all of this talk we have about 

the sequester, talk about the programs that hit the hardest on the 

homeless and the helpless, the disabled, and, yes, also on the middle class, why aren’t we talking about a sequester that, when the 

curtain falls, it also falls on all of these tax loopholes, that those 

end on the same day on which we are going to cut back the spending that allows us to educate our kids with disabilities, Secretary 

Duncan? 

No, we are not talking about that. We are not talking about that. 

So I take exception to those that say we have a spending problem. We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation in our tax 

code. 

In the 1990s, when we had full employment, when we had a balanced budget and a growing economy, our revenues equaled about 

20 percent of our GDP. Now it is down to 16 percent of our GDP. 

So what does that equal? What it equals is more of a burden on 

families with kids with disabilities, Secretary Duncan. 

Secretary Donovan, people are homeless, trying to find a place to 

live, a shelter for our veterans. 

And the middle class people that work in the jobs that protect 

our country, Secretary Napolitano, and Dr. Carter, it falls on them, 

too, on the middle class. 

So I have taken a lot of my time to talk, but we have to start 

thinking about this in different terms. We can’t just focus all of the 
40 

time on cutting our obligations as a Government to build a more 

fair and just society. 

I still believe, as former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once 

so eloquently said, ‘‘The moral test of Government is how it treats 

those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in 

the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the 

sick, the needy and the handicapped.’’ That is a test of Government. And I, quite frankly, don’t think we are meeting that test 

right now. We are backing off of that. 

So count me as one of those who, yes, back to a regular order, 

we have to do all of these things. But we can’t lose sight of the fact 

that this Federal Government that we represent has to be involved—has to be involved—in making this a more fair and just society. 

So I know that is sort of an overview, and I have taken all my 

time on that comment. 

But as we move ahead, and I hear voices saying, no, we have to 

exempt defense from the discretionary cuts, if defense is exempted, 

then the disabled ought to be exempted also. And the homeless 

ought to be exempted also. And the middle class families that work 

for you, Secretary Napolitano, they ought to be exempted also. 

So I tell you, we have got to get back to a better, rational system 

of revenues and spending in this country, back to our obligations. 

So I have taken all my time. I didn’t ask a question. But I just 

wanted to make it clear, Madam Chair, that I just feel very strongly that it is not just appropriations that is causing this problem. 

It is the lack of the revenue that we should be taking in to meet 

our obligations as a country. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin. 

Your longstanding reputation for passion and persistence in the 

area of social justice is well-known and well-appreciated. 

I would like to now turn to Senator Collins, who is also the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing 

and Urban Development, and Related Agencies and also comes to 

us as the former ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee. You bring a lot to the table, and we look forward to 

your questions. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS

Senator COLLINS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

It is very difficult to follow the eloquence of my colleague from 

Iowa. 

The fact is, however, I believe we do have a spending problem, 

and the $16.5 trillion debt is ample evidence of that, and I say that 

as one who supported increasing taxes on our highest earners. 

The fact is, there is plenty of blame to go around for the crisis 

that we find ourselves in. But there can be no doubt that these indiscriminate cuts represent an utter failure to set priorities, and 

we simply cannot allow sequestration to go into effect. 

If we do so, we might as well just pack up and go home, because 

if we are just going to have across-the-board cuts, what is the point 

of our being here? 

So I hope we can work together to come up with alternatives. 
41 

Secretary Carter, I want to follow up on a point that you made, 

because the ramifications of sequestration are extreme. But in my 

judgment, for DOD, a yearlong continuing resolution also would inflict tremendous damage on the Department. 

For example, the Congress has authorized the Navy to procure 

10 destroyers during the next 5 years as part of last year’s National Defense Authorization Act. The Navy already has the bids 

for these ships in hand. The Navy is ready to sign. But the Navy 

cannot sign these contracts without an appropriations bill. 

Now, here is the point: We risk throwing away significant savings on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars as well as jeopardizing the stability of the shipbuilding industrial base that we 

have worked so long and hard to preserve if we do not complete 

work on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION

So, Dr. Carter, do you agree that it is essential and equally important that we not only deal with the sequester, but pass the DOD 

appropriations bill for this year? 

Dr. CARTER. It is. They are, both of them, separately but together 

very much so destructive. 

The problem with shipbuilding goes like this: I referred earlier 

to the fact that, in the continuing resolution, we have inadequate 

operations and maintenance dollars, which is why the effect of the 

continuing resolution hits us so fast, so hard in training. But separately, to your point, we also need the authority to embark on new 

starts. And the way shipbuilding is organized, every new ship is a 

new start. 

So we are in the absurd position where we are 5 months into the 

fiscal year, and we have the authority to build the ships that we 

built last year and no authority to build the ships that we planned 

to build this year. That is crazy. 

And that has nothing to do with the sequester, by the way, that 

is the continuing resolution, which is a whole other problem. As I 

said, we have both of them. 

Senator COLLINS. But it is one we do have to address, and we 

can’t just do sequestration. 

And I know I have had this same conversation with Secretary 

Napolitano as well. 

SHIFTING EDUCATION FUNDS AMONG PROGRAMS NOT A SOLUTION

Secretary Duncan, I have met with superintendents, principals, 

and educators from Maine who tell me that my State alone would 

face up to $11 million in cuts in education funding. That could reduce funding for critical programs such as title I, special education 

grants, the TRIO programs, rural education. 

What does the Department of Education intend to do to help 

schools that are hardest hit by sequestration if this goes into effect? 

For example, could you shift the focus of some of your competitive 

grant programs such as Race for the Top, which I know is your favorite, to help fill the gap in education spending? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Race to the Top, the money we spent represented less than 1 percent of spending on K–12. That was $4 billion. We spend $650 billion, so it was a little more than one-half 
42 

of 1 percent. So to think somehow we could shift a small number 

of dollars to fill the hole here just doesn’t make sense. The numbers don’t work. 

And so, again, the damage here would be irreparable. There is 

very little to anything I can do to cushion that blow. 

And, again, that is why it is so important, with your leadership 

and that of others, to do the right thing here. I wish I had a magic 

wand to wave. I simply don’t have that. And I would be lying if I 

told you otherwise. 

Senator COLLINS. Thank you. 

And, finally, just a comment for Secretary Carter. You made such 

an important point about the Federal civilian workforce. I think too 

often it is thought of as white collar employees who are working 

inside the Beltway. 

Senator Shaheen and I know about the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. These are welders, nuclear engineers, and 

pipe fitters who are going to work at a pier. These are the firefighters who put out a very dangerous fire on a nuclear submarine. 

So I think we need to keep that in mind as well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Senator Murray, the subcommittee chair on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

really appreciate the opportunity today to really hear from a really 

great panel to help us understand the impacts of sequestration, 

should it go into effect. 

I think it is important for all of us to step back and remember 

sequestration was never written into the bill to be implemented. If 

it had been, it would have been a lot more thoughtful. 

It was put into the bill simply to force us as Members of Congress to come together on a balanced, thoughtful approach on how 

we deal with our national budget. 

So we are here now, 2 weeks away from implementing a policy 

that not only should not be implemented but was never written to 

be implemented. And we cannot shirk our responsibility to move 

forward to replace it with something that is balanced and fair. 

And I have been working with Senator Mikulski and others on 

an approach to do that. And I urge all of our colleagues to really 

think about how we can do that moving forward. 

And I do have a letter for the record, Madam Chairwoman, of 

more than 3,000 organizations in this country, from the Human 

Rights Campaign to law enforcement organizations, urging us to do 

just that. 

I would submit it for the record. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

NDD UNITED, 

Washington, DC, February 11, 2013. 

DEAR MEMBER OF CONGRESS: As Congress faces the debt ceiling, fiscal year 2013 

spending bills, sequestration, and the fiscal year 2014 budget, the following 3,200 

national, State, and local organizations urge you to support a balanced approach to 

deficit reduction that does not include further cuts to discretionary programs. The 
43 

approach to deficit reduction has thus far been unbalanced. Discretionary programs 

have contributed $1.5 trillion in spending cuts from the fiscal year 2011 continuing 

resolution, the bipartisan Budget Control Act, and the bipartisan American Taxpayer Relief Act, while revenues have contributed just $600 billion. Additional cuts 

in discretionary programs would put the health, education, safety, and security of 

all Americans at risk. 

Discretionary programs are funded annually by Congress through the appropriations process and generally fall into two categories: ‘‘defense discretionary,’’ which 

includes the Pentagon’s budget; and ‘‘nondefense discretionary’’ (NDD), which includes everything else. NDD programs are core functions Government provides for 

the benefit of all, including medical and scientific research; education and job training; infrastructure; public safety and law enforcement; public health; weather monitoring and environmental protection; natural and cultural resources; housing and 

social services; and international relations. Every day these programs support economic growth and strengthen the safety and security of every American in every 

State and community across the Nation. 

Spending on these programs is not ‘‘out of control.’’ On the contrary, NDD programs—cut by $900 billion already—represent a small and shrinking share of the 

Federal budget and of our overall economy. For example, NDD programs represented just 3.4 percent of our country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011, 

consistent with historical levels. Under the funding caps established in the bipartisan Budget Control Act, by 2021 NDD programs will decline to just 2.5 percent 

of GDP, the lowest level in at least 50 years. 

Continued cuts will have consequences for every American, threatening the 

health, safety, and competiveness of the United States. Americans may be left waiting longer for help after natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy. They may be more 

susceptible to deadly infectious diseases, like the West Nile virus, Hantavirus, and 

meningitis. With fewer air traffic controllers, flights may be curtailed or safety compromised. Classroom size may increase as teachers are laid off. National parks will 

have fewer visitor hours or may close altogether. Roads and bridges will continue 

to crumble. Our communities will lack the necessary resources to protect our families, to prevent future crimes and to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals. 

Promising research will be curtailed, compromising our global position as a scientific 

leader. 

Discretionary programs support our economy, bolster our global competitiveness, 

and provide an environment where all Americans have the opportunity to lead 

healthy, safe, and productive lives. Only a balanced approach to deficit reduction 

can restore fiscal stability, and these programs have done their part. We urge you 

to work together to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does not include further cuts to these critical programs. 

If you have questions about this letter, please contact Emily Holubowich, Executive Director of the Coalition for Health Funding (202–484–1100 or eholubowich@dccrd.com) or Joel Packer, Executive Director of the Committee for Education Funding 

(202–383–0083 or JPacker@cef.org). 

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (LISTED ALPHABETICALLY)

8th Day Center for Justice 

9to5A World Fit For Kids! 

Academic Pediatric Association 

Academy of Medical Surgical Nurses 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 

Academy of Radiology Research 

AcademyHealth 

ACCESS 

Act V: The End of AIDS 

Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research 

Adult Congenital Heart Association 

Advocates for Youth 

Aerospace Industries Association of 

America 

African American Health Alliance 

African American Ministers in Action 

AFSE 

Afterschool Alliance 

AIDS Community Research Initiative of 

America 

AIDS Healthcare Foundation 

AIDS Treatment News 

AIDS United 

Alliance for a Just Society 

Alliance for Aging Research 

Alliance for Biking & Walking 

Alpha-1 Association 

Alpha-1 Foundation 

Alzheimer’s Association 

Alzheimer’s Foundation of America 

American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry 

American Academy of Family Physicians 

American Academy of Neurology 

American Academy of Nursing 

American Academy of Pediatrics 

American Alliance of Museums 

American Alliance for Health, Physical 

Education, Recreation and Dance 

American Art Therapy Association 

American Association for Adult and 

Continuing Education 
44 

American Association for Cancer 

Research 

American Association for Dental 

Research 

American Association for Geriatric 

Psychiatry 

American Association for Health 

Education 

American Association for Marriage & 

Family Therapy 

American Association for Psychoanalysis 

in Clinical Social Work 

American Association for the 

Advancement of Science 

American Association for the Study of 

Liver Diseases 

American Association of Classified 

School Employees 

American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education 

American Association of Colleges of 

Nursing 

American Association of Colleges of 

Osteopathic Medicine 

American Association of Colleges of 

Pharmacy 

American Association of Community 

Colleges (AACC) 

American Association of Community 

Theatre 

American Association of Critical-Care 

Nurses (AACN) 

American Association of Physics 

Teachers 

American Association of Poison Control 

Centers 

American Association of Port Authorities 

American Association of Radon 

Scientists and Technologists 

American Association of School 

Administrators 

American Association of School 

Librarians 

American Association of Service 

Coordinators 

American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities 

American Association of University 

Professors (AAUP) 

American Association of University 

Women (AAUW) 

American Association on Health and 

Disability 

American Astronomical Society 

American Bird Conservancy 

American Brain Coalition 

American Cancer Society Cancer Action 

Network 

American Chemical Society 

American College of Clinical Pharmacy 

(ACCP) 

American College of Preventive Medicine 

American Council for School Social Work 

American Council on Education 

American Council on the Teaching of 

Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 

American Counseling Association 

American Dance Therapy Association 

American Dental Education Association 

American Diabetes Association 

American Educational Research 

Association 

American Epilepsy Society 

American Federation for Medical 

Research 

American Federation of School 

Administrators, AFL–CIO 

American Federation of Teachers, AFL– 

CIO 

American Forests 

American Geophysical Union 

American Geosciences Institute 

American Geriatrics Society 

American Heart Association 

American Institute of Biological Sciences 

American Jail Association 

American Library Association 

American Lung Association 

American Mathematical Society 

American Medical Rehabilitation 

Providers Association 

American Medical Student Association 

American Meteorological Society 

American Music Therapy Association 

American Nephrology Nurses’ 

Association 

American Nurses Association 

American Occupational Therapy 

Association 

American Organization of Nurse 

Executives 

American Pediatric Society 

American Physical Therapy Association 

American Planning Association 

American Psychiatric Association 

American Psychological Association 

American Probation and Parole 

Association 

American Public Health Association 

American Rivers 

American Sexual Health Association 

American Sleep Apnea Association 

American School Counselor Association 

American Social Health Association 

American Society for Bone and Mineral 

Research 

American Society for Clinical Laboratory 

Science 

American Society for Clinical Pathology 

American Society for Engineering 

Education 

American Society for Microbiology 

American Society for Pharmacology & 

Experimental Therapeutics 

American Society of Agronomy 

American Society of Clinical Oncology 

American Society of Hematology 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) 

American Society of Nephrology 

American Society of Pediatric 

Nephrology 

American Society of PeriAnesthesia 

Nurses (ASPAN) 
45 

American Society of Plant Biologists 

American Society of Tropical Medicine 

and Hygiene 

American Society on Aging 

American Sociological Association 

American Speech-Language-Hearing 

Association 

American Therapeutic Recreation 

Association 

American Thrombosis and Hemostasis 

Network 

American Urogynecologic Society 

Americans for Nursing Shortage Relief 

(ANSR) Alliance 

Americans for the Arts 

America’s Service Commissions 

amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS 

Research 

Amputee Coalition 

Arthritis Foundation 

Asian & Pacific Islander American 

Health Forum 

Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on 

Domestic Violence 

Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness 

Center 

Asian American Justice Center, Member 

of Asian American Center for 

Advancing Justice 

ASME 

Associated Universities, Inc. 

Association for Ambulatory Behavioral 

Healthcare 

Association for Career and Technical 

Education 

Association for Prevention Teaching and 

Research 

Association for Psychological Science 

Association for Radiologic & Imaging 

Nurses (ARIN) 

Association for Research in 

Otolaryngology 

Association for Research in Vision and 

Ophthalmology 

Association for Women in Mathematics 

Association of Academic Health Centers 

Association of Academic Health Sciences 

Libraries 

Association of Ambulatory Behavioral 

Healthcare 

Association of American Cancer 

Institutes 

Association of American Geographers 

Association of American Medical 

Colleges 

Association of American Universities 

Association of American Veterinary 

Medical Colleges 

Association of Assistive Technology Act 

Programs (ATAP) 

Association of BellTel Retirees, Inc. 

Association of Educational Service 

Agencies 

Association of Environmental & 

Engineering Geologists 

Association of Farmworker Opportunity 

Programs 

Association of Jesuit Colleges and 

Universities (AJCU) 

Association of Jewish Aging 

Association of Maternal and Child 

Health Programs 

Association of Medical School Pediatric 

Department Chairs 

Association of Minority Health 

Professions Schools 

Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 

Association of Prosecuting Attorneys 

Association of Public and Land-grant 

Universities 

Association of Public Health Nurses 

Association of Rehabilitation Nurses 

Association of Research Libraries 

Association of School Business Officials 

International 

Association of School Psychologists 

Association of Schools and Colleges of 

Optometry 

Association of Science-Technology 

Centers 

Association of State & Territorial Public 

Health Nutrition Directors 

Association of State and Territorial 

Health Officials 

Association of Teacher Educators 

Association of University Centers on 

Disabilities 

Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric 

and Neonatal Nurses 

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 

America 

Attention Deficit Disorder Association 

(ADDA) 

Autism National Committee 

Basic Education Coalition 

Bat Conservation International 

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 

Be the Change, Inc. 

Benetech 

Benign Essential Blepharospasm 

Research Foundation 

Berkeley Media Studies Group 

Biophysical Society 

Botanical Society of America 

Brain Injury Association of America 

Bread for the World 

Break the Cycle 

Briar Cliff University TRIO Upward 

Bound 

Building Educated Leaders for Life 

(BELL) 

Business Industrial Network 

California Institute of Technology 

Campaign for Community Change 

Campaign for Public Health Foundation 

Campaign for Youth Justice 

Campaign to Invest in America’s 

Workforce 

Campus Compact 

CARE 

Casa de Esperanza: National Latin @ 

Network for Healthy Families and 

Communities 

C-Change 
46 

Center for Biological Diversity 

Center of Concern 

Center for Effective Government 

Center for Employment Training 

Center for HIV Law and Policy 

Center for Law and Social Policy 

(CLASP) 

Center for Science in the Public Interest 

Center for Women Policy Studies 

Cerebral Palsy International Research 

Foundation 

ChangeLab Solutions 

Charles R. Drew University 

Child Care Services Association 

Child Welfare League of America 

Children and Adults with AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

Children’s Defense Fund 

Children’s Environmental Health 

Network 

Children’s HealthWatch 

Children’s Leadership Council 

Children’s Mental Health Network 

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation 

Citizen Schools 

Citizens United for Rehabilitation of 

Errants—Women Incarcerated 

City Year 

Clean Water Action 

CLEARCorps USA 

Climate Change is Elementary 

Clinical Social Work Association 

Coalition for a Secure Driver’s License 

Coalition for Community Schools 

Coalition for Health Funding 

Coalition for Imaging and 

Bioengineering Research 

Coalition for Juvenile Justice 

Coalition for Workforce Solutions 

Coalition of Higher Education Assistance 

Organizations 

Coalition to End Childhood Lead 

Poisoning 

Coastal and Estuarine Research 

Federation 

Coastal States Organization 

College Board 

College Summit 

Colleges That Change Lives 

Commission on Adult Basic Education 

(COABE) 

Commissioned Officers Association of the 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Committee for Education Funding 

Communities Advocating Emergency 

AIDS Relief (CAEAR) Coalition 

Community Action Partnership 

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of 

America 

Community Economic Development 

Partners, LLC 

Conference of Educational 

Administrators of Schools and 

Programs for the Deaf 

Conference of Major Superiors of Men 

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 

Consortium for Ocean Leadership 

Consortium for School Networking 

Consortium of Social Science 

Associations 

Cooley’s Anemia Foundation 

COPD Foundation 

Corporate Hepatitis Alliance 

Corporation for a Skilled Workforce 

Corporation for Supportive Housing 

Council for Adult and Experiential 

Learning 

Council for Advancement of Adult 

Education 

Council for Advancement of Adult 

Literacy 

Council for Exceptional Children 

Council for Opportunity in Education 

Council of Administrators of Special 

Education, Inc. (CASE) 

Council of State and Territorial 

Epidemiologists 

Council of State Community 

Development Agencies 

Council of the Great City Schools 

Council on Social Work Education 

Council on Undergraduate Research 

Covenant House International 

Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of 

America 

Crop Science Society of America 

CURE-Women Incarcerated 

Defeat Diabetes Foundation 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Dermatology Nurses Association 

Digestive Disease National Coalition 

Directors of Health Promotion and 

Education 

Disability Rights Education & Defense 

Fund 

District 1199C Training & Upgrading 

Fund 

Division for Early Childhood of the 

Council for Exceptional Children 

(DEC) 

Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative 

(DNDi) 

Dystonia Advocacy Network 

Dystonia Medical Research Foundation 

Early Care and Education Consortium 

Earth Day Network 

Earthquake Engineering Research 

Institute 

Easter Seals 

Ecological Society of America 

Education Industry Association 

Education Law Center 

Educational Talent Search 

Educational Theatre Association 

Elderly Housing Development and 

Operations Corporation (EHDOC) 

Emergency Nurses Association 

Endangered Species Coalition 

Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. 

Epilepsy Foundation 

Equal Justice Works 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 

(ELCA) 
47 

Every Child By Two—Carter/Bumpers 

Champions for Immunization 

FairTest: National Center for Fair & 

Open Testing, Inc. 

Family Caregiver Alliance 

Family Promise of Lycoming County 

Fanconi Anemia Research Fund 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers 

Association 

Federation of Associations in Behavioral 

& Brain Sciences 

Federation of Materials Societies 

Fellowship Health Resources, Inc. 

Fight Colorectal Cancer 

First Focus Campaign for Children 

Foster Family-Based Treatment 

Association 

Franklin County Head Start 

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research 

Center 

Friends of Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality 

Friends of National Center for Health 

Statistics 

Friends of the National Institute of 

Child Health and Human 

Development (NICHD) 

Friends of UNFPA 

Futures Without Violence (formerly 

Family Violence Prevention Fund) 

Gay Men’s Health Crisis 

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education 

Network (GLSEN) 

Generations United 

Genetics Policy Institute 

Goodwill Industries of the Valleys 

Gray Panthers 

Greenpeace 

Half in Ten 

Harm Reduction Coalition 

Health & Disability Advocates 

Health Professions and Nursing 

Education Coalition 

Healthcare Leadership Council 

HealthHIV 

Heifer International 

Helen Keller International 

Hemophilia Federation of America 

Hepatitis B Foundation 

HIGH IMPACT Mission-based 

Consulting & Training 

Higher Education Consortium for Special 

Education 

HighScope Educational Research 

Foundation 

HIV Law Project 

HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) 

HIV Prevention Justice Alliance 

Housing Assistance Council 

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 

Human Rights Campaign 

Human Rights Project for Girls 

iCAST (International Center for 

Appropriate & Sustainable 

Technology) 

Idea Fuel 

IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators 

Association (ITCA) 

Illinois Campus Compact 

Infectious Diseases Society of America 

Innocence Project 

Innovate∂Educate 

Innovations in Civic Participation 

Insight Center for Community Economic 

Development 

Institute for Educational Leadership 

InterAction 

International Association of Jewish 

Vocational Services (IAJVS) 

International Certification and 

Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC) 

International Essential Tremor 

Foundation 

International Foundation for Functional 

Gastrointestinal Disorders 

International Myeloma Foundation 

International Reading Association 

International Society for Developmental 

Psychobiology 

International Society for Technology in 

Education 

Interstitial Cystitis Association 

Iron Disorders Institute 

Jeffrey Modell Foundation 

Jewish Council for Public Affairs 

Jewish Labor Committee 

Jobs for the Future (JFF) 

Joint Advocacy Coalition of ACRT, 

APOR, CRF, and SCTS 

Juma Ventures 

Jumpstart 

KaBOOM! 

Kids vs Global Warming/iMatter 

Campaign 

Knowledge Alliance 

Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights 

LeadingAge 

League of Conservation Voters 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

America 

Legal Action Center 

Legal Momentum 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Long-term Ecological Research Network 

Lupus Foundation of America, Inc. 

Lupus Research Institute 

Lutheran Services in America 

Magnet Schools of America 

Mal de Debarquement Syndrome 

Balance Disorder Foundation 

Manufactured Home Owners Association 

of America 

March of Dimes 

Marie Stopes International-US (MSI– 

US) 

Marine Conservation Institute 

Materials Research Society 

Mathematical Association of America 

Meals On Wheels Association of America 

Medical Library Association 

Medicare Rights Center 

Meharry Medical College 
48 

Mental Health America 

Mercy Housing, Inc. 

Mesothelioma Applied Research 

Foundation 

Metro TeenAIDS 

Mexican American Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund 

Military Impacted Schools Association 

Monarch Housing Associates 

Morehouse School of Medicine 

NAACP 

NAADAC—The Association for Addiction 

Professionals 

NAfME: National Association for Music 

Education 

NAFSA: Association of International 

Educators 

NARAL Pro-Choice America 

National Abortion Federation 

National Academy of Elder Law 

Attorneys 

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters 

of the Good Shepherd 

National African American Drug Policy 

Coalition, Inc. 

National AIDS Housing Coalition 

National Alliance for Eye and Vision 

Research 

National Alliance for Media Arts & 

Culture 

National Alliance of Black School 

Educators 

National Alliance of Community 

Economic Development Associations 

(NACEDA) 

National Alliance of State & Territorial 

AIDS Directors 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

National Alliance to End Homelessness 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence 

National Area Health Education Center 

(AHEC) Organization 

National Asian Pacific Center on Aging 

(NAPCA) 

National Assembly on School-Based 

Health Care 

National Association for Bilingual 

Education 

National Association for Biomedical 

Research 

National Association for Children’s 

Behavioral Health 

National Association for College 

Admission Counseling 

National Association for County 

Community and Economic 

Development 

National Association for Geriatric 

Education and National Association of 

Geriatric Education Centers 

National Association for Hispanic 

Elderly 

National Association for Music 

Education 

National Association for Public Health 

Statistics and Information Systems 

National Association for Rural Mental 

Health 

National Association for Sport and 

Physical Education 

National Association for the Education of 

Homeless Children and Youth 

National Association for the Education of 

Young Children 

National Association of Area Agencies on 

Aging 

National Association of Chronic Disease 

Directors 

National Association of Clinical Nurse 

Specialists 

National Association of Community 

Health Centers 

National Association of Councils on 

Developmental Disabilities 

National Association of County and City 

Health Officials 

National Association of County 

Behavioral Health and Developmental 

Disabilities Directors (NACBHDD) 

National Association of Development 

Organizations (NADO) 

National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals 

National Association of Elementary 

School Principals 

National Association of Federally 

Impacted Schools 

National Association of GraduateProfessional Students 

National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials 

National Association of Housing 

Cooperatives 

National Association of Human Rights 

Workers 

National Association of Local Housing 

Finance Agencies 

National Association of Marine 

Laboratories 

National Association of Nutrition and 

Aging Services Programs (NANASP) 

National Association of People with 

AIDS (NAPWA) 

National Association of Private Special 

Education Centers 

National Association of Professional 

Geriatric Care Managers 

National Association of Pupil Services 

Administrators 

National Association of Rural Mental 

Health 

National Association of School Nurses 

National Association of School 

Psychologists 

National Association of Secondary School 

Principals 

National Association of Social Workers 

(NASW) 

National Association of State Alcohol 

and Drug Abuse Directors 

National Association of State Directors 

of Career Technical Education 

Consortium 
49 

National Association of State Directors 

of Special Education 

National Association of State Emergency 

Medical Services Officials 

National Association of State Head 

Injury Administrators 

National Association of State Long-Term 

Care Ombudsman Programs (NASOP) 

National Association of State Mental 

Health Program Directors 

National Association of States United for 

Aging and Disabilities 

National Association of Thrift Savings 

Plan Participants 

National Association of Workforce 

Boards (NAWB) 

National Association of Workforce 

Development Professionals (NAWDP) 

National Black Nurses Association 

National Center for Healthy Housing 

National Center for Technological 

Literacy 

National Center for Transgender 

Equality 

National Center for Victims of Crime 

National Center on Domestic and Sexual 

Violence 

National Coalition Against Domestic 

Violence 

National Coalition for Asian Pacific 

American Community Development 

National Coalition for Literacy 

National Coalition for Promoting 

Physical Activity 

National Coalition of STD Directors 

National Community Development 

Association 

National Community Reinvestment 

Coalition 

National Community Tax Coalition 

National Congress of American Indians 

National Consumer Voice for Quality 

Long-Term Care 

National Council for Advanced 

Manufacturing 

National Council for Community and 

Education Partnerships (NCCEP) 

National Council for Community 

Behavioral Healthcare 

National Council for Workforce 

Education 

National Council of Jewish Women 

National Council of La Raza 

National Council of State Directors of 

Adult Education 

National Council of State Housing 

Agencies 

National Council of Women’s 

Organizations 

National Council on Aging 

National Council on Independent Living 

National Criminal Justice Association 

National Dating Abuse Helpline 

National Disability Rights Network 

National District Attorneys Association 

National Domestic Violence Hotline 

National Ecological Observatory 

Network, Inc. (NEON) 

National Education Association 

National Education Association Student 

Program 

National Employment Law Project 

National Estuarine Research Reserve 

Association 

National Fair Housing Alliance 

National Family Planning & 

Reproductive Health Association 

National Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health 

National Forum for Heart Disease and 

Stroke Prevention 

National Fragile X Foundation 

National Fund for Workforce Solutions 

(NFWS) 

National Head Start Association 

National Health Care for the Homeless 

Council 

National Healthy Start Association 

National Health Care for the Homeless 

National Hemophilia Foundation 

National High School Equivalency 

Program/College Assistance Migrant 

Program Association 

National Hispanic Council on Aging 

National Hispanic Media Coalition 

National Hispanic Medical Association 

National Housing Conference 

National Housing Law Project 

National Housing Trust 

National Human Services Assembly 

National Immigration Law Center 

National Indian Impacted Schools 

Association 

National Juvenile Justice Network 

National Kidney Foundation 

National Leased Housing Association 

National Latina Institute for 

Reproductive Health 

National Latino Alliance for the 

Elimination of Domestic Violence 

(Alianza) 

National Latino Behavioral Health 

Association 

National Law Center on Homelessness & 

Poverty 

National League for Nursing 

National Low Income Housing Coalition 

National Lung Cancer Partnership 

National Marfan Foundation 

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation 

National Minority AIDS Council 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society 

National Network for Youth 

National Network of Public Health 

Institutes 

National Network of Sector Partners 

(NNSP) 

National Network to End Domestic 

Violence 

National Organization of Social Security 

Claimants’ Representatives 

National Parks Conservation Association 
50 

National Partnership for Women & 

Families 

National Partnership to End 

Interpersonal Violence 

National Pediatric AIDS Network 

National Psoriasis Foundation 

National PTA 

National Resource Center on Domestic 

Violence 

National Rural Education Advocacy 

Coalition 

National Rural Education Association 

National Rural Housing Coalition 

National School Boards Association 

National Science Teachers Association 

National Senior Corps Association 

National Skills Coalition 

National Spasmodic Dysphonia 

Association 

National Spasmodic Torticollis 

Association 

National Student Nurses’ Association, 

Inc. 

National Summer Learning Association 

National Superintendents Roundtable 

National Task Force to End Sexual and 

Domestic Violence 

National Title I Association 

National Tourette Syndrome Association 

National Transitional Jobs Network 

(NTJN) 

National Urban League 

National Violence Prevention Network 

National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable 

National WIC Association 

National Women’s Conference 

Committee 

National Women’s Health Network 

National Writing Project 

National Youth Employment Coalition 

(NYEC) 

National Youth Leadership Council 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Nemours 

NephCure Foundation 

New Horizons Computer Learning 

Centers 

New Leaders 

North American Society for Pediatric 

Gastroenterology, Hepatology and 

Nutrition 

Nurse-Family Partnership 

Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs 

Oceana 

Ocean Conservancy 

Oncology Nursing Society 

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network 

(PanCAN) 

Parents As Teachers 

Parkinson’s Action Network 

Pediatric Stroke Network, Inc. 

People For the American Way 

PFLAG National (Parents, Families and 

Friends of Lesbians and Gays) 

Physicians for Reproductive Choice and 

Health 

Planned Parenthood Federation of 

America 

Points of Light 

Population Action International 

Population Association of America/ 

Association of Population Centers 

Population Connection 

Population Institute 

Positive Education, Inc. 

Prevent Blindness America 

Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses 

Association 

ProLiteracy 

Professional Association of Social 

Workers in HIV and AIDS 

Project Inform 

ProLiteracy 

Provincial Council of the Clerics of St. 

Viator (Viatorians) 

Public Allies, Inc. 

Public Education Network 

Public Health Foundation 

Public Health Institute 

Public Health Solutions 

Public Housing Authorities Directors 

Association 

Public Lands Service Coalition 

Pulmonary Hypertension Association 

Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 

Coalition 

Racine County Older Adult Nutrition 

Program 

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network 

(RAINN) 

Reading Partners 

Rebuilding Together 

Religious Coalition for Reproductive 

Choice 

Research Allies for Lifelong Learning 

Resources for Human Development, Inc. 

Restore America’s Estuaries 

Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action 

Corps 

Rose F. Kennedy University Center for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities 

RTI International 

Rushmere Community Development 

Corporation 

Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition 

Safe Kids Worldwide 

Safe States Alliance 

Sargent Shriver National Center on 

Poverty Law 

Save the Children 

School Social Work Association of 

America 

Scleroderma Foundation 

Sea Grant Association 

SEDL 

Society for Industrial and Organizational 

Psychology 

Society of Behavioral Medicine 

Society of Experimental Social 

Psychology 

Society of Mathematical Psychology 
51 

Society of Multivariate Experimental 

Psychology 

Southwest Educational Development 

Laboratory (SEDL) 

SPIE, The International Society for 

Optics and Photonics 

Senior Service America, Inc. 

Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders 

(SAGE) 

Sexuality Information and Education 

Council of the United States (SIECUS) 

Sisters of Charity of Nazareth 

Congregational Leadership 

Sisters of Mercy of the Americas 

Sjogren’s Syndrome Foundation 

Sleep Research Society 

Society for Advancement of Violence and 

Injury Research 

Society for Computers in Psychology 

Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of 

America 

Society for Industrial and Applied 

Mathematics 

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine 

Society for Medical Decision Making 

Society for Neuroscience 

Society for Pediatric Research 

Society for Public Health Education 

Society for Women’s Health Research 

Society of General Internal Medicine 

Society of Gynecologic Oncology 

Society of Urologic Nurses and 

Associates 

Soil Science Society of America 

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center 

Spark Action 

Special Olympics, Inc. 

Spina Bifida Association 

Stand Up for Rural America 

State Educational Technology Directors 

Association 

Stem Cell Action Coalition 

Strategic Applications International 

STRIVE National 

Student Conservation Association 

Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social 

Justice 

Teach For America 

Teaching Strategies, LLC 

Technical Assistance Collaborative 

Telecare Corporation 

TESOL International Association 

The Advocacy Institute 

The AIDS Institute 

The American Society for Cell Biology 

The Arc of the U.S. 

The Aspen Institute Workforce 

Strategies Initiative 

The Borgen Project 

The Center for the Celebration of 

Creation 

The Coalition for the Life Sciences 

The Community Builders, Inc. 

The Corps Network 

The Education Trust 

The Eisen Group 

The Endocrine Society 

The Every Child Matters Education 

Fund 

The Gerontological Society of America 

The Imani Project 

The Myelin Project 

The National Center for Learning 

Disabilities 

The National Center on Family 

Homelessness 

The National Council for Science and the 

Environment 

The National Crittenton Foundation 

The National Indian Head Start 

Directors Association 

The Polycystic Kidney Disease 

Foundation 

The Salvation Army 

The Trust for Public Land 

The United Methodist Church 

The Wilderness Society 

Travelers Aid International 

Treatment Action Group 

Treatment Communities of America 

Treatment Systems Development 

Trust for America’s Health 

Tufts University 

Tuskegee University’s College of 

Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and 

Allied Health 

U.S. Water Fitness Association 

U.S. Positive Women’s Network 

U.S. Soccer Foundation 

UNCF 

Union for Reform Judaism 

Unite 2 Fight Paralysis 

United Church of Christ 

United Church of Christ Justice and 

Witness Ministries 

United for Medical Research 

United Neighborhood Centers of America 

United Spinal Association 

United States Breastfeeding Committee 

UNITY, Society for the Advancement of 

Violence & Injury Research 

Universities Research Association, Inc. 

University Corporation for Atmospheric 

Research 

U.S. Climate Action Network 

U.S. Hereditary Angioedema Association 

VALUEUSA 

Vasculitis Foundation 

Vera Institute of Justice 

Voices for America’s Children 

Voices for National Service 

Voices for Progress 

W. Haywood Burns Institute 

Witness to Innocence 

WestEd 

Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW) 

Women Employed 

Women in Film 

WomenHeart: The National Coalition for 

Women with Heart Disease 

Women’s Action for New Directions 

Wonderlic, Inc. 

Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance 

Workforce Learning Strategies 
52 

World Education, Inc. 

World Wildlife Fund 

Young Invincibles 

YouthBuild USA 

ZERO TO THREE 

REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS (LISTED ALPHABETICALLY, BY STATE)

Alabama 

1917 HIV/AIDS Outpatient Clinic at 

University of Alabama at Birmingham, 

Birminhgam 

AIDS Alabama, Birmingham 

Alabama Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Montgomery 

Alabama Association of School Business 

Officials, Huntsville 

Alabama Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Montgomery 

Alabama Council of Administrators in 

Special Education, Guntersville 

Alabama Disability Advocacy Program, 

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa 

Alabama School Counselor Association, 

Montgomery 

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, 

Tuscaloosa 

Auburn Housing Authority, Auburn 

Eastside Mental Health, Birmingham 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Alabama, Montgomery 

Low Income Housing Coalition of 

Alabama, Birmingham 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Shoals, Florence 

Southwest Alabama Behavioral 

Healthcare Systems, Monroeville 

The Concerned Citizens of Atmore 

‘‘Unity in the Community,’’ Atmore 

Unity Wellness Center Housing 

Department, Auburn 

VOICES for Alabama’s Children, 

Montgomery 

YWCA Central Alabama, Birmingham 

Alaska 

Akeela Development Corporation, 

Anchorage 

Alaska Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Fairbanks 

Alaska Council of Administrators of 

Special Education, Fairbanks 

Alaska Innocence Project, Anchorage 

Alaska Occupational Therapy 

Association, Anchorage 

Cook Inlet Housing Authority, 

Anchorage 

Denali Family Services, Anchorage 

Disability Law Center of Alaska, 

Anchorage 

Kawerak, Inc., Nome 

Kenai Peninsula Food Bank, Soldotna 

Kenai Senior Services, Kenai 

Southeast Alaska Regional Health 

Consortium (SEARHC), Juneau 

University of Alaska Anchorage, Center 

for Human Development, Anchorage 

American Samoa 

American Samoa Office of Protection & 

Advocacy for the Disabled, Pago Pago 

Arizona 

Arizona Association for Lifelong 

Learning, Phoenix 

Arizona Center for Disability Law, 

Tucson 

Arizona Council of Administrators of 

Special Education, Phoenix 

Arizona Housing Alliance, Phoenix 

Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix 

Arizona School Administrators, Inc., 

Phoenix 

Arizona School Counselors Association, 

Sahuarita 

Arizona State Impact Aid Association, 

Sacaton 

Arizona Institute for Peace, Education, 

and Research, Tempe 

Association for Career and Technical 

Education of Arizona (ACTEAZ), 

Tucson 

Association for Supportive Child Care, 

Tempe 

Association of Arizona Food Banks, 

Phoenix 

Blackwater Enterprises, Rdc, Higley 

Booker T. Washington Child 

Development Center, Inc., Phoenix 

Cedar Unified School District, Keams 

Canyon 

Cocopah Head Start, Somerton 

Community Intervention Associates, Inc., 

Yuma 

Compass Affordable Housing, Tucson 

Cornucopia Community Advocates, 

Sedona 

Early Head Start, Littlefield 

Fellowship Square Tucson, Tucson 

Fort Thomas Unified School District, 

Fort Thomas 

Foundation for Senior Living, Phoenix 

Holbrook Unified School District #3, 

Holbrook 

Hospice Family Care, Inc., Prescott 

Housing America Corporation, Somerton 

Local Initiative Support Corporation 

Phoenix, Phoenix 

Mayer Elders Club, dba Mayer Area 

Meals on Wheels, Mayer 

McDowell Healthcare Center, Phoenix 
53 

Old Pueblo Community Services, Tucson 

Our Family Services, Tucson 

Parker Unified School District #27, 

Parker 

Peach Springs USD #8, Peach Springs 

Pinal County Public Health Services 

District, Florence 

Portable Practical Educational 

Preparation, Inc., Tucson 

Prescott Meals on Wheels, Prescott 

Sacaton Elementary School District 

#118, Sacaton Teens, Training and 

Taxes, Parks 

Tuba City Unified School District #15, 

Tuba City Tucson Planning Council for 

the Homeless, Tucson 

United Food Bank, Mesa 

Valley Interfaith Project, Sun City 

Whiteriver Unified School District, 

Whiteriver Unified School District 

Window Rock Unified School District #8, 

Fort Defiance 

Yarnell Senior Community Center, 

Yarnell 

Arkansas 

Area Agency on Aging of Southeast 

Arkansas, Inc., Pine Bluff 

Arkansas Advocates for Children and 

Families, Little Rock 

Arkansas Association of School Business 

Officials, Little Rock 

Arkansas Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Springdale 

Arkansas Association of Student 

Assistance Programs, Fayetteville 

Arkansas Council of Administrators in 

Special Education, North Little Rock 

Arkansas Education Association, Little 

Rock 

Arkansas Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health (AFFCMH), 

Little Rock 

Disability Rights Center of Arkansas, 

Little Rock 

Family Violence Prevention, Inc., 

Batesville 

Henderson State University, 

Arkadelphia 

Little Angels Childcare, Prescott 

Little Rock Community Mental Health 

Center, Little Rock 

Pinon Unified School District #4, Pinon 

Portable Practical Educational 

Preparation, Inc., Tucson 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Arkansas, Springdale Affiliate, 

Siloam Springs 

Universal Housing Development 

Corporation, Russellville 

California 

Advocates for Peace and Justice, Irvine 

United Congregational Church, Irvine 

Affordable Housing Network of Santa 

Clara County, San Jose 

Age Well Senior Services, Inc., Laguna 

Woods 

AIDS Legal Referral Panel of San 

Francisco, San Francisco 

AIDS Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

American Family Housing, Midway City 

Armona Union Elementary School 

District, Armona 

Association of California School 

Administrators, Sacramento 

California Association of Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC), 

Sacramento 

California Association of School Business 

Officials, Sacramento 

California Center for Public Health 

Advocacy, Davis 

California Coalition for Rural Housing, 

Sacramento 

California Community Colleges 

Chancellor’s Office, Sacramento 

California Council of Administrators of 

Special Education (CA CASE), Santa 

Rosa 

California Council of Community Mental 

Health Agencies, Sacramento 

California Department of Public Health, 

Sacramento 

California Hepatitis Alliance, San 

Francisco 

California Housing Partnership, San 

Francisco 

California Innocence Project, San Diego 

California Lutheran University, 

Thousand Oaks 

California Small School Districts’ 

Association, Sacramento 

California Teachers Association, 

Burlingame 

California WIC Association, Sacramento 

California Workforce Investment Board, 

Sacramento 

California Association for Micro 

Enterprise Opportunity (CAMEO), San 

Francisco 

Central Union Elementary School 

District, Lemoore 

Children Now, Oakland 

Children’s Defense Fund-California, 

Oakland 

Church of All, Burbank 

Citizen Schools California, Redwood City 

Community Action Napa Valley, Napa 

Community Action Partnership Food 

Bank of San Bernardino County, San 

Bernardino 

Community Action Partnership of San 

Luis Obispo County, Inc., San Luis 

Obispo 

Community Research Foundation, San 

Diego 

Council of University of California 

Faculty Associations, Berkeley 

Desert Manna, Barstow 
54 

Disability Rights California, Sacramento 

Disability Services & Legal Center, 

Santa Rosa 

East Bay Housing Organizations, 

Oakland 

Epilepsy Foundation of Northern 

California, San Francisco 

Fair Housing Council of Central 

California, Fresno 

Fair Housing of Marin, San Rafael 

Ferguson and Company, Oakland 

First Baptist Church Head Start, 

Pittsburg 

Foundation for Successful Solutions, Los 

Angeles 

Fresno County EOC Head Start, Fresno 

HIV ACCESS, Alameda County 

Housing Authority of the City of 

Calexico (HACC), Calexico 

Housing Authority of the City of Santa 

Barbara, Santa Barbara 

Housing Authority of the City of Upland, 

Upland 

Housing California, Sacramento 

Housing Rights Committee of San 

Francisco, San Francisco 

Independent Living Resource Center San 

Francisco, San Francisco 

Interdisciplinary Leadership Education 

in Neurodevelopmental and Related 

Disabilities Training Program (CA– 

LEND), Los Angeles 

Irvine Meals on Wheels, Irvine 

Jewish Labor Committee Western 

Region, Los Angeles 

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School 

District, Hoopa 

Kalusugan (Good Health) Community 

Services, National City 

Kings County Charter—Association of 

California School Administrators, 

Hanford 

Kings County Office of Education, 

Hanford 

Kings River-Hardwick Elementary 

School District, Hanford 

KyotoUSA, Berkeley 

Lake Family Resource Center, 

Kelseyville 

Lakeside Union Elementary School 

District, Hanford 

Lemoore Union High School District, 

Lemoore 

Lincoln Child Center, Oakland 

Local Child Care Planning Council, 

Oroville 

Local Government Commission, 

Sacramento 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Bay Area, San Francisco 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

San Diego, San Diego 

Los Angeles Area Chamber of 

Commerce, Los Angeles 

Los Angeles-Orange County 

Environmental Training Center, 

Anaheim 

Los Angeles Unified School District 

(LAUSD), Los Angeles 

Meals-on-Wheels Greater San Diego, 

Inc., San Diego 

Mending Wheel, Fortuna 

Mental Health America of California, 

Sacramento 

Mexican American Opportunity 

Foundation, Montebello 

Mizell Senior Center, Palm Springs 

MobileMD, Alameda 

Momentum for Mental Health, San Jose 

Monterey County Health Department 

WIC Program, Salinas 

Muroc Joint Unified School District, 

Edwards 

Napa Valley Community Housing, Napa 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Yolo County, Davis 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Contra Costa Section, Walnut Creek 

National Council of Jewish Women, Long 

Beach Section, Huntington Beach 

National Council of Jewish Women, Los 

Angeles 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Sacramento 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Topanga 

New Life Advocacy, Los Angeles 

Northern California Innocence Project, 

Santa Clara University School of Law, 

Santa Clara 

Oasis Clinic, Los Angeles 

Oceanside Unified School District, 

Oceanside 

Oldtimers Housing Development 

Corporation—IV, Huntington Park 

Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment 

(PACE), Los Angeles 

Parent Voices El Dorado County 

Chapter, South Lake Tahoe 

Parent Voices Southern Alameda 

County, Hayward 

Parents’ Place Family Resource and 

Empowerment Center, West Covina 

Peninsula Volunteers Inc, Menlo Park 

Portia Bell Hume Behavioral Health and 

Training Center, Concord 

PowerWorks, San Francisco 

Project Sister Family Services, Pomona 

Sacramento Housing Alliance, 

Sacramento 

San Diego Housing Federation, San 

Diego 

San Fernando Valley Community Mental 

Health Center, Inc., Van Nuys 

San Gaberial Valley/Whittier Chapter of 

NOW, Fontana 

San Mateo County HIV Program 

Community Board, San Mateo County 

Santa Cruz Community Counseling 

Center Head Start, Santa Cruz 

Senior Network Services, Santa Cruz 
55 

Senior Services Coalition of Alameda 

County, Oakland 

Shasta Senior Nutrition Programs, 

Redding 

Sierra Cascade Family Opportunities 

Head Start, Susanville 

Sierra Cascade Family Opportunities, 

Inc., Quincy 

Sierra Senior Providers, Inc., Sonora 

Silver Valley Unified School District, 

Yermo 

SRO Housing Corporation, Los Angeles 

State of California Office of AIDS 

Surveillance Section, Fresno 

Stop the GA Cuts Coalition, Oakland 

Tarjan Center at UCLA, Los Angeles 

The Non-Profit Housing Association of 

Northern California, San Francisco 

The Occupational Training Institute, 

Foothill-De Anza Community College 

District, Cupertino 

The Public Interest Law Project, 

Oakland 

The Wall Las Memorias Project, Los 

Angeles 

Time for Change Foundation, San 

Bernardino 

United Administrators of San Francisco, 

San Francisco 

University of California (U.C.) Riverside 

Faculty Association, Riverside 

University of California (U.C.) Berkeley 

Faculty Association, Berkeley 

University of California at Davis Faculty 

Association, Davis 

University of California Santa Cruz 

Faculty Association, Santa Cruz 

University of Southern California School 

of Pharmacy 

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater 

Los Angeles, Los Angeles 

Volunteers of America Los Angeles, Los 

Angeles 

Watts/Century Latino Organization, Los 

Angeles 

Westside Progressives, Los Angeles 

Women Organized to Respond to Lifethreatening Diseases (WORLD), 

Oakland 

Rural Community Assistance 

Corporation, West Sacramento 

Colorado 

Academy School District #20, Colorado 

Springs 

ACADIA LLC, Boulder 

Adams County Housing Authority, 

Commerce City 

Adams County School District #14, 

Commerce City 

Adams County Workforce and Business 

Center, Brighton 

Boulder County Network, Boulder 

Boulder Housing Partners, Boulder 

Colorado Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Denver 

Colorado Association of School 

Executives, Englewood 

Colorado Campus Compact, Denver 

Colorado Center on Law and Policy, 

Denver 

Colorado Chapter of ASPIRE, Denver 

Colorado Children’s Campaign, Denver 

Colorado Education Association, Denver 

Colorado NAHRO, Boulder 

Colorado School Counselor Association, 

Denver 

Colorado School Social Work Association, 

Fort Collins 

Colorado Thespians—Educational 

Theatre Association, Denver 

Colorado Urban Workforce Alliance, 

Denver 

Community Reach Center, Thornton 

Community Strategies Institute, Denver 

Delta Housing Authority, Delta 

Denver’s Great Kids Head Start, Denver 

Denver Housing Authority, Denver 

Federation of Families for Children’s 

Mental Health, Colorado Chapter, 

Denver 

FRESC: Good Jobs, Strong Communities, 

Denver 

Healthy Colorado Youth Alliance, 

Denver 

Housing Authority of the County of 

Yuma, Yuma 

Housing Resources of Western Colorado, 

Grand Junction 

Ignacio School District 11JT, Ignacio 

Julesburg Housing Authority, Julesburg 

LeaderQuest, Denver 

Mental Health America of Colorado, 

Denver 

Occupational Therapy Association of 

Colorado, Denver 

Occupy Greeley, Greeley 

Public Allies at Eagle Rock School, Estes 

Park 

Regis University, Denver 

RNA Group, Denver 

Rocky Mountain Wild, Denver 

Servicios de La Raza, Inc., Denver 

Sexual Assault Response Advocates 

(S.A.R.A)., Inc., Fort Morgan 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ignacio 

The Bell Policy Center, Denver 

The Legal Center for People with 

Disabilities and Older People, Denver 

The Pendulum Foundation, Denver 

Connecticut 

1199NE Training and Upgrade Fund, 

Hartford 

All Our Kin, Inc., New Haven 

BHcare, Ansonia 

Bridgeport Council of Administrators 

and Supervisors, Bridgeport 

Center for Latino Progress—CPRF, 

Hartford 
56 

Collaborative Center for Justice, Inc., 

Hartford 

Connecticut AIDS Resource Coalition, 

Hartford 

Connecticut Association for Human 

Services, Hartford 

Connecticut Association of Directors of 

Health, Hartford 

Connecticut Association of School 

Business Officials, West Hartford 

Connecticut Association of School 

Psychologists, Bridgeport 

Connecticut Association of School Social 

Workers (CASSW), New Haven 

Connecticut Association of Schools, 

Cheshire 

Connecticut Community College System, 

Hartford 

Connecticut Education Association, 

Hartford 

Connecticut Federation of School 

Administrators, Cromwell 

Connecticut Food Bank, East Haven 

Connecticut Housing Coalition, 

Wethersfield 

Connecticut Voices for Children, New 

Haven 

Connecticut Women’s Education and 

Legal Fund (CWEALF), Hartford 

Eastern Highlands Health District, 

Storrs 

Family Services of Greater Waterbury, 

Waterbury 

FSW, Bridgeport 

Gilead Community Services, Middletown 

Holy Family Home and Shelter, Inc., 

Willimantic 

LAMPP Project—Connecticut Children’s 

Medical Center, Hartford 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

Hartford 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Farmington Valley, Avon 

Norwich School Administrator’s 

Association, Norwich 

Our Piece of the Pie, Hartford 

Public Assisted Housing Resident 

Network (PHRN), Norwalk 

Region 16 Administrators Association, 

Prospect 

Regional School District 16, Prospect 

Saint Francis Hospital and Medical 

Center, Hartford 

Sexual Assault Crisis Center of Eastern 

CT, Inc., Willimantic 

St. Philip House, Plainville 

University of Connecticut A.J. 

Pappanikou Center for Excellence in 

Developmental Disabilities Education, 

Research and Service, Farmington 

Village for Families and Children, 

Hartford 

Wellmore Behavioral Health, Waterbury 

Woodland Regional High School, Beacon 

Falls 

Delaware 

Delaware Association of School 

Administrators, Dover 

Delaware Association of School 

Psychologists, Wilmington 

Delaware School Counselor Association, 

Dover 

Delaware State Education Association, 

Dover 

Epilepsy Foundation of Delaware, 

Wilmington 

Ministry of Caring, Inc., Wilmington 

YWCA Delaware, Wilmington 

District of Columbia 

Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues 

Council of School Officers, American 

Federation of School Administrators, 

Local 4, AFL–CIO D.C. 

D.C. Behavioral Health Association 

D.C. LEARNs 

D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

Defeat Poverty D.C. 

District of Columbia Occupational 

Therapy Association 

Edward C. Mazique Parent Child 

Center, Inc. 

Georgetown University Center for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDD) 

Georgetown Center for Poverty, 

Inequality and Public Policy 

Georgetown University Medical Center 

Living Wages Adult Education Program 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Washington, DC 

National Association of Local Housing 

Finance Agencies 

Potomac Gardens Resident Council 

Public Allies Washington, DC 

United Way of the National Capital Area 

Florida 

1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee 

Ability Housing of Northeast Florida, 

Inc., Jacksonville 

Adult and Community Educators of 

Florida, Inc., Tallahassee 

Bond Community Health Center, Inc., 

Tallahassee 

Broward Meals on Wheels, Fort 

Lauderdale 

Catholic Charities Housing, Diocese of 

Venice, Inc., Sarasota/Venice 

Center for Independent Living of South 

Florida, Inc., Miami 

Century Village Democratic Club, West 

Palm Beach 

Children’s Forum, Tallahassee 

Christian Coalition Against Domestic 

Abuse, Miami 
57 

City of Deerfield Beach, Deerfield Beach 

Coalition for Independent Living 

Options, West Palm Beach 

Community Coalition on Homelessness, 

Bradenton 

Community Enterprise Investments Inc., 

Pensacola 

Community Justice Project—Florida 

Legal Services, Miami 

Dab the AIDS Bear Project, Oakland 

Park 

Daytona State College, Daytona Beach 

Department of Community Development, 

Miami 

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 

(DBSA), St. Cloud 

disAbility Solutions for Independent 

Living, Inc., Daytona Beach 

Documents International, St. Petersburg 

Dunbar Center, Inc., Hobe Sound 

Epilepsy Foundation of Florida, Miami 

Familias Latinas Dejando Huellas, 

Tampa 

Farmworker Association of Florida, 

Apopka 

Florida Alliance of Community 

Development Corporations, Inc., 

Jacksonville 

Florida Alliance for Health, Physical 

Education, Recreation, Dance and 

Sport, Parkland 

Florida CASE, Archer 

Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic 

Policy, Tallahassee 

Florida Education Association, 

Tallahassee 

Florida HIV/AIDS Advocacy Network, 

Oakland Park 

Florida HIV/AIDS Patient Care Planning 

Group, Freeport 

Florida School Counselor Association, 

Safety Harbor 

Florida Supportive Housing Coalition, 

Tallahassee 

Fusion, Wilton Manors 

Gay Free If You Want To Be, Clearwater 

Heart of Putnam Coalition, Palatka 

Helen B. Bentley Family Health Center, 

Miami 

Homes in Partnership, Inc., Apopka 

Hope and Help Center of Central 

Florida, Inc., Orlando 

Housing and Homeless Assistance 

Program, North Miami 

Innocence Project of Florida, Tallahassee 

Life Management Center of Northwest 

Florida, Panama City 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

Jacksonville 

Meals on Wheels, Etc., Sanford 

Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., 

Miami 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) & Depression and Bipolar 

Support Alliance, Lakeland 

National Council of Jewish Woman 

Miami, Miami 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Aventura, Aventura 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Greater Miami Section, Miami 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Hollywood, Hollywood 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Southeast Atlantic Section, Boca Raton 

Neighborly Care Network, Inc., 

Clearwater 

North Florida Educational Development 

Corporation, Gretna 

Northwest Florida AIDS/HIV 

Consortium (NOFLAC), Brent 

Planned Parenthood of South Florida 

and the Treasure Coast, West Palm 

Beach 

Positive Champions Speakers Bureau, 

Daytona Beach 

Positively U, Inc., Davenport 

Rural Neighborhoods, Inc., Homestead 

Sanford Housing Authority Agency-Wide 

Resident Council, Sarasota 

South Florida Community Development 

Coalition, Miami 

St. Johns County Council on Aging, St. 

Augustine 

St. Johns River Alliance, Jacksonville 

Beach 

Sugarloaf Women’s Land Trust, 

Sugarloaf Key 

Suncoast Partnership to End 

Homelessness, Sarasota 

Tampa Housing Authority, Tampa 

The Florida Housing Coalition, 

Tallahassee 

The Good Shepherd of North East 

Florida, Inc., Lake City 

The Mental Health Association of 

Okaloosa/Walton Counties, Fort 

Walton Beach 

United Faculty of Florida, Tallahassee 

Georgia 

AID Gwinnett/Ric Crawford Clinic, 

Duluth 

Armstrong Atlantic State University 

(AASU), Savannah 

Augusta Housing Authority, Augusta 

BAIN, Inc. Center for Independent 

Living, Bainbridge 

Camden County Schools, Kingsland 

Center for Leadership in Disability, 

Atlanta 

DEW Consultants, Inc., Roswell 

Douglas County Homeless Shelter, 

Douglasville 

East Point Housing Authority, East 

Point 

Epilepsy Foundation of Georgia, Atlanta 

Families First, Inc., Atlanta 

Family Visions Outreach, Inc., Sylvester 

G–CASE, McDonough 
58 

Georgia Alliance to End Homelessness, 

Marietta 

Georgia Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Thomasville 

Georgia Council of Administrators for 

Special Education, McDonough 

Georgia Parent Support Network, Inc., 

Atlanta 

Georgia School Counselors Association, 

Marietta 

Georgia State University Center for 

Leadership in Disability, Atlanta 

Georgia Supportive Housing Association, 

Atlanta 

Grady Health System, Atlanta 

Here’s to Life, Inc., Decatur 

HOPE Atlanta Programs of Travelers 

Aid, Atlanta 

Housing Authority of DeKalb County, 

Decatur 

Liberty County Board of Education, 

Hinesville 

Liberty County Public School System, 

Hinesville 

Long County School District, Ludowici 

Lou Walker Senior Center, Lithonia 

Northwest Georgia Federation of 

Families, Rome 

Peak Performance Learning, L.L.C., 

Atlanta 

Sexual Assault Support Center, Inc., 

Columbus 

SisterLove, Inc., Atlanta 

Sisters of Mercy, Macon 

South Fulton Senior Services, College 

Park 

STEM, Inc., Covington 

The Cottage, Sexual Assault Center & 

Children’s Advocacy Center, Athens 

Urban Residential Development 

Corporation, Atlanta 

Briarcliff Oaks, Atlanta 

Guam 

University of Guam Center for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDD), Mangilao 

Hawaii 

Community Alliance for Mental Health, 

Honolulu 

Good Beginnings Alliance, Honolulu 

Hawaii Association of Secondary School 

Administrators, Honolulu 

Hawaii Association of School Librarians, 

Honolulu 

Hawaii County Economic Opportunity 

Council, Hilo 

Hawaii Disability Rights Center, 

Honolulu 

Hawaii County Economic Opportunity 

Council, Hilo 

Hawaii Policy Advisory Board for Elder 

Affairs, Honolulu 

Hawaii State Council on Developmental 

Disabilities, Honolulu 

Hawaii State Department of Education, 

Honolulu 

Hawaii State Office of Youth Services, 

Honolulu 

Hawaii State Teachers Association, 

Honolulu 

Lanakila Pacific, Honolulu 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Hawaii, Honolulu 

YWCA of Kauai, Lihue 

Idaho 

Aberdeen Education Association, 

Aberdeen 

Blackfoot School District No. 55, 

Blackfoot 

Boise State University, Boise 

Buhl Education Association, Buhl 

Cambridge-Midvale Senior Citizens 

Center, Cambridge 

Cassia County Education Association, 

Burley 

Castleford School District, Castleford 

Challis Education Association, Challis 

Coeur d’Alene Education Association, 

Coeur d’Alene 

Family Crisis Center, Rexburg 

Filer Education Organization, Filer 

Gem County Education Association, 

Emmett 

Idaho Association of School 

Administrators, Boise 

Idaho CASE, Boise 

Idaho Council for Exceptional Children, 

Boise 

Idaho Council on Developmental 

Disabilities, Boise 

Idaho Education Association, Boise 

Idaho Education Association, Coeur 

d’Alene 

Idaho Education Association, Post Falls 

Idaho Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health, Boise 

Kimberly Education Association, 

Kimberly 

Lakeland Education Association, 

Rathdrum 

Meadows Valley Education Association, 

New Meadows 

Minidoka County Education Association, 

Rupert 

Plummer-Worley Jt School District #44, 

Plummer 

Post Falls Educational Association, Post 

Falls 

Richfield IEA, Richfield 

Rimrock Senior Center, Grand View 

Ririe Education Association, Ririe 
59 

Rockland Education Association, 

Rockland 

Teton Education Association, Felt 

The New Meadows Senior Center, New 

Meadows 

Twin Falls Education Association, Twin 

Falls 

Twin Falls School District, Twin Falls 

Valley Meals on Wheels, Lewiston 

West Ridge Elementary, Post Falls 

Illinois 

ACTE, SpringfieldAging Care 

Connections, La Grange 

AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Chicago 

AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, Chicago 

Alexian Brothers AIDS Ministry, 

Chicago 

Burr Ridge Community Consolidated 

School District #180, Burr Ridge 

Calumet Area Industrial Commission, 

Chicago 

Campaign for Better Health Care, 

Illinois, Champaign and Chicago 

Canticle Ministries, Wheaton 

Career Link, Bloomington 

Casa Central, Chicago 

Cass School District #63, Darien 

Central Illinois Friends of People with 

AIDS, Peoria 

Chicago Jobs Council, Chicago 

Chicago Rehab Network, Chicago 

Chicago Workforce Investment Council, 

Chicago 

Children’s Home and Aid, Chicago 

United Workforce Development Board, 

Pekin 

Citizen Schools Illinois, Chicago 

City of Chicago Department of Family & 

Support Services, Chicago 

City of Kankakee Community 

Development Agency, Kankakee 

CJE SeniorLife Home Delivered Meals 

Program, Chicago 

Coalition for Equitable Community 

Development, Chicago 

Community Behavioral Healthcare 

Association of Illinois, Springfield 

Community Outreach Intervention 

Projects, SPH, UIC, Chicago 

Connect 2 Protect Chicago, Chicago 

Connections for Abused Women and 

their Children, Chicago 

Cook County GED Testing Program, 

Chicago 

Department of Human Services, 

Woodstock 

DuPage Senior Citizens Council, DuPage 

County 

DuPage Workforce Board, Lisle 

East Central Illinois Area Agency on 

Aging, Bloomington 

Educational Support for Students in 

Temporary Living Situations (STLS), 

Chicago 

Egyptian Mental Health Department, 

Eldorado 

FED ED, Northbrook 

Goldie’s Place, Chicago 

Haymarket Center, Chicago 

Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & 

Human Rights, Chicago 

Housing Action Illinois, Chicago 

Housing Authority of the County of 

DeKalb, DeKalb 

Human Resources Development 

Institute, Inc., Chicago 

IACEA: The Voice of Adult Education in 

Illinois, Crystal Lake 

Illinois Association for College Admission 

Counseling, Mt. Prospect 

Illinois Association of Career Tech 

Educators, Rockford 

Illinois Association of Educational 

Opportunity Program Personnel, 

Chicago 

Illinois Community College Board Adult 

Education and Family Literacy 

Program, Springfield 

Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, 

Mattoon 

Illinois Lead Program, Springfield 

Illinois Maternal and Child Health 

Coalition, Chicago 

Illinois Migrant Council, Harvard 

Illinois Principals Association, 

Springfield 

Illinois School Counselor Association, 

DeKalb 

Illinois School Counselors Association, 

Chicago 

Illinois School Library Media 

Association, Canton 

Institute on Disability and Human 

Development, Chicago 

Interfaith Open Communities, Chicago 

Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, 

Chicago 

Lake County Center for Independent 

Living, Mundelein 

Lake County Workforce Investment 

Board, Waukegan 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Illinois, Chicago 

Lifescape Community Services, Inc., 

Rockford 

Living Daylight Corporation, Elgin 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Chicago, Chicago 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Peoria, Peoria 

Management, Training, and Consulting, 

Corp., Marion 

Mary Crane League, Chicago 

Mascoutah Community Unit School 

District #19, Mascoutah 

Mascoutah Senior Services Program, 

Mascoutah 

McHenry County Workforce Investment 

Board, Woodstock 

McHenry County Workforce Network, 

Woodstock 
60 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Illinois State Policy Advocacy 

Committee, Chicago 

New Foundation Center, Northfield 

Oak Park Coalition for Truth and 

Justice, Oak Park 

Open Door Clinic, Elgin 

Ounce of Prevention Fund, Chicago 

Pediatric AIDS Chicago Prevention 

Initiative, Chicago 

Prairie Center Agianst Sexual Assault, 

Springfield 

RAMP Center for Independent Living, 

Rockford 

Randolph County Health Department, 

Chester 

Regional CARE Association, Joliet 

Rock Island County Health Department, 

Rock Island 

Rock River Training Corporation, 

Rockford 

Safe Kids Adams County, Quincy 

SIL Radon Awareness Task Force, Inc., 

Mt Vernon 

Southside Solidarity Network, Chicago 

St. Catherine Laboure Parish, Glenview 

St. Joan of Arc Social Justice & Peace, 

Lisle 

Stroger Hospital of Cook County, 

Chicago 

Supportive Housing Providers 

Association of Illinois, Springfield 

Test Positive Aware Network, Publisher 

of Positively Aware Magazine, Chicago 

The Children’s Place Association, 

Chicago 

The Safer Foundation, Chicago 

Trinity Resources Unlimited, Inc., 

Chicago 

University of Illinois, Urbana 

Vermilion County Job Training 

Partnership, Danville 

West Suburban Jobs Council, Wheaton 

Western Illinois Area Agency on Aging, 

Rock Island 

Wheaton Franciscans, Wheaton 

YWCA of the Sauk Valley, Sterling 

Heartland Alliance, Chicago 

Illinois Alliance of Administrators of 

Special Education, Lebanon 

Illinois School Counseling Association, 

Chicago 

Illinois School Psychologist’s Association, 

Chicago 

Interfaith House, Chicago 

Mary Crane Center—Head Start, 

Chicago 

Minority AIDS Awareness Council 

(MAAC), Peoria 

People for Community Recovery, Chicago 

Senior Services Plus, Alton 

St. Vincent de Paul Center, Chicago 

University of Illinois, Chicago 

YWCA Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago 

Indiana 

Area IV Head Start, Frankfort 

Association of Indiana School Library 

Educators, Indianapolis 

ATTIC, Inc., Vincennes 

Brown County Schools, Nashville 

Community Action of Northeast Indiana, 

Inc. (CANI) Head Start and Early 

Head Start, Fort Wayne 

Fulton County Health Department, 

Rochester 

Housing Authority City of Richmond, 

Richmond 

Housing Authority of South Bend, South 

Bend 

ICASE, Madison 

Indiana Association of Area Agencies on 

Aging, Indianapolis 

Indiana Association of School PrIncipals, 

Indianapolis 

Indiana Council of Community Mental 

Health Centers, Inc., Indianapolis 

Indiana Council of Special Education 

Administrators, Indianapolis 

Indiana Institute for Working Families, 

Indianapolis 

Indiana School Counselor Association, 

Lafayette 

Indiana School Social Work Association, 

Mooresville 

Indiana State AFL–CIO Labor Institute 

for Training, Inc., Indianapolis 

Indiana State Teachers Association, 

Indianapolis 

INFBPW/Merrillville-Duneland, 

Schererville 

Kokomo Area Special Education 

Cooperative, Russiaville 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Indianapolis, Indianapolis 

Logansport Area Joint Special Services 

Cooperative, Logansport 

Madison County JobSource, Anderson 

Mental Health America in Cass County, 

Logansport 

Middle Way House, Inc., Bloomington 

Midwest Center for Youth and Families, 

Valparaiso 

Northwest Indiana Special Education 

Cooperative, Crown Point 

Porter-Starke Services, Inc., Valparaiso 

The Riley Child Development Center, 

Riley Hospital for Children, 

Indianapolis 

Training, Inc., Indianapolis 

YWCA North Central Indiana, South 

Bend 

Iowa 

Black Hawk-Grundy Mental Health 

Center, Inc., Waterloo 

Chickasaw County Public Health and 

Home Care Services, New Hampton 
61 

Child and Family Policy Center, Des 

Moines 

Community Health Partners of Sioux 

County, Orange City 

Crisis Intervention Services, Oskaloosa 

Disability Rights Iowa, Des Moines 

Dubuque Franciscan Sisters, Dubuque 

Heritage Area Agency on Aging, Cedar 

Rapids 

Iowa Association for College Admission 

Counseling, Newton 

Iowa Association of Community 

Providers, Urbandale 

Iowa Coalition 4 Juvenile Justice, Des 

Moines 

Iowa Comprehensive Human Services, 

Des Moines 

Iowa Council of Administrators of 

Special Education I–CASE, Des 

Moines 

Iowa Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health, Anamosa 

Iowa School Counselor Association, Des 

Moines 

Iowa School Social Work Association, 

Des Moines 

Jackson County Home and Community 

Health, Maquoketa 

Kirkwood Community College, Cedar 

Rapids 

Lincoln Mental Health, Fort Dodge 

Lutheran Services in Iowa, Des Moines 

Monona County Public Health, Onawa 

North Fayette High School, West Union 

PITCH, Milford 

Positive Iowans Taking Charge, Des 

Moines 

Siouxland Community Health Center, 

Sioux City 

Siouxland District Health Department, 

Sioux City 

Sisters of the Presentation, Dubuque 

State Public Policy Group Inc., Des 

Moines 

The Culture Buzz, Des Moines 

Tri-County Child and Family 

Development Council, Inc., Waterloo 

United Way of Central Iowa, Des Moines 

Waubonsie Mental Health Center, 

Clarinda 

Kansas 

Aging Projects, Inc., Hutchinson 

Butler County Health Department, El 

Dorado 

Center for Child Health and 

Development, Kansas City 

Clinical Psychologist, Iola 

COMCARE, Wichita 

Derby Public Schools #260, Derby 

ECKAN, Ottawa 

Geary County Unified School District 

#475, Junction City 

Great Plains Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Overland Park 

HOMESTEAD Nutrition Project, Hays 

Independent Living Resource Center, 

Wichita 

Johnson County Area Agency on Aging, 

Olathe 

Johnson County Department of Health & 

Environment, Olathe 

Kaman Composites—Wichita, Inc., 

Wichita 

Kansas Adult Education Association, 

Paola 

Kansas Association of School Librarians, 

Larned 

Kansas Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Halstead 

Kansas Head Start Association, 

Lawrence 

Kansas National Education Association, 

Topeka 

Kansas Occupational Therapy 

Association, Topeka 

Kansas School Counselor Association, 

Clay Center 

Kansas School Social Work Association, 

Wichita 

Kansas University Center on 

Developmental Disabilities, Lawrence 

Kanza Mental Health and Guidance 

Center, Inc., Hiawatha 

Meals on Wheels Association of Kansas, 

Ottawa 

Mid-America Nutrition Program, Inc., 

Ottawa 

Missouri Valley Adult Education 

Association, Paola 

Newton Housing Authority, Newton 

Olathe National Education Association, 

Olathe 

Parsons Housing Authority, Parsons 

Prairie Independent Living Resource 

Center, Inc., Hutchinson 

Senior Services of Southeast Kansas, 

Inc., Coffeyville 

SKIL Resource Center, Parsons 

Statewide Independent Living Council of 

Kansas, Topeka 

Southwest Boulevard Family Health 

Care, Kansas City 

Three Rivers Independent Living, Inc., 

Wamego 

Kentucky 

Appalbanc, Inc., Berea 

Ashland County Community and 

Technical College/Boyd County Adult 

Education, Ashland 

Audubon Area Community Services, Inc., 

Owensboro 

Beattyville Housing & Development 

Corporation, Inc., Beattyville 

Central Kentucky Community Action 

Council, Inc., Lebanon 

Central Kentucky Community Action 

Head Start, Lebanon 
62 

Central Kentucky Housing & Homeless 

Initiative, Lexington 

Christian County Health Department, 

Hopkinsville 

Commonwealth Council on 

Developmental Disabilities, Frankfort 

Cumberland Valley Housing Authority, 

Williamsburg 

Florence Crittenton Home & Services, 

Inc., Lexington 

Floyd County Health Department, 

Prestonsburg 

Hardin County Adult Education, 

Elizabethtown 

Head Start, Paducah 

Kentucky Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Frankfort 

Kentucky Association of School Business 

Officials 

Kentucky Communities Economic 

Opportunity Council, Corbin 

Kentucky Council of Administrators of 

Special Education, Lexington 

Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, 

Frankfort 

Kentucky School Media Association, 

Frankfort 

Kentucky Youth Advocates, Louisville 

KY HANDS Home Visitation Program, 

Kentucky Department for Public 

Health, Frankfort 

Louisville Peace Action Community, 

Louisville 

Louisville-Metro Senior Nutrition 

Program, Louisville 

Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Henderson 

Mountain Association for Community 

Economic Development, Berea 

New Beginnings Sexual Assault Support 

Services, Owensboro 

Pathways, Inc., Ashland 

People’s Self-Help Housing, Inc., 

Vanceburg 

Senior Services of Northern Kentucky, 

Covington 

SeniorCare Experts, Louisville 

The Catalytic Fund, Covington 

The Kentucky Association for Psychology 

in the Schools, Mount Washington 

The Pulaski Adult Learning Center, 

Somerset 

Todd County Adult Education, Elkton 

University of Kentucky, Lexington 

West Kentucky Allied Services, Inc., 

Mayfield 

Western Kentucky University 

Department of Family and Consumer 

Sciences, Bowling Green 

Louisiana 

A Community Voice—Louisiana, New 

Orleans 

Advocacy Center, New Orleans 

Brand New Attitude, New Orleans 

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing 

Action Center, New Orleans 

Gulf Area Training Enterprises, L.L.C., 

New Orleans 

Innocence Project New Orleans, New 

Orleans 

Louisiana Association of Educators, 

Baton Rouge 

Louisiana Association of Principals, 

Winnfield 

Louisiana Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health, Inc., Baton 

Rouge 

Louisiana Housing Alliance, Baton 

Rouge 

Louisiana Lung Cancer Partnership, 

Lake Charles 

Louisiana State University Health 

Sciences Center-Human Development 

Center, New Orleans 

N’R PEACE, Inc., Gretna 

Southwest Louisiana AIDS Council, 

Lake Charles 

Southwest Louisiana Independence 

Center, Lake Charles 

Tulane University, New Orleans 

Maine 

Center for Community Inclusion and 

Disability Studies, Orono 

Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), 

Wiscasset 

Community Housing of Maine, Portland 

CWS Architects, Portland 

Graham Behavioral Services, Inc., 

Augusta 

Maine Association of School Psychology, 

Kennebunk 

Maine Education Association, Augusta 

Maine Children’s Alliance, Augusta 

Maine Marine Trades Association, 

Biddeford 

Maine People’s Alliance, South Portland 

New England Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Kittery 

New England Consortium Poverty 

Reduction Initiative, South Portland 

New Hampshire Educational 

Opportunity Association, Eliot 

New Hampshire Leadership Education 

in Neurodevelopmental and Related 

Disabilities (NH–LEND), Durham 

Opportunity Maine, Portland 

Portland Housing Authority, Portland 

The Horizon Program, Augusta 

The Maine Association for Mental 

Health Services, Augusta 

The Maine Association of Substance 

Abuse Programs, Augusta 

TRiO at Plymouth State University, 

Durham 
63 

Maryland 

Advocacy and Training Center, 

Cumberland 

Advocates for Children and Youth, 

Baltimore 

Allegany County Teachers’ Association, 

Cumberland 

Anne Arundel County Community Action 

Agency, Annapolis 

Baltimore Black Pride, Inc., Baltimore 

Baltimore County Association of Senior 

Citizens Organizations (BCASCO), 

Baltimore County 

Baltimore County Public Schools— 

Education Support Professionals of 

Baltimore County, Baltimore 

Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS), 

Nottingham 

Baltimore Workforce Investment Board, 

Baltimore 

Calvert Association of Supervisors and 

Administrators, Prince Frederick 

Cecil County Classroom Teachers 

Association (CCCTA), Elkton 

Cecil County Public Schools, Conowingo 

Channel Marker, Inc., Easton 

Community Behavioral Health 

Association of Maryland, Catonsville 

Education Association of St. Mary’s 

County, California 

Education Support Professionals of 

Baltimore County (ESPBC), Baltimore 

Elkton Housing Authority, Elkton 

Empire Homes of Maryland, Inc., 

Baltimore 

Frederick Association of School Support 

Employees, Mount Airy 

Frederick County Teachers Association, 

Frederick 

Fund Our Communities, Kensington 

Garrett County Community Action 

Committee, Oakland 

Goodwill Industries International, 

Rockville 

Head Start of Washington County, 

Hagerstown 

IEC Chesapeake, Odenton 

Ivory House Health Services, Lutherville 

Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore 

Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore 

LifeLinc of Maryland, Baltimore 

Maryland Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Ellicott City 

Maryland Campus Compact, 

Emmitsburg 

Maryland Department of Labor, 

Licensing, and Regulation, Division of 

Workforce Development and Adult 

Learning, Baltimore 

Maryland Disability Law Center, 

Baltimore 

Maryland State Education Association, 

Annapolis 

Maryland United for Peace & Justice, 

Bowie 

Maryland Rural Development 

Corporation and MRDC Head Start, 

Annapolis 

Montgomery County Education 

Association, Rockville 

Montgomery Housing Partnership, Silver 

Spring 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Maryland, Columbia 

National Council of Jewish Women 

Howard County, MD. Section, 

Columbia, Ellicott City, Clarksville 

Peace Action Montgomery, Brookeville 

PeterCares House, Greenbelt 

Potomac Association of Housing 

Cooperative, Baltimore 

Prince George’s County Educators’ 

Association, Forestville 

Progressive Cheverly, Cheverly 

Public Justice Center, Baltimore 

Reservoir Hill Mutual Homes, Inc., 

Baltimore 

Simon Publications, Bethesda 

St. Bernardine’s Head Start, Baltimore 

The Alliance for Integrative Health Care, 

Baltimore 

The Beacon Newspapers, Silver Spring 

The Freedom Center, Frederick 

University of Maryland School of 

Medicine, Baltimore 

Upper Bay Counseling & Support 

Services, Elkton 

Vehicles for Change, Baltimore 

Veterans For Peace—Washington, DC— 

Area Chapter, Rockville 

Volunteers of America Chesapeake, Inc., 

Lanham 

Xaverian Brothers, Baltimore 

YWCA Greater Baltimore, Baltimore 

Massachusetts 

AIDS Action Committee of 

Massachusetts, Boston 

AIDS Project Worcester, Worcester 

Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT), 

Cambridge 

Amory Street Associates, Waltham 

Association for Behavioral Healthcare, 

Natick 

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 

America, New England Chapter, 

Needham 

Barnstable County HOME Consortium, 

Barnstable 

Bedford Youth & Family Services, 

Bedford 

Behind Locked Doors, Newton 

Bellingham Housing Authority, 

Bellingham 

Boston Health Care for the Homeless 

Program, Boston 

Boston Public Health Commission, 

Boston 

Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston 
64 

Cambridge Economic Opportunity 

Committee, Inc., Cambridge 

Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment 

Housing Services, Cambridge 

Cape Cod Children’s Place, North 

Eastham 

Career Center Initiative Board, 

Partnership for A Skilled Workforce, 

Waltham 

CareerPOINT Career Center, Chicopee 

CASPAR Inc., Cambridge & Somerville 

Child Tools Consulting, Fitchburg 

Citizen Schools Massachusetts, Boston 

Citizens’ Housing and Planning 

Association (CHAPA), Boston 

Conservation Law Foundation, Boston 

Disability Law Center, Massachusetts, 

Boston 

Epilepsy Foundation of Massachusetts, 

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and 

Maine, Inc., Boston 

Family Promise Metrowest, Natick 

Harbor Health Services, Inc., Boston 

Heaven In View Outreach Ministry, Inc., 

Springfield 

Homeowners Rehab, Inc., Cambridge 

Housing Corporation of Arlington, 

Arlington 

Immigrant Service Providers Group/ 

Health, Somerville 

Independence Associates, Inc., Center for 

Independent Living, Brockton 

Jewish Vocational Service: Boston, 

Boston 

Local 201 IUE/CWA, Greenfield 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Boston, Boston 

Massachusetts Advocates Standing 

Strong, Boston 

Massachusetts Association of School 

Business Officials, Chelmsford 

Massachusetts Families Organizing for 

Change (MFOFC), Raynham 

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, 

Boston 

Massachusetts Music Educators 

Association, Inc., South Attleboro 

Massachusetts Neuropsychological 

Society, Boston 

Massachusetts Organization for 

Addiction Recovery, Boston 

Massachusetts School Counselors 

Association, Boston 

Massachusetts School Psychologists 

Association (MSPA), Boston 

Massachusetts Secondary School 

Administrators’ Association, Franklin 

Massachusetts Teachers Association, 

Boston 

Massachusetts Vocational Association, 

East Freetown 

Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 

McLean Hospital, Belmont 

Museum of Science, Boston 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Cape Ann, Inc., Gloucester 

Natick Housing Authority, Natick 

National Association of Social Workers, 

Dorchester 

New England Innocence Project, Boston 

Northeast Counselors Association, 

Groveland 

One Family, Inc., Boston 

PACE, Inc. Housing Services, New 

Bedford 

Partners HealthCare, Boston 

Partnerships for a Skilled Workforce, 

Inc., Marlborough 

Pine Street Inn, Boston 

Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, 

Springfield 

RCAP Solutions, Inc., Worcester/Gardner 

SkillWorks, Brookline 

Somerville Homeless Coalition, 

Somerville 

South Middlesex Opportunity Council, 

Inc., Framingham 

South Shore Mental Health, Quincy 

Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, 

Boston 

Technology for Memory and 

Organization, Walpole 

TenHoor and Associates, Duxbury 

The Caleb Group, Swampscott 

The Massachusetts Administrators for 

Special Education (ASE), Cambridge 

Tohn Environmental Strategies, 

Wayland 

Training, Inc., Boston 

TRI-City Community Action Program, 

Malden 

Tri-Valley, Inc., Dudley 

Wayside Youth & Family Support 

Network, Framingham 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 

Woods Hole 

Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth 

Michigan 

A2FACES: Ann Arbor Families for 

Autistic Children, Ann Arbor 

Advocacy Services for Kids, Kalamazoo 

American Cancer Society, East Lansing 

American Federation of School 

Administrators (AFSA)—Michigan, 

Detroit 

Ann Arbor Public Schools, Ann Arbor 

Area Agency on Aging 1–B, Southfield 

Association for Children’s Mental 

Health, Lansing 

Center for Civil Justice, Saginaw 

Communities Overcoming Violent 

Encounters, Ludington 

Community Economic Development 

Association of Michigan (CEDAM), 

Lansing 

Developmental Disabilities Institute, 

Detroit 

Dial Help Community Support and 

Outreach Center, Houghton 
65 

Disruptive Innovations for Social 

Change, Grand Rapids 

Educational Talent Search, Alpena 

Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan, 

Southfield 

Ferris State University College of 

Pharmacy, Big Rapids 

Flint Strive, Flint 

Focus: HOPE, Detroit 

Hand Up, Inc. Nonprofit Organization, 

Romulus 

Holy Innocents Episcopal Church, Little 

Lake 

Jackson Area Manufacturers 

Association, Jackson 

Jewish Labor Committee—Michigan 

Region, Detroit 

Kent Regional Community Coordinated 

Child Care, Grand Rapids 

Keppen Elementary School, LIncoln 

Park 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Michigan, Lansing 

Leland Public School, Leland 

Levin Energy Partners, LLC, Bloomfield 

Hills 

LifeWays, Jackson 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Detroit, Detroit 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Michigan Statewide, Kalamazoo 

Matrix Human Services, Detroit 

Michigan Alliance of Cooperatives, 

Blanchard 

Michigan Association for College 

Admission Counseling, East Lansing 

Michigan Association for Health, 

Physical Education, Recreation and 

Dance, Lansing 

Michigan Association of Administrators 

of Special Education (MAASE), 

Holland 

Michigan Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Lansing 

Michigan College Access Programs and 

Personnel, Marquette 

Michigan Community Action Agency 

Association, Okemos 

Michigan Community Service 

Commission, Lansing 

Michigan Disability Rights Coalition, 

East Lansing 

Michigan League for Public Policy, 

Lansing 

Michigan Music Education Association, 

Jackson 

Michigan Protection and Advocacy 

Services, Lansing 

Michigan School Counselor Association, 

Grand Rapids 

Michigan’s Children, Lansing 

Morley Stanwood Community Schools, 

Morley 

Mott Community College Workforce 

Development, Flint 

Northwest Michigan Community Action 

Agency, Traverse City 

Organization of School Administrators 

and Supervisors (OSAS) Local 28— 

American Federation of School 

Administrators 9AFSA, Detroit 

Ottawa County Great Start 

Collaborative, Holland 

Ottawa County Great Start Parent 

Coalition, Allendale 

Paw Paw Housing Commission, Paw 

Paw 

Provider Alliance of the Michigan 

Association of Community Mental 

Health Boards, Lansing 

Saginaw County Youth Protection 

Council, Saginaw 

Sault Area Public Schools, Sault Ste. 

Marie 

Save Michigan Seniors, Kalamazoo 

Senior Nutrition Services, Region IV, 

Benton Harbor 

Shiawassee Regional Education Service 

District, Corunna 

South Central Michigan Works!, 

Hillsdale 

Southeast Michigan Census Council, 

Southfield 

Southwest Counseling Solutions, Detroit 

Superior AIDS Prevention Services, Iron 

Mountain 

Temple B’nai Israel, Petoskey 

The Arc Michigan, Lansing 

Walker Firehouse Cafe/Senior 

Neighbors, Grand Rapids, Michigan 

Watersmeet Township School District, 

Watersmeet 

Wisdom Institute, Detroit 

YWCA of Greater Flint, Flint 

Minnesota 

A Minnesota Without Poverty, 

Minneapolis 

Bois Forte Tribal Government, Nett 

Lake 

Children’s Defense Fund—Minnesota, St. 

Paul 

CROSS Meals on Wheels, Rogers 

Deer River Public School District, Deer 

River 

Education Minnesota, St. Paul 

Entrepreneur Fund, Duluth 

Family Life Mental Health Center, Coon 

Rapids 

Family Service Rochester, Rochester 

Hamline University, St. Paul 

Houston County Public Health 

Department, Caledonia 

Hunger Solutions Minnesota, St. Paul 

Hutchinson Housing & Redevelopment 

Authority, Hutchinson 

Innocence Project of Minnesota, St. Paul 

Integrated Community Solutions, Inc., 

Fridley 

JM Grants, Sartell 

Litchfield Public Schools Early 

Childhood Programs, Litchfield 
66 

Little Falls Partners for Peace, Little 

Falls 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Duluth, Duluth 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Twin Cities, St. Paul 

Local Public Health Association of 

Minnesota, St. Paul 

McLeod County Public Health, Glencoe 

Minnesota Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Fergus Falls 

Minnesota Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Northfield 

Minnesota Association of Secondary 

School Principals, St. Paul 

Minnesota Head Start Association, Inc., 

Duluth 

Minnesota Housing Partnership, St. Paul 

Minnesota Indian Women’s Resource 

Center, Minneapolis 

Minnesota Occupational Therapy 

Association (MOTA), St. Paul 

Minnesota School Psychologists 

Association, Winona 

Minnesota School Social Workers 

Association, Gibbon 

Minnesota State Colleges and 

Universities (MnSCU), White Bear 

Lake 

Minnesota Workforce Council 

Association, Saint Paul 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) Minnesota, St. Paul 

Naytahwaush Community Charter 

School, Naytahwaush 

Nett Lake School District, Nett Lake 

Positive Care Center at Hennepin 

County Medical Center, Minneapolis 

Religious Community of Women, Little 

Falls 

Southeast Minnesota Workforce Board, 

Rochester 

The Metropolitan Consortium of 

Community Developers, Minneapolis 

Waubun-Ogema-White Earth Public 

Schools, Waubun 

Workforce Development, Inc., Southeast 

YWCA Minneapolis, Minneapolis 

Mississippi 

Biloxi Branch NAACP, Biloxi 

Disability Rights Mississippi, Jackson 

Faye’s Playhouse & Learning Center, 

Verona 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Mid South Delta, Greenville 

Mississippi Association of Educational 

Opportunity Program Personnel, 

Jackson 

Mississippi Association for Health, 

Physical Education, Recreation and 

Dance, Olive Branch 

Mississippi Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Columbia 

Mississippi Council of Administrators of 

Special Education (MS CASE), 

Mendenhall 

Mississippi Families as Allies, Jackson 

Mississippi Innocence Project, Oxford 

Nollie Jenkins Family Center, Inc., 

Lexington 

Pontotoc Housing Authority, Pontotoc 

Public Policy Center of Mississippi, Jackson 

Missouri 

Advance National Education Association, 

Advance 

Bayless Education Association, St. Louis 

Blue Springs National Education 

Association, Blue Springs 

Bridgeway Women’s Center, St. Charles 

Caruthers Street Charities, Inc. dba 

Project HOPE, Cape Girardeau 

Central Missouri Community Action 

(CMCA) Head Start, Columbia 

Central Missouri Community ActionHead Start, Laddonia 

Dent County Health Center, Salem 

Disabled Citizens Alliance for 

Independence, Viburnum 

Epilepsy Foundation of Missouri and 

Kansas, Kansas City 

Farmington National Education 

Association, Farmington 

Ferguson-Florissant National Education 

Association, Ferguson 

Festus Housing Authority, Festus 

Head Start, Salem 

Independence Housing Authority, 

Independence 

Independence National Education 

Association, Independence 

Jefferson County Health Department, 

Hillsboro 

Jefferson Franklin Community Action 

Corporation, Hillsboro 

Joplin Adult Education and Literacy, 

Joplin 

Kaiden’s Voice for the Abused, 

Springfield 

Kansas City Adult Education & Literacy, 

Kansas City 

Kansas City Criminal Justice Task 

Force, Kansas City 

Kansas City Missouri School District 

Adult Education and Literacy, Kansas 

City 

Knob Noster R–VIII School District, 

Knob Noster 

Lindbergh National Education 

Association, St. Louis 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Greater Kansas City, Kansas City 

Lutheran Family & Children’s Services 

of Missouri, St. Louis 

Mississippi County Health Department, 

Charleston 

Missouri Adult Education & Literacy 

Administrators Association, Jefferson 

City 
67 

Missouri Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Jefferson City 

Missouri Association for Social Welfare, 

Jefferson City 

Missouri Association of Local Public 

Health Agencies, Jefferson City 

Missouri Association of School Business 

Officials, Jefferson City 

Missouri Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Columbia 

Missouri Council for Exceptional 

Children (MO–CEC), Blue Springs 

Missouri Council of Administrators of 

Special Education, Jefferson City 

Missouri Development Disabilities 

Council, Jefferson City 

Missouri Division of Workforce 

Development, St. Louis 

Missouri National Education Association, 

Jefferson City 

Missouri Public Health Association, 

Jefferson City 

Missouri School Counselor Association, 

Jefferson City 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), St. Louis 

National Council of Jewish Women, St. 

Louis Section, St. Louis 

Normandy National Education 

Association, St. Louis 

North East Community Action 

Corporation, Bowling Green 

Ozarks Area Community Action 

Corporation, Springfield 

Pettis County Health Center, Sedalia 

Phelps/Maries County Health 

Department, Rolla 

Second Harvest Community Food Bank, 

Saint Joseph 

Senior Citizens Community Center, 

Paris 

Training & Employment Administrators 

of Missouri (TEAM), Jefferson City 

Shelby County Health Department, 

Shelbyville 

Smithville R–II School District, 

Smithville 

St. Francois County Health Center, Park 

Hills, 

St. Louis Agency on Training and 

Employment (SLATE), St. Louis 

St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition, St. 

Louis 

Starkloff Disability Institute, St. Louis 

Taney County Health Department, 

Branson 

Waynesville R–VI School District, 

Waynesville 

Westside Community Action Network 

Center, Kansas City 

Youth In Need, Inc., St. Charles 

Montana 

ADAPT Montana, Missoula 

Arlee School District, Arlee 

Association of Montana Public Health 

Officials, Helena 

Billings Clinic, Billings 

Box Elder Public School District 13G, 

Box Elder 

Dixon School District #9, Dixon 

Dodson Schools, Dodson 

Eastern Montana Community Mental 

Health Center, Miles City 

Family Support Network—Montana, 

Billings 

Great Falls Housing Authority, Great 

Falls 

Harlem Public Schools, Harlem 

Helena Indian Alliance, Helena 

Lodge Grass Public School District #2 & 

27, Lodge Grass 

MEA–MFT, Helena 

Montana Aspire TRIO, Great Falls 

Montana Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Worden 

Montana Innocence Project, Missoula 

Montana Public Health Association, 

Choteau 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Helena 

Not Dead Yet Montana, Missoula 

Polson School District, Polson 

Poplar School Districts 9 & 9B, Poplar 

RiverStone Health, Billings 

Ronan School District #30, Ronan 

School Administrators of Montana, 

Helena 

Teton County Health Department, 

Choteau 

University of Montana Rural Institute: 

Center for Excellence in Disability 

Education, Research, and Service, Missoula 

Nebraska 

Creighton University, Omaha 

Disability Rights Nebraska, Lincoln 

Eastern Nebraska Community Action 

Partnership, Omaha 

Head Start CFDP Inc., Hastings 

Lutheran Metro Ministry, Omaha 

Nebraska AIDS Project, Omaha 

Nebraska Federation of Families for 

Children’s Mental Health, Minden 

Nebraska Head Start Association, 

Hastings 

Nebraska School Librarians Association, 

Lincoln 

Nebraska State Education Association, 

Lincoln 

Progressive Research Institute of 

Nebraska, Omaha 

Santee Sioux Nation Head Start, 

Niobrara 

Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice 

Team, Omaha 
68 

Somali Community Service, Inc., Omaha 

University of Nebraska Medical Center, 

Omaha 

Western Nebraska Resources Council, 

Chadron 

Association of Career and Technical 

Education of Nebraska, Lincoln 

Nevada 

Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada, 

Las Vegas 

Churchill County School District, Fallon 

Food Bank of Northern Nevada, Reno 

Golden Rainbow, Las Vegas 

Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc., 

Reno 

Nevada Adult Educators, Las Vegas 

Nevada Association of School 

Administrators, Pahrump 

Nevada Occupational Therapy 

Association, Las Vegas 

Nevada School Counselor Association 

(NvSCA), Reno, Las Vegas 

Reno Senior Citizens Advisory 

Committee, Reno 

Washoe County (Nevada) Department of 

Senior Services, Reno 

New Hampshire 

Center For Life Management, Derry 

Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire, 

Concord 

Greater Nashua Mental Health Center 

at Community Council, Nashua 

Housing Action New Hampshire, 

Concord 

Local 119, Exeter 

Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter, Inc., 

Nashua 

New Hampshire Association of School 

Principals, Concord 

New Hampshire Association of Special 

Education Administrators, Concord 

New Hampshire School Library Media 

Association, Laconia 

New Hampshire School Library Media 

Association (NHSLMA), Exeter 

Rockingham Nutrition and Meals on 

Wheels Program, Brentwood 

The New Hampshire Occupational 

Therapy Association, Concord 

University of New Hampshire, Durham 

New Jersey 

Abundant Life Community Development 

Corporation, Edgewater Park 

Advocates for Children of New Jersey, 

Newark 

Alternatives to Domestic Violence, 

Hackensack 

Atlantic Cape Family Support 

Organization, Northfield 

Bergen County Youth Services 

Commission, Hackensack 

Burlington County Workforce 

Investment Board, Mount Holly 

Camden County Family Support 

Organization, Merchantville 

Cape May City Elementary School, Cape 

May 

Career and Technical Education 

Association of New Jersey, Pemberton 

Cathedral Soup Kitchen, Inc., Camden 

Catholic Charities Diocese of Trenton, 

Trenton 

Children’s Aid and Family Services, 

South Orange 

Citizen Schools New Jersey, Newark 

Community FoodBank of New Jersey, 

Hillside 

COPE Center, Inc., Montclair 

Cumberland/Salem Workforce 

Investment Board, Bridgeton 

Englewood Housing Authority, 

Englewood 

Family Support Organization of Bergen 

County, Waldwick 

Family Support Organization of Bergen 

County, Fair Lawn 

Food Bank of South Jersey, Pennsauken 

Garden State Employment & Training 

Association, Toms River 

Head Start Community Program of 

Morris County, Inc., Dover 

Homefront, Inc., Lawrenceville 

Horizon Health Center, Jersey City, 

Bayonne 

Housing Community Development 

Network of New Jersey, Trenton 

Hudson County Housing Resource 

Center, Jersey City 

Hyacinth AIDS Foundation, New 

Brunswick 

JCDTOC, Inc., Cape May Court House 

Kean University, Union 

LEW Corporation, Mountainside 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Greater Newark, Newark 

Meals On Wheels, Inc.—Linden, Linden 

Monmouth County Regional Health 

Commission, Tinton Falls 

Morris-Sussex-Warren Workforce 

Investment Board, Morristown 

Mount Carmel Guild, Cranford 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Asbury Park 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Cherry Hill 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Gloucester County, Wenonah 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Greater Monmouth, Freehold 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Concordia Section, Monroe Township 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Union County Section, Elizabeth 
69 

National Council of Jewish Women, West 

Morris Section, Morristown 

New Jersey Anti-Hunger Coalition, 

Englewood 

New Jersey Association for Health, 

Physical Education, Recreation & 

Dance, Ocean 

New Jersey Association of Mental Health 

& Addiction Agencies, Inc., Mercerville 

New Jersey Association of Mental Health 

and Addiction Agencies, Inc., Hamilton 

New Jersey Association of Pupil Services 

Administrators, Westfield 

New Jersey Campus Compact, 

Branchburg 

New Jersey Citizen Action, Newark 

New Jersey Principals and Supervisors 

Association, Monroe Township 

North Hanover Township Schools, 

Wrightstown 

Northern Ocean Habitat for Humanity, 

Toms River 

Ocean County Workforce Investment 

Board, Toms River 

Pleasantville Housing Authority, 

Pleasantville 

Preferred Behavioral Health of New 

Jersey, Brick 

Princeton Community Housing, Inc., 

Princeton 

Project Live, Inc., Newark 

Respond, Inc., Camden 

Straight and Narrow Inc., Paterson 

University of Medicine and Dentistry of 

New Jersey/University Behavioral 

HealthCare, Piscataway 

Visiting Nurse Association of Central 

New Jersey (VNACNJ) Community 

Health Center, Inc., Asbury Park 

New Mexico 

Albuquerque Public Schools, 

Albuquerque 

Citizen Schools New Mexico, 

Albuquerque 

Clovis Municipal Schools, Clovis 

Community Against Violence, Taos 

Disability Rights New Mexico, 

Albuquerque 

Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc. Head 

Start, Bernalillo 

Gallup-McKinley County Schools, Ramah 

Media Arts Collaborative Charter School, 

Albuquerque 

National Education Association New 

Mexico, Santa Fe 

National Education Association Santa 

Fe, Santa Fe 

Native American Disability Law Center, 

Inc., Farmington 

New Mexico Music Educators 

Association, Las Cruces 

New Mexico Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Rio Rancho 

New Mexico Coalition to End 

Homelessness, Albuquerque 

New Mexico Council of Administrators of 

Special Education (NMCASE), Dexter 

New Mexico Forum for Youth in 

Community, Albuquerque 

New Mexico Occupational Therapy 

Association, Albuquerque 

New Mexico School Counselor 

Association, Albuquerque 

New Mexico State University, Las 

Cruces 

New Mexico Voices for Children, 

Albuquerque 

Prosperity Works, Albuquerque 

Pueblo of Zuni Head Start, Zuni 

Supportive Housing Coalition of New 

Mexico, Albuquerque 

YES Housing Inc., Albuquerque 

Youth Development, Inc., Albuquerque 

National Education Association— 

Carlsbad, Carlsbad 

New York 

1199SEIU Training and Employment 

Funds, New York 

Access to Independence of Cortland 

County, Inc., Cortland 

Advocates for Children of New York, 

New York 

Albert Einstein College of Medicine of 

Yeshiva University, New York City 

Allegany County Office for the Aging, 

Belmont 

APICHA Community Health Center, 

New York 

Arbor Housing and Development, Bath 

Arise, Inc., Syracuse 

Boulevard Houses, Brooklyn 

Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, 

Brooklyn 

Brooklyn for Peace, Brooklyn 

Brooklyn Kindergarten Society, New 

York 

Brooklyn-Queens National Organization 

for Women, Brooklyn 

Buffalo Council of School 

Administrators, Buffalo 

Campaign for Tomorrow’s Workforce, 

New York 

Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, 

Peekskill 

Cattaraugus County Department of the 

Aging, Olean 

Cazenovia Recovery Systems, Inc., 

Buffalo 

Center for Children’s Initiatives, New 

York 

Center for Independence of the Disabled, 

New York 

Central New York Citizens in Action, 

Inc., Utica 

Chenango County Area Agency on Aging, 

Norwich 
70 

Children’s Defense Fund—New York, 

New York 

Citizen Action of New York, Binghamton 

Citizen Schools New York, New York 

Citizens’ Committee for Children of New 

York, New York 

City of Syracuse Lead Program, 

Syracuse 

Claire Heureuse Community Center, 

Inc., Jamaica 

College and Community Fellowship, New 

York 

Columbia County Office for the Aging, 

Hudson 

Community Action Planning Council of 

Jefferson County, New York, 

Watertown 

Communty Health Care Association of 

New York State, New York 

Community Service Society of New York, 

New York 

Cortland County Health Department, 

Cortland 

Council of School Supervisors and 

Administrators (CSA), New York 

Delaware County Office for the Aging, 

Delhi 

Dunkirk-Fredonia Meals on Wheels, 

Dunkirk 

Early Care & Learning Council, Albany 

Empire Justice Center, Rochester 

Epilepsy Foundation of Long Island, 

Garden City 

Everyone Reading, New York 

Fifth Avenue Committee, Brooklyn 

Foodnet Meals on Wheels, Ithaca 

Fort Greene Peace, Brooklyn 

Fulton County Office for Aging, 

Johnstown 

Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie 

Counties Workforce Development 

Board, Inc., Amsterdam 

Future Leaders Institute Charter School, 

New York 

Human Development Services of 

Westchester, Mamaroneck 

Hunger Solutions New York, Albany 

Innersight, Islip 

International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers—Local 43, Clay 

Jackson Resident Association, Inc., 

Bronx 

Joint Council for Economic Opportunity, 

Plattsburgh 

Leake and Watts Services, Inc., Yonkers 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

Buffalo 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

New York City, New York 

Long Island Educational Opportunity 

Center, Brentwood 

Madison County Office for the Aging, 

Inc., Canastota 

Meals on Wheels of Syracuse, New York, 

Inc., Syracuse 

Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Buffalo & Erie County, Williamsville 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Cattaraugus, Olean 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Central Suffolk, Port Jefferson Station 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Huntington, Huntington 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

LAMP/SW Nassau, Merrick 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

New York City, Staten Island, Staten 

Island 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

New York State, Albany 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Queens & Nassau, Manhasset 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Rensselaer County, West Sand Lake 

National Alliance On Mental Illness— 

Rochester, Rochester 

National Council of Jewish Women— 

Lakeville Section, Great Neck 

Neighborhood Family Services Coalition, 

New York 

Neighborhood Preservation Coalition of 

New York State, Albany 

New Destiny Housing, New York 

New York Annual Conference, United 

Methodist Church, Brooklyn 

New York Association of School 

Psychologists, Albany 

New York Association of Training and 

Employment Professionals (NYATEP), 

Albany 

New York State Association of College 

Admission Counseling, Red Hook 

New York State Association of County 

Health Officials (NYSACHO), Albany 

New York State Association of School 

Business Officials, Albany 

New York State Council for Community 

Behavioral Healthcare, Albany 

New York State Dance Education 

Association, New York 

New York State Head Start Association, 

Glens Falls 

New York State Rural Housing 

Coalition, Albany 

New York State School Counselor 

Association, Leicester 

New York University Langone Medical 

Center, New York 

Northern Regional Center for 

Independent Living, Family Support 

Services, Watertown 

Ontario County Office for the Aging, 

Canandaigua 

Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow, 

Brooklyn 

Orleans County Office for the Aging, 

Albion 

Pace Post-Conviction Project, New York 

PathStone Corporation, Rochester 

Peace Action Bay Ridge, Brooklyn 

Per Scholas Inc., Bronx 
71 

Program on Applied Demographics— 

Cornell University, Ithaca 

Rape Crisis Service of Planned 

Parenthood of the Rochester Syracuse 

Region, Batavia 

Rural Ulster Preservation Company, 

Kingston 

Safe Against Violence, Hamden 

Saugerties Public Housing Agency, 

Saugerties 

School Administrators Association of 

New York State, Latham 

Schuyler County Office for the Aging, 

Montour Falls 

Selfhelp Community Services, New York 

Senior Services of Albany, Inc., Albany 

Sexual Assault & Crime Victims 

Assistance Program, Troy 

St. John’s Riverside Hospital, Yonkers 

St. Lawrence County Office for the 

Aging, Canton 

St. Mary’s Episcopal Church Food 

Pantry, New York 

Steuben County Department of Social 

Services/Building Independence for the 

Long Term, Bath 

Supportive Housing Network of New 

York, New York 

The Children’s Aid Society, New York 

The Doe Fund, New York 

The Osborne Association, Bronx, 

Brooklyn, Beacon, Poughkeepsie 

Town of Hamburg, New York, Hamburg 

Trabajamos Community Head Start, 

Bronx 

Ulster County Office for the Aging, 

Kingston 

VillageCare, New York 

Westchester Community Opportunity 

Program, Inc., Elmsford 

Whitney M. Young Community Health 

Center, Albany 

Wyoming County Office for the Aging, 

Warsaw 

YWCA Binghamton and Broome County, 

Inc., Binghamton 

North Carolina 

Aging, Disability and Transit Services of 

Rockingham County, Reidsville 

Albemarle Commission Senior Nutrition 

Program, Hertford 

Avery County Habitat for Humanity, 

Newland 

Carolina Institute for Developmental 

Disabilities, Chapel Hill 

Charlotte Family Housing, Charlotte 

Citizen Schools North Carolina, 

Charlotte 

Clay County Senior Center, Hayesville 

Crisis Council, Inc., Troy 

Cumberland County Council on Older 

Adults, Fayetteville 

Cumberland County School System, 

Fayetteville 

disAbility Resource Center, Wilmington 

Disability Rights North Carolina, 

Raleigh 

Disaility Rights & Resources, Charlotte 

Durham County Department of Social 

Services, Durham 

Duke AIDS Law and Policy Project, 

Durham 

Eastern Carolina Workforce 

Development Board, Inc., New Bern 

Epilepsy Foundation of North Carolina, 

Winston-Salem 

Fargo Public Schools, Fargo 

Greensboro Housing Coalition, 

Greensboro 

Harnett County Elderly Nutrition 

Program, Lillington 

Harnett County Schools, Lillington 

Healthy Homes and Lead Safety, 

Leicester 

Jackson County Meals on Wheels, Sylva 

Lincoln County Senior Services, 

Lincolnton 

Macon Program for Progress, Franklin 

McDowell County Head Start & 

Preschool Programs, Marion 

Meals on Wheels of Wake County, 

Raleigh 

Mental Health America of the Triangle, 

Durham 

Mental Health Association in 

Greensboro, Greensboro 

Mental Health Association in Wilson 

County, Wilson 

Mental Health Association of Central 

Carolinas, Charlotte 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Charlotte 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Durham 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Smithfield 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Wilson 

NC–LEND at The Carolina Institute for 

Developmental Disabilities, Chapel 

Hill 

News...from our Shoes, Raleigh 

North Carolina Association of Educators, 

Raleigh 

North Carolina Council of 

Administrators of Special Education, 

Wilmington 

North Carolina Council of 

Administrators of Special Education 

(NCCASE), Greensboro 

North Carolina Council of Educational 

Opportunity Programs (NCCEOP), 

Greensboro 

North Carolina Families United, Raleigh 

North Carolina Lung Cancer 

Partnership, Raleigh 

North Carolina Occupational Therapy 

Association, Charlotte 

North Carolina Principals and Assistant 

Principals’ Association, Raleigh 
72 

North Carolina School Library Media 

Association, Raleigh 

Pamlico County Senior Services, Alliance 

Parent VOICE, Charlotte 

Pender County Schools Head Start, 

Burgaw 

Residents for Affordable Housing, 

Mooresville 

Sarah’s Refuge, Inc. Domestic Violence & 

Rape Crisis Center, Warsaw 

Senior Resources of Guilford, Greensboro 

Senior Services of Forsyth County, 

Winston-Salem 

Southern HIV/AIDS Strategy Initiative 

(SASI), Durham 

Special Education Department IredellStatesville Schools, Statesville 

Swain County Schools, Bryson City 

Carolina Institute for Developmental 

Disabilities at the University of North 

Carolina Chapel Hill (UECDD), 

Chapel Hill 

United Family Services, Charlotte 

WAGES, Goldsboro 

Warren-Vance Community Health 

Center/Northern Outreach Clinic, 

Henderson 

Watauga County Project on Aging, 

Boone 

Western North Carolina AIDS Project, 

Asheville 

North Dakota 

Abused Adult Resource Center, 

Bismarck 

Dunseith Public School District, 

Dunseith 

Eastern Dakota Housing Alliance, Fargo 

Ft. Yates Public School District #4, Ft. 

Yates 

Grand Forks Housing Authority, Grand 

Forks 

Grand Forks Senior Center, Grand Forks 

Grand Forks Special Education Unit, 

Grand Forks 

Housing Authority of Cass County, West 

Fargo 

Housing Authority of Dunn County, 

Dickinson 

Housing Authority of McKenzie County, 

Dickinson 

Housing Authority of Richland County, 

West Fargo 

Housing Authority of Stark County, 

Dickinson 

Housing Authority of Traill County, 

Hillsboro 

Kenmare Wheels & Meals, Kenmare 

Lake Region Outreach Office, Rolla 

Minot Area Homeless Coalition, Inc., 

Minot 

Minot Commission on Aging, Minot 

North Dakota Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Bismarck 

North Dakota Coalition for Homeless 

People, Bismarck 

North Dakota Education Association, 

Dickinson 

North Dakota Music Educators 

Association, Fargo 

North Dakota Reading Association, 

Bismarck 

North Dakota School Counseling 

Association, Jamestown 

Parshall School District #3, Parshall 

Protection and Advocacy Project, 

Bismarck 

Red River Valley Community Action, 

Grand Forks 

Selfridge Public School District #8, 

Selfridge 

Solen Public School District #3, Solen 

South Central Adult Services, Valley 

City 

St. John School District #3, St. John 

Valley Senior Services, Fargo 

Welcome House, Inc., Bismarck 

YWCA Minot, Minot 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Department of Community and Cultural 

Affairs, Saipan MP 

Ohio 

Access Center for Independent Living, 

Dayton 

American Association of University 

Professors—Wright State University, 

Ohio Conference, Lima 

Area Agency on Aging 3, Lima 

Cleveland Housing Network, Cleveland 

Coalition on Homelessness & Housing in 

Ohio, Columbus 

Cogswell Hall, Inc., Cleveland 

Columbus State Community College 

Disability Services, Columbus 

Community Counseling Center, 

Ashtabula 

Community Development Corporation 

Resource Consortium, Inc., Dayton 

Consortium for Healthy & Immunized 

Communities, Inc., Cleveland 

Council for Older Adults, Delaware 

Cuyahoga County Board of Health 

(Greater Cleveland), Parma 

Elyria City Health District, Elyria 

Epilepsy Foundation of Central Ohio, 

Columbus 

Fairborn City Schools, Fairborn 

Families Connected of Clermont County/ 

Chapter of the National Federation of 

Families for Children’s Mental Health, 

Batavia 

Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network, 

Cincinnati 
73 

Guernsey County Senior Citizens Center, 

Inc., Cambridge 

Hand ’N Hand Activity Center for Adults 

with Disabilities, Springfield 

Hocking Hills Inspire Shelter, Logan 

Holmes County General Health District, 

Millersburg 

Housing Research & Advocacy Center, 

Cleveland 

Housing Solutions of Greene County, 

Inc., Xenia 

Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio, Bath 

Lancaster Fairfield Community Action 

Agency, Lancaster 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

Toledo 

Lorain County Workforce Development 

Agency, Elyria 

Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry, 

Cleveland 

Mad River Local Schools, Riverside 

Mature Services, Inc., Akron 

Meigs County Council on Aging, Inc., 

Pomeroy 

Mobile Meals, Inc., Akron 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Seneca, Sandusky, Wyandot counties, 

Tiffin 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Stark County, Canton 

National Council of Jewish Women— 

Cleveland, Cleveland 

Office of the Ohio Public Defender, 

Columbus 

Ohio Association for Adult and 

Continuing Education, Columbus 

Ohio Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Westerville 

Ohio Association of School Business 

Officials, Columbus 

Ohio Association of Second Harvest 

Foodbanks, Columbus 

Ohio Campus Compact, Granville 

Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & 

Family Services Providers, Columbus 

Ohio Education Association, Columbus 

Ohio Educational Library Media 

Association, Columbus 

Ohio Innocence Project, Cincinnati 

Ohio Music Education Association, Lima 

Ohio River Foundation, Cincinnati 

Ohio Rural Community Assistance 

Program, Fremont 

Ohio School Social Worker Association, 

Bay Village 

Ohio TRiO, Mansfield 

Ohio Workforce Coalition, Fremont 

PowerNet of Dayton, Dayton 

Public Allies Cincinnati, Cincinnati 

Second Harvest Food Bank of Clark, 

Champaign, Logan Counties, 

Springfield 

Second Harvest Food Bank of Mahoning 

Valley, Youngstown 

Shared Harvest Foodbank, Fairfield 

Stark County Stark Metropolitan 

Housing Authority, Canton 

Summit County Public Health, Summit 

County 

The Arc of Ohio 

The Foodbank, Inc., Dayton 

The MetroHealth System, Cleveland 

The Ohio Head Start Association, 

Dayton 

Toledo Fair Housing Center, Toledo 

Towards Employment, Cleveland 

Tri-County Independent Living Center, 

Inc., Akron 

Trumbull County One-Stop, Warren 

Trumbull Mobile Meals, Inc., Warren 

United Steel Workers Local 8530, 

Mansfield 

Ursuline Sisters HIV/AIDS Ministry, 

Youngstown 

Walnut Hills Redevelopment 

Foundation, Cincinnati 

Workforce Services Unlimited, Inc., 

Circleville 

Working In Neighborhoods, Cincinnati 

YWCA H.O.P.E Center, Toledo 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Greater Cincinnati and Northern 

Kentucky, Cincinnati 

Voices for Ohio’s Children, Cleveland 

Oklahoma 

Cherokee Strip Reading Council, Enid 

Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Head Start 

Program, Concho 

Four Winds Iowa Tribe, Perkins 

Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Early Head 

Start & Expectant Families Program, 

Perkins 

J&J Educational Services, Kinta 

Leach Public School, Rose 

New Lima Public School, Wewoka 

Oaks Mission School, Oaks 

Oklahoma Association of Career and 

Technology Education, Oklahoma City 

Oklahoma Education Association, 

Oklahoma City 

Oklahoma Innocence Project, Oklahoma 

City 

Oklahoma National Association of 

Secondary School Principals, 

Kingfisher 

Oklahoma Reading Association, Enid 

Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care 

Association, Oklahoma City 

OSCA, Shawnee 

Salina Public Schools, Salina 

Wickliffe School, Salina 

Oregon 

American Association of University 

Women-Oregon, Salem 

CASA of Oregon, Sherwood 

Cascade AIDS Project, Portland 

Centennial Education Association, 

Portland 
74 

Central City Concern, Portland 

Community Alliance of Tenants, 

Portland 

Community Information Center, 

Portland 

Community Pathways, Inc., Portland 

Corvallis Education Association, 

Corvallis 

Crook County Health Department, 

Prineville 

Dallas Education Association, Dallas 

Disability Rights Oregon, Portland 

Eugene Education Association, Eugene 

Full Access, Eugene 

H & W Mechanical Inc., Tigard 

Head Start of Lane County, Springfield 

Health Education Network, Corvallis 

Hillsboro School District, Hillsboro 

Homeless Against Homelessness in 

America, Portland 

Hood River Education Association, Hood 

River 

Job Growers, Inc., Salem 

Josiah Hill III Clinic, Portland 

Lane Workforce Partnership, Eugene 

Madras Education Association, Madras 

Mid-Columbia Children’s Council, Hood 

River 

Morrow County Education Association, 

Boardman 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Lane County, Eugene 

National Education Association— 

Parkrose Faculty Association, Portland 

Network For Oregon Affordable Housing, 

Portland 

North Clackamas Education Association, 

Milwaukie 

Northwest Oregon Labor Council, AFL– 

CIO, Portland 

Northwest Pilot Project, Portland 

Occupational Therapy Association of 

Oregon, Salem 

Oregon Association of School Business 

Officials, Salem 

Oregon Association of School Libraries, 

Portland 

Oregon Campus Compact, Portland 

Oregon Developmental Disability 

Coalition, Salem 

Oregon Education Association, Portland 

Oregon Food Bank, Portland 

Oregon Head Start Association, Phoenix 

Oregon Head Start Association, Salem 

Oregon Health & Science University, 

Portland 

Oregon Health & Science University 

Institute on Development & 

Disability—University Center for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDD), Portland 

Oregon Military Support Network, 

Portland 

Oregon Pathways Alliance, The Dalles 

Oregon Rehabilitation Association, 

Salem 

Oregon School Counselor Association, 

Cornelius 

Oregon School Social Work Association, 

Portland 

Oregon TRiO Association, Portland 

Oregon Wild, Portland 

Parkrose Faculty Association, Portland 

Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon, 

Portland 

Partnership Project, Portland 

Phoenix-Talent Education Association, 

Phoenix 

Rogue Workforce Partnership, Medford 

Salem Keizer Education Association, 

Salem 

Southern Oregon Child & Family 

Council—Head Start and Early Head 

Start, Medford 

Tax Fairness Oregon, Portland 

Umpqua Community College/JOBS 

Program, Roseburg 

University of Oregon Center on Human 

Development—University Center for 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDD), Eugene 

Western Farm Workers Association, 

Hillsboro 

Worksystems, Inc., Portland 

Pennsylvania 

ActionAIDS, Philadelphia 

Adult Literacy Program at Bayard 

Taylor Library, Kennett Square 

Allegheny Intermediate Unit, Homestead 

Allegheny Valley Association of 

Churches, Natrona Heights 

Allegheny Valley School District, 

Cheswick 

Area Agency on Aging, Philadelphia 

Association of Pittsburgh Priests, 

Pittsburgh 

Association of School Psychologists of 

Pennsylvania (ASPP), Doylestown 

Baldwin-Whitehall School District, 

Pittsburgh 

Berks Encore, Reading 

BFW Group, L.L.C., Philadelphia 

Brentwood Borough School District, 

Pittsburgh 

Bryn Mawr Peace Coalition, Bryn Mawr 

Center for Literacy, Inc., Philadelphia 

Center for Social Policy and Community 

Development, Philadelphia 

Central Intermediate Unit 10 

Development Center for Adults, 

Pleasant Gap 

Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, 

Harrisburg 

Centre County Women’s Resource 

Center, State College 

Chester County Family Literacy, 

Kennett Square 

Chester County Food Bank, 

Downingtown 
75 

Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future 

(PennFuture), Harrisburg 

Citizens for the Arts in Pennsylvania, 

Harrisburg 

Clairton City School District, Clairton 

Community Action Committee of the 

Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem 

Community Counseling Center of Mercer 

County, Hermitage 

Community Development Action 

Corporation, Norristown 

Community Education Center, Altoona 

Community Food Warehouse of Mercer 

County, Sharon 

Community Learning Center, 

Philadelphia 

Community Organization for Mental 

Health and Retardation (COMHAR, 

Inc.), Philadelphia 

Community Services Group, Sunbury 

Cornell School District, Corapolis 

Coro Center for Civic Leadership, 

Pittsburgh 

Crawford County READ Program, 

Titusville 

Crime Victim Center of Erie County, 

Erie 

Deer Lakes School District, Russellton 

Delaware County Community College, 

Downingtown 

Delaware Valley School District, Milford 

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance 

Pennsylvania, Erie 

Diakon Community Services for Seniors, 

Pottsville 

Dickinson Center, Inc., Ridgway 

Disability Rights Network of 

Pennsylvania, Harrisburg 

Disabled In Action, Philadelphia 

Elizabeth Forward School District, 

Elizabeth 

Employment and Training, Inc., 

Huntingdon 

Employment Skills Center, Carlisle 

Feast of Justice, Philadelphia 

Focus On Renewal, McKees Rocks 

Fox Chapel Area School District, 

Pittsburgh 

Franklin County Headstart, 

Chambersburg 

Garraty Workforce Investment, 

Hummelstown 

Goodwill Literacy Initiative, Pittsburgh 

Goodwill of Southwestern Pennsylvania, 

Pittsburgh 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against 

Hunger, Philadelphia 

Greater Pittsburgh Community Food 

Bank, Duquesne 

Greater Pittsburgh Literacy Council, 

Pittsburgh 

Greater Washington County Food Bank, 

Eighty Four 

H & J Weinberg Food Bank, WilkesBarre 

Habitat for Humanity of Greater 

Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh 

Highlands School District, Natrona 

Heights 

Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, 

Glenside 

Housing Association & Development 

Corporation, Allentown 

Housing Authority of Chester County, 

Chester County 

Housing Authority of the County of 

Dauphin, Steelton 

Hunger-Free Pennsylvania, McMurray 

Immigration and Refugee Services, ESL 

Program, Harrisburg 

Institute on Disabilities—University 

Center for Excellence in 

Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), 

Philadelphia 

International Union of Operating 

Engineers Local 95, Pittsburgh 

Interplay Child Care Center, Pittsburgh 

JEVS Human Services, Philadelphia 

Just Harvest: A Center for Action 

Against Hunger, Pittsburgh 

Kesington Hospital Early Intervention 

Services Department, Philadelphia 

Keystone Oaks School District, 

Pittsburgh 

Lake Erie Region Conservancy, Erie 

Lawrence County Housing Authority, 

New Castle 

Lifelong Learning Choices, New Castle 

LifeSpan, Inc., Homestead 

Lincoln Intermediate Unit Franklin 

County Literacy Council, 

Chambersburg 

Literacy Council of Lancaster-Lebanon, 

Lebanon 

Literacy Council of Norristown, 

Norristown 

Literacy Council of Reading-Berks, Inc., 

Reading 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 

Philadelphia 

Luzerne County Community College, 

Nanticoke 

Marywood Adult Literacy Education 

Program, Scranton 

Mazzoni Center, Philadelphia 

McKeesport Area School District, 

McKeesport 

Meals On Wheels Association of 

Pennsylvania, Inc., Bethlehem 

Meals on Wheels of Chester County, Inc., 

West Chester 

Meals on Wheels of Lehigh County, 

Allentown 

Meals On Wheels of Northampton 

County, Inc., Bethlehem 

Meals on Wheels of Northeastern PA, 

Scranton 

Mental Health Association of 

Northwestern Pennsylvania, Erie 

Metro-Erie Meals On Wheels, Erie 

Mollie’s Meals, Pittsburgh 

Monroe County Meals on Wheels, Inc., 

Stroudsburg 
76 

Multicultural Community Resource 

Center, Erie 

National Alliance for Mental Illness, 

Lansdale 

National Alliance on Mental Illness— 

Chester County, West Chester 

Nazareth Housing Services, Pittsburgh 

Neighborhood Networks, Philadelphia 

Northgate School District, Pittsburgh 

Northwest Philadelphia Interfaith 

Hospitality Network, Philadelphia 

Penn Action, Bucks County 

Penn Hills School District, Pittsburgh 

Penn Medicine, Philadelphia 

Pennsylvania Association for Adult 

Continuing Education (PAACE), State 

College 

Pathways Pennsylvania, Holmes 

Pennsylvania Association Council of 

Administrators of Special Education, 

Mountain Top 

Pennsylvania Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Gettysburg 

Pennsylvania Association of Career and 

Technical Education, Philadelphia 

Pennsylvania Association of Elementary 

and Secondary School Principals, 

Summerdale 

Pennsylvania Association of Rural and 

Small Schools, Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Association of School 

Business Officials, Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, 

Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches, 

Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Head Start Association, 

Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Occupational Therapy 

Association, Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Partners, Camp Hill 

Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, 

Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania School Librarians 

Association, Whitehall 

Pennsylvania State Education 

Association, Harrisburg 

Pennsylvania Statewide Independent 

Living Council, Lords Valley 

PenTrans, Philadelphia 

Perkiomen School, Pennsburg 

Perry County Literacy Council, Newport 

Philadelphia Neighborhood Networks, 

Philadelphia 

Philadelphia Works, Philadelphia 

Phoenix Rising Counseling Services, 

Scranton 

Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood 

Development, Pittsburgh 

Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network, 

Saylorsburg 

Plum Borough School District, Plum 

ProJeCt of Easton, Inc., Easton 

Providence Connections, Pittsburgh 

Public Allies Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh 

Quaker Valley School District, Sewickley 

Reading Muhlenberg Career & 

Technology Center, Reading 

Regional Center for Workforce 

Excellence, Northwest WIA 

Robert Morris University, Moon 

Room to Grow Child Development 

Center/YMCA Greater Pittsburgh, 

Pittsburgh 

Shaler Area School District, Glenshaw 

South Fayette Township School District, 

McDonald 

South Hills Interfaith Ministries, Bethel 

Park 

South Park School District, South Park 

Squirrel Hill Community Food Pantry, 

Pittsburgh 

St. James Social Justice and Peace 

Committee, Wilkinsburg 

Stairways Behavioral Health, Erie 

Temple University Center for Social 

Policy and Community Development 

(CSPCD), Philadelphia 

The Advocacy Alliance, Zionsville 

The Arc of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg 

The Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh 

The Pennsylvania Innocence Project, 

Philadelphia 

TIU 11 Community Education Services, 

Lewistown 

Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11 

Community Education Services, 

Lewistown 

Tutors of Literacy in the Commonwealth, 

State College 

United Methodist Church, Erie 

Vita Education Services, Doylestown 

West Allegheny School District, Imperial 

West Chester Food Cupboard, West 

Chester 

West Jefferson Hills School District, 

Jefferson Hills 

West Mifflin School District, West 

Mifflin 

Westmoreland Food Bank, Delmont 

Women’s Christian Alliance, 

Philadelphia 

Won Community Center, Glenside 

YWCA Lancaster, Lancaster 

Puerto Rico 

Centro Deambulantes Cristo Pobre, 

Ponce 

Coalicion de Coaliciones Pro Personas 

sin Hogar de PR, Inc., Ponce 

Head Start Program, Guaynabo 

One Stop Career Center of Puerto Rico, 

Inc., San Juan 

Rhode Island 

Childhood Lead Action Project, 

Providence 

Children’s Friend, Providence 

Economic Progress Institute, Providence 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Rhode Island, Providence 
77 

Mental Health Association of Rhode 

Island, Pawtucket 

Paul Sherlock Center on Disabilities, 

Providence 

Rhode Island Association of School 

Principals, Providence 

Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, 

Pawtucket 

Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, Providence 

Rhode Island School Psychologist 

Association, Providence 

Tiverton Senior Center, Tiverton 

Women’s Development Corporation, 

Providence 

Woonsocket Head Start Child 

Development Association, Inc. 

South Carolina 

Affordable Housing Coalition of South 

Carolina, Columbia 

Berkeley County School District, Moncks 

Corner 

Clemson University, Clemson 

Florence Crittenton Programs of South 

Carolina, Charleston 

Habitat for Humanity Georgetown 

County, Georgetown 

Humanities Foundation, Mount Pleasant 

Lowcountry Housing Trust, Charleston 

Protection & Advocacy for People with 

Disabilities, Inc., Columbia 

South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice 

Center, Columbia 

South Carolina Association of School 

Social Workers, Columbia 

South Carolina Head Start Association, 

Inc., Hartsville 

South Carolina School Counselor 

Association, Eutawville 

South Carolina TRiO, Greenville 

Southern Association for College 

Admission Counseling, North Augusta 

The Arc of South Carolina 

United Way of Greenville County, 

Greenville 

Watertree AIDS Task Force, Sumter 

South Dakota 

Aberdeen Housing Authority, Aberdeen 

Brandon Valley School District, Brandon 

Center for Active Generations, Sioux 

Falls 

Center for Disabilities, University 

Center for Excellence in 

Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), 

Sioux Falls 

Custer School District, Custer 

Douglas Public School District #51, Box 

Elder 

Flandreau Public School, Flandreau 

Hot Springs School District 23–2, Hot 

Springs 

Housing and Redevelopment Commission 

of Pierre, Pierre 

Impact Schools of South Dakota, Sioux 

Falls 

Kadoka Area School District 35–2, 

Kadoka 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

South Dakota, Chamberlain 

Lyman School District, Presho 

McLaughlin Public School, McLaughlin 

Mitchell Housing Authority, Mitchell 

Oelrichs School District, Oelrichs 

Smee School District, Wakpala 

South Central School District, Bonesteel 

South Dakota ASPIRE, Mitchell 

South Dakota Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Watertown 

South Dakota Council of Administrators 

of Special Education, Canton 

South Dakota Education Association, 

Pierre 

South Dakota Occupational Therapy 

Association, Sioux Falls 

South Dakota School Counseling 

Association, Sioux Falls 

Todd County School District, Mission 

Wagner Community School District, 

Wagner 

White River School District 47–1 SD, 

White River 

Tennessee 

Black Children’s Institute of Tennessee, 

Nashville 

Center for Literacy Studies, Knoxville 

Clarksville Retired Teachers (TEA, NEA, 

ACA), Clarksville 

Disability Law & Advocacy Center of 

Tennessee, Nashville 

Disability Resource Center, Knoxville 

East Tennessee State University, 

Johnson City 

Epilepsy Foundation Southeast 

Tennessee, Chattanooga 

Fleming Construction Co., Collierville 

Kingsport Public Housing, Kingsport 

Kingsport/Sullivan County Adult 

Education, Kingsport 

Le Bonheur Children’s Hospital, 

Memphis 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Tennessee, Memphis 

Ledford Engineering and Planning, 

L.L.C., Arlington 

Metro Nashville Council, Nashville 

Nashville CARES, Nashville 

New Level Community Development 

Corporation, Nashville 

Regional Intervention Program-Gallatin, 

Gallatin 

Ridgeview Psychiatric Hospital & 

Center, Inc., Oak Ridge 

Telecom Training Corporation, Nashville 

Tennessee Association for Adult and 

Community Education, Ripley 
78 

Tennessee Association of Special 

Programs, Knoxville 

Tennessee Education Association, 

Nashville 

The Arc Tennessee 

Unicoi County Board of Education, 

Erwin 

Vanderbilt Comprehensive Care Clinic, 

Nashville 

Volunteer Behavioral Health Care 

System, Murfreesboro 

Texas 

A Greener World Community Alliance, 

Houston 

Arc of Greater Beaumont, Beaumont 

Austin Resource Center for Independent 

Living, Austin 

Baylor University Family Abuse Center, 

Waco 

Builders of Hope CDC, Dallas 

CASA of Southeast Texas, Beaumont 

Center for Public Policy Priorities, 

Austin 

Children’s Defense Fund—Texas, 

Houston 

Citizen Schools Texas, Houston 

City Wide Community Development 

Corporation, Dallas 

Copperas Cove Independent School 

District, Copperas Cove 

Crisis Center of the Plains, Plainview 

Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, 

Denton 

Denton County Homeless Coalition, 

Denton County 

Disability Rights Texas, Austin 

Education Equals Making Community 

Connections, Plantersville 

Family Health & Aids Care Services 

International (FAHASI), Houston 

Fort Bend Seniors Meals on Wheels, 

Rosenberg 

Fort Sam Houston Independent School 

District, San Antonio 

Freedom House, Weatherford 

Gateway to Care, Houston 

Gregory Housing Authority, Gregory 

Health Care for All—Texas, Houston 

Hill Country Crisis Council, Inc., 

Kerrville 

Houston Center for Independent Living, 

Houston 

InnerWisdom Counseling Center, 

Houston 

K.E.E.P.S., Austin 

Kaufman County Senior Citizens 

Services, Inc., Terrell 

La Fe Policy Research and Education 

Center, San Antonio 

Lackland Independent School District, 

San Antonio 

Legacy Community Health Services, 

Houston 

Lewisville Independent School District, 

Flower Mound 

Liberty County Project on Aging, Liberty 

Llano Grande Center, Elsa 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Houston, Houston 

LoneStar LEND, University of Texas 

Health Sciences Center at Houston, 

Houston 

Meals on Wheels and More, Austin 

Meals on Wheels Association of Texas 

Meals on Wheels of Texoma, Gainesville 

Meals on Wheels, Waco 

Mental Health America of Greater 

Dallas, Dallas 

Mental Health America of Southeast 

Texas, Beaumont 

Mental Health Association in Jefferson 

County, Beaumont, 

Mi Escuelita Preschool, Dallas 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Lubbock 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), San Antonio 

National Birth Defects Prevention 

Network, Houston 

National Council of Jewish Women, 

Houston Section, Houston 

Nueces County community Action 

Agency—Early Head Start, Corpus 

Christi 

Nutrition and Services for Seniors, 

Beaumont 

Parent/Child Incorporated, San Antonio 

Pottsboro Independent School District, 

Pottsboro 

Project Transitions, Austin 

Senior Center of Walker County, 

Huntsville 

Senior Community Outreach Services, 

Inc., Alamo 

Sexual Assault Resource Center, Bryan 

Tarrant County Housing, Fort Worth 

Texans Care for Children, Austin 

Texas Association for College Admission 

Counseling, Van Alstyne 

Texas Association of Local Health 

Officials, Austin 

Texas Council of Administrators of 

Special Education, Austin 

Texas Elementary PrIncipals and 

Supervisors Association, Austin 

Texas Food Bank Network, Austin 

Texas Homeless Network, Austin 

Texas Low Income Housing Information 

Service, Austin 

Texas School Public Relations 

Association, Austin 

Texas Tenants’ Union, Dallas 

The Kitchen ‘‘Meals on Wheels,’’ Wichita 

Falls 

The Woodlands Grass Roots 

Environmental Education Network 

(GREEN), The Woodlands 
79 

TIRR Foundation, Houston 

Urban Progress Community 

Development Corporation (UPCDC) 

Texas, Inc., Dallas 

Wood County Health Department, 

Quitman 

YWCA Fort Worth & Tarrant County, 

Fort Worth 

Utah 

Brigham City Senior Center Meals on 

Wheels, Brigham City 

Crossroads Urban Center, Salt Lake City 

Disabled Rights Action Committee, Salt 

Lake City 

Seekhaven Family Crisis & Resource 

Center, Moab 

The Learning Center for Families, St. 

George 

Tri-County Independent Living Center, 

Woods Cross 

University of Utah Health Sciences, Salt 

Lake 

Utah Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Salt Lake City 

Utah Association of Secondary School 

Principals, West Jordan 

Utah Developmental Disabilities Council 

Utah Education Association, Salt Lake 

City 

Utah Food Bank, Salt Lake City 

Utah Housing Coalition, Salt Lake City 

Utah School Counselor Association, 

Murray 

Utah State University Center for 

Persons with Disabilities, Logan 

Utahns Against Hunger, Salt Lake City 

Voices for Utah Children, Salt Lake City 

Vermont 

Addison County Community Trust, 

Vergennes 

Area Agency on Aging for Northeastern 

Vermont, St. Johnsbury 

Bennington County Head Start, 

Bennington 

Brattleboro Area Affordable Housing, 

Brattleboro 

Brattleboro Housing Authority, 

Brattleboro 

Central Vermont Council on Aging, 

Barre 

Champlain Housing Trust, Burlington 

Chelsea Area Senior Citizen’s Center, 

Chelsea 

Department of Economic Housing & 

Community Development, Montpelier 

Disability Rights Vermont, Montpelier 

Franklin Central Supervisory Union, St. 

Albans 

Galley Senior Meals Program, Barre 

Greater Northfield Senior Citizens, Inc., 

Northfield 

Hunger Free Vermont, South Burlington 

Lamoille North Supervisory Union, Hyde 

Park 

Lamoille South Supervisory Union, 

Morrisville, Stowe, Elmore 

North Country Schools Supervisory 

Union, Newport City 

Northgate Residents’ Ownership 

Corporation, Burlington 

Safe Kids Addison County, Vergennes 

Sexual Assault Crisis Team, Barre 

South Royalton Area Senior Citizen’s 

Center, South Royalton 

Twin Valley Seniors, Inc., Marshfield 

United Counseling Service of Bennington 

County, Bennington 

Vermont Adult Learning, Waterbury 

Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, 

Burlington 

Vermont Center for Independent Living, 

Montpelier 

Vermont Child Passenger Safety, Milton 

Vermont Community Loan Fund, 

Montpelier 

Vermont Council of Special Education 

Administrators, Montpelier 

Vermont Education Opportunity 

Program (VEOP), Brandon 

Vermont Educational Opportunity 

Programs (VEOP), Castleton 

Vermont Occupational Therapy 

Association, Plainfield 

Vermont Works for Women, Winooski 

Vermont-NEA, Montpelier 

VocRehab Vermont, Williston 

Voices for Vermont’s Children, 

Montpelier 

Washington West Supervisory Union, 

Waitsfield 

Virginia 

A Hope 4 Tomorrow, Inc., Portsmouth 

Beach House, Inc., Virginia Beach 

Byrd Elementary School, Richmond 

Coalition for Justice, Blacksburg 

Community Housing Partners, 

Christiansburg 

ENDependence Center of Northern VA, 

Arlington 

Families & Allies of Virginia’s Youth, 

Arlington 

FeedMore, Inc., Richmond 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Virginia, Richmond 

Local Office on Aging, Roanoke 

Mental Health America, CharlottesvilleAlbemarle, Charlottesville 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI) NoVa, Leesburg 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

(NAMI), Virginia Beach 

Partnership for People with 

Disabilities—University Center for 
80 

Excellence in Developmental 

Disabilities (UCEDD), Richmond 

Potomac & Chesapeake Association for 

College Admission Counseling, 

Virginia Beach 

Prince George County Public Schools, 

Prince George 

Public Housing of Residents, 

Charlottesville 

Richmond Public Schools, Richmond 

Sexual Assault Victims Advocacy 

Services (SAVAS), Woodbridge 

Social Action Linking Together (SALT), 

Vienna 

The Virginia School Counselor 

Association, Manassas 

University of Virginia, Charlottesville 

Virginia Association of Centers for 

Independent Living, Roanoke 

Virginia Association of Community 

Services Boards, Richmond 

Virginia Association of Educational 

Opportunity Program Personnel, 

Wytheville 

Virginia Association of School 

Librarians, Richmond 

Virginia Association of Secondary School 

Principals, Richmond 

Virginia Council of Administrators of 

Special Education (VCASE), Hopewell 

Virginia Education Association, 

Richmond 

Virginia Housing Coalition, Richmond 

Virginia Office for Protection and 

Advocacy, Richmond 

Virginia Organizing, Charlottesville 

Voices for Virginia’s Children, Richmond 

Virginia Local Initiatives Support 

Corporation, Richmond 

Virgin Islands 

St. Croix Educational Administrators’ 

Association, St. Croix 

Washington 

Above The Line: The Poverty Project, 

Lacey 

Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern 

Washington, Spokane 

API Chaya, Seattle 

Asian Counseling & Referral Service, 

Seattle 

Association of Washington School 

Principals, Odessa 

Campion Foundation, Seattle 

Career Path Services, Spokane 

Cascadia Community College, Bothell 

Center for Independence, Tacoma 

Central Kitsap School District, 

Silverdale 

Children’s Alliance, Seattle 

Church of Steadfast Love, Seattle 

Columbia River Economic Development 

Council, Vancouver 

Community Psychiatric Clinic, Seattle 

Compass Housing Alliance, Seattle 

Conscious Talk Radio, Issaquah 

Food Lifeline, Seattle 

Frontier Behavioral Health, Spokane 

Granger School District #204, Granger 

Heartlandz L.L.C., Bellingham 

HomeStep, Seattle 

Immanuel Community Services, Seattle 

Impact Capital, Seattle 

Inchelium School Board, Inchelium 

Infectious Disease Research Institute 

(IDRI), Seattle 

Innocence Project Northwest, Seattle 

International Longshore and Warehouse 

Union, Seattle 

Islamic Civic Engagement Project, 

Seattle 

Kitsap Mental Health Services, 

Bremerton 

Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Seattle 

Lutheran Community Services 

Northwest, Spokane 

Mount Adams School District #209, 

White Swan 

Nespelem School District #14, Nespelem 

Northwest Harvest, Seattle 

Northwest Health Law Advocates, 

Seattle 

Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing, 

Yakima 

Pacific Northwest Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Seattle 

Parents Organizing for Welfare and 

Economic Rights, Olympia 

Pend Oreille County Counseling 

Services, Newport 

Pierce County Housing Authority, 

Tacoma 

Port Gamble Elder’s Program, Kingston 

Port Gamble S’Klallam Housing 

Authority, Kingston 

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe Early 

Childhood Education Program Policy 

Council, Kingston 

Puget Sound Alliance for Retired 

Americans, Seattle 

Puget Sound ESD, Renton 

Sacred Heart Social Justice Ministry, 

Pullman 

Save A Life, Puyallup 

Seattle BioMed, Seattle 

Seattle Biomedical Research Institute 

and Institute for Systems Biology, 

Seattle 

Seattle Jobs Initiative, Seattle 

Sexual Assault and Family Trauma 

Response Center, Spokane 

Skagit Habitat for Humanity, Mount 

Vernon 

Solid Ground, Seattle 

Sound Mental Health, Seattle 

The Arc of King County, Seattle 

The Arc of Snohomish County, Everett 

The Arc of Tri-Cities, Richland 
81 

The Arc of Washington State 

Triumph Treatment Services, Yakima 

Washington Association for Career and 

Technical Education, Olympia 

Washington Association of School 

Business Officials, Tumwater 

Washington CAN!, Seattle 

Washington Community Mental Health 

Council, Seattle 

Washington ElderCare Alliance, Olympia 

Washington Global Health Alliance, 

Seattle 

Washington Library Media Association 

(WLMA), Seattle 

Washington State Association of Head 

Start and ECEAP, Bellevue 

Washington State Council on Aging, 

Spokane 

Washington State TRIO Association, 

Seattle 

Wellpinit School District, Wellpinit 

Willapa Behavioral Health, Long Beach 

Women’s Coalition of Washington, 

Yakima 

WorkForce Central, Tacoma 

Workforce Development Council SeattleKing County, Seattle 

Yakima Valley System of Care, Yakima 

Valley Cities Counseling, Kent 

West Virginia 

Boone County Community Organization, 

Madison 

CommunityWorks in West Virginia, Inc., 

Charleston 

Hampshire County Schools, Romney 

Huntington Area Food Bank, Huntington 

Mason County Schools, Point Pleasant 

Morgan County Board of Education, 

Berkeley Springs 

Mountain Community Action Project of 

West Virginia, Inc., Buckhannon 

Northern West Virginia Center for 

Independent Living, Morgantown 

Pocahontas County Health Department, 

Marlinton 

The Fairmont Morgantown Housing 

Authority, Fairmont 

Tucker County Schools, Parsons 

Valley HealthCare System, Morgantown 

West Virginia Association of Secondary 

School Principals (WVASSP), 

Charleston 

West Virginia Campus Compact, 

Morgantown 

West Virginia Coalition to End 

Homelessness, Inc., Weston 

West Virginia Council of Administrators 

of Special Education, Franklin 

West Virginia TRiO Association, 

Huntington 

West Virginia University, Morgantown 

Wisconsin 

Access to Independence, Madison 

AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, 

Statewide 

Ashland County Aging Unit, Inc., 

Ashland 

Association of Wisconsin School 

Administrators, Madison 

ASTOP Sexual Abuse Services, Fond du 

Lac 

Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 

City of Kenosha Housing Authority, 

Kenosha 

CWC HIV/AIDS Advocacy, Policy & 

Procedure Consultant Service, 

Milwaukee 

Disability Rights Wisconsin, Madison 

Edgewood College, Madison 

Family Forum, Inc., Superior 

Grassroots Empowerment Project, 

Madison 

HAVEN, Inc., Merrill 

HIRSCH GROUP Architects, Madison 

Independent Living Council of 

Wisconsin, Inc., Madison 

La Crosse Wisconsin WIC Program, La 

Crosse 

LaLeche League of Racine, Racine 

Learning Disabilities Association of 

Wisconsin, Kiel 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Milwaukee, Milwaukee 

Marquette University, Milwaukee 

Menominee Indian School District, 

Keshena 

Mental Health America of Wisconsin, 

Madison 

Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment 

Board (MAWIB), Milwaukee 

Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated 

Employment Program (CEP, Inc.), 

Ashland 

Northwest Wisconsin Workforce 

Investment Board, Inc., Ashland 

Polk County Health Department, Balsam 

Lake 

Psychonomic Society, Madison 

Reach Counseling Services, Inc., Neenah 

School District of Wabeno Area, Wabeno 

Southwest Wisconsin Workforce 

Development Board, Platteville 

Wisconsin Association for College 

Admission Counseling, Madison 

Wisconsin Association of Educational 

Opportunity Program Personnel 

(WAEOPP), Superior 

Wisconsin Association of School Business 

Officials, Madison 

Wisconsin Council of Administrators of 

Special Services, Madison 

Wisconsin Council on Children and 

Families, Madison 

Wisconsin Education Association 

Council, Madison 
82 

Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for 

Education, Training, and Support, 

Inc., Milwaukee 

Wisconsin Manufactured Home Owners 

Association, Inc., Marshall 

Wisconsin Regional Training 

Partnership, Milwaukee 

Wisconsin School Counselor Association, 

Madison 

Wisconsin School Psychologists 

Association, La Crosse 

Wisconsin School Social Work 

Association, Milwaukee 

Wisconsin WIC Association, Oshkosh 

Workforce Development Board of South 

Central Wisconsin, Madison 

Wyoming 

Fremont County Public Health, Lander 

Fremont County School District #14, 

Ethete 

Fremont County School District #21, 

Fort Washakie 

Natrona County Meals on Wheels, 

Casper 

Wyoming Association of Secondary 

School Principals, Laramie 

Wyoming Children’s Action Alliance, 

Cheyenne 

Wyoming Coalition for the Homeless, 

Cheyenne 

Wyoming Occupational Therapy 

Association, Casper 

Wyoming Protection & Advocacy System, 

Inc., Cheyenne 

Wyoming School Counselors Association, 

Worland 

Senator MURRAY. So thank you very much for that. 

And, Secretary Donovan, let me begin with you. In your testimony, you pointed out the consequences of sequestration cuts to 

HUD programs, more than 200,000 families being at risk of losing 

their housing. But those kinds of cuts really move past just the implications you talked about. 

Cuts to military and domestic spending will result in significant 

job losses across our country. So middle class families will find 

themselves threatened because they have lost their job, resulting 

in housing—at a very fragile time in our housing market and our 

economy. 

Could you talk a little bit about how the massive job layoffs that 

would occur, if sequestration was implemented, would affect the 

housing market? 

Secretary DONOVAN. One of the things that is so important, as 

you know, Senator, as the chair of our subcommittee, is that for 

every $1 we put into housing, we are typically seeing $5 or $10 of 

private capital that come in and multiply the impacts. And so, if 

you go in reverse, you multiply the impact of these cuts across all 

of the private investment that comes into housing. 

HOUSING

So, literally, when you look at whether it is our direct housing 

construction programs or community development block grant, for 

every one of the tens of thousands of jobs that you would lose 

through the direct spending that we have in construction, the ripple effects into factory workers, real estate agents, lenders, all of 

those, what you see is 5 to 10 times the number of job cuts that 

happen because you don’t have private capital coming in. And then, 

you build on that, a loss of confidence. 

Again, housing has been driving our economic recovery. It has 

been one of the main things that really has turned around in the 

past year. Just to cut that off at a time—you will see less consumer 

spending, families won’t go to restaurants if the equity in their 

home is dropping, loss of confidence in neighborhoods means that 

prices could potentially turn back around. 
83 

The ripple effects are enormous because of how central housing 

is to our economy and our economic recovery. 

Senator MURRAY. So implementation of the sequestration would 

not only have a direct impact on the housing programs, but on the 

job market, the other folks, but the confidence factor at this time, 

when we are very fragile as well, will have a huge—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. 

Senator MURRAY [continuing]. Long-term ripple effect, as well. 

SEQUESTER WOULD HIT HARD ALREADY FISCALLY STRAPPED LOCAL

EDUCATION AGENCIES

Secretary Duncan, education is a top priority of mine. And I 

know sequestration is going to have a huge impact, as we have 

heard. 

I heard from Yakima school district in my State. They have a 

free and reduced price lunch-rate at 83 percent. They told me it 

would impact them with a $1.6 million budget cut. This is after our 

State legislature has already had impacts at our own local school 

districts. 

We have districts like Central Kitsap and Clover Park that are 

close to military bases. 

Can you tell me how you would see just the general impact of 

these districts having to cope with sequestration? You alluded a little bit, those districts right now are making their decisions about 

hiring teachers. Talk a little bit more about the impacts we would 

see. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Well, first, again, we are not just coming into 

this situation in a vacuum. We have to look at the past couple of 

years. Through the Recovery Act, we were lucky enough—thanks 

to Congress’ support—to save about 300,000 educator jobs. But the 

Nation also lost about 300,000 educator jobs. 

So we have class sizes that are much higher than we would like. 

We have fewer children engaged in afterschool programs and summer school programs. I am always fighting for more time, not less 

time. So we are at a very, very tough economic time. 

CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

For many long-time educators, this is the toughest financial situation they have been in, in 20, 30, 40 years. So now to compound 

that problem, and to remove additional resources now, would just 

exacerbate a really tough situation that we are trying to make better. 

Again, other countries aren’t doing this. This is not what South 

Korea is doing. They are investing more. And that is where the 

competition is. So for us to not be thoughtful in this just doesn’t 

make sense. 

And then, finally, you know, every good superintendent is trying 

to do budget planning now for next year. And, as a superintendent 

you are trying to hire staff. You are trying to hire the best staff. 

You are trying to figure out your afterschool program and your 

summer school programming now for June and July. And when you 

have a lack of stability, when you don’t know what is going on, you 

have to plan for the worst. That is the prudent thing to do. So you 

don’t schedule the summer stuff. You raise your class sizes. 
84 

And so, to take away stability—the least we could do in tough 

economic times is give people stability and predictability so they 

can manage. To take that away just undermines the great work 

that people do at the local level. And, again, that is not why any 

of us came to Washington, to hurt that. 

NEGATIVE IMPACT OF LARGER CLASS SIZES

Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that, and I just wanted to remind 

all of us, just increasing class size isn’t just a phrase. I talked to 

a middle school teacher a few weeks ago after Newtown who told 

me that she now has so many kids in each one of her middle school 

classes, she has no ability to know each one of those kids anymore. 

And at a time when we are really counting on our educators to 

know their kids, because of the impacts of not knowing them, this 

is a real consequence to our country. 

IMPACT ON HEAD START

Secretary DUNCAN. And just quickly to add to that, Senator, you 

and Senator Harkin and so many others have fought so hard to get 

more children engaged in early childhood education. The President 

talked about that extensively in the State of the Union Address. It 

is the best long-term investment we can make. 

Our good friend Secretary Sebelius isn’t here today, but I talked 

earlier in my testimony, about the 70,000 potentially fewer children in Head Start—children would be kicked out of Head Start, 

not new ones going in, but fewer children would have access. How 

is that the right thing to do for the long haul? 

Senator MURRAY. And remind us all, they grow up to be adults. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. We now go to Senator Coats, the ranking 

member now on the Homeland Security Subcommittee. He is going 

to be followed by Senator Tom Udall—you are next—to be followed 

by Senator Murkowski, to be followed by Senator Feinstein. That 

will be the next four. And after that, we will announce the next 

group. 

If your staff is curious where you all are, come over and talk to 

my staff. But we are moving. And this is a very content-rich hearing. 

Senator Coats, please. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS

Senator COATS. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to be moving 

along with you in the chair, and all of us adhering to the 5-minute 

rule, and I am no exception to that. 

The point I want to try to make is, you have all made a case for 

having to deal with shrinking resources. 

I didn’t support the sequester, either. I agree it is not the best 

way to deal with it. These are issues we should be working on together through the regular process, separating the essential from 

the ‘‘like to do, but we can’t afford it right now’’, from ‘‘maybe we 

shouldn’t be doing that at all’’, and ‘‘wouldn’t it be better if we 

could transfer those funds into something that is more essential.’’ 
85 

Every agency head and Secretary, and others that have been before our Appropriations Committee the last 2 years, I have asked 

this same question. We have to deal with the reality that our mandatory spending is running away with our budget. The discretionary portion of both defense and nondefense discretionary is 

ever-shrinking, not necessarily because that is the way it should be 

or the way we should be allocating the Nation’s resources, but because the part of the pie that we have no control over, in terms of 

growth, is just simply continuing to eat up more and more of our 

annual budget. 

You can only tax so much. We just took care of taxes through the 

fiscal cliff. I supported that. 

But the point I want to try to make is, should we not all be dealing with the reality of what we are facing? 

Look, when World War II ended, our soldiers came home. We recovered from a depression, and everybody started having babies. 

The so-called ‘‘baby boom’’ has been like a pig going through a 

python. 

First, we needed nurseries. And then we needed diapers in enormous amounts, and then elementary schools, and then junior high 

schools. This whole bulge that occurred in the post-war period here 

has moved through our economy. And now it is retirement; 10,000 

baby boomers a day are retiring. 

And we have mandatory programs in place that provide 

healthcare needs and healthcare finances and retirement security 

that none of us want to undo. But the reality is, these are the facts 

that we are dealing with and we need reforms. 

And should we not all be here, Republicans and Democrats and 

agency heads and Secretaries and others, working to try to find a 

way to address this ever-increasing mandatory spending so that we 

have funds available for defense and essential nondefense functions? 

The sequester is a 1-year fix that we are trying to do now. 

Shouldn’t we be doing the long-term fix? And are you pleading with 

the White House to work on this with the Congress? Are we working together to try to address what we should have been addressing, if not years ago, decades ago? We have all seen this coming. 

This modern miracle of medicine has increased life expectancy, 

which used to be not higher than 70. Now people are living to be 

80 and 85, and 90, 95 years old. We are blessed with this miracle 

of providing us opportunities to live longer. George Will, I think, 

said, ‘‘If so, after turning 70, one has, ever after, the pleasure of 

playing, as it were, with house money’’, when you look at the whole 

history of civilization in terms of how long people live. 

And second, we have known this baby boom crunch is coming the 

last 30, 35 years. And in all that time, we have done one thing to 

address mandatory spending, the 1984 Social Security fix, which 

bought us about 35 or 40 years of solvency for Social Security by 

raising the retirement age and making some sensible reforms. 

And so we talk about this all the time. But here we are pleading 

with doomsday scenarios about what is going to happen when we 

all know regardless of where you come down—whether you support 

medical research, education, better housing, strengthening our national defense, or making sure it stays strong, or guarding the bor-
86 

der—all the things you are discussing here, you have to get money 

from an ever-shrinking piece of the pie. 

So, I guess my question is, when are we all going to step up and 

press our respective colleagues, whether you are Republican or 

Democrat, liberal or conservative, to address this problem? This is 

a budget problem that we have to deal with on a long-term basis. 

So I just wanted to make that point. And I have used up all my 

time. 

Mr. WERFEL. Can I offer a very quick response? 

Senator COATS. If it is all right with the chairwoman, you can. 

My time is expired. 

Mr. WERFEL. Very quick, as quick as I can. 

The President on multiple occasions has put forward a plan that would create $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years. A $4 trillion deficit reduction is something that Members of both parties’ 

independent experts have pointed to as an important benchmark to 

lay a critical foundation for longer-term deficit reduction into many 

years into the future. Part of that $4 trillion plan, key components of it, involve sensible reforms to mandatory programs and entitlements. So there is, 

in the President’s proposal, specific areas that start making those 

types of sensible reforms. Also, you know, they embody the spending cuts that were in the BCA, and there is then tax reform, as 

well. 

But I just wanted to make sure that I got down on the record that, within the President’s $4 trillion plan, there are sensible entitlement reforms. 

Senator COATS. There has been some of that in what the President proposes. There have been Democratic and Republican plans. 

But we haven’t done it. And I think the time is up, and we need 

to do it. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Tom Udall. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And I think the five of you have made a very compelling case of 

how devastating this sequester could be. 

And, Madam Chair, let me just say to you what a great pleasure 

it is to participate in my first Senate Appropriations Committee 

hearing. I wish it was under more pleasant circumstances. 

Before I turn to our witnesses for some questions, I would like 

to make two points. 

Sequestration threatens damaging cuts for New Mexico’s national labs, military facilities, and border security. If implemented, 

those cuts will be very damaging, I believe, to our national security. 

Sequestration will also be very damaging to some of New Mexico’s most vulnerable: children in need of a quality education, rural 

communities struggling with housing, and homeless veterans seeking emergency shelter. 

NATIONAL SECURITY LABS

Mr. Werfel and Mr. Carter, my first question goes to you. New 

Mexico’s national security laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia, 
87 

work to support our stockpile stewardship mission. I believe the sequester’s across-the-board cuts, including the 9.4-percent cut facing 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons account, will hamper important stockpile stewardship work across 

the country. 

Needless to say, there is absolutely zero tolerance for mistakes 

when dealing with nuclear weapons. Are you concerned that sequestration cuts pose unacceptable risks to the NNSA? And is DOD 

concerned about the impacts on its strategic missions as a result? 

Mr. Werfel, why don’t you go first on that? 

Mr. WERFEL. I will start, because, as you mentioned, I think 

NNSA does fall within the defense category in the sequester; therefore, it faces roughly an 8-percent cut, which will be applied, as I 

understand it, evenly across all NNSA labs and plants. 

You mentioned Sandia. It is my understanding that critical milestones will be delayed for that lab as a result of the sequester. For 

Los Alamos, we are looking at $46 million cut to procurement, hiring freezes, and furlough days for certain employees. 

So absolutely, there is significant concern. There is concern 

across Government. 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Your question about NNSA, I think it is not safe from the impacts of the sequester. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Carter. 

Dr. CARTER. We are the customer for NNSA. We are the ones 

who depend upon them making a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear 

arsenal that we can put aboard our delivery system. So I am concerned about it. 

It, as Mr. Werfel says, at a minimum, stretches out all the stockpile life extension programs, which is not good, because it makes 

them, first of all, more expensive, and second of all, we don’t have 

time in many of those cases. 

So I am concerned about it. Very much concerned about it. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for those answers. 

I am going to do everything I can, if we go into this sequester, 

to make sure that we protect these national laboratories that are 

real jewels. 

IMPACTS ON NEW MEXICO’S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

Mr. Carter, New Mexico’s military installations, Cannon Air 

Force Base, Kirtland Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, 

White Sands Missile Range, and part of Fort Bliss, are unique to 

our Nation’s national security objectives due to New Mexico’s large, 

unencumbered airspace, unique geography, and intellectual capital. 

The sequester will impact long-term readiness, as well as future 

defense research, in favor of a reckless plan to reduce the budget. 

And I think you have talked a little bit about that. 

Are you concerned with the impacts of the sequester on these 

New Mexico installations? What are the near- and short-term consequences of reduced training at Air Force bases, and the reduction 

of research and development at White Sands, the Air Force research lab, and similar test ranges? 
88 

Dr. CARTER. In the near term, you will see, in the final months 

of this year, a sharp curtailment of range activity and other training activities. We don’t have any choice about that. We are just 

simply going to run out of money in those operations and maintenance accounts. 

In the long run, if the reductions in budgetary authority forecast, which in our case is around $500 billion over 10 years, not all of 

these facilities can survive. 

We asked last year for base realignment and closure (BRAC) authority even to make the huge adjustment we are already making. 

The $487 billion that we absorbed last year, that $487 billion, those 

cuts extend over 10 years. And you can’t keep the tooth if you are 

not able to cut the tail. So inevitably, some of these installations 

are going to have to be reduced. 

So both in the near term and far term, it will have an effect on 

those installations. We just don’t have any choice. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Carter, you mentioned in your testimony— 

and I am wrapping up, Madam Chair—you mentioned in your testimony about small business being hurt by this. I think that could 

be a real impact in New Mexico and across the country. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Murkowski, you are also serving 

as ranking member on Interior; is that right? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. Looking forward to it with great enthusiasm. 

Secretary Carter, you mentioned that the wolf is at our door on 

this one. I am worried that the wolf is already inside. We are all 

trying to acknowledge we don’t like sequestration, it is blunt, it is 

ugly, and it just doesn’t work. But it does force us to deal with 

budget cuts. It forces us to deal with a $16.4 trillion debt. 

So whether we are dealing with sequestration or whether we are 

just dealing with budget cuts, it does force prioritization. And if we 

are not working every day as lawmakers, or you within the administration, to make sure that we are easing the pain of these cuts 

wherever they may fall, whether it is within our defense, or housing, or education, then we are not doing right by our constituents, 

we are not doing right by our country. 

I want to speak very quickly to a frustration that I have where 

I am seeing budgetary decisions that are just not making sense at 

a time when we are forced to prioritize. We are forced to be looking 

to spending reductions. 

This is what is going on my State of Alaska with a backdoor 

BRAC run on Eielson Air Force Base. We are essentially looking 

at our fiscal year 2012 continuing resolution levels that we recognize, and you have pointed out, are very problematic. We have the 

possibility of sequestration. We have this committee’s direction to 

the Air Force to postpone force structure proposals until the Commission on the Structure of the Air Force reports back in 2014. 

We have a first-year cost on this proposal on Eielson of $5.6 million, and the fact that essentially the same move was rejected back 

in 2005, yet the Air Force is moving forward with this plan. 
89 

Just last week they held four scoping meetings in Alaska, despite 

the Department’s ban on nonmission critical travel. 

So I look at this and I’m saying, wait a minute. We are supposed 

to be prioritizing, and yet you have the Department moving forward with a plan that costs money rather than taking an enterprise-wide look at all our Air Force bases in determining where 

force structure reductions should fall. So you can probably sense 

my frustration there. 

PRIORITIES

But when we are talking about priorities, it needs to make sense 

all the way, not just beyond March 1. 

Can you comment on that, please? 

Dr. CARTER. You are absolutely right. It does have to make sense 

beyond March 1. 

And you are also correct that we are paying a huge long-term 

price for the short-term disruptions that we are experiencing right 

now. 

I am already doing things in the Department to curb spending. 

So in that sense, the wolf is in the door. 

And that is another reason why short-term fixes don’t really help 

us out much. They don’t help our industry out very much, and they 

don’t give us the stability that we need. 

To the particular point you make, that is a very legitimate issue 

that actually precedes and is somewhat independent of the sequester. That is, it was an issue we had last year before the sequester 

came in. It is a matter of priorities. I understand that there was 

disagreement this year about a number of the adjustments that the 

Air Force made, and that is why there is going to be a Commission 

on the Future of the Air Force. We understand that. We are absolutely committed to working with that commission. 

And the Air Force understands that, and we are not going to 

take actions that contravene the decisions that were made earlier 

this year. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I would certainly hope that we are 

looking long term to our critical military assets and don’t make 

short-term decisions based on numbers that simply don’t hold up. 

Let me ask Mr. Werfel—— 

Dr. CARTER. May I just comment on that point, because that is 

another very—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, but I do need to get to Mr. Werfel before my time expires. 

Dr. CARTER. Well, I was just going to say, we are making decisions. I mean, sequestration does force decisions that don’t make 

any sense, as does the continuing resolution. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Werfel, let me ask you, one of the most 

important Federal responsibilities across our Nation is the trust responsibilities for American Indians, Alaska natives. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

One of the programs that we are dealing with within the Indian 

Health Service (IHS) is a trust responsibility to these native people. Now, within the Veterans Administration (VA), within Medicaid, they are off the table in terms of cuts. 
90 

So, my question to you is, given the critical nature of the 

healthcare services to our tribes, what actions is IHS taking to 

minimize the impacts of the delivery of healthcare on the Indian 

community, given the trust responsibility that is different than any 

of the other responsibilities that we have out there, other than perhaps our veterans? 

And, Madam Chairman, I realize that I have gone over my time, 

and I do apologize. 

Mr. WERFEL. Well, Senator Murkowski, I think you are pointing 

out that the impacts of the sequester are beyond the bounds of the 

witnesses here. They impact a broad range of programs and activities, and programs that serve Native Americans are no different. 

As you mentioned, IHS is subject to the sequester. On the mandatory side, it is capped at 2 percent, but it is not on the discretionary side. 

What we have asked each agency to do, whether it is an agency 

that is serving Native American populations or otherwise, is to figure out how to implement the sequester in a way that is going to 

best serve mission, balancing all other priorities. 

And one of the things we have come to the conclusion, and you 

can draw that conclusion from the testimony today, there is no way 

to fully protect mission here, because the indiscriminate and abrupt cuts, as they were designed, are enormously disruptive. 

But with respect to programs that are serving Native Americans, 

I will take your question back, and we can work with those agencies to get you a fuller answer. 

But what I can say is, it is disruptive, and we are really asking 

the agencies to do everything they can to minimize that disruption. 

But that is not going to be possible if we go forward with this sequester. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. And that is really the point of what we 

are getting to, which is, no matter what, there is no good way out 

of this. There are no good choices. 

We are going to go now to Senator Feinstein, but before we do, 

just a couple of points. Some members had to leave before they got 

to ask a question. 

I note that Senator Kirk had to leave, and we really wanted to 

give him a very affectionate, actually, welcome back. If he has a 

statement, we will put it into the record. 

Senator Leahy had to leave. We will put his statement into the 

record, and extend those courtesies. 

Now, just to give a sense of the lineup, it will be Feinstein, 

Blunt, Landrieu, Boozman, and Begich, then Moran and then 

Shaheen and then we will be into kind of our moving along. So 

right now, it is Feinstein, then Blunt, then Landrieu, then 

Boozman, then Begich. Okay? 

So, you will be next, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to just begin with something that you said. I think we are 

already feeling the effects of sequestration in imprecision and eco-
91 

nomic uncertainty. I find it really beginning to happen in California. 

California will lose the most jobs by far of any State. George 

Mason University did a study. They predicted that we would lose 

225,544 jobs, of which 135,209, Ash Carter, are from your Department. 

So what is happening is, with the knowledge that there is going 

to be 10 years of this, people are now beginning to make decisions 

out there, subcontractors, contractors, to cut staff and to be ready. 

And so I happen to believe, next to a major war, economically, 

it is the worst thing that could happen for this country, and we 

should end it. 

Madam Secretary of DHS, I want to thank you. You were the 

most precise of everybody as to what we can expect. 

I do energy and water. We tried to find out, what does this mean 

for the labs? Our staff has spent a lot of time trying to find out, 

where are the cuts? Who is going to suffer the cuts? It is like a 

ghost with nothing under it. 

So everybody is concerned about what is going to happen to 

them, and we can give no one a straight answer. It is a bad, bad 

phenomenon, and it ought to end before it really catches hold of 

America and does a great deal of damage. 

Let me ask you about one thing, and this is for California. It 

happens to involve the only shipyard on the west coast, National 

Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) in San Diego, 3,500 

jobs. We worked very hard to achieve long-lead financing for three 

mobile platform ships. We have that financing. 

NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

What, exactly, will happen to NASSCO and the long-lead financing, Deputy Secretary Carter? 

Dr. CARTER. Well, not good things. I am concerned about it. 

CONTINUING RESOLUTION

First of all, there is the continuing resolution problem, which I 

mentioned earlier, with simply having the authority to proceed on 

the basis that we planned in shipbuilding. But the second is the 

sequester and the reduction in budgetary caps over the long run, 

and that is going to have a huge effect on our shipbuilding industry. 

And NASSCO is especially vulnerable in that regard. I was just 

there a couple of months ago, and I am very concerned about that. 

There is no question there will be a major restructuring in shipbuilding as a result. I think we will get through the continuing resolution thing—it is very inefficient—but as a result of the sequester 

and the cuts down the road. And that is just one part of our defense. 

LONG-LEAD FINANCING

Senator FEINSTEIN. Will it lose long-lead financing? 

Dr. CARTER. It depends on whether the continuing resolution 

issue is resolved or not. If that is resolved, then there is a chance 

we can do that. 
92 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, this is exactly what I am talking about, 

in terms of—it is not your fault—but imprecision, uncertainty, people have to make decisions with respect to contracts, and so they 

make them negatively. 

Intelligence, it is my understanding a number of agencies, National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, 

National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Intelligence Agency, all 

fall under the DOD budget. It is my understanding that Director 

Clapper has asked that he be involved in these decisions. Have you 

worked out an agreement with him? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, yes. No, he and I talk all the time. 

By the way, I do with all our managers, our service chiefs, our 

installation heads. There is just a huge amount of detail here, and 

a huge number of management decisions that we are trying to 

make in the uncertainty that you mentioned. 

And that is all mirrored in our industry as well. So at NASSCO, 

are they going to assume that the continuing resolution is lifted or 

not? Are we going to assume that? I don’t know. 

So we do tend to make very conservative decisions, which, if this 

all goes away, we will regret because they will have introduced 

waste, delay, and inefficiency for no reason at all. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Blunt, and I understand you are 

now the ranking member on the Agriculture, Rural Development, 

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. 

Senator BLUNT. That is right. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. We have a good lineup. This is great. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT

Senator BLUNT. Thank you, and thank you for the time. 

We keep talking about the fact that we can take some balanced 

approach between spending cuts and revenues. I will tell you, I am 

confused by the idea that there appear to be no spending cuts that 

can be taken. 

We have $60 billion in new revenue this year that we wouldn’t 

have had last year, but we can’t find $85 billion worth of cuts. 

Now, I will accept the idea that nobody told anybody that this 

sequester was actually going to happen, even though it was in the 

law. I had a chance to be in a hearing with Secretary Carter this 

week, and I asked him, what number did you submit for the OMB 

budget planning for this year? And he said that they submitted a 

number based on a presequester number. 

Is that right, Secretary? 

Dr. CARTER. That is right. The fiscal year 2014 budget preparation is based on that assumption. 

Senator BLUNT. And did you submit any alternative for what 

happens if you have to deal with the sequester number? 

Dr. CARTER. No, we have not done that. 

Senator BLUNT. So once again, we are not prioritizing. We are 

saying this is taking us by surprise. We don’t have time to cut, but 

we are apparently not making any plan to take a cut next year either. 
93 

Secretary Napolitano, what number did you submit, do you 

know? For the budget the President is now putting together? 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The fiscal year 2014 budget? 

Senator BLUNT. Yes. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The fiscal year 2014 budget, I think the 

guidance was to go 5 percent less than the fiscal year 2012 enacted 

level. But I will have to double check that. 

Senator BLUNT. Why don’t we just ask? What was the guidance 

from OMB on the fiscal year 2014 budget? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think that is correct. It was 5 percent less than 

the net discretionary total provided for agencies for fiscal year 2014 

in the fiscal year 2013 budget. 

And, you know, just to respond in real time to one of your earlier 

points, what is important to remember is the BCA had within it 

roughly $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts that are imposed 

through spending caps. Those were embodied in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget. 

Senator BLUNT. Right. 

Mr. WERFEL. And that obviously puts enormous budgetary pressure on our agencies. It requires us to make tough choices. 

The challenge, right now, is $85 billion over 7 months. And the 

way it is done so indiscriminately, across every program, project, 

and activity, that is the challenge that you can plan for but you 

can’t avoid the harmful impacts of. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, I accept that. But the idea that we need 

to cut spending, but it needs to be a balanced approach seems to 

me to fly in the face of the idea that nobody has any idea how to 

reach this goal even if one-half of it is revenue. And it seems to 

me that we are not planning that very well either. 

SEQUESTER EFFECT ON IMPACT AID FUNDS

I want to ask a couple of questions. Secretary Donovan, you said, 

just to clarify for me, on a reservation funding issue, you said our 

funding would be cut by one-third to a specific reservation. I assume that is the payment in lieu of taxes money? And why would 

it be one-third? You are trying to find 5 percent doubled in the end 

of the year? I could see 10 percent. You can get back to me if you 

don’t know why it is one-third. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I am sorry if you could just be—I am not 

clear. 

Senator BLUNT. In your testimony, you mentioned a specific education funding in a reservation that would be cut by one-third in 

the remainder of this year. Do you have any reason—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. I believe it was in Secretary Duncan’s. 

Senator BLUNT. I am sorry. I meant Secretary Duncan. 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is all Secretary Donovan’s fault. 

Senator BLUNT. I am inclined to blame Secretary Donovan. 

But no, you said this, Secretary Duncan. 
94 

IMPACT AID MONEY

Secretary DUNCAN. Yes, Sir. This is Impact Aid. This is aid that 

goes out to Native American areas. It goes out to areas where there 

are military families and bases. We would have to cut this money 

right away. 

And we disproportionately fund those areas because there is a 

lack of property taxes. And in that specific example, one-third of 

that district’s budget, their school budget, comes from Impact Aid 

funds. 

Senator BLUNT. So the combination of the cuts a normal district 

would take plus the sort of payment in lieu of tax revenue, the Impact Aid money that we give. 

Secretary DUNCAN. Right. And again, this would happen now. 

This is not down the road. 

Senator BLUNT. It would be 5 percent of one-third. 

On another issue, I am going to ask an OMB question here, Mr. 

Werfel. And we told you we might ask about this. 

I have some correspondence here from the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the subcommittee that Senator Pryor and I will be 

working on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 

Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, on questions 

about onsite inspectors, which if they don’t show up in a meat processing facility, that facility can’t open. You know, other kinds of 

processing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can come by 

occasionally, and that doesn’t really impact whether the plant can 

be open or not. But if the USDA inspector doesn’t show up, the 

plant can’t open. 

ONSITE INSPECTORS

Is there any way to prioritize those kinds of individuals showing 

up so 100 other workers or 1,000 other workers can show up that 

day? 

Mr. WERFEL. Unfortunately, I don’t think there is, Senator. The 

way the budget is structured for the Food Safety Inspection Service 

at USDA is that 88 percent of their total funding is spent on salaries and benefits for frontline personnel that are doing the very inspections you refer to. 

So it becomes a math issue, ultimately. They are going to get a 

certain amount of budget that, if we hit the sequester, will be canceled. And there is no way in which to find other sources of funds, 

because 88 percent of the entire budget are those very people that 

need to be at those meat plants doing that inspection to keep them 

open. 

So this is one of the very tangible and clear and significant impacts of the sequester, is that this division within USDA will not 

be able to make its core mission of sending the inspectors to these 

locations. And, therefore, under appropriate laws and regulations, 

there will be stoppages of work within those areas. So it is a very 

serious concern. 

Senator BLUNT. Well, one of the questions we will be asking, 

chairman, will be, how do you prioritize the core mission and the 

legal requirement to be at that Purdue facility or that whatever 

packing facility they need to be at, and we will be asking that. 
95 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU

Senator LANDRIEU. Madam Chair, thank you so much for your 

leadership. I couldn’t think of a better person to be in that chair 

to help us address the challenges that are ahead of us. And I look 

forward to doing my part to work with you and the ranking member. 

One of my colleagues last week made an observation that I think 

is worth repeating today, when he said, offering up flexibility, 

which is what some of my colleagues are offering to deal with the 

sequester, is like giving the passengers of the Titanic an option 

after they hit the iceberg as to what level or deck they would like 

to relocate. And I think that is very apt. 

Number two, I do think our committee would be well-advised to 

deal in reality. We have mentioned that word several times, the reality of the situation. Why is it not that some of my colleagues on 

the other side will acknowledge the reality that the revenues coming into the Federal Government are the lowest level since President Eisenhower was the President. 

What is it about that reality that the other side of the aisle will 

not embrace? Is it that they don’t believe the fact? Do they disagree 

with that fact? Do they have some other facts to put on the table? 

Because if they do, I will listen to that. I have not heard anyone 

question that. 

So that is a fact I would like to start with, because it helps us 

to frame the debate, which is, we cannot rearrange the passengers 

on the Titanic and suggest that we are doing anybody a favor. We 

have to bring more revenues. 

And $600 million, to my friend from Missouri, $600 billion is not 

enough. We have a $4 trillion problem. We have already put cuts, 

cuts to spending, that some people think is too high. I will agree 

that it is in some areas. We have already done $1.2 trillion. 

Does the other side expect us to do—what is that?—$2.8 trillion 

more? 

What revenues are going to come? That is the solution that we 

are looking for. 

Now, let me ask a question to Secretary Napolitano, because the 

same ones that argue for no new revenue also come to my subcommittee and demand that I double the number of border agents 

in the DHS budget. So I have done that. 

I have doubled the number of border agents from 9,000 to 21,000. 

We have built 651 miles of fence, which is one-third of the southern border, which is 2,000 miles. That is not counting the Canadian 

border, the eastern border with all the ports, the western border. 

This is a land border. 

We have apprehended 1.2 million illegal people coming across 

the border from 1.2. It is down to 3.6. We have added money at 

the request of members to do this, and now these same members 

won’t help us find additional money. 

So, Secretary Napolitano, please, again, tell us what is going to 

happen along our southern border, because you were the Governor 

of Arizona, you should know, if the sequester goes into effect? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, in fact, I am having a little bit of 

an out-of-body experience, because yesterday I was before the Sen-
96 

ate Judiciary Committee on immigration reform, and there was a 

lot of pressing about why we aren’t doing more at the border. 

BORDER PATROL

The plain fact of the matter is, the administration has put record 

amounts of resources at the border. As someone who comes from 

the border, I can say that needs to be sustained and built upon. 

I can tell you that under the sequester, our calculations are that 

we will lose in hours, including overtime, 5,000 CBP agents over 

the next year, out of the 21,370 that we actually have boots on the 

ground. 

In terms of staffing at the actual ports of entry, we will be looking at reductions of—well, furloughs of 12 to 14 days for every port 

officer working on a port. We are going to be looking at not being 

able to invest in the technology that is so important to make the 

most out of the boots on the ground we have at the border. 

So we are looking at longer wait times, less security between the 

ports of entry. And a third part is that ICE, which does interior 

enforcement, will not be able to meet even its congressionally mandated level of detention beds. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Yes, which is 34,000, which is mandated by 

the Congress. 

My next question you will have to answer in writing because I 

have 10 seconds. For Louisiana, this is very important, but also 

New York, California, and many other places. International travel 

is a driver of our economy, bringing jobs to America. If we cannot 

put the right number of Customs—you know, for Customs and 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and moving people 

through the lines, that is going to have a terrible impact on our 

ability to create jobs, good-paying jobs for hospitality, international 

trade. 

I am going to leave the question there and ask you to answer it 

in writing, how States like Louisiana, New York, California, and 

others will be affected at that turn. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. I can give you that with precision. 

[The information follows:] 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

February 26, 2013, Washington, DC. 

Hon. MARY L. LANDRIEU, 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, United States Senate, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN LANDRIEU: Thank you for your comments during the Senate Appropriations Committee’s February 14, 2013, hearing on sequestration. I share your 

deep concerns and wanted to follow up on your request to identify impacts to our 

Nation’s economy and international trade activities that this unprecedented budget 

reduction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have. 

Sequestration would have significant impacts on our economy, including travel, 

tourism and trade. Reductions mandated under sequestration would require furloughs and reduced staffing at our Nation’s ports of entry and airport security 

checkpoints, which would have serious consequences to the flow of trade and travel 

throughout the country. 

Trade and travel is absolutely essential to our economy. According to the U.S. 

Travel Association, one new American job is created for every 33 travelers arriving 

from overseas. DHS’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff and operate 

329 ports of entry across the country, welcoming travelers and facilitating the flow 

of goods essential to our economy. Each day, almost one million people arrive at 

these ports of entry by land, sea, and air. In fiscal year 2012 alone, DHS processed 
97 

more than 350 million travelers, including more than 98 million international air 

travelers as well as $2.3 trillion worth of trade. 

The automatic budget reductions that could be implemented on March 1, 2013 

would be disruptive and destructive to our Nation’s security and economy. At major 

gateway airports average wait times will increase by 30–50 percent. At our busiest 

airports, such as John F. Kennedy International. Los Angeles International, and 

Chicago O’Hare, peak wait times could grow to over four hours or more during the 

summer travel season. Such delays would affect air travel significantly, potentially 

causing thousands of passengers to miss flights with economic consequences at the 

local, national, and international levels. New flights that bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S. economy would be delayed or potentially denied due to 

reduced staffing. 

Sequestration will also impact our Nation’s land borders. For example, daily peak 

wait times at the El Paso Bridge of the Americas would increase from 1 hour to 

over 3 hours. 

Peak wait times at the Port of Buffalo Lewiston Bridge would increase by nearly 

6 hours, significantly slowing travel across the northern border. Midsize and smaller 

ports would experience constrained hours of operation, affecting local cross-border 

communities. 

At our seaports, delays in container examinations would increase to up to 5 days, 

resulting in increased costs to the trade community and reduced availability of consumer goods and raw materials. At cruise terminals, processing times could increase 

to up to 6 hours, causing passengers to miss connecting flights, delaying trips, and 

increasing costs. 

Last year. the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screened approximately 640 million people and their carry-on items at checkpoints, and more than 

426 million checked bags. DHS also screened over 629 million pounds of cargo with 

TSA proprietary canine teams. Sequestration would require TSA to reduce overtime 

and not backfill vacant Transportation Security Officer positions, leading to increases in airline passenger wait times by as much as an hour during peak travel 

periods at our Nation’s largest and busiest airports. 

Additional effects of sequestration would be felt by the American public from reductions to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) fisheries law enforcement, aids to navigation, 

and other important activities that help ensure the safe flow of commerce along U.S. 

waterways and the protection of natural resources. These reductions will impact the 

Coast Guard’s ability to respond to issues impacting the U.S. Marine Transportation 

System that generates more than $3.2 trillion of total economic activity, moves 78 

percent of foreign trade, and sustains over 13 million jobs each year. USCG also will 

have to reduce its patrols of the 3.4 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone—impacting fisheries enforcement and resulting in more incursions by foreign 

vessels, exploiting our natural resources. Reduced Coast Guard presence protecting 

the U.S. fishing industry would impact an industry which generates $32 billion in 

income and supports over one million jobs annually. 

The Department appreciates the strong support it has received from Congress 

over the past 10 years. As we approach March 1, I urge Congress to act to prevent 

sequestration and ensure that DHS can continue to meet evolving threats and maintain the security of our Nation and citizens. Should you have any questions or concerns at any time, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 282–8203. 

Yours very truly, 

JANET NAPOLITANO, 

Secretary. 

Senator LANDRIEU. Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. I am going to now turn to Senator 

Boozman. 

But before I do, a couple of quick administrative things. Questions are coming up about the fiscal year 2014 appropriations. I 

just want to say this about our committee that I have discussed 

with Senator Shelby: We want to deal with the sequester. We also 

want to deal with the issue of the continuing resolution versus the 

omnibus. We don’t want a Government shutdown. We are working 

with our House counterparts on this. So we don’t want that either. 

Also, when the President submits his budget, I am asking my 

subcommittee chairs and my ranking members to move out swiftly 

and smartly to begin their hearings. This committee, though the 
98 

administration is late in submitting its budget to us, is going to 

meet its timeline of holding hearings and being ready for markup 

in late spring and on the floor this summer. 

We are, in this committee, going to make every effort to have a 

regular order and follow the traditions of clock and calendar to do 

that. 

So for all of 2014, we are going to have real hearings. We are 

going to have real debate, real discussion, and a regular order. 

And I really want to thank Senator Shelby for the way we are 

working to move this forward. 

Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to be 

here. 

Mr. Werfel, I think I am correct in stating that VA will be exempt. 

Mr. WERFEL. That is correct. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Boozman, use your microphone. 

It is hard to hear you, Sir. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. I think that is better for you. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, that is better. That is how it is when you 

are the low man on the totem pole. 

Not much equipment. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Or the shortest person in the room. 

Senator BOOZMAN. We appreciate you all being here. 

Again, you know, the House has acted a couple times. They have 

sent a couple bills over. The Senate hadn’t acted; the President 

hadn’t acted. And with the timeframe that we have going forward, 

it appears that, at least for a short period, we are going to have 

to work through this. 

So what I would like to do is just ask about a couple things. 

Again, a lot of veterans’ families have contacted us. They are concerned. 

So for the record, can you tell us that veterans’ benefits will not 

be affected, Mr. Werfel? 

VETERANS BENEFITS

Mr. WERFEL. Senator, for those that are funded through VA, they 

are explicitly exempt under the law. But there are certain veteran 

services that are funded out of other accounts and in other agencies 

that would not be exempt and would be affected. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So VA hospitals, things like that, would all be 

exempt? 

Mr. WERFEL. That would all be exempt under the sequester. 

SHORTFALL IN TRICARE

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay, very good. 

Mr. Carter, in your testimony, you mentioned that DOD is investigating ways to reduce the problem of a $3 billion shortfall in 

TRICARE. Can you give us, perhaps, some ways that you hope to 
99 

avoid a problem being there? How you are going to make up for the 

$3 billion? What are the investigations—— 

Dr. CARTER. We are looking at that. We would like to avoid that $2 or $3 billion shortfall causing us to have to stop giving care in 

the last month or so of the year. 

I am going to get back to you in writing, because it is very complicated. And to be quite honest, we haven’t found a way to do it 

legally yet, but we are working on it. Whatever we do, we want to 

be legal. So if I may, I would like to get back to you on that. But 

we are working on it, because we understand the gravity of the 

problem. 

[The information follows:] 

Sequestration will result in the potential loss of more than $3 billion in resources 

from the Defense Health Program in the last half of fiscal year 2013. This substantial loss in funds could force us to slow or suspend claims payments or to make difficult funding tradeoffs to continue paying private sector claims. In order minimize 

the impact on care provided in military treatment facilities and by the private sector 

network, we may be forced to attempt to make disproportionate use of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation and Procurement funds for healthcare purposes. 

This means that important research projects will be slowed or stopped altogether. 

Existing medical equipment will be used longer with the chance for more breakdowns and increased maintenance costs. At some point, equipment becomes obsolete 

and cannot be repaired any longer. These actions, in response to a sequestration, 

will substantially delay the benefits of research projects and will drive increased 

bills for equipment in future years. 

In addition, by focusing all resources on the provision of patient care under a sequestration, we will have less funding to address medical facility maintenance and 

the needed restoration and modernization projects. As with the use of research 

funds, this mitigation strategy would come with a cost. This will negatively affect 

the healthcare environment and potentially drive substantial bills for facility maintenance in the future. While we will continue to fund projects that directly affect 

patient safety or that are emergent in nature, we will see a degradation in the aesthetic quality and functionality of our medical facilities. This can impact the morale 

of both the medical staff and the patients and can greatly degrade the patient’s experience of healthcare within the military health system. It should be noted that 

many of our facilities are older and require substantial upkeep. To delay these medical facility projects exacerbates the problem and ultimately the medical staff and 

more concerning, the patients, suffer the consequences. This is not a sustainable 

strategy. 

Although we must address the challenges presented, it is not clear that these 

strategies to mitigate the effects of sequestration on military healthcare will work. 

Their viability depends on decisions regarding appropriations bills and other legal 

issues. Therefore, we still do not feel that we have a firm strategy to offset military 

health care problems caused by sequestration. Indeed, the only sure way to offset 

them would be to detrigger sequestration. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I appreciate that. I think everyone on the 

committee, that is something we would be very, very concerned 

about. 

Mr. Werfel, in the past when budget years were tight, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed reductions in contract towers and flight service stations, other services to small cities and rural areas. Would you implement these type of reductions? 

Are these the type of reductions that we are going to see as a result 

of sequestration that would perhaps disproportionately affect rural 

America versus urban America? 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DISRUPTION

Mr. WERFEL. Well, I think there are definitely risks with respect 

to FAA, and I am glad you raise the question. FAA is going to face 

a cut of roughly $600 million under the sequester. A vast majority 
100 

of their 47,000 employees will be furloughed for 1 day per pay period for the rest of the year. And as importantly, this is going to 

reduce air traffic levels across the country, causing delays and disruptions for all travelers. 

And to your question, it is my understanding that, yes, there will 

be a curtailment of service at low-activity airports, which typically 

reside in rural locations. So they will be impacted and feel the effect of the sequester. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay, very good. 

AIR FORCE CUTS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

Mr. Carter, you mentioned that the Air Force plans to cut facilities maintenance projects by about one-half, including cuts to 189 

projects at 55 installations in 26 States. Do you have a list of 

the—— 

Dr. CARTER. Absolutely, I can provide you with that level of detail. The numbers are correct, and I can give you exactly—it is basically everywhere. 

[The information follows:] 
101 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

AK Demo ................. AFSPC .............. CLEAR AIR FORCE STATION ........................ DXEB132001 ........ DECONSTRUCT TECHNICAL SITE, PHASE A .......................................................... $400,000 

PACAF .............. EIELSON AFB ............................................... FTQW102201 ........ Demo Old Community Center (B5226) ................................................................ 480,000 

Energy ............... PACAF .............. CAPE NEWENHAM LONG RANGE RADAR ..... DBST100005 ........ UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE ............................................................................ 427,235 

EIELSON AFB ............................................... FTQW061032 ........ Replace Wooden Overhead Doors ........................................................................ 400,000 

FTQW121506 ........ Energy Cons: Install Thermal Equalizers P2 (MULTIPLE) ................................... 400,000 FTQW121508 ........ Energy Cons: Repair HVAC System Components (1148 and 1151) ................... 450,000 FTQW131504 ........ Energy Cons: Repair Building Envelope and HVAC (Multiple) ........................... 350,000 

ELMENDORF AFB ......................................... FXSB111755 ........ ENERGY OUTDOOR LED SYSTEM ......................................................................... 1,995,417 

FXSB121761 ........ REPAIR HVAC SYSTEMS PHASE II MULTIPLE FACILITY ........................................ 1,941,000 FXSB121762 ........ REPAIR REPLACE LIGHTING MULTIPLE FACILITY ................................................. 738,150 

R&M .................. AFISRA ............. ELMENDORF AFB ......................................... FXSB112204 ........ Replace Air Handlers RM B2/110, Building 18220 ............................................ 350,000 

PACAF .............. ELMENDORF AFB ......................................... FXSB062004 ........ REPAIR PART TAXIWAY N, ALL TAXIWAY Q, AMOPS APRON AND RAMP N .......... 1,100,000 

HJZH111076 ......... RENOVATE UPGRADE FIRE STATION 4 BUILDING 654 ......................................... 3,000,000 

AK Total .................................................................................................. 12,031,802 

AL Demo ................. AETC ................ MAXWELL AFB ............................................. JUBJ200302D ....... DEMO FALCONS NEST BUILDING 302 .................................................................. 450,000 

Energy ............... AETC ................ MAXWELL AFB ............................................. PNQS114398 ........ REPL HVAC BOILERS, BUILDINGS 804, 1404 ...................................................... 395,000 R&M .................. AETC ................ MAXWELL AFB ............................................. PNQS053554 ........ REPR/UPGR HVAC (PH 2), BUILDING 844 ........................................................... 1,500,000 Sust ................... AETC ................ MAXWELL AFB ............................................. PNQS045274 ........ Replace HVAC System, Holm Center B500 ......................................................... 5,400,000 

AL Total .................................................................................................. 7,745,000 

AR R&M .................. AMC ................. LITTLEROCK AFB ......................................... NKAK101041 ........ REPAIR UPGRADE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY ......................................................... 480,000 

NKAK121078 ........ REPAIR CONVERT HANGAR 222 ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ................ 1,700,000 

AR Total ................................................................................................. 2,180,000 

AZ Energy ............... ACC ................. DAVIS MONTHAN AFB .................................. FBNV130003 ........ Rpr (Replace) High Bay Relamp, Multiple Facilities .......................................... 137,566 

FBNV130004 ........ Rpr (Sustain) Parking Lot Lighting ..................................................................... 693,000 FBNV130005 ........ Rpr (Replace) Street Lighting ............................................................................. 153,937 FBNV130006 ........ Rpr Retro-Commission Multiple Facilities .......................................................... 234,607 FBNV130039 ........ Rpr Low-flow Fixtures, Multiple Facilities ........................................................... 139,895 

AETC ................ LUKE AFB .................................................... NUEX110405 ........ ENERGY CONS: INSTALL SOLAR HOT WATER SYSTEMS, MULTIPLE ..................... 775,000 

NUEX110406 ........ ENERGY CONS: INSTALL LED LIGHTING, MULTIPLE ............................................. 290,000 

R&M .................. ACC ................. DAVIS MONTHAN AFB .................................. FBNV080052 ........ Rpr ATFP Standoff for Critical Facilities ............................................................ 700,000 
102 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

FBNV100026 ........ Cns (Add) Rpr (Renovate) CMS Facility (5423) .................................................. 2,550,000 FBNV110022 ........ Rpr U/G Electric, Arizola St ................................................................................. 250,000 

AZ Total .................................................................................................. 5,924,005 

CA Demo ................. AFMC ............... EDWARDS AFB ............................................. FSPM111514Q ...... DEMO EQUIPMENT RESEARCH TEST AFRL B8814 ............................................... 17,000 

FSPM111514U ...... DEMO EQUIPMENT RESEARCH TEST AFRL B8834 ............................................... 17,000 FSPM111514V ...... DEMO AFRL B9588 .............................................................................................. 15,000 

AFSPC .............. VANDENBERG AFB ....................................... XUMU111082O2 ... Demolish Lodging Office, Building 13005 .......................................................... 80,000 

XUMU111082O3 ... Demolish Dorm Postal Office, Building 13222 ................................................... 100,000 XUMU111362 ....... Demo Storage, Facilities 886 and 887 ............................................................... 120,000 XUYD051209 ........ HLDT—Demolish Oak Mountain Booster Station, Building 98 .......................... 10,000 

AMC ................. TRAVIS AFB ................................................. XDAT051087 ........ DEMO BUILDING 253 (ELECTRIC STATION) ......................................................... 5,000 

XDAT071133 ........ DEMO OLD COMMUNICATION’S MANHOLE ........................................................... 20,000 XDAT071140 ........ DEMO BUILDING 713 ........................................................................................... 55,000 XDAT101179 ........ DEMO STRM DRN DSPL ....................................................................................... 50,000 XDAT101660 ........ DEMOLISH BUILDING 886 .................................................................................... 10,000 XDAT111020 ........ Demo Building 242 ............................................................................................. 130,000 XDAT111034 ........ Demolish Existing AGE Wash Rack ..................................................................... 257,000 XDAT111073 ........ DEMO MWD FACILITY 720 ................................................................................... 85,000 XDAT121031 ........ DEMOLISH BUILDING 723 .................................................................................... 30,000 

Dorms ................ AFMC ............... EDWARDS AFB ............................................. FSPM121266 ........ RPR DORM B2423 ............................................................................................... 6,150,000 Energy ............... ACC ................. BEALE AFB .................................................. BAEY120023 ........ REPAIR RETROCOMMISION HVAC SYSTEMS MULTIPLE FACILITIES ...................... 283,000 

BAEY120063 ........ REPAIR BY REPLACING MOTORS WITH VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES ...................... 359,200 BAEY120064 ........ REPAIR INTERIER AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING ........................................................ 196,000 BAEY120065 ........ REPAIR MECHANICAL—HEATING EQUIPMENT—MULTIPLE FACILITIES ............... 177,300 BAEY120066 ........ REPAIR FIXTURES (LOW-FLOW) MULTIPLE FACILITIES ......................................... 168,000 

AFMC ............... EDWARDS AFB ............................................. FSPM081425E ...... RPR RETROFIT LIGHTING F–16 HANGAR B1630 .................................................. 376,000 

FSPM121255A ...... RPR LIGHTING OFFICE AREA AFRL B8424 ........................................................... 124,000 FSPM121400 ........ RPR HEAT SOURCE HANGAR TST WING B1600 ................................................... 1,500,000 

AFSPC .............. VANDENBERG AFB ....................................... XUMU111159B ..... RPR: Energy Program Boiler Enhancements Multiple Building .......................... 567,000 AMC ................. TRAVIS AFB ................................................. XDAT111024 ........ Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting ....................................................................... 611,322 

R&M .................. AFISRA ............. BEALE AFB .................................................. BAEY120061 ........ Implement Auto HVAC Power Outage Recovery .................................................. 125,000 

AFMC ............... EDWARDS AFB ............................................. FSPM061449 ........ RPR FIRE ALARM B8753 ..................................................................................... 178,000 AFSPC .............. VANDENBERG AFB ....................................... XUMU071219C ..... CNS: Install Traffic Calming at Santa Maria Gate ............................................ 700,000 

XUMU121042B ..... RPR: Repair Tangair Bridge ................................................................................ 1,950,000 
103 

XUMU121092B ..... CNS: Install Fall Protection at Building 1610 .................................................... 25,000 

AMC ................. TRAVIS AFB ................................................. XDAT071156C ...... Repair Antiterrorism Perimeter Vehicle Denial Fencing ...................................... 285,000 

XDAT081072 ........ CONSTRUCT OPPOSING—L FOR NORTH GATE, BUILDING 8999 ......................... 85,151 XDAT081073 ........ CONSTRUCT OPPOSING—L FOR MAIN GATE, BUILDING 600 .............................. 249,598 XDAT081074 ........ CONSTRUCT OPPOSING—L FOR HOSP GATE, BUILDING 782 ............................. 87,202 

CA Total ................................................................................................. 15,197,773 

CO Demo ................. USAFA .............. USAF ACADEMY ........................................... XQPZ120824B ...... Demolish Indigenous House—6966 and 6968 ................................................... 67,000 

XQPZ120824C ...... Demolish Indigenous House—9024 and 9026 ................................................... 50,000 

Energy ............... AFSPC .............. PETERSON AFB ............................................ TDKA122001 ........ Repair Facilities—Retro-commissioning ............................................................ 1,181,500 

TDKA122002 ........ Repair Irrigation Plant Beds ............................................................................... 425,600 

SCHRIEVER AFB .......................................... GLEN131402 ........ Survey and Repair Water Line Leaks .................................................................. 275,000 

GLEN131407 ........ Repair by Replacing VUH B780, Install Occup Sensors B712—Energy ............ 102,000 

USAFA .............. USAF ACADEMY ........................................... XQPZ119004 ........ Repair NRG Street and Parking Lighting ............................................................ 200,000 

R&M .................. AFSPC .............. CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR STATION ........... SAXC061051 ........ Construct Sump Drains for Communication Manholes ...................................... 350,000 

PETERSON AFB ............................................ MRGD051009 ....... Repair Fire Alarm System ................................................................................... 70,000 

TDKA111082 ........ Repair Base Capacitors ...................................................................................... 35,000 

Sust ................... AFSPC .............. CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR STATION ........... SAXC121023 ........ Repair HVAC Systems, Cheyenne Mountain Complex ......................................... 5,600,000 

CO Total ................................................................................................. 8,356,100 

DE Energy ............... AMC ................. DOVER AFB ................................................. FJXT121074 .......... Upgrade Exterior Street, Ramp and Track Lighting ........................................... 595,000 

DE Total ................................................................................................. 595,000 

FL Demo ................. ACC ................. TYNDALL AFB .............................................. XLWU126050C ..... DEMOLISH 1 AF ALERT FACILITIES, B106, 122, 123 .......................................... 124,000 

AFMC ............... EGLIN AFB ................................................... FTFA121029 ......... Demolish Buildings 586, 607, 608, and 609—Old Prison Buildings ............... 55,000 

FTFA121030 ......... Demolish Building 1219—Vehicle Service Rack ................................................ 11,500 FTFA121031 ......... Demolish Building 8850—Armament Research/Test ......................................... 8,900 FTFA963045D4 ..... DEMO MULTIPLE FACILITIES DUKE FIELD PH 4 ................................................... 286,500 

AFSPC .............. CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE STATION ...... DBEH081637 ........ DEMOLISH HLDD II MISC FACILITIES ................................................................... 27,900 

DBEH101751 ........ Demolish Payload Assembly Building ................................................................. 55,000 DBEH121513 ........ Demolish Bottled Gas Storage Rack ................................................................... 1,904 DBEH121547 ........ Demolish AGE Support Warehouse, Facility 70540 ............................................. 140,000 

AMC ................. MACDILL AFB .............................................. NVZR100064 ........ DEMO Building 189/CONSOL MXG Functions ...................................................... 700,000 

NVZR120146 ........ DEMO Building 373 Conference Room Addition ................................................. 100,000 

Energy ............... ACC ................. ARBUCKLE AIRFIELD ................................... ASPR100107 ........ RPR VAV HVAC UNITS AT HQTS, B29 .................................................................. 120,000 

TYNDALL AFB .............................................. XLWU121044 ........ IMPROVE BUILDING ENVELOPE ............................................................................ 250,000 

AFMC ............... EGLIN AFB ................................................... FTFA041168 ......... ENERGY: Install Ground Source Heat Pump Buildings 961 and 2400 .............. 232,000 
104 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

FTFA091075 ......... ENERGY: REPLACE WINDOWS HANGAR 71 .......................................................... 106,000 FTFA091127 ......... ENERGY: Install Irrigation Wells to Replace Potable Water Irrigation ............... 260,000 FTFA101151 ......... ENERGY: Replace Windows at Various Buildings (4) ......................................... 262,000 FTFA111010 ......... ENERGY: Install Cool Roof Building 1363 .......................................................... 297,000 FTFA111093 ......... ENERGY: Install Daylighting Devices at Various Buildings ................................ 108,000 FTFA111188 ......... ENERGY: Construct Cool Roof Upgrades at Multiple Facilities .......................... 1,417,000 FTFA121054 ......... ENERGY: Building 72 Paint Booth—HVAC Modifications .................................. 738,000 

AFSOC ............. HURLBURT FIELD ........................................ FTEV121082 ......... NRG—RetroCommission HVAC Systems, Multiple Buildings ............................. 178,700 AFSPC .............. PATRICK AFB ............................................... SXHT111045 ........ Repair/Upgrade Lighting/Controls, Central Various ............................................ 211,100 

SXHT111096 ........ Repair Water Distribution System Leaks ............................................................ 1,100,000 

AMC ................. MACDILL AFB .............................................. NVZR120044 ........ Basewide Lighting Upgrades .............................................................................. 2,506,859 

NVZR120052 ........ CENTCOM Building 565 HVAC Energy Upgrades ................................................ 380,100 NVZR120126 ........ Retrocommissioning HVAC Multiple Facilities .................................................... 831,500 

R&M .................. ACC ................. TYNDALL AFB .............................................. XLWU061035 ........ REPLACE TOWER, CARRABELLE ........................................................................... 1,400,000 

AFMC ............... EGLIN AFB ................................................... FTFA041889 ......... CORRECT FPD AFFES BUILDING 8 ....................................................................... 150,000 AFSOC ............. HURLBURT FIELD ........................................ FTEV111171 ......... CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE INSPECTION BUILDING ............................... 725,400 AFSPC .............. PATRICK AFB ............................................... YXTK091812 ......... Repair Electrical Distribution Line, TLM Hill ...................................................... 442,000 AMC ................. MACDILL AFB .............................................. NVZR110157 ........ R&M, Construct Postal Screening Facility .......................................................... 720,000 

NVZR120115 ........ R&M, Florida Keys and Bayshore Intersection and Chevron Park Entrance ...... 670,000 NVZR120116 ........ R&M, Construct Port Tampa Gate Stacking/Inspection Lanes ........................... 720,000 

Sust ................... ACC ................. TYNDALL AFB .............................................. XLWU102056E ...... REP/SLEEVE 1950S MAINS, LATRLS, AND MNHLS—MN BASE ........................... 7,291,000 

FL Total .................................................................................................. 22,627,363 

GA Demo ................. AFMC ............... ROBINS AFB ................................................ UHHZ090375 ........ DEMOLISH, DORM AM/PP PCS—STD, B/792 ...................................................... 1,348,758 

Energy ............... ACC ................. MOODY AFB ................................................. QSEU122002 ........ RPR Infrared Heaters .......................................................................................... 300,000 

QSEU122011 ........ RPR HVAC SYSTEM, RECOMMISSIONING, MULTIPLE FACILITIES ......................... 190,000 QSEU122016 ........ Repair EMCS Control Panels, Multiple Facilities ................................................ 281,000 QSEU139001 ........ Modify HVAC system with split-systems multiple facilities ............................... 203,000 QSEU139003 ........ Install/Repair EMCS multi facilities ................................................................... 211,000 QSEU139005 ........ Install economizers and CO2 sensors ................................................................. 192,000 

AFMC ............... ROBINS AFB ................................................ UHHZ110247 ........ RPl STRT AND PARKING LOT LIGHT FIXTURES, EXTERIOR AR LIGHTING, FACILITY/08150. 107,000 

UHHZ110420 ........ INSTALL ENERGY SAVING CONTROLS, BASE RESTAURANT, B/166 ...................... 145,000 UHHZ110536 ........ RPR/INST ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, ............................................................. 548,000 UHHZ110539 ........ RPR/INST WTR CONSERVATION DEVICES, VARIOUS BUILDINGS .......................... 190,391 
105 

UHHZ120061 ........ RPR/UPGRD ENERGY CONTROLS, LOG FCLTY DEP OPS, B/300 .......................... 400,000 

R&M .................. AFMC ............... ROBINS AFB ................................................ UHHZ090492 ........ RPR/RELOCATE ELEC AIR SWITCHES, AFLD OBSTRUCTION, FACILITY 03901 ..... 570,000 

GA Total ................................................................................................. 4,686,149 

HI R&M .................. PACAF .............. HICKAM AFB ................................................ KNMD091041P4 ... Repair HQ Building 1102 (HQ PACAF)—Ph 4 .................................................... 15,000,000 

HI Total .................................................................................................. 15,000,000 

ID Dorms ................ ACC ................. MOUNTAIN HOME AFB ................................. QYZH120053 ........ Repair Flooring, Dorms, Multiple ........................................................................ 97,200 

Energy ............... ACC ................. MOUNTAIN HOME AFB ................................. QYZH070030P1 .... Repair, Variable Frequency Drive, Fac 200 and 2314 ....................................... 192,000 

QYZH080017P4 .... REPAIR BUILDING ENVELOPE, FACILITY 205 ....................................................... 285,000 

ID Total .................................................................................................. 574,200 

IL Demo ................. AMC ................. SCOTT AFB .................................................. VDYD090155 ........ DEMO WAREHOUSE BUILDING 3270 .................................................................... 175,000 

VEJR111243 ......... DEMO OUTER MARKER SITE ................................................................................ 30,000

Energy ............... AMC ................. SCOTT AFB .................................................. VDYD111196 ........ Replace Parking and Street Lights Across Base ................................................ 803,400 

VDYD111212 ........ Replace Chillers 1 and 3, B44 ........................................................................... 675,200 VDYD121076 ........ Repair Economizer at Data Center, B1575 ......................................................... 512,600 

R&M .................. AMC ................. SCOTT AFB .................................................. VDYD010135 ........ INSTALL WET FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (FSD II), B54 .................................... 110,000 

VDYD090113 ........ CONSTRUCT LINCOLN’S LANDING PED ACCESS .................................................. 330,000 VDYD101163 ........ HVAC and Electrical Repairs Improve Exterior Lighting, B1575 ........................ 2,210,000 VDYD111082 ........ MWD Kennel Drainage, Parking and Fence, B5490 ............................................ 220,000 VDYD112001 ........ Repair Flight Simulator, Building 5028 .............................................................. 1,500,000

IL Total ................................................................................................... 6,566,200 

KS Energy ............... AMC ................. MCCONNELL AFB ......................................... PRQE094127 ........ UPGRADE HANGER LIGHTING BUILDING 1107 ..................................................... 351,310 

PRQE114131 ........ ENERGY CONS: RE-COMMISSION—HVAC UPGRADES MULTIPLE FACILITIES ...... 551,000 

KS Total .................................................................................................. 902,310 

LA Energy ............... AFGSC ............. BARKSDALE AFB .......................................... AWUB120508 ....... REP DORM EXIT AND STAIRWAY LIGHTING .......................................................... 106,000 

AWUB132001 ....... REPAIR BUILDING LIGHTING ................................................................................ 520,000 

R&M .................. AFGSC ............. BARKSDALE AFB .......................................... AWUB070107 ....... Install high expansion foam extinguishing system (B6604) .............................. 2,000,000 

AWUB130107 ....... Repair Security Fencing for ATSEP and AT/FP .................................................... 410,000 

Sust ................... AFGSC ............. BARKSDALE AFB .......................................... AWUB120026 ....... Repair Shoulders in Alert Area and Transition Section Runway ........................ 5,400,000 
106 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

LA Total .................................................................................................. 8,436,000 

MA Energy ............... AFMC ............... HANSCOM AFB ............................................ MXRD080024A4 ... Repair Steam and Condensate Lines along Grenier St JB2–B1201 .................. 854,000 

MXRD080024E2 ... Repair Steam and Condensate Lines Barksdale St JB55–B1531 ...................... 695,000 MXRD083004 ....... REPLACE STEAM AND CONDENSATE LINE NEAR MIT/LL ..................................... 1,048,800 MXRD100075 ....... Add Efficient Lighting—Multiple Buildings ....................................................... 186,564 MXRD100076 ....... Install Occupancy Sensors, Multiple Buildings .................................................. 380,800 MXRD100077 ....... Install Lighting Timers, B1624 and B1630 ........................................................ 965,250 MXRD100079 ....... Add Efficient Lighting and Lighting Controls, B1614 ........................................ 633,960 MXRD110013 ....... Install LED Lamps, Exterior Lights ..................................................................... 304,000MXRD120045 ....... INSULATE OIL STORAGE TANK 2 B1201 CENTRAL PLANT ................................... 240,000 

MA Total ................................................................................................. 5,308,374 

MD R&M .................. AFDW ............... ANDREWS AFB ............................................. AJXF10154105 ..... (IDC) REPAIR/REPLACE SHOULDER NEAR TWY E6 NEAR BUILDING 2487 .......... 250,000 

AJXF111517 ......... DESIGN/REPLACE TAXIWAY SIERRA FACILITY 90020 ........................................... 8,480,000 AJXF111526B ....... REPAIR/RENOVATE FOR CLOTHING SALES IN MAIN BX BUILDING 1811 ............. 600,000 AJXF121512 ......... CONSTR/INSTALL AUTO SPRINKLER FIRE STATION 2 BUILDING 3464 ................. 400,000 AJXF121513 ......... INSTALL AUTO SPRINKLER FIRE STATION 1 BUILDING 1287 ............................... 550,000 

MD Total ................................................................................................. 10,280,000 

MO Demo ................. AFGSC ............. WHITEMAN AFB ........................................... YWHG130000 ....... CND: Demolish Airman’s Attic, Post Office, B410 .............................................. 287,000 

Energy ............... AFGSC ............. WHITEMAN AFB ........................................... YWHG110027 ....... NRG: RETROFIT LIGHTING T12 TO T8, PH II ........................................................ 1,950,888 

YWHG120207 ....... NRG: REPAIR STEAM CONDENSATE RETURN SYSTEM ......................................... 557,000 

Sust ................... AFGSC ............. WHITEMAN AFB ........................................... YWHG120004 ....... NRF AFL IDIQ—PV: Repair Runway, Taxiway Slabs, and Seal Joints ................ 5,200,000 

AFGSC ............. WHITEMAN AFB ........................................... YWHG120031 ....... Replace Controls Systems for Electrical Distribution ......................................... 5,500,000 

MO Total ................................................................................................. 13,494,888 

MS Demo ................. AETC ................ COLUMBUS AFB .......................................... EEPZ102020H ...... DEMO MUNITIONS STORAGE MAGAZINE B1834 ................................................... 12,000 

EEPZ131145 ........ DEMOLISH BUILDING 630 (AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE BUILDING) ........................ 350,000 

KEESLER AFB .............................................. MAHG121128 ....... DEMO OF BUILDING 4813 .................................................................................... 480,000 

MAHG121130 ....... DEMO DORM 4815 ............................................................................................... 577,000 

Energy ............... AETC ................ COLUMBUS AFB .......................................... EEPZ122020A ...... AIR FLOW CORRECTION TO B406 ........................................................................ 625,000 

KEESLER AFB .............................................. MAHG111064 ....... INSTALL DEDICATED HEAT RECOVERY CHILLERS CONNER AND DAVIS .............. 610,000 
107 

MAHG111138 ....... ENERGY—INSTALL DHRCS IN THOMPSON, CODY, AND MATERO ........................ 930,000 

R&M .................. AETC ................ COLUMBUS AFB .......................................... EEPZ122009A ...... INSTALL MYLAR/BLAST FILM SECURITY FORCES FACILITY .................................. 200,000 

MS Total ................................................................................................. 3,784,000 

MT Demo ................. AFGSC ............. MALMSTROM AFB ........................................ NZAS101040 ........ Demolish Building 1192, Family Support Center ............................................... 120,000 

NZAS111004 ........ Demolish Building 1705, Maintenance Contractor Facility ................................ 275,000 

R&M .................. AFGSC ............. MALMSTROM AFB ........................................ NZAS082005 ........ Repair MAF Security Fence .................................................................................. 1,600,000 

MT Total ................................................................................................. 1,995,000 

Multi Energy ............... AF Wide ........... TBD ............................................................. .............................. Automated Metering System ............................................................................... 20,000,000 

.............................. SIA ....................................................................................................................... 20,000,000 

Utilities ............. AF Wide ........... TBD ............................................................. .............................. Future Utilities Privatizations Deals ................................................................... 35,119,000 

Multi Total .............................................................................................. 75,119,000 

NC Energy ............... ACC ................. SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB ............................. VKAG111035E ...... REPAIR EMCS SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 377,000 

VKAG111036E ...... INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS ........................................................................... 205,000 VKAG111037E ...... REPAIR BOILER SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 594,700 VKAG111038E ...... REPAIR HVAC AND DDC, FUEL CELL, BUILDING 4735 ........................................ 425,000 VKAG111039E ...... REPAIR HVAC AT MULTIPLE BUILDINGS .............................................................. 296,000 VKAG111042E ...... REPAIR HVAC VIA RETRO-COMMISSIONING ......................................................... 200,000 VKAG121041E ...... REPAIR HVAC VIA RETRO-COMMISSIONING ......................................................... 240,000 VKAG121045E ...... REPAIR HVAC CONTROL SYSTEMS, MULTIPLE FACILITIES ................................... 726,000 

R&M .................. ACC ................. SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB ............................. VKAG041090A/B ... CONSTRUCT/REPAIR F–15E RAMP PAVEMENT .................................................... 1,400,000 

VKAG071054 ........ REPAIR/INSTALL FIRE ALARM/SUPPRESSION, 4CS, BUILDING 2904 ................... 200,000 

NC Total ................................................................................................. 4,663,700 

ND Demo ................. AFGSC ............. MINOT AFB .................................................. QJVF080138 ......... Demo Building 775—5CES ................................................................................. 100,000 

QJVF080169 ......... Demo 157—Airman’s Attic ................................................................................. 160,000 

Energy ............... AFGSC ............. MINOT AFB .................................................. QJVF110034 ......... Repair HVAC (GSHP)—Building 437 .................................................................. 1,100,000 

QJVF110035 ......... Repair HVAC Control Systems ............................................................................. 900,000 QJVF120052 ......... SERV: Retro Commissioning, Multiple Facilities ................................................. 401,250 QJVF120053 ......... SERV: Retro Commissioning, Multiple Facilities ................................................. 488,300 QJVF120076 ......... REPAIR INSULATION AND DOORS AIRCRAFT DOCKS—BUILDINGS 836/837 ....... 1,033,050 QJVF120077 ......... REPAIR INSULATION AND DOORS AIRCRAFT DOCKS—BUILDINGS 836/837 ....... 1,394,430 

R&M .................. AFGSC ............. MINOT AFB .................................................. QJVF100127 ......... Repair Runway 29 End Keel Section .................................................................. 12,500,000 
108 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

AMC ................. GRAND FORKS AFB ..................................... JFSD201139 ......... REPAIR (R&M) FIRE SUPPRESSION BARNES HALL DORM 319 ........................... 400,000 

ND Total ................................................................................................. 18,477,030 

NE Demo ................. ACC ................. OFFUTT AFB ................................................. SGBP130053 ........ DEMO DORM, B324 SOUTH ................................................................................. 1,800,000 

SGBP160005 ........ DEMO COMMUNITY CENTER (113) ...................................................................... 700,000 

Energy ............... ACC ................. OFFUTT AFB ................................................. SGBP120043 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES, B500 .................................................................................. 1,570,000 

SGBP120056 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES, B565 .................................................................................. 708,000 SGBP130046 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES, B323 .................................................................................. 253,000 SGBP130047 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES H WING, B500 ..................................................................... 1,035,000 SGBP130048 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES, J WING B500 ...................................................................... 882,100 SGBP130054 ........ ENERGY UPGRADES, BOILER RM B500 ............................................................... 1,450,000 SGBP130059 ........ RETRO-COMMISSIONING, B4000 .......................................................................... 240,000 

R&M .................. ACC ................. OFFUTT AFB ................................................. SGER130055 ........ RPR UTILITIES, TLF SITE ...................................................................................... 125,000 

AFISRA ............. OFFUTT AFB ................................................. SGBP120035 ........ Upgrade Power, Building 578 ............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Sust ................... ACC ................. OFFUTT AFB ................................................. SGBP090036 ........ RPR TXY CHARLIE WEST ...................................................................................... 5,200,000 

NE Total ................................................................................................. 14,963,100 

NH Energy ............... AFSPC .............. NEW BOSTON AIR FORCE STATION ............. RNGF131001 ........ Leak Detection and Repair Water Mains ............................................................ 100,000 

NH Total ................................................................................................. 100,000 

NJ Energy ............... AMC ................. MCGUIRE AFB ............................................. PTFL121800 ......... HVAC RECOMMISSIONING MCGUIRE VARIOUS FACILITIES ................................... 367,000 

NAES LAKEHURST ........................................ MSBL121801 ........ HVAC RECOMMISSIONING LAKEHURST VARIOUS FACILITIES ............................... 538,991 

R&M .................. AMC ................. MCGUIRE AFB ............................................. MSBL111033 ........ AORI: REPAIR SHOULDER, ALZ RUNWAY, LAKEHURST ........................................ 5,450,600 

PTFL111016 ......... INSTALL EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT FIRE STATION 3350 ................................ 99,000 

NJ Total .................................................................................................. 6,455,591 

NM Energy ............... ACC ................. HOLLOMAN AFB ........................................... KWRD109012 ....... INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS IN 14 BUILDINGS .............................................. 370,000 

KWRD129001 ....... VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES, B830 ................................................................. 164,195 

R&M .................. ACC ................. HOLLOMAN AFB ........................................... KWRD060078 ....... RPR AIRFIELD PRIMARY OBSTRUCTIONS AND SIGNAGE ...................................... 4,500,000 

AFMC ............... KIRTLAND AFB ............................................. MHMV090058B .... Repair Critical COMM Facilities: B412, B498, B20604, and B20449 ............... 3,605,000 AFSOC ............. CANNON AFB ............................................... CZQZ082000 ........ REPAIR FUEL TANKS, AAFES GAS STATION .......................................................... 950,000 
109 

NM Total ................................................................................................. 9,589,195 

NV Energy ............... ACC ................. CREECH AFB ............................................... LKTC121706 ......... Install Solar Wall Heating System ...................................................................... 212,000 

NELLIS AFB ................................................. RKMF090018 ........ REPAIR DAYLIGHTING CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................................ 603,000 

RKMF120712 ........ Add Building Envelope Upgrades ........................................................................ 129,000RKMF120716 ........ UPGD Paint Booth HVAC, Building 256, Dock 2 ................................................. 264,000 RKMF120717 ........ INST Daylighting/UPGD Lighting Systems, Multiple Facilities ............................ 139,000 RKMF130703 ........ Retro-Commissioning .......................................................................................... 316,366 RKMF130705 ........ Retro-Commissioning .......................................................................................... 364,829 

NV Total ................................................................................................. 2,028,195 

OH Demo ................. AFMC ............... WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB ............................ ZHTV110069 ........ DEMO THRIFT SHOP ............................................................................................. 175,000 

Energy ............... AFMC ............... WRIGHT-PATT AFB ....................................... ZHTV040400 ........ RPL A/C/D SYSTEM PUMPS (HP–5) ..................................................................... 1,200,000 

ZHTV110044 ........ REPLACE CAULKING/WEATHERSTRIPPING, MULTIPLE FACILITY ........................... 117,478 ZHTV110046 ........ RE-INSULATE PIPING/TANKS, MULTIPLE FACILITY ................................................ 246,000 ZHTV120002 ........ REPLACE WATER LINE ALONG SKYLINE (24056)(W–2) ....................................... 777,000 ZHTV120034 ........ REPLACE AREA B STREET LIGHTS (27134) ......................................................... 205,000 

OH Total ................................................................................................. 2,720,478 

OK Demo ................. AETC ................ ALTUS AFB .................................................. AGGN121026 ........ DEMO—DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, B72 .......................................................... 280,510 

AGGN121029 ........ DEMO—DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, B65 .......................................................... 152,883 AGGN121032 ........ DEMO—DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, B48 .......................................................... 48,196 AGGN121039 ........ DEMO—DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, B165 ........................................................ 12,477 AGGN121051 ........ DEMO—DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, B39 .......................................................... 442,108 

Energy ............... AETC ................ ALTUS AFB .................................................. AGGN091092 ........ NRG—REPLACE HVAC AT CLUB, B307 ............................................................... 525,000 

AGGN101018 ........ NRG—REPLACE CHAPEL HVAC SYSTEM, B301 .................................................. 163,000 AGGN101251 ........ HVAC—REPR: EMCS UPGRADE, MULTIPLE FACILITY .......................................... 990,000 

AFMC ............... TINKER AFB ................................................. WWYK060041 ....... SUSTAIN BY REPLACEMENT, HVAC SYSTEM, B202 ............................................. 239,400 

WWYK110059 ....... SUSTAIN HVAC AWACS FLYING TRAINING CLASSROOMS, B215 .......................... 626,800 WWYK110061 ....... SUSTAIN HVAC OPERATIONS SUPPORT SQUADRON, WEST SIDE, B283 .............. 493,100 WWYK120030 ....... REPAIR/RETROFIT ADMIN AREA LIGHTING AIR LOGISTICS CTR, B3001 .............. 123,624 

R&M .................. AETC ................ ALTUS AFB .................................................. AGGN051024I ....... REPLACEMENT/OVERHAUL OF WASTEWATER LINES ............................................. 3,591,628 Sust ................... AETC ................ ALTUS AFB .................................................. AGGN051024L ...... SEWER—REPR: REPLACE DEGRADED SEWER LINES, PHASE 1 .......................... 6,389,627 

AFMC ............... TINKER AFB ................................................. WWYK100250 ....... SUSTAIN NON KEEL PORTIONS OF RWY 12/30, HORN TO SE END ..................... 6,200,000 

OK Total ................................................................................................. 20,278,353 

Overseas Demo ................. AFSPC .............. THULE AB .................................................... WWCX131001P1 ... Deconstruct Excess Facilities, Ph A .................................................................... 300,000 
110 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

PACAF .............. KADENA AB ................................................. LXEZ052923 ......... DEMOLISH BUILDING 717 AND 715 ..................................................................... 600,000 

LXEZ122958 ......... DEMOLISH B719 .................................................................................................. 400,000 

KUNSAN AB ................................................. MLWR132006 ....... DEMOLISH BX TAXI SERVICE, BUILDING 712 AND 719 ....................................... 62,000 

MLWR132007 ....... DEMOLISH C–PAD DINING FACILITY, BUILDING 2850 ......................................... 82,000 

TAMA SERVICE ANNEX ................................ WRFD131065 ....... Demolish Building 605, Tama ............................................................................ 35,000 

USAFE .............. INCIRLIK AB ................................................ LJYC121026 ......... DEMO COMMUNICATION BUILDING 680 ............................................................... 50,000 

RAF Alconbury ............................................. AEDY121024 ........ DEMO FMO WAREHOUSE ...................................................................................... 350,000 RAF Mildenhall ............................................ QFQE111083 ........ DEMO B442 AND ENLARGE EXISTING CARPARK ................................................. 400,000 RAMSTEIN AB .............................................. TYFR111146 ......... DEMOLISH ANNEX ADMIN FACILITY ..................................................................... 35,000 SPANGDAHLEM AB ...................................... VYHK131701 ........ DEMO/CONSOLIDATE WAREHOUSE FUNCTION FOR FSS, BUILDING 235 .............. 200,000 VOGELWEH FAMILY HOUSING ANNEX .......... YANB081622 ........ DEMOLISH BUILDING # 1035—VOGELWEH ......................................................... 465,000 

Dorms ................ AFSPC .............. THULE AB .................................................... WWCX041015A ..... REPAIR FLATTOP #133, INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................... 1,310,000 

WWCX111026A ..... REPAIR FLATTOP #206, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT .................................. 1,310,000 

PACAF .............. KUNSAN AB ................................................. MLWR951041 ....... REPAIR DORM 1408 ............................................................................................ 7,400,000 

MLWR951045 ....... RENOVATE DORMITORY, #339 ............................................................................. 3,560,000MLWR971010 ....... REPAIR DORM 1407 ............................................................................................ 7,400,000 

MISAWA AB ................................................. QKKA022001 ........ REPR B673 AIRMEN DORM ................................................................................. 13,000,000 OSAN AB ..................................................... SMYU101004 ....... REPAIR AIRMAN DORM, B1351 ........................................................................... 4,800,000 

USAFE .............. RAF Lakenheath .......................................... MSET092004 ........ RPR DORMITORY 946 (DMP) (Bridge Plan) ........................................................ 9,800,000 

Energy ............... AFSPC .............. ANTIGUA AIR STATION ................................. ALMY111900 ........ Energy Cons: Repair Lighting, Various ............................................................... 113,000 

ALMY111901 ........ Energy Cons: Repair A/C Units, Various ............................................................. 331,000 

THULE AB .................................................... WWCX031028B .... REPAIR FLATTOP #245, ENERGY IMPROVEMENT ................................................. 367,300 

WWCX041015B .... REPAIR FLATTOP 133, ENERGY IMPROVEMENT ................................................... 367,300 WWCX111026B .... REPAIR FLATTOP #206, ENERGY IMPROVEMENT ................................................. 367,300 WWCX131012 ....... ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING 107, DINING HALL ..................................... 188,200 WWCX131013 ....... ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING 362,COMMUNITY CENTER ........................... 277,000 WWCX131014 ....... ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, BUILDING 610 AND 628 ...................................... 131,700 WWCX131015 ....... ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, BUILDING 623 ..................................................... 264,000 WWCX131016 ....... ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, BUILDING 624, HANGAR 8 .................................. 261,100 WWCX131018 ....... ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, BUILDING 933 AND 1409 .................................... 140,300 WWCX131019 ....... ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, BUILDING 1391, M–PLANT .................................. 138,100 

PACAF .............. KADENA AB ................................................. LXEZ121618 ......... REPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING, HVAC, INSTALL SOLAR HOT WATER, B109 GYM .... 314,600 

LXEZ121623 ......... REPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING AND HVAC, B334 ..................................................... 301,120 LXEZ121813 ......... RETRO-COMISSIONING HVAC, B109, B334, B786, AND B3534 .......................... 231,500 LXEZ121839 ......... KEY CARD CONTROLS FOR HVAC AND LIGHTS, B328, B329, B331, AND 

B332.

195,251 
111 

LXEZ131867 ......... REPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING, PLUMBING AND ENVELOPE, B3541 ........................ 216,900 LXEZ131881 ......... LIGHTING AND WATER CONSERVATION FOR DINING HALLS B178 AND B843 ..... 243,000 

KUNSAN AB ................................................. MLWR121021 ....... EISA 432 NRG EFFICIENCY MEASURES—DORM BAS UPGRADE ......................... 1,901,000 

MLWR121022 ....... ENERGY MANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (EMCS) UPGRADE, PHASE 1 ............ 2,700,000 MLWR131021 ....... INSTALL VFD AT ACFT CORROSION CONTROL, BUILDING 2820 .......................... 210,000 MLWR131022 ....... INSTALL KEYCARD ENERGY SAVING SYSTEM AT DORMITORY 535 ..................... 322,000 

MISAWA AB ................................................. QKKA131039 ........ REPR PAINT HANGAR VENTILATION B3130 .......................................................... 282,000 OSAN AB ..................................................... SMYU121019 ....... INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS, MULTIPLE FACILITY .......................................... 130,000 

SMYU121020 ....... REPLACE THERMOSTATS, MULTIPLE FACILITY ..................................................... 119,000 

TATALINA LONG RANGE RADAR SITE .......... WSFW100001 ....... UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE ............................................................................ 350,590 WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD ............................... YGFZ110006 ........ UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE ............................................................................ 1,611,036 YOKOTA AB .................................................. ZNRE121801 ........ Replace Steam Traps, Various Buildings ........................................................... 702,000 

ZNRE121802 ........ Install Occupancy Sensors in Dormitory Common Areas .................................... 238,000 ZNRE121805 ........ Building Systems Optimization, Various Buildings ............................................ 1,480,000 ZNRE121810 ........ Install Inverters on HVAC motors, Various Buildings ......................................... 523,000 ZNRE131800 ........ Replace Building Automation Systems, Buildings 445 and 653 ....................... 466,000 ZNRE131801 ........ Replace Building Automation System, Building 2066 ........................................ 331,000 ZNRE131803 ........ Replace Leaking Fire Hydrants ........................................................................... 102,000 

USAFE .............. EINSIEDLERHOF STORAGE ANNEX ............... LXPQ131529 ........ NRG: BOILER REPLACEMENT, EINSIEDLERHOF BUILDING 720 ............................ 354,500 

RAMSTEIN AB .............................................. TYFR091279 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 137,000 

TYFR101033 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 415,000 TYFR101035 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 300,000 TYFR111067 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 450,000 TYFR111074 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 347,000 TYFR111080 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 390,000 TYFR111083 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 410,000 TYFR111090 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 189,000 TYFR111130 ......... RENEWABLE ENERGY CONS: INST. SOLAR/VOQ ................................................... 553,500 TYFR121125 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPLACE MAIN ENTRANCE DOORS, KMCC ................................. 611,000 TYFR121133 ......... ENERGY CONS: REPAIR CHILLED WATER SYSTEM .............................................. 643,000 

SPANGDAHLEM AB ...................................... VYHK122405 ........ ENERGY CONS: INSTL AIR RECIRCULATION AND RPR AIRHANDLER, B157 ........ 276,100 

VYHK132402 ........ ENERGY CONS: INST THERMOSTATIC RADIATOR VALVES, MULTIPLE FACILITY ... 502,902 

VOGELWEH FAMILY HOUSING ANNEX .......... YANB111528 ........ ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF ........................................................................... 285,000 

R&M .................. AFISRA ............. RAF Mildenhall ............................................ QFQE121036 ........ Det 2, 25 IS SCIF Remodel ................................................................................. 200,000 

OSAN AB ..................................................... SMYU111007A ..... Upgrade HVAC, Building 321 .............................................................................. 165,000 

AFSOC ............. KADENA AB ................................................. LXEZ121946 ......... REPAIR BUILDING 3670 ....................................................................................... 2,773,300 

LXEZ121947 ......... REPAIR BUILDING 3671 ....................................................................................... 2,923,400 LXEZ121948 ......... REPAIR BUILDING 3534 ....................................................................................... 1,519,400 LXEZ121954 ......... REPAIR BUILDING 3300 ....................................................................................... 856,500 

PACAF .............. KUNSAN AB ................................................. MLWR071034 ....... RELOCATE HOLD POSITION EDGE LIGHT ON TWY F ............................................ 10,000 
112 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

MLWR111034 ....... INSTALL ILS GROUND CHECK MARKERS .............................................................. 50,000 MLWR111042 ....... RENOVATE COMM BUILDING 952 ........................................................................ 200,000 MLWR121015 ....... APPROACH 18 AND 36 RE-CIRCUITING ............................................................... 136,000 MLWR991098 ....... REPR/INSTALL IDS, VAR FACILITIES ..................................................................... 23,800 

OSAN AB ..................................................... SMYU121033 ....... INSTALL FANS ON HANGAR, B1833 ..................................................................... 50,000 YOKOTA AB .................................................. ZNRE111031 ........ Repair Fussa Gate ............................................................................................... 450,000 

USAFE .............. RAF Alconbury ............................................. QNDR121304 ....... RPR HVAC COMM FACILITY, B–400 .................................................................... 900,000 

RAF Croughton ............................................ EXSW121009 ........ CONSTRUCT ECP SATCOM ................................................................................... 250,000 RAF Fairford ................................................ GKVB991019 ........ REP/ALT REFUELING VEHICLE MAINT FACILITY ................................................... 890,000 RAF Mildenhall ............................................ QFQE131004 ........ RPR/CNS/DEMO FOR CES AND FUEL OPS CONSOLIDATION ................................ 2,700,000 RAMSTEIN AB .............................................. TYFR061066 ......... REPAIR/MAINTAIN ACFT MAIN. SHP ..................................................................... 842,800 

TYFR101057 ......... REPAIR BRIDGE L363 AND RAMPS ...................................................................... 2,000,000 YANB111582 ........ ADD/ALTER FIRE STATION #6 .............................................................................. 2,500,000 

SPANGDAHLEM AB ...................................... VYHK092001 ........ IMPROVE AT/FP MEASURES AT ENTRY POINT ALPHA 1, MAIN GATE .................. 1,360,000 

VYHK122001 ........ UPGRADE FLIGHTLINE SECURITY MEASURES AT RWY 23 END ........................... 680,000 VYHK122002 ........ UPGRADE FLIGHTLINE SECURITY MEASURES AT RWY 05 END ........................... 350,000 VYHK131001 ........ CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE PIPING FROM BUFFER BASIN TO CATCH BASIN ............ 300,000 

Sust ................... PACAF .............. MISAWA AB ................................................. QKKA111200P2 .... REPR AIRFIELD LIGHTING SYSTEM PHASE 2 ....................................................... 8,803,754 

QKKA131015 ........ REPR East Concrete Touchdown ......................................................................... 5,120,000 

USAFE .............. AVIANO ........................................................ ASHE131059 ........ SUSTAIN SURETY PAS DOORS ............................................................................. 5,250,000 

Overseas Total ....................................................................................... 114,643,253 

SC Demo ................. ACC ................. FORT FISHER RECREATION SITE ................. HEVT091001P1 .... DEMOLITION OF COTTAGES, FFRA ........................................................................ 1,280,000 

AMC ................. CHARLESTON AFB ....................................... DKFX050074 ........ DEMO ANG ALERT FACILITY—B2000 .................................................................. 310,000 

DKFX121046 ........ DEMOLISH CENTRAL A/C PLANT—B211 ............................................................. 75,000 DKFX983011D ...... VISITORS QUARTERS—SITE PREP (APF COMPANION) ......................................... 1,100,000 DKGV122155 ........ Demolish Family Housing Unit, B.1400 .............................................................. 35,000 

Energy ............... ACC ................. SHAW AFB ................................................... VLSB130011 ........ Basewide Lighting Upgrade—NRG ..................................................................... 643,000 

VLSB130012 ........ Repair HVAC, B417—NRG .................................................................................. 337,000 VLSB130016 ........ Repair Lighting with LED, Basewide—NRG ....................................................... 590,000 VLSB130017 ........ Repair Lighting w/ Controls, Basewide—NRG ................................................... 195,000 VLSB130018 ........ Repair Water Fixtures—NRG ............................................................................... 108,990 VLSB130019 ........ Repair Thermostats—NRG .................................................................................. 171,000 VLSB130021 ........ Repair HVAC, B1900—NRG ................................................................................ 118,000VLSB130022 ........ RCX Base Facilities—NRG .................................................................................. 281,000 
113 

AMC ................. CHARLESTON AFB ....................................... DKFX111059 ........ REPAIR (R&M) EXTERIOR LIGHTING B460 AND ALONG HILL STREET ................. 213,180 

DKFX111153 ........ UPGRADE KITCHEN EXHAUST HOODS .................................................................. 100,639 DKFX111154 ........ UPGRADE EMCS ................................................................................................... 432,807 DKFX111176 ........ Upgrade Exit Lighting ......................................................................................... 121,935 DKFX129001 ........ (NRG) Lavatory Water Reduction Project, Various Facilities .............................. 107,000 DKGV112263 ........ UPGRADE LIGHTING ............................................................................................. 274,580 DKGV112425 ........ Upgrade Lighting B–206 and B–3107 ............................................................... 123,044 DKGV112482 ........ (NRG) Upgrade Kitchen Exhaust Hoods—Various Facilities .............................. 290,493 

R&M .................. ACC ................. SHAW AFB ................................................... VLSB120126 ........ INSTALL GROUNDING AT RAPCON B700 .............................................................. 80,000 

AMC ................. CHARLESTON AFB ....................................... DKFX061003K ...... REPAIR CAFB TAXIWAY KILO PAVEMENTS AND HOT CARGO PADS ..................... 11,700,000 

DKGV112305 ........ Repair Electric Circuit at Retention Pond, South Annex .................................... 200,000 

SC Total ................................................................................................. 18,887,668 

SD Energy ............... ACC ................. ELLSWORTH AFB ......................................... FXBM081102P2 .... REPAIR INEFFICIENT LIGHTING SYSTEMS ............................................................ 800,000 

FXBM121250 ........ Repair HVAC 1103 Retro-Commissioning (RCx) ................................................. 55,000 FXBM121251 ........ Repair HVAC 7712 Retro-Commissioning (RCx) ................................................. 55,000 FXBM131254 ........ Repair Water Leaks ............................................................................................. 420,000 

SD Total ................................................................................................. 1,330,000 

TX Demo ................. AETC ................ GOODFELLOW AFB ....................................... JCGU121053 ........ CND: DEMO EXCESS FACILITY, B508 .................................................................. 35,000 

LACKLAND AFB ............................................ MPLS021008D ...... ABATE/DEMO TECH TNG SPT (8670) ................................................................... 60,540 

MPLS021008J ....... ABATE/DEMO NAF SUPPLY (8853) ....................................................................... 20,310 MPLS021008K ...... ABATE/DEMO NAF SUPPLY (8860) ....................................................................... 41,685 MPYJ061008B ...... ABATE/ DEMO LTA GYM (B140) ........................................................................... 219,270 MPYJ061008L ....... ABATE/DEMO DORMITORY SUPPLY AND STORAGE FACILITY (143) ..................... 20,080 

SHEPPARD AFB ........................................... VNVP131005 ........ Demo B1092 ........................................................................................................ 25,000 

VNVP131011 ........ Demo B1658 ........................................................................................................ 317,000 VNVP131013 ........ Demo B1919 ........................................................................................................ 380,000 

Dorms ................ ACC ................. DYESS AFB .................................................. FNWZ100107 ........ Repair HVAC Dorm 6138 ..................................................................................... 1,020,000 

AETC ................ LACKLAND AFB ............................................ MPLS971156A2 .... REPAIR STUDENT DORMITORY (10253, 10255, 10263) ...................................... 7,628,370 

Energy ............... ACC ................. DYESS AFB .................................................. FNWZ130011 ........ RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ................................................... 161,045 

FNWZ130012 ........ RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ................................................... 223,012 FNWZ130013 ........ RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ................................................... 110,194 

AETC ................ GOODFELLOW AFB ....................................... JCGU091117 ........ ENERGY CONS: RPL PNEUMATIC CONTROLS WITH DDC, B723 ........................... 229,000 

JOINT BASE FORT SAM HOUSTON ............... JBSF110306 ......... Central Energy Plant Upgrade, B1377 ................................................................ 1,591,700 

JBSF120033 ......... NRG—Radiant Barrier Window Insulator, B 2003 and B 1029 ........................ 333,991 

LACKLAND AFB ............................................ MPLS110018 ........ Optimization of HVAC Systems, Various facilities .............................................. 1,242,082 

MPLS110019 ........ Repair Heating Systems, Various facilities ........................................................ 227,216 
114 

AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST—Continued 

State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total 

MPLS110021 ........ Sink, Shower, and Toilet Modifications ............................................................... 658,000 

LAUGHLIN AFB ............................................. MXDP111027 ....... REPLACE CHILLER, COOLING TOWER AND WATER PUMPS, B211 ....................... 300,000 RANDOLPH AFB ........................................... TYMX138001 ........ High Bay Retrofit—Multiple Facilities ................................................................ 100,999 SHEPPARD AFB ........................................... VNVP121013 ........ DHRCs at 4 Dorms Sheppard AFB ...................................................................... 520,831 

AMC ................. FORT DIX ..................................................... HEKP114002 ........ FORT DIX HVAC RECOMMISSION MULTIPLE FACILITIES ....................................... 376,000 

R&M .................. ACC ................. DYESS AFB .................................................. FNWZ080076 ........ CONSTRUCT AGE WASH RACK, 5204 ................................................................... 695,000 

AETC ................ GOODFELLOW AFB ....................................... JCGU101128 ........ Minor: Consolidate CE Entomology, B3524 ......................................................... 316,316 

RANDOLPH AFB ........................................... TYMX121011 ........ Airfield Obstruction Reduction Ph 3—Remove CPS Poles in CZs ..................... 1,800,000 SHEPPARD AFB ........................................... VNVP001101 ........ (AOB) Repair Drainage/Headwalls on Runway 17/35 ......................................... 750,000 

Sust ................... AETC ................ FORT SAM—HOUSTON ................................ JBSF110075 ......... RPR—Structural Repairs 100 Area Buildings .................................................... 7,650,000 

TX Total .................................................................................................. 27,052,641 

UT Energy ............... AFMC ............... HILL AFB ..................................................... KRSM120002 ....... (NRG) RE-COMMISSION 40 BUILDINGS ............................................................... 629,880 

KRSM120003 ....... (NRG) INSTALL NEW EMCS POINTS (15) BUILDINGS ........................................... 573,000 

R&M .................. AFMC ............... HILL AFB ..................................................... KRSM101058 ....... REPAIR GRADE SOUTH END ................................................................................. 500,000 

UT Total .................................................................................................. 1,702,880 

VA Energy ............... ACC ................. LANGLEY AFB .............................................. HERT114001 ........ Repair UMCS Post Wide Phase 1 ........................................................................ 2,200,000 

HERT114003 ........ Repair Multiple Facilities—Solar Tracking Skylights ......................................... 2,263,000 MUHJ114016 ........ Replace HVAC motors W/High Efficiency Motors, Multiple Facility .................... 122,000 

R&M .................. ACC ................. LANGLEY AFB .............................................. MUHJ024230 ........ Demolish Poles and Install Underground Service ............................................... 1,242,300 

MUHJ074019 ........ Relocate Electrical Distribution Lines Underground ........................................... 1,470,000 MUHJ104143 ........ Repair Fire Detection/Suppression System, F. 407 ............................................. 325,000 

VA Total .................................................................................................. 7,622,300 

WA Demo ................. AMC ................. FAIRCHILD AFB ............................................ GJKZ110099 ......... DEMO, Aircraft Corrosion Control Hangar; B1023 .............................................. 1,000,000 

GJKZ110101 ......... DEMO, Aircraft Corrosion Control Hangar; B1021 .............................................. 1,100,000 

Energy ............... AMC ................. FAIRCHILD AFB ............................................ GJKZ010027 ......... REPAIR, Water Pump Facility, Potable, Pumps and Fan Motors MFACS ............ 103,550 R&M .................. AMC ................. FAIRCHILD AFB ............................................ GJKZ860027 ......... REPAIR (R&M), Taxiway, Towway I ACC (Access to Stub 100) .......................... 520,000 

WA Total ................................................................................................. 2,723,550 

WY Demo ................. AFGSC ............. FE WARREN AFB ......................................... GHLN051102A ...... DEMOLISH 800—SERIES DORMITORY B835 ....................................................... 596,000 
115 

GHLN051102B ...... DEMOLISH 800—SERIES DORMITORY B836 ....................................................... 600,000 

Energy ............... AFGSC ............. FE WARREN AFB ......................................... GHLN117004 ........ RECOMMISION HVAC SYSTEMS 8 BASE BUILDINGS ............................................ 143,200 

GHLN117007 ........ LEAK DETECTION/REPAIR POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM .................... 200,000 GHLN127005 ........ XERISCAPE ........................................................................................................... 820,000 

R&M .................. AFGSC ............. FE WARREN AFB ......................................... GHLN071054 ........ CONSTRUCT CROW CREEK SANITARY LIFT STATION ........................................... 582,000 Sust ................... AFGSC ............. FE WARREN AFB ......................................... GHLN130005 ........ MAINTAIN WSA ROOFING SYSTEM, HELICOPTER OPERATIONS BUILDING AND 

HISTORIC DISTRICT.

5,475,000 

WY Total ................................................................................................. 8,416,200 Grand Total ............................................................................................ 482,457,298 
116 

Senator BOOZMAN. Okay, very good. 

One of the things I am concerned about, the Air Force, if we do 

go into sequestration, I have heard that they may have to reduce 

their flying hours by as much as 18 percent. And very quickly, can 

you tell us how that is going to affect the air-worthiness of our pilots, because, the reality is, is that this actually could mean a 30- 

percent reduction moving forward, when you are backing up. 

Dr. CARTER. No question, flying hours, as I mentioned earlier, 

steeply decline. What that means is two things. First is the units 

are, except for Afghanistan, which we are protecting anybody 

whose going from Afghanistan, their training—— 

Senator BOOZMAN. So if you prioritize that—I don’t mean to—if 

you prioritize that, then that is going to make the other—— 

Dr. CARTER. Exactly. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The other 30 percent comes from—— 

Dr. CARTER. Bigger cuts in the others, which means they are not 

going to be ready for other contingencies. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Dr. CARTER. That is a real national security concern. 

And if you play this out, if proficiency declines to a certain extent, it takes a while to get them back. And so you are going to 

see that in our carrier air wings. You will see it throughout the Air 

Force. 

And this is why I said short-term disruption is long-term harm. 

And that is why we really need some long-term solution here and 

not something that just moves things down the road. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. The next questioner was going to be Senator Begich. He is not here. His statement will go into the record. 

We now go to Senator Shaheen, then Senator Moran, Senator 

Johanns, Senator Pryor, Senator Alexander, Senator Merkley, and 

Senator Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Chair Mikulski. I am 

very pleased to be able to serve on this committee with you and 

Ranking Member Shelby. And I am, particularly, pleased to hear 

you talk about the effort to return to regular order in terms of our 

budgeting process. I think that is very important for the Senate. 

For all of our panelists, thank you very much for being here and 

for the work that you have done to date, because, as a Congress, 

we have been unable to deal with this country’s debt and deficits. 

And I was impressed and pleased to hear all of you talk about, in 

your remarks, the fact that these automatic cuts that are going to 

go into effect aren’t just going to affect Government jobs and Government programs. But they are going to affect private sector jobs 

and private sector efforts to put people back to work in this country, so that they are going to have an impact on businesses, on 

families, on the jobs that we are creating. And, ultimately, they are 

going to have an impact on economic activity in this country. 

I am sure all of us saw, and you referred to this, Secretary 

Carter, in your remarks, that fourth quarter activity last year, we 

saw a decline in economic activity for the first time since 2009, be-
117 

cause of the reduction in public spending. Economists suggest that 

was a concern about the sequester. 

CBO estimates that we are going to see a loss of up to 1.4 million 

jobs if the sequester goes into effect. Senator Feinstein referred to 

the George Mason study, which suggests that we will lose 2 million 

jobs, 1 million on the defense side and 1 million on the domestic 

side of the budget, if we don’t deal with this. 

And, you know, Senator Blunt, you referred to the comprehensive 

effort to address the sequester. When I think about the comprehensive effort to address our debt and deficits, I do think it has to be 

balanced, that we need to look at the domestic side and the defense 

side in spending. I think that is appropriate. I think we need to 

look at mandatory programs, and I do think we need to look at revenue, that we need to solve this problem for the long term. 

We would not, as families, run our family budgets this way. We 

would not run our businesses this way. And we should not run the 

Government this way. It is a detriment to all of the good taxpayers 

across this country. 

And, Mr. Werfel, one of the things that I think we have not 

talked about, is the cost of what we are doing right now in terms 

of the sequester. And I wonder if you could give us any kind of an 

estimate on what it is costing us to try and plan for the sequester, 

and, if it goes into effect, what some of those costs might be. 

SEQUESTER COSTS

Mr. WERFEL. Well, thank you for the question. I don’t have a specific cost estimate. I can tell you that I am taking a lot of the central coordinating role across Government in planning for the sequester. I have a sense of the impact that it is having at many 

agencies, and my colleagues on the panel can certainly speak to it. 

It is enormously disruptive to agency operations. You hear stories of people pulled into meetings from doing the day-to-day mission-critical work that they are supposed to be doing, to be pulled 

into a meeting to discuss how to plan for this contingency, which 

was never meant to occur. And at the end of the day, our planning 

is going to fall short of mitigating its many harmful impacts. 

PROGRAM COSTS

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, let me ask you, Secretary Carter, because, before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this 

week, you talked about some of the costs of the sequester that will 

have a real long-term impact in terms of shipbuilding, for example. 

So can you speak to some of those costs? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, unit costs will go up in every program affected 

by the sequester. And we can provide you those numbers, whether 

it is the Joint Strike Fighter, whether it is the DDG–51. 

[The information follows:] 

The unit cost of military equipment is sensitive to annual production rates and 

many of our programs are already at low rates which are inherently inefficient. As 

these rates decrease further under sequestration, related overhead and support 

costs are spread over a smaller production run. This, along with the loss of manufacturing efficiencies, leads directly to higher costs per unit, which can result in a 

reduction in total overall quantities, or stretching programs out to live within available annual resources. In the near term, while future budgets are highly uncertain, 

we will do our best to cut other program activities and hold to production quantities, 
118 

but in some cases, such as the F–35, our first priority will be to keep the development part of the program on track, if we have that flexibility. Across the board we 

are doing our best to limit the damage being caused by sequestration, but the continuing uncertainty about final budget levels in fiscal year 2013 and beyond makes 

it very difficult to estimate specific long-term effects. Unfortunately, the sequestration also has a compounding effect that also carries on into future fiscal years. Impacts of sequestration will also be felt most strongly among the small companies 

that make up much of our production supply chains. Many of these companies will 

have great difficulty keeping their doors open and this will have a secondary effect 

on prices of future production lots. 

With the F–35 (Joint Strike Fighter), we estimate a reduction of approximately 

four aircraft in fiscal year 2013 due to the lower funding level. 

With regards to shipbuilding contracts, where annual procurement rates are already low, the loss of 9 percent may not lead directly to the loss of a ship because 

we will try to avoid this in the near term by taking the cuts in other ways. The 

steps we must take, however, will lead to higher costs in the future, since there is 

no viable option but to delete or defer the installation of specific components on a 

warship like the DDG–51 class destroyers. The Navy will have to renegotiate delivery schedules and reschedule where possible the installation of machinery, systems 

and weapons inside the ship’s hull, as funds become available. The most likely outcome will be shipyard production inefficiencies, as the shipbuilder tries to implement workarounds until the Navy can reprogram funds from other programs, to finish the ship. 

Dr. CARTER. So at the very moment that we are trying to be parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar—that is what this whole hearing is about—we are wasting it by forcing our industry partners to 

behave in an economically inefficient way. And that is very frustrating to me, but it is a real phenomenon. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And, Secretary Donovan, one of the things 

that the Office of the Inspector General on Federal Housing Administration programs has recovered is about $1.5 billion and been 

able to put those dollars to better use. Can you talk about how that 

inspector general’s program might be affected by the sequester? 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL STAFF

Secretary DONOVAN. This is a great point, Senator, because it 

isn’t just the internal costs to the agency. It is the return on investment, if you will, of the dollars we are spending. And this kind of 

indiscriminate cut doesn’t take into effect where we are saving 

money by continuing to invest in certain things. 

Our inspector general, that funding would be reduced just as it 

would in any other program. This past year alone, we have recovered more than $1 billion from FHA lenders that were not making 

loans according to our standards. And having to reduce both our 

own oversight, as well as the inspector general losing critical staff 

doing that kind of work, will lead to even greater losses to the taxpayer than we are gaining by making these cuts. 

On a similar note, with veterans, we know that not only do we 

save lives by getting veterans off the streets, but, in fact, we reduce 

costs from emergency rooms, from shelters, from prisons, from a 

whole range of other institutions by investing. We actually save 

more money by housing a homeless veteran than we do in the cost 

of housing them simply because of those savings. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Moran. 

Also, I understand you are going to be the new ranking member 

on Labor-HHS; is that right? 
119 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN

Senator MORAN. Madam Chair, I look forward to that opportunity, and it is true. And I have reached out to Senator Harkin 

and to you in the last few weeks expressing my desire that we have 

a good committee operation. 

I congratulate you on your chairmanship and delighted to hear 

your suggestion, perhaps more than a suggestion, that we are going 

to operate under regular order. I have been asked whether I like 

being on the Appropriations Committee, and the answer is yes, if 

we will function. 

It is a great committee. And I look forward to your tenacity to 

see that we do that. And I look forward to working with you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Senator MORAN. First of all, in that regard, I look forward to the 

hearings in which we get to the point in which we are talking 

about the appropriations process, a budget is passed, and we are 

doing our work. I look forward to addressing the issues of spending 

in a long-term setting rather than the matter of a few months in 

which sequestration will apply. 

NATIONAL BIOSCIENCE AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

I need to start, Madam Secretary, with you, as you might expect. 

I don’t think in the 2-plus years that I have been a member of this 

committee or the Homeland Security Committee or the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that we have ever had you in 

front of us in which you and I have not talked about the topic of 

the National Bioscience Agro-defense Facility (NBAF). 

And I was really reluctant to do today, but you give me no option, because our time is up. Unless you release the CUP funding, 

the central utility plant funding, within the next week, the contracts expire. 

And so the last time we were together in September in a similar 

setting, you indicated that it was now time to fish or cut bait. You 

took a very significant step and authorized the transfer of real estate from the State of Kansas to the Federal Government—allowed 

the transfer of the land so that this facility could be built. And you 

have the authority, once again, to take another step, which is to 

release the $40 million that this Congress has appropriated to meet 

the State’s funding to complete the central utility plant. And I am 

anxious to know if you are ready to fish or cut bait. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Senator, we have been working very 

closely with the State of Kansas on NBAF. And as you know, they 

have increased their own participation in the NBAF. I view it as 

a huge security need. It is also a huge need for our agricultural industry. 

With respect to moving forward on the CUP, I am very aware of 

the contract issue. But, if I might say, this perfectly illustrates the 

problem we are all in. 

I am trying to work with the Congress to build a level four agro 

facility in Kansas. It is a big investment. It is going to take some 

years to construct, but the country really needs it. It is virtually 

impossible to do a long-term capital budget when we have a fiscal 

year 2012 budget. We don’t have a fiscal year 2013 budget, really. 
120 

And who knows what will happen with 2014. And in the middle of 

this is the threat of the sequester. 

So I would have to echo Secretary Carter here that we are making all of these things more difficult, more expensive, and at the 

risk of really encouraging greater risk to the Nation. 

But I am well aware of the CUP issue. I have a call with the 

Governor of Kansas this evening. We will be working through this. 

But you have made it almost impossible to manage these large 

departments. 

Senator MORAN. I assume it is the universal ‘‘you’’, Madam Secretary. Not the specific ‘‘you’’ made it nearly impossible to work 

with. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is right. And I would not want to 

single you out. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. That is correct. 

Senator MORAN. Well, let me again stress the importance. I am 

glad to know of your conversation, intended conversation, with our 

Governor. But the money is appropriated within your realm of releasing those dollars, and, again, I would ask you to do that. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. The issue, if I might, Senator, is, yes, it 

is appropriated, but what do we do with the out-years now? That 

is the uncertainty. 

Senator MORAN. And that has been an issue which is going to 

rely upon the Congress to fulfill its obligation to fund a facility that 

we believe is important. 

And I am not critical of the administration in this regard any 

more than I am critical of the Congress. It is embarrassing in so 

many circumstances in which we don’t do our work, don’t pass a 

budget, don’t do appropriation bills, continue to pass continuing 

resolutions. 

Again, I asked to be a member of this committee. I think it has 

important work to do. And I am so pleased that our new chair is 

as tenacious as she is to make certain that this is a process that 

the Senate complies with, our constitutional as well as our legislative responsibilities. And we want to make it easier for you to help 

us accomplish the goals that benefit this country by doing our jobs. 

And so the ‘‘you’’ I understand is all of us, and it is well past 

time for this Congress to function in regard to the appropriations 

process. 

In the 18 seconds I have left, let me ask, I guess, I would focus 

on the National Institutes of Health (NIH), so perhaps you, Mr. 

Werfel. 

The impact of sequestration on NIH, I believe that medical research is significant and important to help save lives and reduce 

the cost of healthcare. One of the things that I think there would 

be significant discretion at NIH for is how it handles sequestration, 

in the sense that much of the money goes there and then is provided in grants elsewhere. 

The question I wanted to zero in on is, will that money be used 

internally for research projects at NIH? If there is a reduction in 

spending, will the reductions come in an equal fashion, or how will 

they be divided between research done at NIH or the 80-plus-of the 
121 

research that is done across the country by universities and research facilities? 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH PROJECTS

Mr. WERFEL. Senator, I am not sure of the exact balance. I will 

say it is my understanding that NIH, as a result of the sequester, 

will have to issue hundreds of fewer awards that will have spiraling impacts of delaying and halting vital work, jeopardizing 

thousands of jobs, placing prior investments at risk, and, ultimately, and the bottom line is, setting back work on chronic illness 

and disease. 

So while I am not aware of the exact split—and we can get that 

information for you—I think the important point is that NIH and 

research and innovation is an important area we have not talked 

about today and that is also significantly impacted here. 

Senator MORAN. Well, I appreciate the sentiments, the concerns 

about that. I am still interested in an answer to the question of 

how NIH, which seems to me would have more flexibility than 

many agencies, to determine how that would occur. I would like 

know what the plan is. 

Mr. WERFEL. We will get you that. 

Senator MORAN. I also would encourage you to provide the committee, at least provide me, with the $4 trillion plan that you responded to fiscal year Senator Coats’ question. We would be delighted to know what the President’s plan is in regard to $4 trillion. 

Mr. WERFEL. And if I could respond to that, the plan has been 

provided on multiple occasions. It is in the President’s fiscal year 

2013 budget. It was provided back to the joint committee when it 

existed. 

It is my understanding that the President, in terms of ongoing 

negotiations and work with the Congress, has used those plans in 

both the joint committee and the President’s budget as a basis for 

those negotiations. 

So our position is that the President has on multiple occasions 

submitted very specific plans on how to save $4 trillion over a 10- 

year period. It is really, we think, up to the Congress to work 

through those issues, to get a bill that can pass both the House and 

Senate, and get it to the President, that can avoid the sequester 

and get us on a balanced path. 

Senator MORAN. One of the problems is the absence of regular 

order is that I, as a Member of the United States Senate, am not 

participating in those meetings that occur between our leaders and 

the President, nor was I a member of the select committee. It 

would be great to see a proposal in writing as to what that plan 

is. 

And, again, when we get back to regular order, we will have the 

opportunity to discuss those. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Let’s hope so. 

Senator Moran, I would like to say to you, first of all, thank you 

for your question on NIH. I will be visiting NIH on Thursday morning. You, of course, would be welcome to join me if you are in town. 

I offer a gesture of hospitality. 
122 

I will ensure that your question is asked. It is exactly, Sir, one 

of the questions I have of Dr. Francis Collins on the impact of the 

sequester on NIH. 

And your staff is more than welcome to accompany me on that 

visit so that they can hear the firsthand briefing that I will receive, 

as well for Senator Harkin’s staff. 

Senator Durbin had to leave. His statement will be in the record. 

Deputy Secretary Carter, he will be talking a lot with you, as you 

know, in his new role. 

Senator PRYOR. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK PRYOR

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Let me follow up on one of Senator Blunt’s points about the Department of Agriculture. The law on meat inspectors says that 

processing and slaughter plants can’t operate unless the inspectors 

are present. Closing these plants for 15 days, these are USDA’s 

numbers, could result in lost production volume of 2 billion pounds 

of meat, which is beef and pork; 2.8 to 3.3 billion pounds of poultry; 

and more than 200 million pounds of egg products. That will drive 

the price up for consumers. 

So this is going to adversely affect every consumer in America. 

Sequestration is going to be very disruptive to our food supply and 

the food chain that we have in this country. The bottom line is, this 

is bad for the U.S. economy. 

There are going to be more than 10,000 very low-income residents in rural America that will lose their rental assistance which 

enables them to stay in safe and affordable housing. These families 

are generally female-headed households, or they are households of 

elderly or disabled persons. And the average monthly income for 

these folks is $803. 

So these are low-income people. It is the least of these that are 

going to take the brunt of these cuts if we can’t get our act together 

here in Washington. 

My first question is for you, Mr. Werfel. As these furloughs take 

effect, do you anticipate it will happen on day one? And will it happen in every agency and every Department across the board? Or 

will it be phased in over time? 

FURLOUGHS

Mr. WERFEL. Well, there are legal requirements for notices that 

I think Deputy Secretary Carter mentioned. 

What we will see is agencies will start doing a couple of key 

things. First, furloughing is something that is subject to bargaining. So work is ongoing and will intensify as we approach the 

sequester with union representation to make sure that the manner 

in which the furloughs are implemented is fair and equitable and 

et cetera. And so that is a very important process that will happen. 

Next, there will be a notice period. And as a general matter, 

those notice periods are different depending on agency and collective bargaining agreements. But I think you can use 30 days as a 

general manner. 

So what we will start seeing after March 1 is the intensification 

and completion of that bargaining with the unions, where appro-
123 

priate, and then notices will start to be issued. I think the Defense 

Department mentioned early April as to when that is going to be 

triggered. 

So the furloughs themselves will probably happen along a continuum, not exactly on March 1. But there will be impacts on 

March 1, including employee uncertainty but also spending reductions as well. 

Senator PRYOR. Has OMB done a study or analysis of the overall 

adverse impact to the U.S. economy? 

We know how many Federal dollars are at stake. We get that. 

That is pretty easy to get. But has OMB done a study on the adverse impact to the entire U.S. economy? 

Mr. WERFEL. We do not have an official estimate at this time. I 

will point out that a range of third-party estimates is now coming. 

I think some of them have been raised during this hearing. 

They show a negative impact of 0.5 to 0.7 percent in real GDP 

growth in 2013 alone. And that is a macroeconomic statistic, but 

what it translates into, and I think the President has been clear, 

that is going to translate into hundreds of thousands, if not more, 

job losses. 

And we have talked about how these are difficult economic impacts to measure because they have ripple effects. There is the 

pulling $85 billion out of State and local governments, out of Federal contractors, very abruptly and suddenly. You have got impacts 

down our supply chains, uncertainty impacting decisions to make 

investments. 

So, for me, I don’t know the 0.5 to 0.7 percent in real GDP 

growth is an important macroeconomic measure. What does that 

translate into? And we think it translates into very harmful effects 

to the economy and, in particular, to the middle class and jobs. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes, I agree with you. 

INDUSTRIAL BASE

Secretary Carter, and I only have about 30 seconds here. Secretary Carter, when it comes to the industrial base, we have contracts in place, and these contracts oftentimes have provisions in 

them for if the Government breaks the contract, there are penalties, et cetera. 

When you think about those penalties in the contract, and you 

said that the unit cost goes up, has DOD done a calculation of how 

much this will actually cost DOD in terms of efficiency and how 

many dollars will, in effect, be wasted as part of this? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, we have. You can do that program by program, 

and it is pretty dispiriting to see the waste associated with it. 

And a good measure of the impact on the industrial base is this: 

Even if we furloughed everybody, every DOD civilian, all 800,000 

of them, for the maximum we are allowed to do it legally, we would 

get $5 billion out of the $46 billion we need. 

Where is that other $41 billion going to come from? It comes 

from people who are not Federal employees, but who work for us 

indirectly doing the things that we need, whether they are maintaining our ships or building our weapons systems. So it is a huge 

impact on them. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
124 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Excellent questions. 

We note that Senator Johanns was here and left, and his statement will be in the record. 

Senator ALEXANDER. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I look forward 

to working with you on the Appropriations Committee. I thank you 

for the hearing. 

And I thank the witnesses for coming this morning. 

Mr. Werfel, you mentioned the President’s $4 million plan to reduce the debt. I assume that is a published document. 

Mr. WERFEL. $4 trillion over 10 years. 

Senator ALEXANDER. $4 trillion over 10 years. 

Mr. WERFEL. It is. 

Senator ALEXANDER. That is a published document. And I assume you are pretty familiar with it, right, as Controller of OMB. 

Mr. WERFEL. I am. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Could you detail for me exactly the plans 

for reducing entitlement spending over 10 years? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, I can provide you some additional detail there. 

So the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget, which contains his 

plan, has within it, with respect to the deficit reduction for the $4 

trillion—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I am talking about the specific proposal to 

reduce spending on entitlement programs over the next 10 years. 

MANDATORY PROGRAMS SAVINGS

Mr. WERFEL. Okay, there is $362 billion in health mandatory 

savings. They include such provisions as reducing Medicare bad 

debt coverage, aligning payments better to patient care costs for 

both medical education and rural providers, increasing income-related premiums for part B and part D of Medicare, aligning Medicare drug payments with Medicaid policy—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. That’s $362—— 

Mr. WERFEL. $362 billion over 10 years. 

Senator ALEXANDER. All right. And how much more is—— 

Mr. WERFEL. And there is an additional $270 billion in the President’s budget in savings in other mandatory programs, such as 

eliminating direct payments to USDA subsidies or agriculture subsidies, changes to military and civilian retirement, increases in air 

passenger security fees, and then reforms to the U.S. Postal Service. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Is there more than that? 

Mr. WERFEL. That covers what I have here for mandatory programs in the President’s overall plan for $4 trillion. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So that is $500 or $600 billion over 10 

years. 

Mr. WERFEL. That is correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. In reductions in mandatory spending out of 

the $4 trillion goal. 

Mr. WERFEL. Well, that builds on $1 trillion that was previously 

achieved in the BCA for discretionary accounts. 
125 

Senator ALEXANDER. For mandatory spending? No, I am talking 

just about mandatory. 

Mr. WERFEL. Okay. Yes. That is the component of mandatory 

spending that is in the President’s budget. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. But the problem with that is that entitlement spending is most of the problem we have, is it not, with 

spending and deficit, that the BCA actually addressed discretionary 

spending, which is what this committee deals with, 38 or 39 percent of the budget. 

And if we were to follow the caps that we put on discretionary 

spending over the next 10 years, we would be growing—that part 

of the budget would grow at about the rate of inflation. Is that not 

right? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. That is my understanding. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Right. But, so if the whole budget grew at 

just the rate of inflation, we really wouldn’t have a problem, would 

we? 

Mr. WERFEL. I want to go back, Senator, I think to the fundamental question of the components of the President’s plan. 

Senator ALEXANDER. No, I don’t want to talk about that. I want 

to talk about entitlement spending. And you said there are $500 or 

$600 billion out of a $4 trillion goal that is entitlement spending. 

What I said is you have got 38 or 39 percent of the budget that 

is under control and 55 percent that is out of control that is growing at the rate of 3 or 4 percent a year. 

And we have raised taxes. We have put caps on discretionary 

spending. And what is happening is entitlement spending is going 

to soak up all the money that all of you are worrying about over 

the next 5 years. And there is no plan from the President to deal 

with it. 

And this isn’t just the President’s problem. I go back 30 years as 

Governor, when I was sitting there trying to put more money into 

higher education and federally mandated Medicaid was soaking up 

money that I would like to put in higher education. 

So what I would like, respectfully, to see from the President is 

a plan to do what his own debt commission said we needed to do, 

which is to restructure Medicare and Medicaid in a way that saves 

them so people can count on them, and so that they don’t squeeze 

out of the budget everything else we need to do. 

According to the President’s own debt commission, Federal revenues will be enough in 2025, which is only 12 years away, just to 

pay for entitlements and the debt. So there won’t be any money for 

any of the things that any of you say are very important to the 

country, and which I agree with. 

So States have to balance their budgets. I mean, why is it that 

in the Federal Government, we don’t get together during these next 

couple of months and do what everybody knows we have to do, 

which is get control of entitlement spending so we don’t have the 

problem that you are talking about? 

And it will not happen unless the President leads the way with 

specific proposals, which he has not yet done. 
126 

ENTITLEMENT SPENDING

Mr. WERFEL. A very quick response. First, I am not in any way 

disputing that the growth of entitlement cost is a major, major 

driver, the major driver in our deficit reduction challenges. 

What I am pointing to is the fact that members of both parties 

and independent experts have pointed to a $4 trillion benchmark 

of overall deficit reduction savings as a smart, sensible next move 

that we can do to stabilize debt—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. My time is up. 

But Senator Corker and I put on the table a $1 trillion plan to 

reduce entitlement spending over the next year. Why hasn’t the 

President done that? 

Mr. WERFEL. Well, the President is ready, I think, to negotiate 

on sensible entitlement reform. 

Senator ALEXANDER. He is the President of the United States. He 

is supposed to lead. 

Mr. WERFEL. And he has put forward a plan. The notion that he 

hasn’t is untrue. He has put forward—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. He has not put forward a plan to deal with 

entitlement spending, because the plan which you related is $500 

billion or $600 billion out of the $4 trillion, and it does not address 

restructuring the programs that are causing the Government to go 

out of control in spending and causing the devastation that has 

been described here this morning. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have used my time. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. This is a preview of things to come. 

Thank you, Senator Alexander. 

I want to go to Senator Merkley, and then Senator Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is a 

pleasure to be here at my first meeting of the Appropriations Committee, and I certainly look forward to engaging in these types of 

discussions, as we wrestle as representatives of our respective 

States on both sides of the aisle, on how to take our Nation forward 

and restore a thriving economy, a growing economy that will bring 

us back on track. And that is what this discussion is all about. 

And I wanted to ask Controller Werfel, if we take the BCA, combine it with sequestration, and the impact on interest, and we total 

all that up, how much is the savings, ballpark? 

BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

Mr. WERFEL. Senator, the BCA had roughly $1 trillion in deficit 

reduction. The sequester would impact the deficit by an additional 

$1.2 trillion. 

Senator MERKLEY. So about $2.2 trillion. And I had if you threw 

in the interest on the—well, from the Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, they had $600 billion under the BCA on defense, $900 

billion on nondefense, an additional $250 billion in interest savings. So it is a larger number. I am not sure why the discrepancy. 

But is that more or less than the $600 billion in revenue that is 

coming out of the December 31 deal? 

Mr. WERFEL. It is obviously more. 
127 

Senator MERKLEY. By a factor? By a small amount? 

Mr. WERFEL. By a significant amount. 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. Basic math, three or four times as 

much. 

Mr. WERFEL. Exactly. 

Senator MERKLEY. So when I hear folks on both sides of the aisle 

talking about a 50/50 plan for revenue and expenditure reductions, 

is that anywhere close to what is being pursued now with sequestration? 

Mr. WERFEL. No. 

Senator MERKLEY. Would that balanced plan with sequestration 

have to be replaced by revenue? 

Mr. WERFEL. To achieve more balance, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me ask you another question. Is there any real difference between a $5,000 tax credit and a $5,000 expenditure on a similar program? 

Mr. WERFEL. From the perspective of—— 

Senator MERKLEY. Either a—— 

Mr. WERFEL. On the budget deficit? 

Senator MERKLEY [continuing]. Program or the cost on the budget? 

Mr. WERFEL. I don’t want to speak to the program mission, but 

the budget impact should be the same. 

Senator MERKLEY. If I spend $5,000 on affordable housing on a 

tax credit, and I spend $5,000 that I appropriate, isn’t it basically 

the same $5,000? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. So when we are talking about spending, why 

aren’t we talking about across-the-board reductions in spending on 

tax loopholes, credits, and deductions? 

Mr. WERFEL. I think the President believes we should be talking 

about that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, so there are a series of things that I would like to see. We are spending $85 billion on sequestration as 

it now stands over this coming year. There is a lot more spending 

than that on tax loopholes. 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Wouldn’t we be closer to that balance we are 

talking about if we closed some tax loopholes, get back to the regular order, and stop going from crisis to crisis, and putting our entire economy at risk in the process? 

Mr. WERFEL. That is the fundamental guiding principles that the 

President wants for a solution. 

EDUCATION IS AN INVESTMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE CUT

Senator MERKLEY. Secretary Duncan, there is the Edwards-Gingrich payroll tax loophole proposal. That goes back a ways, but it 

had to do with the gaming of corporate status. It saved about $9 

billion. Would it make more sense to end the spending on that tax 

loophole or to cut Head Start, special education, and title I? 

Secretary DUNCAN. The best investment we can make for the future is to get our children off to a great start. We know it is a 7- 

to-1 bang-for-the-buck. To not invest in children with disabilities 

and poor children makes no sense whatsoever. 
128 

We have to invest in education. We have to invest smartly and 

wisely, but we cannot cut that investment. 

Senator MERKLEY. And, Secretary Donovan, there is the stock-option loophole and offshoring of U.S. profits. Well, just the offshoring 

of U.S. profits is about a $24 billion cost. 

I am not talking about the numbers being exactly even here, but, 

just in concept, does it make sense to close this tax loophole or to 

cut a vast number of the affordable housing programs that your 

Department oversees? 

SECTION 8

Secretary DONOVAN. Our entire budget for our section 8 voucher 

program, which is the single largest help, more than 50 percent of 

the folks that we serve—elderly, people with disabilities—that entire budget is less than the $24 billion that you talked about. 

And I absolutely believe it is a central investment that we need 

to make and continue to make. 

The costs of cutting it are devastating to families. They raise 

healthcare costs. They raise other costs for local communities, because when families are not housed, they actually cost us more. 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, I have looked at just a small number of 

these tax loopholes, including the oil tax loopholes, the one that basically subsidizes the offshoring of our jobs, our manufacturing. 

Just four of them total up to about $90 billion, or roughly the same 

amount as the sequestration for the coming year. 

Doesn’t it make sense for us to shut down some of these loopholes and basically protect programs that support core services to 

the middle class and get our act together on having both the budget process and the appropriations process in a regular order? 

Anyone is welcome. 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. 

Senator MERKLEY. Okay. Well, I am out of time. And thank you 

very much, Madam Chair. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. I would like to now turn to Senator 

Cochran. 

Senator Cochran, you weren’t here when I thanked you during 

the time of Senator Inouye’s passing, where you were the ranking 

member. I know under the Republican rules, there was a change 

because of term limits. But I really thank you, and I am going to 

reiterate it with you here. 

Your big help during that time was really very, very much appreciated, and all the courtesy you extended to me, the way our staffs 

worked together, and then the way we worked together to move 

Hurricane Sandy. And as I said, your steady hand, your wise and 

seasoned advice and experience, and even direct guidance to me, 

was really very much appreciated, and your service to the Nation. 

And I think it helped during the really awkward time, and even 

a sad time of transition, you were just terrific. And I just wanted 

to say that publicly. 

So I would like to turn to you now for your questions. 
129 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I deeply appreciate your generous comments and your friendship over the years. We appreciate your leadership on this committee, too. 

I think this has been an example of a hearing that has really gotten into the details. 

These are real challenges that we face, too little money trying to 

solve too many problems. And there is never enough to go around, 

but somebody has to decide. 

We have to identify the priorities, and we have to work together, 

whether we like it or not. The administration can’t just send out 

edicts—‘‘this is how much money each Department, agency, or program is going to get.’’ 

So this hearing is very important. I think it has been an excellent hearing, due in large part to the evenhanded and commonsense leadership of our chairwoman, Senator Mikulski, and to all 

the members of the committee who have been here and put their 

best efforts into carrying out our responsibilities. 

We thank our witnesses, especially. It has been a long day, and 

I am going to shut up and not prolong it any further unnecessarily. 

I did want to make a comment or two about sequestration. I am 

just learning how to pronounce it, to be honest. 

But the whole point is that we are operating under some new restraints and guidelines, if you will. But in general, the sequester, 

as it is written, cuts off all appropriated accounts at the same percentage across the board. Unless there are priorities identified by 

this committee or by the Congress in consultation with the executive, we are not going to be able to carry out the will of the people 

as expressed through the Congress and our Appropriations Committee. 

It would be a misguided effort if we turned it all over to the administration, though, to come in and rewrite an appropriations bill. 

So I think we are going to learn by doing, and we look forward 

to working with the executive branch in a cooperative way, recognizing that any changes or modifications are going to require the 

collective involvement of both branches of Government, and not 

just one telling the other what needs to be done. 

I don’t have any other specific questions, except to express our 

appreciation for your cooperation and to thank the chair for her 

leadership. 

Thank you. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Reed, you are the chairman of 

the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

Senator REED. Yes, I am, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you. 

And I want to add not only my best wishes for your service, but 

also thank Senator Cochran for his service as the ranking member. 

So thank you both. 

And thank you, panel. 

Let me ask Secretary Donovan a question. We worked together 

on a bipartisan basis to pass the HEARTH Act, which was directed 
130 

at helping homeless veterans, particularly, but homelessness in 

general. And it is disturbing to learn that about 100,000 formerly 

homeless people may be removed from current housing or emergency shelters if the sequestration goes through. 

Is that the reality? 

HOMELESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AND RAPID TRANSITION TO

HOUSING ACT OF 2009

Secretary DONOVAN. Senator, that is the reality. And as you 

know, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to 

Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 was bipartisan, because we recognized both that we need to do more on homelessness. It is not only 

the right thing to do morally; it is also the right thing to do from 

a fiscal perspective. 

And Senator Boozman earlier made the point that veterans programs were protected. In fact, our VASH program would be protected from sequestration. But the fact is, 10 percent of all the people we serve in our homeless programs, our regular homeless programs not the VASH program, are veterans. 

Veterans are 50 percent more likely to be homeless than the average American. It is a tragedy. 

And for us to cut funding and to lose what would probably be 

10,000 veterans from our housing and be back on the streets would 

be tragic. 

The other thing I would just point out, the cuts in funding for 

the public housing programs and the voucher programs more 

broadly mean that the fees go down. Last year, we had six housing 

authorities turn back vouchers for homeless veterans—unthinkable—because there wasn’t adequate funding. 

These cuts, I am afraid, even if VASH is protected, would lead 

to more housing authorities turning those vouchers back. 

And as I said earlier, it is perverse because the truth is that we 

would be ‘‘housing’’ those folks in shelters, in prisons, in emergency 

rooms, in places that are much more expensive than the housing 

that we provide. 

So not only would we have terrible human costs, we would also 

be raising the fiscal costs to the taxpayer by making these cuts in 

this indiscriminate way. 

Senator REED. Well, you have raised a theme that I heard Secretary Carter echo before the Defense Subcommittee, the Armed 

Services Committee, is that one of the great ironies here is this sequestration could end up costing us more money than saving it. 

And, Secretary Carter, can you elaborate on that, in terms of 

bringing workforces back, lost efficiencies, lost time? 

Dr. CARTER. All of our programs that are required to be stretched 

out will increase their unit cost, in many cases dramatically. We 

are forcing our industry to make rapid adjustments, from which 

they will find it hard to recover, and it will be expensive to recover. 

All those costs get passed on to us. 

So what you will see is us paying more in the long run for everything we do, which is a great tragic irony, because we are all trying 

to save the taxpayers’ money or do the most we can with the taxpayers’ money, and this makes it impossible. 
131 

CONTRACTS

Senator REED. Just one further quick point, Secretary Carter. At 

some point do you anticipate you will have to just break contracts 

and pay penalty fees because you just don’t have the funds to do 

it? 

Dr. CARTER. I don’t think that we would like to take that particular path in most cases. We may have to do that in some cases. 

What really will happen is that we won’t be able to enter into 

contracts in the future, particularly ones that both we and our industry partners have anticipated, a shipbuilding contract or something we are going to go in. They are tooled up, they are staffed 

up to do it, and we can’t enter into the new contract. 

And finally, these aren’t contract terminations, but we are failing 

to exercise options as the year goes on for maintenance and base 

operations and so forth. So those aren’t contract terminations. We 

won’t have to pay a fee for that. But they are a big deal for the 

people who do the work. We are going to stop paying them. 

Senator REED. I have just a few seconds left. But, Secretary 

Napolitano, some of my colleagues, and we are all searching for 

ways to offset the cost of the sequestration, some have suggested 

not filling positions as a way to pay for this. 

Particularly with respect to CBP and some of your other key national security components, what would that do if you literally 

couldn’t fill positions as people retire or leave or positions become 

available? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I think that the result, Senator, 

will be that we will be less able to secure the border between the 

ports. We will end up staffing fewer lanes at the actual ports. 

There will be disruptions in Coast Guard activities, disruptions in 

airport activities, big disruption in cargo and cargo inspections, 

which delays the whole supply chain coming into the country. So 

there will be many, many deleterious effects. 

Senator REED. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Senator Graham, the ranking member 

on Foreign Operations. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I want to echo what has been said about your leadership. 

I think the committee is functioning very well in a dysfunctional 

time. 

So this is an oasis I like coming to. 

About sequestration, I think we have used every adjective known 

to man to say this is dumb. 

Can we just all agree this is a dumb thing? 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. 

NATIONAL SECURITY

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Well, all right. Good. 

Now, the question is how dumb? 

Now, are the Iranians watching us, in terms of our national security? 
132 

Dr. CARTER. They absolutely are. 

Senator GRAHAM. What signal would it be sending to the Iranians to begin to dismantle your force as they try to ramp up their 

nuclear program? 

Dr. CARTER. I think it very directly shows a failure of resolve, 

that we are not serious about implementing our new defense strategy. That is the kind of signal, whether it is Iran or North Korea 

or anybody else, that I am very concerned about. 

They are watching us right now and seeing whether we have the 

resolve to carry out our—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you think we are still at war outside of Iran 

with radical Islamic groups? 

Dr. CARTER. We are. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, Secretary Napolitano, what signal will it 

be sending to people who are trying to come here illegally if we 

stop securing our border? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, we have done so much over the 

past—— 

Senator GRAHAM. You have. 

Secretary NAPOLITANO [continuing]. 5 years, 4 years, to really get 

that border more secure. We would just go backward, at a critical 

time, at a time when the Congress also wants to look at the whole 

immigration system. 

So sequestration just runs counter to everything else we are trying to do. 

Senator GRAHAM. So sequestration undercuts all the gains we 

have made in terms of securing our border, and it certainly sends 

the wrong signal to radical Islamists and the Iranian threat. Do 

you agree with that, Mr. Carter? 

Dr. CARTER. I do. I do. 

Senator GRAHAM. Now, you have suggested that you would reduce your pay by one-fifth? 

Dr. CARTER. Yes, I will. 

Senator GRAHAM. How did you arrive at that number? 

Dr. CARTER. Because if we sequester someone in our workforce 

to the maximum extent possible under the law, which we don’t 

want to have to do but we are going to have to do in many cases, 

they will lose 1 day a week, one-fifth of their paycheck. And I don’t 

think it is right that they lose one-fifth of their paycheck and I 

don’t, even though I can’t be sequestered because I am a Presidential appointee. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, we can’t be sequestered either, but I 

think it would be very wise for us to follow your lead as Members 

of the United States Senate, that if we can’t figure this out with 

the President, that all of us ought to follow your model. And for 

every day that sequestration is in effect, the President should have 

his pay docked and we should have our pay docked just to show 

that we don’t live completely on a different planet, which some people think we do. 

So thank you for the suggestion. 

SEQUESTER IMPACT ON THE NATION’S ABILITY TO COMPETE

Secretary Duncan, how do you compete in the 21st century without investing in education? 
133 

EDUCATION INVESTMENT

Secretary DUNCAN. It makes it difficult, Senator. And, again, if 

you look at other countries that are already doing a great job educating, like South Korea where by lots of benchmarks they are 

ahead of us, in the past 8, 9 years, they are up more than 30 percent in terms of their investment. 

DIVERSITY OF STUDENTS OBTAINING GRADUATE DEGREES

Senator GRAHAM. Have you been to any graduations lately for 

people receiving a master’s and Ph.D.s in the hard sciences? 

Secretary DUNCAN. It is a very diverse group graduating from 

those classes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Well, I went to Clemson University and University of South 

Carolina, and when it came to the Ph.D. and master’s graduates 

in the hard sciences, there is one guy named Bob Smith that everybody clapped for because everybody else was coming from India 

and China, which is a great thing. I wish we had more native-born 

Americans getting into the hard sciences, but we need to welcome 

people from throughout the world to come here and get an education. 

Do you agree with that, Secretary Duncan? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. And, Secretary Napolitano, we should make it 

easier for them to stay and be part of our country; you agree with 

that? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Absolutely. 

Senator GRAHAM. I just don’t see how you fix our education and 

immigration system if we are going to cut the budgets like this. 

One final question, if we found ourselves in, sort of, budgetary 

triage, where we keep doing this dumb thing, and this dumb thing 

has a momentum of its own, and it begins to take a life of its own, 

and I am up here having to decide where the money goes, would 

you agree with me, Secretary Duncan, and I know you don’t like 

this position you would find yourself in, but if I had to pick between the Department of Education and DOD, should I pick DOD 

over your Department? 

Secretary DUNCAN. Again, I think these are false choices. And 

there is a—— 

Senator GRAHAM. But if I had to make that dumb decision, do 

all of you agree that the number one priority of the Federal Government should be national security? 

Secretary DUNCAN. I think we have to be able to walk and chew 

gum at the same time. 

Senator GRAHAM. I know, but apparently we can’t. 

Secretary DUNCAN. I have more hope. You have got a great chairwoman here. You have got some leadership. I think you guys have 

a chance—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would anybody give a direct answer to that 

question? 

Would you, Secretary, if I had to pick between the DHS and 

DOD, who should I pick? 
134 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Well, I am joining with my colleague. It 

is a false choice. It presents a false dichotomy. 

Senator GRAHAM. What if it becomes a real choice? 

Secretary NAPOLITANO. Secretary Carter already said, in his testimony, I don’t know whether you were here or not, but he said, 

look, you have to have well-educated people if you are going to 

have an adequate defense. They go together. 

Senator GRAHAM. I will just wrap it up by saying I want to tell 

the country it is a dumb choice. But if I have to make that choice, 

I am going to pick DOD. And I hope I don’t ever have to make that 

choice. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Was that entrapment? 

Is that question entrapment? 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you for indulging me. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. First of all, we are about to wrap up, as 

you can see. This has been an excellent hearing. In terms of the 

members participating, we had a 98-percent participation rate, and 

that was excellent. 

I have one final question that I will exercise, and it will be directed only to OMB. 

Here we are, picture March 1. It is now midnight. The clock has 

moved, and there it is. 

Can you paint for me the picture of how the sequester is triggered? In other words, do all of the lights go out in Federal buildings? Do furloughs trigger so we tell the NIH researcher, the welder at the shipyard, the person managing the weather satellite, the 

CBP guard, don’t show up every Monday now until the Congress 

acts? 

Could you paint for me, literally, what happens when the phrase 

‘‘sequester’’ is triggered on March 1? What will that look like? 

Mr. WERFEL. What it will look like, it will be multidimensional 

in its negative impacts. 

START OF SEQUESTER

First, you will see intense bargaining going on with unions getting ready to issue furlough notices for hundreds of thousands of 

employees across the Federal Government. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. So that is not going on now? 

Mr. WERFEL. That is going on now. But as we go across—this 

takes time. And that is what the world will—and once we get into 

an area where the sequestration order is issued, now it is real, and 

it is serious. 

I am not saying it is not real and serious now. But then it becomes law. 

And that is an important symbolic moment. Federal contractors 

will receive word of how their contracts will be impacted, whether 

terminated, whether modified. They will start getting an understanding of where our agencies won’t be investing in contracts. 

States and locals, Governors will be digesting information about 

how their financial footprint will be impacted, how it is going to 

impact their ability to sustain their government operations in areas 

like education and health and other areas. 

The list goes on and on. The reality is, is that agencies are 

going—because we are in a 7-month timeframe, agencies are going 
135 

to have to move quickly to meet this budget cut. And we are doing 

the preparatory steps right now to get ready. 

But once March 1 hits, and those funds are canceled, everything 

that we are doing in preparation right now becomes even more real 

and creates that much more uncertainty, that much more—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. I understand that. 

Mr. WERFEL. Yes. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. But is it then, like the first month, the 

issuing of notices to people? 

Mr. WERFEL. You will see a combination—yes, that will—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Will the lights go out? People are told 

they are furloughed. The word triggers the sequester—— 

Mr. WERFEL. It is complicated. There are some—— 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. I know. 

Mr. WERFEL [continuing]. Elements of Government operations 

that will feel the more immediate impact. 

So, for example, because of furloughs, we talked about the meatpacking element. Now, are the furloughs going to occur March 1? 

No, it is going to take some time, due to legal requirements. 

So what the world looks like on March 1 is very intense pre-staging actions that are taking place that are sending out notices and 

warnings and all kinds of different elements of how the sequester 

is going to play out. 

Some of that is going to occur before March 1. But it is different 

from a Government shutdown. Government shutdown means that, 

effective at midnight, you can no longer incur any more obligations 

and things do actually shut down. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. No, and that is scheduled to happen 

March 27. 

Mr. WERFEL. If there is not an appropriations bill, yes. But I 

think, with the final moments, let me just emphasize this point. I 

do not think that it would be prudent at all to assume that, because the lights don’t shut out across the Government on March 1, 

that we can go across that precipice and then pull back later. 

We have had analogies of the wolf being outside the door or wolf 

being in the room. The reality is I think it becomes extraordinarily 

problematic and serious, some of these economic consequences, 

once we hit March 1, because then it is real, and then a lot of these 

things come to fruition in a more exponential way. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. Well, and I think it could turn into a 

firestorm. 

Well, first of all, let me thank the witnesses. You really presented excellent testimony. You answered things in a very forthright, candid, crisp way, and it is very much appreciated. 

I want to also note that some other agencies were invited, like 

HHS. They had to be in Chicago with Rahm Emanuel. You make 

your choices and see what happens. 

Other agencies have submitted letters, and for those that we 

wanted to ask questions, like VA, Agriculture, that is why we really appreciated OMB here to do that. 

SEQUESTRATION RESPONSES FROM DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

I want to tell the members, and for the record, we have letters 

from every agency, thanks to the cooperation of OMB. They will 
136 

now be entered into the public record, and also staffs on both side 

of the aisle will be able to scrutinize them while we now work on 

this. 

[The information follows:] 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Thank you for your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting additional information 

on the impact of potential across-the-board spending cuts on the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) operations. Like you, I am very concerned about the impact of 

the March 1 sequester on the American economy, specifically in the areas of food, 

agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues. 

Since fiscal year 2010, USDA’s operating budget has been reduced by about $3 

billion, or 12 percent. As part of our Blueprint for Stronger Service, USDA has 

saved taxpayers millions in travel and printing costs and is consolidating more than 

700 different cell phone contracts into about 10. We are also pursuing other cost reduction efforts in several areas such as sourcing uniforms from the AbilityOne Strategic Alliance, standardizing bulk mail and processes, and implementing a ‘‘Shared 

First’’ acquisition policy to consolidate IT-related acquisitions. What’s more, the Department is achieving significant savings by closing more than 250 domestic and foreign offices while ensuring that the vital services they provide are not cut. 

If Congress does not act before March 1, it is estimated that the across-the-board 

spending cuts would indiscriminately reduce funding for USDA programs further by 

almost $2 billion in fiscal year 2013. About two-thirds of these cuts would come from 

programs funded by discretionary appropriations under the committee’s jurisdiction. 

While the Department is still developing plans on how to operate under a sequester, 

agencies have already taken actions in addition to those mentioned above to prepare 

for additional funding reductions through prudent practices such as hiring freezes 

and limiting operating costs. Should a sequestration occur, we would likely need to 

implement furloughs impacting about one-third of our workforce, as well as other 

actions. These furloughs and other actions would severely disrupt our ability to provide the broad range of public services we administer. Examples of these programmatic impacts include: 

—A reduction of 600,000 low-income women and children who could receive nutrition assistance and associated nutrition education and breastfeeding support 

through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 

Children (WIC). WIC has been shown to provide important improvements in nutrition of women and children, lower healthcare costs, and improved cognitive 

development of children. 

—A nationwide shutdown of meat and poultry plants during a furlough of inspection personnel. The furlough could result in as much as 15 days of lost production, costing roughly over $10 billion in production losses, and industry workers 

would experience over $400 million in lost wages. Consumers would experience 

limited meat and poultry supplies, and potentially higher prices, and food safety 

could be compromised. 

—Elimination of rental assistance for more than 10,000 very low income rural 

residents, generally elderly, disabled, and single female heads of households. 

With an average monthly income of approximately $803, these Americans are 

the least able to absorb rent increases and would face very limited options for 

alternate housing if landlords increase rents to cover the loss of the rental assistance payments. 

—A curtailing of conservation technical and financial assistance to approximately 

11,000 producers and landowners, thereby limiting benefits to water quality and 

quantity, soil erosion, and wildlife habitat that benefit the public. 

—Increased risk to communities from wildfires with as many as 200,000 fewer 

acres treated for hazardous fuels. 

—A loss of over $60 million resulting in more than 100 fewer grants awarded for 

agricultural research conducted by both university scientists and private partners, disrupting critical progress being made in many topical areas such as 

water, nutrient management, bioenergy production, animal and plant disease, 

and childhood obesity. 

—A reduction in assistance to States for pest and disease prevention, surveillance, 

and response, potentially leading to more extensive outbreaks and economic 

losses to farmers and ranchers. 

—Furloughs and other reductions in a number of USDA agencies that would limit 

the ability to provide program oversight, leading to potentially higher levels of 
137 

erroneous payments and/or fraud. Even small increases in improper payments 

have large public costs given the magnitude of programs involved, 

Additional information on impacts covering selected accounts is enclosed. 

In addition to impact to programs under the committee’s jurisdiction, one-third of 

USDA’s sequestered funds would come from mandatory programs, including those 

authorized through the Farm Bill, While plans are still being developed on how the 

sequester would be implemented for these programs, reductions have the potential 

to impair important elements of support for agriculture and the environment, including disaster assistance, conservation, and export enhancement programs. 

I deeply hope that congressional leaders will reach an agreement to achieve deficit 

reduction while averting an across-the-board cut. I look forward to working with 

Congress to preserve the many priorities of rural America while making sensible 

program reforms and reductions that will lead to deficit reduction. 

ADDITIONAL SEQUESTRATION INFORMATION

Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service 

Program: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 

Sequestration Amount: $333 million 

Impact 

Grants to States 

WIC is a federally funded program. If funding is inadequate to maintain the current caseload—as it would be under sequestration—State WIC programs would have 

to reduce participation and establish waiting lists using the priority system provided 

in regulation. 

A full year continuing resolution, coupled with sequestration, will result in a budget authority of about $6.3 billion. Using all available resources, including carryover and all contingency funds, will allow the program to support about 8.6 million 

participants—a reduction of approximately 300,000 participants on an annual basis 

from last year or about 600,000 participants if the reductions are compressed in the 

last two quarters of the fiscal year. 

Even before sequestration occurs, States may begin to implement cost-cutting 

strategies sometime in February. These strategies could range from reducing clinic 

hours, closing clinics, to establishing waiting lists as a last resort. 

When funds are not sufficient to support caseload, WIC agencies implement a priority waiting list of individuals. The first to lose benefits would be non-breastfeeding 

postpartum women and individuals certified solely due to homelessness or migrancy. 

African-American women have the lowest breastfeeding rates so they are more likely to represent a significant proportion of these women. 

Nutrition Services and Administration funding provided to States would be reduced by about $75–$100 million from the fiscal year 2012 level, which could result 

in up to 1,600 State and local jobs lost. 

Bureau: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) 

Program: Salaries and Expenses 

Sequestration Amount: $51 million 

Impact 

Sequestration would result in an across-the-board furlough of as much as 15 days 

for all FSIS employees, including inspectors. Since Federal law mandates inspection 

of meat, poultry, and egg products, production will shut down for that time period, 

impacting approximately 6,290 establishments nationwide. Due to lost production 

volume of more than 2 billion pounds of meat, an additional 2.8 to 3.3 billion pounds 

of poultry and over 200 million pounds of egg products, the industry would experience a production loss of over $10 billion. Consumers would experience a shortage 

of meat, poultry, and egg products available for public consumption, and the shortage may result in price increases for these products. Restaurants, grocers, local merchants, and others who rely on FSIS-inspected products would suffer multiplier effects from the shortfall in production. The impact could force smaller businesses and 

merchants out of business. Industry workers would also be furloughed, resulting in 

over $400 million in lost wages. The livestock industry would also incur additional 

costs for disruption of the pipeline from farms to production establishments as farmers and livestock producers would have to feed and store animals longer than anticipated. 

FSIS would also eliminate export inspections, resulting in losses for U.S. producers and causing additional storage costs and or loss of product. Export inspections could adversely affect other nations since the volume of products would de-
138 

cline. Furthermore, public food safety could be compromised by the illegal selling 

and distribution of uninspected meat, poultry, and egg products. Because FSIS is 

also responsible for verifying the safety of imported products, cutting import inspections would result in a reduction of 154 to 178 million pounds of imported meat, 

poultry, and egg products entering the country, in addition to the lost production 

capacity within the United States. Cutting import inspections might be construed 

as an international trade issue. Moreover, there is limited storage space along the 

border so that unless foreign countries stopped shipments, chill/frozen storage capacity and refrigerated truck/train/ship capacity would be compromised. 

Bureau: Rural Development, Rural Housing Service 

Program: Rental Assistance 

Sequestration Amount: $46 million 

Impact 

The Rental Assistance Program provides assistance to eligible low-income tenants 

in USDA-financed multi-family housing so that Americans pay no more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Approximately 286,000 tenants receive the benefit of 

rental assistance in almost all of the apartment complexes financed by Rural Development. The sequestration would cause more than 10,000 current recipients to lose 

rental assistance. The average monthly income of families and individuals receiving 

rental assistance (generally female-headed households, elderly, and the disabled) is 

approximately $803. These Americans are the least able to absorb any increase in 

the rent due to the loss of rental assistance. Loss of this rent supplement may cause 

property owners to increase rents, making the units unaffordable to the very low 

income residents who have few options for decent, affordable housing. 

With the loss of rental assistance, or higher vacancies resulting from very lowincome Americans being unable to afford higher rents, many properties will be unable to pay all of their operating costs. Owners may be unable to maintain the property and allow it to fall into disrepair, or the properties may become delinquent in 

their loan payments. Potentially, 411 projects may become delinquent by October 

2013. Ongoing delinquencies will lead to defaults and foreclosure and may result in 

long-term loss of affordable housing in rural communities in future years. 

The loss of rental assistance supporting new construction of Farm Labor housing 

would result in the loss of affordable housing for approximately 28 farm workers 

and their families; the loss of rental assistance supporting construction of multifamily assisted housing would result in the loss of affordable housing opportunities 

for 17 low or very low income families. 

Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

Program: Conservation Operations and Farm Security and Rural Investment Programs 

Sequestration Amount: $222 million 

Impact 

NRCS will implement a hiring freeze and reduce travel and other costs. This will 

impact NRCS’ ability to ensure timely, complete conservation planning activities 

and delivery of financial assistance, which would affect program accomplishments 

and service to farmers and ranchers nationwide. This would result in longer timeframes to address these challenges continuing to put at risk the business operations 

of the agency. In addition, NRCS would implement significant cuts in agreements 

and contracts with non-Federal entities by over $20 million in technical assistance 

and about $109 million in financial assistance. These reductions will have a deleterious impact on the ability to provide technical and financial assistance services to 

conservation customers, resulting in reduced conservation opportunities and reduced 

natural resource benefits with short and long effects on the Nation’s private lands, 

Overall, these cuts will undercut the ability to support priorities including landscape-scale conservation, water quality improvements, wildlife habitat protection, 

open space protection, as well as natural infrastructure restoration, carbon sequestration, weather prediction capacity, plant material development and other programs and services that support extreme weather and climate change adaptation 

and mitigation. 
139 

Bureau: Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

Program: Farm Loan and Salaries and Expenses 

Sequestration Amount: $80 million 

Impact 

Sequestration would require reductions of $80 million in FSA salaries and expenses and farm credit programs. The following highlights address some of the impacts of these reductions. 

FSA Program Management.—The sequestration would reduce the spending authority for FSA salaries and administrative expenses by about $75 million. In order 

to accomplish this reduction, FSA will implement a number of actions including hiring freezes, reducing contract operations for both Information Technology (IT) and 

non-IT operations, eliminating States flown in the National Aerial Imagery Program, and furloughing employees up to 5 days. FSA employees are responsible for 

managing a wide range of programs including farm loans, conservation and disaster 

activities with budgets totaling over $11 billion annually. Reduced ability to effectively manage these major nationwide programs will limit the ability to provide 

timely support to producers during the ongoing extreme, widespread drought and 

will erode the capability to provide oversight to limit erroneous payments. 

Farm Loan Programs.—FSA provides direct loans to family farmers and ranchers 

who cannot obtain commercial credit from a bank or other lender. The program is 

an important source of credit for beginning farmers, who tend to have limited resources and as a result, are less likely to meet commercial credit standards. Extreme drought conditions prevailing in significant areas of the Nation that have 

weakened the financial condition of agricultural producers significantly increase the 

importance of these loan programs. Operating loans are used to purchase items such 

as livestock, feed, farm equipment, fuel, farm chemicals, insurance, minor improvements or repairs to buildings, refinance farm-related debt excluding real estate and 

other operating costs, including family living expenses. Sequestration would reduce 

the budget authority for Farm Credit Programs by approximately $5.4 million ($35.6 

million in program level), meaning that 890 fewer direct farm operating loans and 

661 other farm loans could be made. The sequestration of farm loan funding could 

result in a loss of over 1,650 private sector jobs (plus the hundreds of farmers that 

would be forced out of farming and into the off-farm job market), reduce the GDP 

by more than $259 million, and could reduce household income by $44 million. 

Bureau: Forest Service 

Program: Wildland Fire Management 

Sequestration Amount: $134 million 

Impact 

This level of reduced funds would result in an appropriated funding level that is 

$42 million below the calculated 10-year average of fire suppression costs for fiscal 

year 2013. In addition, a reduction of preparedness funds typically increases suppression costs since the initial attack success will be reduced. Additionally, 2012 fire 

transfer funds are subject to sequestration, which results in needing to recover $20 

million of funds repaid. The agency would complete as many as 200,000 fewer acres 

of hazardous fuel treatments, resulting in an increased risk to communities from 

wildfires. 

Certain decisions may result in increased costs in the end. For example, the agency could reduce upfront costs by reducing use of exclusive use aviation contracts, 

115 engines, and 10 hotshot crews. However, this could result in larger fires, which 

will result in higher expenditures. 

Bureau: Forest Service 

Program: National Forest System (NFS) 

Sequestration Amount: $78 million 

Impact 

The agency’s essential services to the public will be reduced for a variety of high 

demand activities (recreation, forest and watershed restoration, grazing, mining and 

oil/gas operations) as a result of reduced operations at campgrounds, visitor information centers, and offices. This would largely occur during the peak use seasons 

in spring and summer. Thousands of private sector jobs in rural communities across 

the Nation would be lost due to a reduction of recreation opportunities, and minerals and oil and gas operations, which are completed through contracts, grants, and 

agreements. 

The agency would close up to 670 public developed recreation sites out of 19,000 

sites, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads. Closing this many recre-
140 

ation sites would reduce an estimated 1.6 million recreation visits across the country, thereby harming the economies of remote rural communities that depend on 

recreationists’ economic activity, and eliminating convenient vacation opportunities 

for rural residents. 

Increased risks to health and safety for visitors to the 193 million acres of public 

lands would occur as a result of reductions of 35 sworn law enforcement officers, 

leaving 707 total officers to control drug trafficking organizations, prevent crime, 

and protect and serve the public. The reduction in sworn officers would result in 

an increase of illegal activities on National Forest System lands, like arson during 

fire season, timber theft, and other natural resource crimes. 

Forest and watershed restoration work would be curtailed. Timber volume sold 

would be reduced to 2,379 million board feet from 2,800 million board feet proposed 

for fiscal year 2013. The agency would restore 390 fewer stream miles, 2,700 fewer 

acres of lake habitat and improve 260,000 fewer acres of wildlife habitat. 

Bureau: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 

Program: Census of Agriculture and Agricultural Estimates 

Sequestration Amount: $8 million 

Impact 

NASS is responsible for the collection and analysis of a broad range of agricultural statistics and completion of the Census of Agriculture. These statistics provide 

information critical to decisionmaking by a wide population of stakeholders and ultimately benefit all consumers by enhancing orderly and unbiased market conditions 

for agricultural products. Sequestration would stop fiscal year 2013 scheduled activities for the census, causing data processing to be placed on hold and potentially not 

recoverable. Data will become incomplete and will not be statistically sound for publication. Not having the 2012 census will negatively affect decisions made by farmers, businesses, and governments and ultimately will bring volatility to food markets and impact prices consumers pay. Data collected by the census includes the 

number of farms, value of land, market value of agricultural production, and inventory of livestock and poultry. 

NASS’ annual agricultural estimates reports are critically important to assess the 

current supply and demand in agricultural commodities. These unbiased, timely reports are extremely valuable to producers, agribusinesses, farm organizations, commodity groups, economists, public officials, and others who use the data for decisionmaking. The statistics disseminated by NASS support fairness in markets ensuring 

buyers and sellers have access to the same objective official statistics at the same 

pre-announced time. This prevents markets from being influenced by ‘‘inside’’ information, which might unfairly affect market prices for the gain of an individual market participant. The efficiency of commodity markets is enhanced by the free flow 

of information, which minimizes price fluctuations for U.S. producers. Statistical 

measures help the competitiveness of our Nation’s agricultural industry and have 

become increasingly important as producers rely more on world markets for their 

sales. There is no other source for the statistical surveys, estimates, and reports 

NASS produces. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Thank you for your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting information on impacts 

of sequestration. As you know, unless Congress acts to amend current law, the 

President is required to issue a sequestration order on March 1, 2013, canceling approximately $85 billion in budgetary resources across the Federal Government, of 

which $551 million is from the Department of Commerce (Department). 

Sequestration would have both short-term and long-term impacts on the Department’s ability to deliver on critical parts of our mission and would have a sizable 

economic cost for the Nation. All bureaus would see impacts to their missions as 

they implement hiring freezes, curtail or cancel training, and halt critical program 

investments needed to strengthen performance and improve efficient use of taxpayer 

dollars. All of these would have a harmful impact on our Department’s ability to 

deliver services to America’s businesses and keep our economy moving forward on 

the path of recovery. The Department is working hard to provide services in a costefficient and service-positive manner. We take our trust of taxpayer dollars seriously. As you have requested, I am providing you with some specific impacts to the 

Department below. 

The Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

would see significant impacts. Communities across the country rely on NOAA every 

single day to preserve property, protect lives, prepare for extreme weather events, 
141 

adapt to a changing world, and to enhance economic prosperity. NOAA’s central 

mission of science, service, and stewardship touches the lives of every American and 

these cuts would negatively impact the ability for NOAA to effectively provide the 

products and services communities have come to rely upon. 

As with all our agencies, these impacts are not abstract. They directly affect 

NOAA employees and partners throughout the country: up to 2,600 NOAA employees would have to be furloughed, approximately 2,700 positions would not be filled, 

and the number of contractors would have to be reduced by about 1,400. If sequestration is enacted, NOAA will face the loss of highly trained technical staff and partners. As a result, the Government runs the risk of significantly increasing forecast 

error, and the Government’s ability to warn Americans across the country about 

high impact weather events, such as hurricanes and tornadoes, will be compromised. 

Forced reductions in funding for fishery stock assessments, at-sea observers, and 

support for the regional fishery management councils jeopardize NOAA’s ability to 

open fisheries that are economically important to our coastal communities, such as 

ground fish in New England and along the west coast, red snapper in the gulf, and 

the Nation’s largest fisheries in Alaska. In addition, with these reductions in data 

and support for scientific analysis, NOAA will be forced to manage fisheries 

throughout the Nation more conservatively, which could mean smaller quotas and 

earlier closures as protections against overfishing. The economic impacts of these 

measures are unknowable at this point, but could be significant. 

Significant and costly impacts to NOAA’s satellites and other observational programs are also certain. For example, sequestration will result in a 2–3 year launch 

delay for the first two next-generation geostationary weather satellites (currently 

planned to launch in 2015 and 2017), which track severe weather events such as 

hurricanes and tornadoes. This delay would increase the risk of a gap in satellite 

coverage and diminish the quality of weather forecasts and warnings. Sequestration 

will also reduce the number of flight hours for NOAA aircraft, which serve important missions such as hurricane reconnaissance and coastal surveying. NOAA will 

also need to curtail maintenance and operations of weather systems such as 

NEXRAD (the national radar network) and the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System (used by local weather forecast offices to process and monitor weather 

data), which could lead to longer service outages or reduced data availability for 

forecasters. 

Marine transportation contributes $1 trillion and 13 million jobs to the American 

economy. NOAA provides nautical charts and real time observations, such as tides 

and water levels, to prevent ship groundings and supports the movement of commerce by sea and through the Great Lakes. Under sequestration, navigational safety, and therefore commerce, would be hampered due to reduced surveying, charting, 

geospatial and observing services. 

All told, there would be significant impacts in NOAA’s ability to meet its mission 

to preserve Americans’ property, protect lives, prepare for extreme weather events, 

adapt to a changing world, and to enhance economic prosperity. It is unclear that 

future years of investment will be able to undo some of the damage—especially to 

the economics of America’s fisheries and to our weather preparedness. 

Sequestration would have to cut a total of $46 million from the Department’s Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will be forced to significantly cut contract dollars 

and not fill hundreds of vacancies, pushing back research and testing for the 2020 

Decennial Census as well as seriously delaying the release of critical economic and 

demographic data needed for this calendar year. 

The last benchmark of economic statistics supporting America’s assessment of 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other key economic indicators was taken in 

2007, prior to the recession. If the sequestration cuts move forward, the Census Bureau will be forced to impose a 6-month delay in releasing vital statistics for these 

indicators, putting at risk our ability to take accurate stock of current economic conditions and well-being and potentially impacting policymaking and economic decisions in the private sector. 

Furthermore, delays in developmental work for the 2020 Decennial Census will 

increase the risk that the Census Bureau will not be ready to make major departures from past operational designs that are intended to save money without diminishing quality. The Census Bureau has committed to executing a Census that would 

cost less per household in real dollars. Cuts now are virtually guaranteed to force 

the Census Bureau to ask for larger investments later, putting at risk that goal of 

achieving more significant savings. 

Cuts to the Department’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) would 

hinder the bureau’s ability to leverage private sector resources to support projects 

that would spur local job creation. The sequester would likely result in more than 
142 

1,000 fewer jobs than expected to be created, and more than $47 million in private 

sector investment is likely to be left untapped. In addition, EDA would be forced 

to impose administrative furloughs of roughly 6.5 days for each of its employees. 

These cuts would limit EDA’s ability to be a strong partner to States and local communities in helping our country rebound from one of the worst recessions since the 

Great Depression. 

The cuts at the Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) would largely fall on grants, contracts, equipment procurements, deferment 

of open positions, and cuts in the repair and maintenance of NIST facilities that will 

negatively impact NIST’s ability to keep them in acceptable working condition. 

While cutting in these areas will enable NIST to maintain its core scientific workforce, the forced reductions would negatively impact NIST’s ability to deliver on its 

mission in other ways. For example, the elimination of some contracts and grants 

within the Scientific and Technical Research and Services would result in the elimination of at least 100 research associates at NIST who are important for the support 

of scientific research activities. The proposed cuts will also result in delayed or canceled equipment purchases needed to support work in critical areas such as advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, and alternative energy. In addition, if 

the sequestration moves forward, NIST will be forced to end work it is currently 

doing through the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Center system to 

help America’s small manufacturers innovate their business practices, make cost-effective improvements to their businesses, develop market growth strategies both at 

home and abroad, streamline their supply chains, and determine which technology 

investments make sense for their future. At a time when America’s small and medium sized enterprises need help the most, programs like MEP warrant strong support. NIST will also be forced to delay efforts to help return small manufacturing 

enterprises back to the United States from offshore locations. 

An important component of the Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security 

(BIS) national security mission is to engage directly with end-users of sensitive controlled commodities and determine whether these items are being used in accordance with license conditions. If sequestration moves forward, BIS will be forced to 

significantly cut travel specifically in support of these checks, which will hinder 

BIS’s ability to pursue some known threats to our national security. 

The Department’s International Trade Administration (ITA) would be forced, 

under sequestration, to reduce its support for America’s exporters, trimming assistance to U.S. businesses looking to increase their exports and expand operations into 

foreign markets by nearly $15 million. In addition, ITA will not be able to place 

staffers in critical international growth markets, where there is a clear business opportunity for many American businesses to increase their sales and create jobs at 

home. These staff would have been part of a key program working to promote and 

facilitate global investment into the United States, supporting thousands of new 

jobs through foreign direct investment. Furthermore, Federal trade enforcement, 

compliance, and market access activities would be cut by nearly $7 million, leading 

to fewer actions by the Federal Government to reduce trade barriers and ensure 

compliance with trade laws and agreements. 

Sequestration will also force a cut of $4.9 million from the Department’s Bureau 

of Economic Analysis (BEA). BEA will have to terminate work on key programs that 

help businesses and communities better understand GDP, foreign direct investment, 

and the impact of changes to economic activity within a specific regional economy 

(e.g., the economic impact related to Sandy). 

Once again, thank you for your support of the Department, and we are happy to 

answer any specific questions you may have. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

On January 22, 2013, you wrote to me asking for information about the effects 

of sequestration on national security. I want to provide you with our most current 

information. 

For the next several months, and perhaps for the rest of fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) faces some extraordinary and serious budgetary challenges, the most serious of which is the sequester scheduled to begin on March 1, 

2013. This sequester would cut 9 percent from all parts of the DOD budget except 

for military personnel. Although wartime or Overseas Contingency Operations 

(OCO) funding is subject to sequestration, we must and will protect wartime operations funding for our troops in harm’s way. This will inevitably mean larger cuts 

in the base-budget funding for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts. 
143 

The current continuing resolution poses an additional challenge because funding 

is in the wrong appropriations—there is too much in the investment accounts and 

not enough in the O&M accounts. If the continuing resolution as currently structured remains in effect throughout the year, we would be significantly short of the 

base-budget dollars needed to meet fiscal year 2013 needs for O&M. Adding to our 

problems are OCO shortfalls that are occurring, among other reasons, because of 

higher-than-expected operating tempos and the sluggish pace associated with the reopening of the ground lines of communication in Pakistan. 

All of these problems together yield shortfalls in the O&M accounts of our Military Departments of about $35 billion, leaving us more than 20 percent below the 

levels requested for fiscal year 2013. Percentage shortfalls for the Department of the 

Army, especially, are significantly higher. Moreover, if the sequester takes place, we 

would have as few as 7 months to accommodate these large shortfalls. 

Given this enormous budgetary uncertainty, we have begun taking near-term actions to slow spending, especially in our operating accounts, and we are planning 

more far-reaching changes should sequestration and the continuing resolution remain in effect throughout fiscal year 2013. 

Near-Term Actions 

On January 10, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued guidance permitting all 

DOD Components to take actions to slow spending. To the extent feasible, these actions are designed to be reversible if the budgetary situation improves, and they 

should minimize effects on military readiness. We are just now getting reports about 

the specific nature of the changes; so I do not yet have complete details. But I can 

provide examples of likely changes. 

—Most Components will institute civilian hiring freezes, with exceptions for mission-critical activities. Because DOD hires 1,500 to 2,000 people a week, this 

will quickly lead to personnel shortfalls, skill imbalances, and declines in capability—not to mention fewer available jobs. Unfortunately, the adverse effects 

are likely to be felt most heavily by veterans, because they make up 44 percent 

of the DOD civilian workforce. Effects will be felt nationwide—86 percent of our 

civilians work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

—Most Components will begin laying off temporary and term employees, again 

with exceptions for mission-critical activities. As many as 46,000 jobs could be 

affected. 

—Most Components will curtail facilities maintenance and renovation. More than 

$10 billion in funding—mostly to contractors—could be affected. 

—As of February 15, some Components will begin cancelling ship and aircraft 

maintenance work for the third and fourth quarters of fiscal year 2013. Unless 

we can reverse these actions, the result will eventually be fewer weapons available for deployment in future contingencies. 

—We will also take many other steps, including further curtailing travel and conferences, restructuring contracts to reduce their scope and cost, reviewing studies for cancellation or postponement, and sharp cutting back on base operating 

support. 

Under Year-Long Sequester/Continuing Resolution 

Although significant, these near-term actions will not be nearly enough to accommodate a year-long continuing resolution and sequestration. If these unfortunate 

events occur, we will have to take more drastic and irreversible actions. We do not 

have comprehensive, detailed information at this time, but I can provide examples. 

Together these actions will lead to a readiness crisis, a crisis in healthcare funding, 

and widespread disruption in our investment programs. Examples of actions include: 

—All Components will have to take the steps necessary, including congressional 

notification, to furlough civilians for up to 22 days. This action will have devastating effects on both productivity (these people fix our weapons, staff our 

hospitals, and much more) and morale (pay cuts of up to 20 percent for almost 

6 months). 

—The Army will reduce training and maintenance for later deploying units. By 

year’s end, the Army expects that about two-thirds of its active brigade combat 

teams (other than those in Afghanistan) will be at reduced readiness levels. 

—The Navy will be forced to cut back on operations in critical areas such as the 

Pacific. Cutbacks of one-third could occur in Pacific naval presence. 

—The Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours and weapon system maintenance. Most Air Force flying units (especially later deploying units) will be 

below acceptable readiness standards by the end of fiscal year 2013. 
144 

—TRICARE could be short up to $3 billion in needed funds, which could lead to 

denials of elective services for active-duty dependents and retirees. We are investigating ways to reduce this problem. 

—DOD will have to make cuts of roughly 9 percent in each of more than 2,500 

investment line items—actions that will lead to delays in weapon programs and 

increases in unit costs. 

Since October 2011—almost 18 months ago—DOD officials have stated repeatedly 

that sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution would have devastating effects. Indeed we have testified several times before Congress to the very effects that 

are identified in this letter. Now, regrettably, these consequences are upon us. 

But there is time to act. We still very much hope that Congress can reach an 

agreement on a balanced package of deficit reductions that the President can sign 

and that leads to de-triggering of sequestration and enactment of regular appropriation bills. If necessary, we hope that Congress delays sequestration long enough to 

permit it to reach a budget agreement. These actions must of course occur very soon 

if we are to avoid inflicting serious damage on our military and our national defense. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Thank you for your letter regarding the impact that sequestration would have on 

the programs and operations of the Department of Education, and, to the extent 

known, on State and local educational programs. As you know, I share your concern 

about the negative impact sequestration would have on the education of our Nation’s children and adults. 

Education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the Nation continues 

to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare all of its citizens to meet the 

challenges created by global economic competitiveness in the 21st century. Indeed, 

I can assure you that our economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their 

investments in education, and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of 

the indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required by sequestration. 

In answering this letter, our analysis has assumed that sequestration would be 

subtracted from funds available under a full-year continuing resolution. As you 

know, the continuing resolution that runs through March 27 provides funds at the 

same level and under the same laws and conditions as the 2012 appropriation. 

Sequestration would create significant hardship for America’s K–12 schools and 

postsecondary institutions. In general, the hardship will be concentrated in the 

2013–2014 school year, because most Federal education funds for the current school 

year were provided in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act. For example, the 

$14.5 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) program and the 

$11.6 billion Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B Grants to States 

program are forward-funded, meaning that funding for a given fiscal year becomes 

available on July 1 of the fiscal year and funds operations in the following school 

year. 

However, there are important exceptions to this general rule, and some key programs would feel the impact of sequestration immediately. For example, the Impact 

Aid programs are funding activities during the current school year. The recipients 

of these programs receive a high percentage of their overall funding from the Federal Government. That means sequestration would eliminate roughly $60 million 

from the $1.2 billion in funds for Impact Aid Basic Support Payments for schools 

that are counting on those funds to meet the essential needs of students and to pay 

teacher salaries this spring, potentially forcing districts to make wrenching, midyear adjustments in ongoing programs. Many districts are facing potential elimination of instructional and noninstructional staff and delaying needed building 

maintenance for buildings already in serious disrepair. 

An example of the fiscal impact on these programs is that the Killeen Independent School District in Texas, which has 23,000 federally connected children, including 18,000 military dependents, would lose an estimated $2.6 million in Impact 

Aid funds. Similarly, the Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools in Gallup, New 

Mexico, would lose nearly $2 million of the funds the district receives from the Impact Aid program to help meet the educational needs of 7,500 federally connected 

children, including 6,700 who live on Indian lands. This impact is severe, given that 

Impact Aid funds make up 35 percent of the district’s total education budget. 

In the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program, funds are used to provide 

services to individuals with disabilities to help them become employed. The grants 

fund operations during the current fiscal year, and the Department provides about 

80 percent of these operational funds. Thus, sequestration would immediately elimi-
145 

nate approximately $160 million from funds supporting activities that help these individuals prepare for, obtain, or retain employment. In particular, counselor caseloads would likely increase, as well as wait times for individuals to receive essential 

vocational rehabilitation services, hurting the effort to lower the unemployment rate 

for these individuals, which already is significantly higher than that of the general 

population. 

For other Federal education programs that are forward-funded, the fact that the 

impact of sequestration would not be felt until the 2013–2014 school year would not 

lessen the negative effects on students, families, and teachers. We know from survey 

data that about 80 percent of school districts would not be able to make up the 

losses from sequestration, a finding that should not be surprising given that State 

and local budgets are only just beginning to recover from the recent financial crisis 

and economic recession. Any inroads they have made to rebuild or restructure programs as the economy recovers and tax revenues increase would be substantially 

undermined by a significant loss in Federal education funds. 

In particular, sequestration would hit hard at Federal, State, and local efforts to 

improve educational opportunities for the Nation’s neediest students and their families. Title I Grants to LEAs serve nearly 23 million students in high-poverty schools 

and Special Education State Grants help SEAs and LEAs provide a free appropriate 

public education (FAPE) to roughly 6.5 million special needs students. Sequestration 

would reduce title I funding by some $725 million, potentially eliminating support 

to an estimated 2,700 schools serving 1.2 million disadvantaged students, while also 

putting at risk the jobs of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides serving these 

students. Formula grants to States received under part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act could be reduced by as much as $598 million, which 

would require States and districts to cover the cost of approximately 7,200 teachers, 

aides, and other staff needed to provide a FAPE for students with disabilities, placing additional burden on cash-strapped States and districts. 

To implement these reductions for the coming school year, local districts will be 

making decisions in April and May about which jobs to cut and which teachers to 

renew. Districts will have to plan on less funding. Fewer teachers and staff could 

mean larger class sizes, fewer courses or subject areas, less tutoring for struggling 

students, reductions in counseling, and more difficulty in retaining recently hired 

teachers. And, local economies will suffer from the higher unemployment or uncertainty of the staff. 

The law specifically exempts the Pell Grant program from sequestration. The law 

also has a special rule on student loans that specifies a small increase in the origination fee for loans made after the sequester order. This origination fee change 

would require adjustments in systems and records for those getting loans later in 

school year 2012–2013 and early in school year 2013–2014. 

Cutting administrative funds for Student Aid programs will affect the servicing 

of student loans serviced by Not-For-Profit (NFP) loan servicers. Sequestration could 

require each NFP servicer payment to be reduced. The impact of reducing payments 

to student loan servicers would be significant and could adversely impact as many 

as 29 million student loan borrowers. NFPs may have to lay off or furlough many 

of their contract employees in States such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, 

Tennessee, Iowa, and Utah. Some smaller NFPs may run operational risks and even 

be forced to close, disrupting service and potentially causing issues with payment 

processing for all student and parent borrowers they service. 

In addition, the Department’s ability to collect student debt and provide quality 

services to borrowers once they are out of school would likely be hampered, due to 

possible cuts in contracts with the private-sector entities that service Federal student loans. To underscore the magnitude of the risk in this area, during the 2011– 

2012 award year the Department delivered or supported the delivery of approximately $172 billion in grant, work-study, and loan assistance to almost 15 million 

postsecondary students attending more than 6,000 postsecondary institutions. 

The sequester would also likely require the Department to furlough many of its 

own employees for multiple days. This would significantly harm the Department’s 

ability to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in these very large, complex student financial assistance programs. 

Furloughing employees would also hurt all the Department’s other activities, including making grant awards on a timely basis. 

I hope this information has given you a clear idea of the threat to America’s education system posed by sequestration. I hope that you and other Members of Congress will work to avoid sequestration, and I stand ready to help in any way I can. 

Thank you for your continuing support of our Nation’s education programs. 
146 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Thank you for your letter regarding the impacts of potential across-the-board 

spending cuts, otherwise known as ‘‘sequestration,’’ facing Government agencies on 

March 1, 2013. I share your concern for the Government’s, and specifically for the 

Department of Energy’s (DOE or the Department), ability in the face of such cuts 

to make the investments needed to grow our economy through basic scientific research and advances in clean energy technology, secure our Nation through the 

stewardship of our nuclear stockpile, and meet our obligations to clean up the environmental legacy of the cold war. 

Sequestration would affect thousands of jobs among Federal, contractor, and grant 

awardee personnel, affecting these people individually and reducing the Department’s ability to serve the American people. The cuts would come 5 months into the 

fiscal year, forcing the Department to absorb the spending reduction in a 7-month 

period. While the Department has assiduously followed the direction of Congress 

and operated at prescribed levels during the current continuing resolution, such reductions would be difficult to absorb while continuing to sustain the same level of 

progress on our mission. 

The effects of sequestration are particularly damaging because, by law, they apply 

equally to each program, project, and activity within an account, thereby severely 

constraining our ability to prioritize and make tradeoffs among activities under reduced funding scenarios. Being able to focus and prioritize funds and effort in a reduced funding environment is critical to maintaining the human and physical capital needed to accomplish our mission; the way sequestration must be implemented 

withholds this essential discretion from my staff and me. 

Per your request, I am providing a description of the impacts that sequestration 

would have on the Department of Energy’s operations, infrastructure, and critical 

initiatives. 

Basic Scientific Research 

DOE’s Office of Science is the largest supporter of the physical sciences in the 

United States and the operator of 10 world-class national laboratories. Funding cuts 

to DOE’s basic science mission would be severe. First, operations at numerous facilities would be curtailed, potentially impacting more than 25,000 researchers and operations personnel who rely on these facilities to make advances both in basic 

science and in developing advanced commercial technologies. Second, sequestration 

would cause schedule delays and increased costs for new construction of user facilities throughout the Office of Science that are poised to contribute significantly to 

many areas of our understanding of nature. Finally, research grants would need to 

be reduced both in number and size affecting researchers at our national laboratories and at universities around the country; the pipeline of support for graduate 

student and post-graduate research fellowships would be constricted in a way that 

hurts our long-term economic and technological competitiveness. 

Clean Energy Technology 

The Department of Energy works across energy sectors to reduce the cost and 

speed the adoption of clean energy technologies. These efforts range from cost-competitive high-efficiency solar installations to carbon capture and storage to next generation biofuels and high-efficiency vehicle technologies. Under sequestration, funding reductions would decelerate the Nation’s transition into a clean energy economy, 

and could weaken efforts to become more energy independent and energy secure, 

while spurring overall economic growth. For example, a reduction in funding would 

slow down the significant advances made in making solar energy cost-competitive 

with conventional forms of electricity generation, as well as cut funding for solar industry job training that is targeted at military veterans and provided to 261 community colleges. It would also hinder U.S. innovation as global markets for solar energy 

continue to grow rapidly and become more competitive. In addition, a cut to the Department’s Vehicle Technologies Program would delay the program’s efforts to leapfrog the current technologies in critical areas of advanced vehicles, batteries, and 

lightweight materials, slowing American development of cleaner and more efficient 

vehicles as affordable as today’s vehicles. Reducing the cost of manufacturing these 

clean energy technologies is a key goal of the administration’s efforts and sequestration would negatively impact our Advanced Manufacturing program by delaying initiation of 2–3 industrial research and development project co-investments for at 

least a year or requiring shutting down a Manufacturing Demonstration Facility for 

6–8 months. 

Further, the Department of Energy provides assistance to low-income families by 

making their homes more energy efficient through funding provided to States, territories, and tribes. Funding reductions under sequestration will reduce by more than 
147 

1,000 the number of homes that would be weatherized in fiscal year 2013 and could 

result in the unemployment of 1,200 skilled weatherization professionals. Reductions of the magnitude associated with sequestration likely would also threaten the 

ongoing viability of some State programs delivering these home efficiency upgrades, 

closing the associated training centers, with a concurrent loss of professional retrofit 

certification capability. 

In just 4 years Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA–E) projects 

have achieved significant technical breakthroughs, including doubling the energy 

density of lithium batteries, dramatically shrinking the size and increasing the capacity of high-power transistors, and engineering microbes that can turn hydrogen 

and carbon dioxide into transportation fuel. Reduced funding in the clean energy 

area would scale back the Department’s ability to spur such accomplishments, slowing progress toward a transformed, 21st century energy sector. 

The Department works to improve the security and reliability of the Nation’s electrical grid by working with utilities and transmission and distribution companies to 

reduce risk of impacts from natural disasters, cyber attacks, and other human-generated events. Reduced funding would scale back these efforts, including research 

to detect and mitigate cyber attacks and monitoring of space weather events 

through deployment of technology and facilitating information sharing within the 

electricity sector on best practices for protection and/or mitigation when such solar 

flares occur. 

National Security 

DOE plays a critical national security role in developing and maintaining the Nation’s nuclear deterrent, securing nuclear materials around the world, supporting 

the Navy’s nuclear propulsion systems for its fleet, and conducting intelligence and 

counterintelligence activities. Cuts under sequestration would total $900 million and 

result in degradation of critical capabilities in this area. In the area of our nuclear 

weapons stockpile, critical efforts to refurbish and extend the life of several weapons 

systems would be delayed, leading to increased costs and impacts to deployment and 

readiness in the future. Our security posture at sites and facilities would be eroded 

due to project deferrals and workforce reassignments. Further, these cuts would degrade the internal oversight function of DOE nuclear facilities and reduce the depth 

and frequency of audits and evaluations needed to ensure ongoing robust security 

operations. 

Among the impacts to the Nation’s nuclear nonproliferation capability, reduced 

funding would cause delays and increased costs to efforts to secure and convert surplus nuclear materials around the world. Finally, work utilizing special nuclear materials would be impacted, affecting nonproliferation and emergency response training, and spent fuel stabilization activities. 

In the Naval Reactors program, sequestration would risk Naval Reactors’ responsiveness to operational fleet support issues, and it would delay the design and development effort of the Ohio-class replacement nuclear reactor. It also would delay the 

refueling of a training reactor New York that trains Navy personnel in reactor operations, thereby reducing the number of qualified sailors trained to operate reactor 

plants on submarines and aircraft carriers. In addition, cuts would delay by 1 year 

an essential facility in Idaho for handling spent fuel from Navy vessels. 

Environmental Cleanup 

The Department of Energy runs one of the largest environmental cleanup and remediation programs in the world in addressing the legacy of cold war nuclear weapons production at sites around the country. Sequestration would curtail this 

progress, delaying work on our highest risks at sites in Washington State, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Idaho. In addition, the Department is in legally binding 

agreements with State and Federal regulators to make progress in addressing environmental contamination, and funding reductions would put numerous enforceable 

environmental compliance milestones at risk, calling into question the Federal Government’s commitment to protect human health and the environment. 

As these examples demonstrate, sequestration would impact both the economic 

and national security of this country, and I appreciate your leadership in avoiding 

such cuts. I look forward to working with you and other Members of Congress on 

behalf of the administration in this area to avoid these impacts in a responsible and 

well-considered manner. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Thank you for your letter regarding the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts 

set to occur on March 1, 2013. I share your concerns about the potential con-
148 

sequences of these cuts on the critical social service, public health and scientific research, and healthcare coverage and oversight programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As the examples below illustrate, 

our efforts to protect the health and enhance the well-being of all Americans, as well 

as our commitments to grantees, contractors, and State and local governments, 

would be significantly impacted by the potential sequester. 

Social Services 

Sequestration would hinder the Department’s work to support American children 

and families. For example, up to 70,000 children would lose access to Head Start 

and Early Head Start services. This impact would be felt across the Nation, with 

community and faith-based organizations, small businesses, local governments, and 

school systems laying off over 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and other staff. 

Services for children and families would be disrupted, with some Head Start centers 

needing to close their classrooms early this school year or reopen their programs 

late in the fall. Programs would have to cut services, staff, and classrooms for the 

2013–2014 school year. In addition, sequestration would further impact our ability 

to help families succeed by leaving up to 30,000 children without child care services. 

Without a safe and secure environment for their children, working parents would 

have a difficult time seeking or keeping employment. 

Sequestration could compromise the health and well-being of more than 373,000 

seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children who potentially would not receive needed mental health services, which could result in increased hospitalizations and homelessness. In addition, we expect that 8,900 homeless persons with serious mental illness might not receive the vital outreach, treatment and housing, and support that they need to help in their recovery process. Admissions to inpatient facilities for people in need of critical addiction services could 

be reduced by 109,000, and almost 91,000 fewer people could receive substance 

abuse treatment services. 

Our Nation’s seniors would also feel the impacts of sequestration. In particular, 

congregate and home-delivered nutrition services programs would serve 4 million 

fewer meals to seniors. 

The cuts required by sequestration could slow efforts to improve the delivery of 

healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives through the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) and would result in about 3,000 fewer inpatient admissions and 

804,000 fewer outpatient visits provided in IHS and Tribal hospitals and clinics. 

IHS may lack resources to pay for the staffing and operations of five healthcare facilities that tribes have built with their own resources, with a total tribal investment of almost $200 million. 

Sequestration would impair the Department’s ability to prevent and treat HIV/ 

AIDS. The cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) translate 

into approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests conducted by CDC’s health department 

grantees. The Health Resources and Services Administration estimates that 7,400 

fewer patients would have access to life-saving HIV medications through the AIDS 

Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). This would cause delays in service and drug provision to people living with HIV and potentially lead to ADAP wait lists for HIV 

medications. 

Public Health and Scientific Research 

Reduced funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including user 

fees, could increase risks to our Nation’s food safety. FDA would conduct approximately 2,100 fewer domestic and foreign facility inspections of firms that manufacture food products to verify that domestic and imported foods meet safety standards. 

These reductions may increase the risk of safety incidents, and the public may suffer more foodborne illness such as the recent salmonella in peanut butter outbreak 

and the E. coli illnesses linked to organic spinach. 

Cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) due to sequestration would delay 

progress on the prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are also costly to 

society and on the development of more effective treatments for common and rare 

diseases affecting millions of Americans. In general, NIH grant funding within 

States, including Maryland, will likely be reduced due to both reductions to existing 

grants and fewer new grants. We expect that some existing research projects could 

be difficult to pursue at reduced levels and some new research could be postponed 

as NIH would make hundreds fewer awards. Actual funding reductions will depend 

on the final mix of projects chosen to be supported by each Institute and Center 

within available resources. With each research award supporting up to seven research positions, several thousand research positions across the Nation could be 

eliminated. 
149 

Healthcare Coverage and Oversight 

Under sequestration, payments to Medicare providers, health plans, and drug 

plans under title XVIII of the Social Security Act will be reduced by 2 percent. This 

would result in billions of dollars in lost revenues to Medicare doctors, hospitals, 

and other providers, who will only be reimbursed at 98 cents on the dollar for their 

services to Medicare beneficiaries. 

Sequestration would limit the Department’s ability to realize savings produced 

through proven investments, such as the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program. For every dollar spent to combat healthcare fraud through our law enforcement work we have realized an over $7 return on investment. In fiscal year 2011 

alone, we returned a record-breaking $4.1 billion to the Federal Government. 

I am eager to work with you and Congress to avoid the consequences that would 

result from sequestration. Thank you for your interest in this important issue. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you for your letter regarding the potential impacts of the March 1 sequestration. I share your deep concerns about the effects this unprecedented budget reduction to fiscal year 2013 funding will have on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its missions, and our Nation’s security and economy. 

Reductions mandated by sequestration would undermine the significant progress 

the Department has made over the past 10 years and would negatively affect our 

ability to carry out our vital missions. Sequestration would roll back border security, 

increase wait times at our Nation’s land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation 

and maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure vulnerable to attacks, 

hamper disaster response time and our Surge Force capabilities, and significantly 

scale back cyber security infrastructure protections that have been developed in recent years. In addition, sequestration would necessitate furloughs of up to 14 days 

for a significant portion of our frontline law enforcement personnel, and could potentially result in reductions in force at the Department. The following provides specific 

examples of the potential impacts of sequestration on the Department: 

—U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would not be able to maintain current staffing levels of Border Patrol Agents and CBP Officers as mandated by 

Congress. Funding and staffing reductions will increase wait times at airports, 

affect security between land ports of entry, affect CBP’s ability to collect revenue owed to the Federal Government, and slow screening and entry programs 

for those traveling into the United States. 

—U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would not be able to sustain 

current detention and removal operations or maintain the 34,000 detention beds 

mandated by Congress. This would significantly roll back progress that resulted 

in record-high removals of illegal criminal aliens this past year, and would reduce ICE Homeland Security Investigations’ activities, including human smuggling, counter-proliferation, and commercial trade fraud investigations. 

—The Transportation Security Administration would reduce its frontline workforce, which would substantially increase passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints. 

—The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) would have to curtail air and surface operations 

by nearly 25 percent, adversely affecting maritime safety and security across 

nearly all missions areas. A reduction of this magnitude will substantially reduce drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, fisheries law enforcement, aids to 

navigation, and other law enforcement operations as well as the safe flow of 

commerce along U.S. waterways. 

—Furloughs and reductions in overtime would adversely affect the availability of 

the U.S. Secret Service workforce, and hinder ongoing criminal investigations. 

—Reductions in funding for operations, maintenance and analytical contracts supporting the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) would impact our 

ability to detect and analyze emerging cyber threats and protect civilian Federal 

computer networks. 

—The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Disaster Relief Fund would be 

reduced by over $1 billion, with an impact on survivors recovering from future 

severe weather events, and affecting the economic recoveries of local economies 

in those regions. State and local homeland security grants funding would also 

be reduced, potentially leading to layoffs of emergency personnel and first responders. 

—The Science and Technology Directorate would have to stop ongoing research 

and development including: countermeasures for bio-threats, improvements to 
150 

aviation security and cyber security technologies, and projects that support first 

responders. 

—The Department would be unable to move forward with necessary management 

integration efforts such as modernizing critical financial systems. This would 

hinder the Department’s ability to provide accurate and timely financial reporting, facilitate clean audit opinions, address systems security issues and remediate financial control and financial system weaknesses. 

Hurricane Sandy, recent threats surrounding aviation and the continued threat 

of homegrown terrorism demonstrate how we must remain vigilant and prepared. 

Threats from terrorism and response and recovery efforts associated with natural 

disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts to DHS. Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities without placing our Nation at risk. Rather, we must continue to prepare for, 

respond to, and recover from evolving threats and disasters—and we require sufficient resources to sustain and adapt our capabilities accordingly. We simply cannot 

absorb the additional reduction posed by sequestration without significantly negatively affecting frontline operations and our Nation’s previous investments in the 

homeland security enterprise. 

The Department appreciates the strong support it has received from Congress 

over the past 10 years. As we approach March 1, I urge Congress to act to prevent 

sequestration and ensure that DHS can continue to meet evolving threats and maintain the security of our Nation and citizens. Should you have any questions or concerns at any time, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 282–8203. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

I am writing in response to your letter of January 18, 2013 to the Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning the effects of the across-theboard cuts that would result from the potential sequester now scheduled for March 

1, less than 1 month from now. These reductions to HUD programs would be deeply 

destructive and would affect numerous families, individuals and communities across 

the Nation that rely on HUD programs. 

For example: 

—About 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and disabled individuals, could lose benefits from the Housing Choice Voucher program and be at 

risk of becoming homeless. 

—These cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly homeless people, 

including veterans, being removed from their current housing and emergency 

shelter programs, putting them at risk of returning to the streets. 

—Sequestration would result in 75,000 fewer households receiving foreclosure prevention, prepurchase, rental, or homeless counseling through Housing Counseling grants. 

—The impact of sequestration would force public housing agencies to defer routine 

maintenance and capital repairs to Public Housing, leading to deteriorating living conditions and, over the long-term, risking the permanent loss of these affordable units that serve 1.1 million of the Nation’s poorest residents. 

—These cuts to the Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS program would 

result in 7,300 fewer low-income households receiving permanent and shortterm supportive housing assistance, including rent and/or utility assistance. 

—The reduced funding from the sequester would prevent State and local communities that receive HOME grants from building and rehabilitating 2,100 affordable housing units for low-income families. 

—The sequester will also result in significant cuts to community development 

funding for public services, facilities, and infrastructure improvements, reducing 

jobs and adversely impacting confidence in the long-term sustainability of the 

private market rental housing that HUD supports. 

As the administration has made clear, sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate 

instrument that was passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress to help ensure that 

action is taken on a balanced deficit reduction package, and the arbitrary cuts that 

it calls for should not take place. 

Thank you for your interest in the Department’s programs and activities. Please 

let me know if I can provide you with any further information. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for your letter dated January 22, 2013, requesting information from 

the Department of the Interior on the impact of a potential sequester of funds on 
151 

our operations, employees, contractors, and, when known, the impact on the State 

and local economies where the Department operates or distributes funding. 

I understand your concern that the impact of the sequester may not be fully understood by Congress and the American public. In response to your letter, I have 

asked our bureaus and offices to provide information regarding the impacts they anticipate from a sequester. They have compiled several of the most significant identified impacts in a summary of which is enclosed. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information about the serious impacts that sequestration will have on the Department’s management of many of the 

United States most valuable and treasured natural, historical, scientific, and tribal 

resources. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information 

from the Department. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Assessment of Key Impacts from Sequestration 

Oil and Gas and Coal.—Development of oil, gas, and coal on Federal lands and 

waters would slow down due to cuts in programs that: Issue permits for new development, plan for new projects, conduct environmental reviews, and inspect operations. Leasing of new Federal lands for future development would also be delayed, 

with fewer resources available for agencies to prepare for and conduct lease sales. 

As a result: 

—Efforts to expedite processing of offshore oil and gas permitting in the Gulf of 

Mexico would be thwarted by delays, putting at risk some of the 550 exploration 

plans or development coordination documents Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) anticipates for review this year. 

—Reductions would impact BOEM’s oil and gas activities in the Alaska region, 

including the processing of G&G seismic permits, review and analysis needed 

for environmental assessments, work on worst case discharge analysis for drilling permit reviews, and air quality data gathering and modeling work with 

other Federal agencies. 

—Approximately 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases would be issued in Western 

States such as Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, delaying prospective 

production from those lease tracts and deferring payments to the Treasury. 

—Delays in coal leasing would defer as much as $50 to $60 million from the 

Treasury for each sale delayed. 

—The FWS would conduct approximately 2,000 fewer consultations, delaying economic development projects and energy facilities that need environmental approvals. 

Visitor Impacts.—The public should be prepared for reduced hours and services 

provided by Interior’s 398 national parks, 561 refuges, and over 258 public land 

units. Reductions would: 

—Reduce hours of operation for visitor centers, shorten seasons, and possibly close 

camping, hiking, and other recreational areas when there is insufficient staff to 

ensure the protection of visitors, employees, and resources. 

—Require complete closure or program elimination at about 128 refuges. Visitor 

programs at nearly all refuges would be discontinued. 

—Limit the Department’s ability to sustain a full complement of seasonal employees needed for firefighting, law enforcement, and visitor services at the time 

when parks, refuges, and land areas are preparing for the busy summer season. 

Local communities and businesses that rely on recreation to support their livelihoods would face a loss of income from reduced visitation to national parks, refuges, 

and public lands. The 435 million recreational visits to Department managed lands 

in 2011 supported about 403,000 jobs nationwide and contributed nearly $48.7 billion to local economies. 

Cuts in Federal Payments to State and Local Governments.—States and local governments would lose over $200 million in direct funding from the Department for 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), revenue sharing from mineral leasing on Federal 

lands, and various grants. Local governments, particularly in Western States, rely 

on these funds to cover their base budgets and they would have to cut back on core 

operations ranging from police and fire protection to school and road maintenance. 

—Impacted would be the States’ share of revenue from energy and mineral production within their borders and offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf. Last 

year more than $2.1 billion was disbursed to 36 States and counties in 9 States. 

Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, California, Colorado, and North Dakota are 

among the largest revenue recipients facing cuts. 
152 

States would also have to scale back on wildlife conservation work and access, 

which could affect local hunting, shooting, fishing, and boating. State and local 

economies depend on the associated revenue from hunters, anglers, and wildlife 

watchers who in 2011 spent $145 billion on related gear, trips, and other purchases, 

such as licenses, tags, and land leases and ownership. 

Native American Programs.—Tribes would lose almost $130 million in funding 

from the Department. Reductions would be necessary in many areas including 

human services, law enforcement, schools, economic development, and natural resources. 

—Reductions will cut short the availability of assistance programs to the neediest 

of Indian Country by 3 or 4 months. Payments would stop to approximately 

2,400 needy Indians for each month the General Assistance program is shut 

down. 

—Cuts to Indian education programs will directly impact school services and 

scholarships offered to attend schools in the 2013–2014 academic year. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools would have the choice of reducing staff, 

services, or the number of days in the school year. 

—Additionally, many tribes would be affected by reductions to funds that offset 

administrative costs for tribal management of Federal programs. Reductions to 

BIA’s natural resource programs would impact the development of conventional 

and renewable energy and minerals on tribal lands. 

Water Challenges.—Some Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) facilities could be closed 

to the public due to unsafe conditions while necessary maintenance and repairs are 

delayed. High priority dam safety corrective modifications would be completed at a 

slower pace at several dams that pose potential risk to the downstream public. The 

BOR would be at risk for missing water deliveries related to environmental commitments in water districts across the West. 

The United States Geological Survey may have to discontinue operation of 350 to 

375 stream gages used throughout the country to predict and address drought and 

flood conditions by monitoring water availability. Work would also stop on water 

availability studies in Delaware, Colorado, and the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint River basins. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Thank you for your letter dated January 18, 2013, requesting information about 

the impact of sequestration on the Department of Justice’s (‘‘the Department’’ or 

DOJ) operations and employees. As you know, the administration continues to work 

with Congress on a balanced deficit reduction plan so that the untenable impacts 

of across-the-board cuts to our vital programs can be avoided. 

A March 1, 2013, sequestration would cut over $1.6 billion from the Department’s 

current funding level, which would have severe consequences for the administration 

of justice and serious consequences for our communities across the Nation. Combined with the impact sequestration would have on the Federal judiciary and the 

other Federal, State and local agencies that are part of the criminal justice system, 

the reductions to DOJ would delay or deny access to justice for millions of Americans. 

As I explain below, sequestration would not be merely a series of abstract cuts 

to a faceless Federal bureaucracy; these would be cuts that impact not just DOJ employees, they would impact our citizens, and our safety, in every city and town in 

the country. 

During the past year, the Department has carefully considered a variety of options to prioritize available resources to minimize the impact sequestration would 

have on our ability to prevent terrorism, fight violent crime, prosecute financial 

fraud, protect our most vulnerable citizens, and carry out the entirety of our critical 

mission. I have directed DOJ officials, when planning for a sequester, to mitigate 

the effects of sequestration on Federal workers as much as possible, given that our 

employees are our most important asset in achieving our mission. Unfortunately, 

the Department cannot achieve the cuts required by sequestration without furloughing staff this fiscal year. 

We need to issue furlough notices to employees at least 30 days, or in some cases 

60 days, before implementing furloughs. We may need to issue some furlough notices in the coming weeks. Since every DOJ component has a different funding profile, the number of furlough days per employee would vary considerably across the 

Department. Staff-intensive accounts would generally suffer higher furloughs than 

components with available balances from funds appropriated in prior years or more 

flexibility in non-personnel budgets. Important law enforcement and litigation pro-
153 

grams supported by contract staff would also be disrupted as the Department is 

forced to curtail contracts to reach sequestration reduction targets, recognizing that 

some contracts cannot be modified without significant contractual penalties that 

would cost more than the potential savings. 

Due to the cuts required by sequestration, the Department estimates that it 

would lose the equivalent of more than 1,000 Federal agents to combat violent 

crime, pursue financial crimes, help secure the Southwest border, and ensure national security, as well as 1,300 correctional officers to maintain the safe and secure 

confinement of inmates in Federal prisons. This would also result in the delay of 

activating prisons nearing completion, exacerbating the overcrowding of Federal 

prison space. The negative impact on prosecutions and civil cases will be severe, as 

outlined below. Most importantly, while some of the effects would be felt in Washington, DC, the impact would be most severe at the local level as our field investigative offices, prosecutors, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal courts work to implement these spending reductions in coordination with each other. 

The following information illustrates the impact sequestration would have on select DOJ components: —Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).—The sequestration would cut over $550 

million from the FBI’s current budget. To absorb this reduction, the FBI is faced 

with furloughing all personnel, including agents and intelligence analysts, for 

up to 14 days, as well as implementing a hiring freeze. This would have the 

equivalent effect of cutting approximately 2,285 onboard employees, including 

775 Special Agents. Sequestration will also require the FBI to eliminate and/ 

or reduce joint task forces and partnerships with other Federal, State, and local 

law enforcement, materially reducing FBI’s investigative capacity to address 

mortgage fraud, cybercrime, human trafficking, terrorism, financial fraud, organized crime, to name just a few of its critical mission areas. The reductions 

would be the equivalent of shutting down three of the FBI’s largest Field Offices—Chicago, Miami, and Baltimore. —Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).—Sequestration would cut nearly $60 million from ATF and impact its law enforcement operations and industry oversight capabilities. This would significantly increase 

risks to public safety and ATF’s ability to respond to emerging violent crime 

threats, in particular, those posed by gun violence. ATF would be forced to reduce criminal investigations, firearms and explosives industry inspections, firearms and explosive applications and permits processing, and firearms tracing. 

These reductions make no sense considering our emphasis on fighting gun violence, and they would thwart the President’s plan (and the Nation’s call) to protect our children and our communities from gun violence. —Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).—The sequestration would cut $338 million 

from BOP’s current budget. BOP would face a furlough of nearly 36,700 onboard 

staff for an average of 12 days, plus curtailment of future hiring, if sequestration occurs. This equates to about a 5 percent reduction in onboard staff levels 

and would endanger the safety of staff and over 218,000 inmates. As a consequence, BOP would need to implement full or partial lockdowns and significantly reduce inmate re-entry and training programs. This would leave inmates 

idle, increasing the likelihood of inmate misconduct, violence, and other risks 

to correctional workers and inmates. Further, limiting or eliminating inmate 

programs such as drug treatment and vocational education would, in fact, lead 

to higher costs to taxpayers and communities in the long run as the lack of such 

inmate re-entry training makes it less likely that released inmates will be successful at reintegration into society upon their release. 

Further, BOP would slow the ongoing activations of new prisons that have 

completed construction during the last few years (FCI Berlin, New Hampshire, 

and FCI Aliceville, Alabama). BOP would not begin the fiscal year 2013 planned 

activations of FCI Hazelton, West Virginia, or USP Yazoo City, Mississippi. 

BOP would still incur costs to secure and maintain these prisons, along with 

the prison in Thomson, Illinois. These five prisons represent over 8,100 beds 

that BOP would not be able to utilize fully at a time when our prisons are filled 

over rated capacity. In addition, the communities surrounding the prisons 

would not benefit from the significant economic activity that a prison engenders. We estimate that sequestration will mean over 3,800 fewer jobs related 

to the prison activations that would be foregone (including an estimated 1,500 

private sector jobs). 

I am acutely concerned about staff and inmate safety should cuts of the sequestration’s magnitude hit BOP. To be blunt, sequestration means less money, 

not fewer inmates. We would still have the same number of inmates—over 

218,000—after sequestration as before. This kind of dangerous situation is ex-
154 

actly why sequestration needs to be avoided and sensible, balanced deficit reductions achieved. While I plan to take every available step within my authority 

to aid BOP should sequestration happen, these steps cannot mitigate the severity of every cut faced by BOP. 

—U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).—The sequestration would cut nearly $60 million from the USMS’ current budget. USMS is facing the need to furlough its 

5,100 employees for up to 13 days (2 days per pay period between April 1 and 

September 30) and implement a hiring freeze. This would result in a reduced 

capacity to apprehend violent fugitives, investigate sex offenders, protect witnesses and the judiciary, and ensure safe and humane care and transportation 

of prisoners. Fewer deputy marshals partnered with State and local officers 

could increase violent crime, gang activity, and the number of violent fugitives. 

Because deputy marshals cannot forego tasks such as transporting prisoners 

and guarding cell blocks, the sequestration will reduce the USMS staff assigned 

to seek and capture fugitives, such as the Florida sex offender found in Texas 

on January 22, 2013 (http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/chron/2013/ 

012313a.htm). 

—U.S. Attorneys (USA).—The sequestration would cut nearly $100 million from 

the USA’s current budget. Using data on average number of cases handled per 

attorney in fiscal year 2012, the USAs would handle 2,600 fewer cases in fiscal 

year 2013 than in fiscal year 2012—comprised of an estimated 1,600 fewer civil 

cases and 1,000 fewer criminal cases. Fewer affirmative civil cases and criminal 

cases will affect our ability to ensure that justice is served: criminals that 

should be held accountable for their actions will not be held accountable, and 

violators of our civil laws may go unpunished. In addition, fewer cases will have 

a significant impact on funds owed to the Government. In fiscal year 2012, the 

efforts of DOJ personnel resulted in total collections of nearly $14 billion in civil 

and criminal fines, restitution and other debt. Staffing reductions, which would 

result in fewer prosecutions, could drastically reduce the USA community’s ability to collect billions of dollars owed to the Government. 

—Civil Division.—The sequestration would cut over $14 million from the Civil Division’s current budget and result in potential furloughs of up to 7 days of every 

Division employee. Under sequestration, the Division would be forced to move 

substantial resources from affirmative to defensive matters to meet court-mandated filings in these cases. Reallocating resources may avoid sanctions or default judgments, but protection of the public fisc would be compromised, and the 

resulting drop in revenue to the Treasury will exacerbate existing Government 

budget shortfalls. In addition, many civil investigations and prosecutions focus 

on stopping the sale and use of ineffective medical products or devices. The Civil 

Division’s litigation work protects Americans in every community, whether by 

ensuring the safety of our food and pharmaceutical products or protecting millions of homeowners from predatory lending practices. The Civil Division also 

investigates and prosecutes healthcare providers that defraud the Medicare and 

Medicaid programs by providing medically unreasonable and unnecessary services that hurt our Nation’s most vulnerable citizens, and this critical work will 

be adversely impacted by sequestration. 

—Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).—The sequestration would cut 

over $15 million from EOIR’s current budget. EOIR would be forced to cease 

all hiring of key critical positions for EOIR’s immigration courts, including Immigration Judges, likely increasing pending caseloads to well over 350,000 (an 

increase of 6 percent over September 2012 levels). EOIR would also be forced 

to reduce contracts for critical services, such as interpreters, legal support, and 

information technology. Sequestration would require the rescheduling of immigration cases for aliens who are not in detention even further into the future 

(into 2017). It would also result in delays for aliens in immigration detention 

and individuals seeking asylum protection. 

To limit the negative effects of the sequester for some of our components in the 

short term, the Department plans to leverage its limited reprogramming authority 

to transfer resources between activities within an account, as well as transfer authority to move funding from one appropriation to another. More discretionary and 

flexible programs, such as grants, will likely be required to ‘‘donate’’ via transfer authority to components facing serious life safety or security issues, such as BOP, 

which faces a shortfall of more than $200 million even after furloughs of headquarters and regional staff, reductions in non-personnel spending, and the use of 

available balances from funds appropriated in prior years. The actions to ameliorate 

the deleterious effects of sequestration in some parts of the Department will have 

negative consequences on the other ‘‘donating’’ elements of the Department. 
155 

Sequestration will not be, as sometimes portrayed, a series of harmless and overdue ‘‘cuts in Washington.’’ Our 115,000 employees work across the Nation, in every 

State, in large cities and small towns alike. Every community will feel the reduction 

of our law enforcement presence due to sequestration; every community will feel the 

reduction to its local economy as our furloughed staffs and families are forced to reduce spending that supports local businesses. Sequestration will have profound impacts on our entire system of justice, our employees on a professional and personal 

level, and on the American people we serve. I urge Congress to work with the administration to pass a balanced reduction plan so that the negative impacts of sequestration will be avoided. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Thank you for your letter expressing your concern about the impacts of sequestration on operations within the Department of Labor. In the initial planning process, 

we have made every effort to protect the mission of the Department and of each 

agency. We maintain our commitment to investing in long-term economic success 

through worker training; protecting the wages, health and safety of our workers; 

protecting the security of pension, health and other employee benefits; and supporting our veterans. Nonetheless, with such dramatic, across-the-board cuts as 

would be required by a sequestration order if Congress does not act, we will not be 

able to provide the same level of service to the American people. As a great deal 

of the Department’s funding goes directly to the State and local areas to cover program and administrative costs, we also expect the quality and level of State and 

locally delivered services to erode and anticipate the State and local areas to experience staffing reductions across the country. 

Training and Employment Programs 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) plays a critical role in the 

Nation’s economic recovery. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) formula funds and 

Wagner-Peyser Employment Service formula funds provide grants to States to provide an array of employment and training services at the State and local levels, 

which are delivered through the American Job Centers (AJC). The millions of dollars in reductions to these funds will lead to several hundred thousand fewer participants served. These funds help dislocated workers, low-skilled adult workers, 

and disadvantaged youth find jobs. Though we cannot predict the immediate impact 

of the proposed reductions on the 2,767 American Job Centers, it is clear that cuts 

will reduce the number of access sites for workers in need of assistance. As States 

will be pushed to reduce administrative costs rather than program costs, staffing at 

State and local levels will be reduced, though precise figures cannot be known until 

we begin modifying State grant agreements to accommodate the funding reductions. 

Although ETA will protect National Emergency Grant (NEG) funding to respond to 

natural disasters, regular NEG funding will be adversely impacted, further eroding 

services available for dislocated workers. In the formula programs under WIA, coupled with the Employment Service, we estimate that more than 1 million fewer participants will receive services needed to find or prepare for a new job. In its competitive grant programs for underserved and vulnerable populations, ETA will have to 

reduce either the number of competitive grants or the amount of money provided 

in formula grants, which will have a deleterious effect on populations served by both 

the grants and the WIA system by allowing fewer participants into these important 

programs. 

The Office of Job Corps (OJC) provides thousands of low-income youth with academic and vocational training that will help them secure a job, pursue more education or training, or join the military. The serious funding issues that Job Corps 

is already experiencing in the current year would be exacerbated under sequestration. Under sequestration, OJC will have to either permanently close more than the 

few low-performing centers it had planned to close in program year 2013 or close 

all centers for a significant portion of program year 2013 to meet the reduced funding level. In addition, construction on all new centers will cease. 

Economists and the Congressional Budget Office predict that there will be an increase in unemployment if sequestration occurs. Sequestration will also reduce 

States’ ability to assist newly unemployed workers in their search for employment 

and could impact the integrity of the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. Inadequate funding for State administration of UI programs could lead to State layoffs, 

an increased number of improper payments, backlogs of appeals, and slower processing of claims. In addition, the automatic cuts to the Employment Service Grants 
156 

to States will reduce the number of workers served at the AJCs through WIA and 

Wagner-Peyser funds by more than 1 million. 

For the long-term unemployed, more than 3.8 million people receiving Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation benefits will see their benefits reduced by as much 

as 9.4 percent. Affected long-term unemployed individuals would lose an average of 

more than $400 in benefits that they and their families count on while they search 

for another job. Smaller unemployment checks will also have a negative impact on 

the economy as a whole. Economists have estimated that every dollar in unemployment benefits generates $2 in economic activity. Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments (REAs) would also be reduced, further hampering support for individuals 

searching for new employment. REAs save money by helping beneficiaries exit the 

Unemployment Insurance program more quickly. 

The Veterans Employment and Training Services is the agency charged with fulfilling the President’s promise that the men and women who fight for us on the 

front lines should not have to fight for a job when they return home. Yet under sequestration, the Transition Assistance Program which serves over 150,000 veterans 

a year may have to reduce operations—leaving thousands of transitioning veterans 

unserved. The Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program will also experience cuts, 

translating to a reduction in the capacity to serve by tens of thousands fewer veterans in their efforts to find civilian employment. The National Veterans’ Training 

Institute and Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program would also be reduced, further eroding the tailored services the Department can provide to veterans. 

Worker Protection Programs 

The impacts of sequestration will also be felt in other ways affecting our Nation’s 

workforce. The Department’s agencies that promote workplace safety will experience 

furloughs in order to absorb the funding reductions under sequestration. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will protect its highest priority 

activities but still roughly 1,200 fewer programmed inspections of the most dangerous workplaces will occur. This reduction could lead to an increase in worker fatalities and injuries. States, which enforce the law in over half of the States, will 

also have to furlough inspectors, and an even larger reduction in the number of inspections in State Plan States is expected. 

The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will adjust funding to complete 100 percent of its mandatory coal inspections, but it will likely not be able to 

do the same for the mandatory metal nonmetal mine inspections. In addition, many 

of the most effective activities that have caught grave workplace conditions—impact 

inspections, technical investigations, respirable coal mine dust inspections, and accident prevention investigations—will be significantly reduced, potentially leading to 

an increase in the fatality and injury rate among miners. The Department remains 

committed to implementing the recommendations from the Internal Review of 

MSHA’s actions at the Upper Big Branch mine, but progress on this will have to 

be delayed. Both MSHA and the Office of the Solicitor (SOL) will have to scale back 

work on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission backlog project, 

which will likely increase the backlog of current contested cases. 

The sequestration order will clearly have a negative impact on the Wage and 

Hour Division’s (WHD) efforts to protect the most vulnerable workers in the workplace. WHD will see a reduction in the number of investigations its investigators 

will be able to complete. Without the ability to maintain full staffing levels in the 

face of higher attrition rates it is not possible to prevent WHD’s overall production 

and output results from declining. Under a sequestration order, WHD can expect 

a contraction in the number of compliance actions, primarily in the complaint-based 

program due to a continued reduction in investigative staff. The agency’s complaint 

response times will increase, and backlogs will build. These consequences directly 

affect the agency’s customer service goals and certainly impact the welfare of those 

individuals who have requested the agency’s services and who, absent the sequestration, would likely be served. 

In other worker protection agencies, the Employee Benefits Security Administration is facing millions in reductions, and will complete many fewer civil and criminal 

investigations as well as see a significant reduction in monetary results for workers. 

The Office of Labor Management Standards will be forced to reduce the number of 

Compliance Audit Program cases and criminal cases and increase the election case 

resolution time. In the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), injured 

employees and their families who rely on the benefits provided by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act and other workers’ compensation programs would have 

to wait additional time for their claims to be processed. 
157 

Other Agencies 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal Federal agency responsible 

for measuring labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the 

economy and its work informs and supports public and private decisionmaking. 

With millions in reductions, BLS would have to eliminate or reduce some of its programs. 

Additionally, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs will have to reduce its 

grants for child labor and trade-related workers’ rights projects. The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) will be forced to reduce research, policy and effective practice development and technical assistance initiatives that promote the 

integration of workers with disabilities into the workforce. The Office of Inspector 

General will have to cut audits and investigations that limit fraud, waste, and abuse 

in Department of Labor programs. 

While the issues above illustrate the main impact of sequestration on the major 

Department of Labor programs, they do not reflect the impact on the support agencies or the impact on employee morale. These issues will also negatively impact the 

effectiveness of the Department’s service to citizens and stakeholders. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Thank you for your letter regarding the impact of sequestration on the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). We 

share your deep concern that sequestration would disrupt delivery of essential services to the American people, including critical national security programs. 

Sequestration would force the Department and USAID to make across-the-board reductions of $2.6 billion to fiscal year 2013 funding levels under the continuing resolution. Cuts of this magnitude would seriously impair our ability to execute our 

vital missions of national security, diplomacy, and development. Our ability to influence and shape world events, protect U.S. interests, increase job-creating opportunities for American businesses, prevent conflict, protect our citizens overseas, and defeat terrorism before it reaches our shores depends on day-to-day diplomatic engagement and increased prosperity worldwide. These cuts would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S. Government facilities overseas and ensure the 

safety of the thousands of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad. 

Sequestration would force us to cut approximately $200 million from our humanitarian assistance accounts at a time when we face growing needs in Syria, the Horn 

of Africa, and the Sahel. Such a reduction would hinder our ability to provide life 

saving food assistance to 2 million people and USAID would have to cease, reduce, 

or not initiate assistance to millions of disaster-affected people. Similarly, sequestration would cut global health funding by over $400 million, gravely impeding our efforts to create an AIDS-free generation and to end preventable child deaths. Such 

cuts undermine our efforts to shape the broader international efforts to fight disease 

and hunger, invest in global health, and foster more stable societies and regions. 

Under sequestration, our security assistance accounts would face an approximately $500 million reduction, undermining our efforts around the world to prevent 

conflict and protect our national security. An over $300 million cut to our Foreign 

Military Financing account could lead to reductions in military assistance to Israel, 

Jordan, and Egypt, undermining our commitment to their security at such a volatile 

time. This cut will be felt at home, resulting in a loss of sales to U.S. industry and 

a potential loss of U.S. jobs. Furthermore, the Department would have to cut contributions to international peacekeeping operations, efforts to counter terrorism and 

prevent loose and dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and support for law enforcement and counternarcotics efforts, including efforts to dismantle 

drug trafficking networks in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. 

In addition, this proposed across-the-board cut to the State Department budget 

would limit our ability to provide ongoing and emergency assistance to U.S. citizens 

abroad and curtail our efforts to facilitate foreign travel to the United States. Cuts 

at the contemplated level would constrain our ability to assist U.S. citizens overseas, 

often at their darkest times. Reductions in funding would jeopardize the Department’s efforts to provide secure, error-free travel documents to those eligible to receive them, while denying them to those not eligible. Reduced funding would also 

undermine progress made in ensuring that visa requests are processed in a timely 

fashion. Visa processing times directly impact job creation in the United States. The 

Department of Commerce estimates that one job is created in America’s travel and 

tourism industry for every 65 visas issued. 

Sequestration would also force dramatic cuts to the platform which supports the 

State Department, USAID, and other U.S. Government agencies operating abroad, 
158 

including efforts to enhance the security of U.S. Government facilities, the platform 

for safe and secure diplomatic operations, both domestically and overseas. It would 

also force reductions in USAID’s operating budget of nearly $70 million, reversing 

the progress made to better equip the agency to achieve the administration’s objectives in an accountable, transparent manner. 

The enclosed document describes in more detail the impact sequestration would 

have on the Department’s and USAID’s operating budgets and foreign assistance 

programs. This list is illustrative, but far from exhaustive. I hope that Congress can 

act to avoid these severe, across-the-board cuts to programs that further U.S. national security, advance America’s economic interests, protect Americans at home 

and abroad, and deliver real results for the American people. 

IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION ON DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE U.S. AGENCY FOR

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Sequestration would cut State Operations by roughly $850 million and Foreign 

Assistance by approximately $1.7 billion. Cuts of this magnitude would severely impair our ability to ensure America’s leadership in global affairs, build relationships 

with host governments, and promote peaceful democracies. They would limit our 

ability to advance peace, security, and stability around the world, and to prevent 

wars, contain conflicts, reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, expand global markets, counter extremism, secure our borders, and protect Americans abroad, 

This across-the-board cut to the State Department budget would limit our ability 

to provide ongoing and emergency assistance to U.S. citizens abroad and curtail our 

efforts to facilitate foreign travel to the United States. Cuts would: 

—Constrain our ability to assist U.S. citizens overseas, often at their darkest 

times; 

—Jeopardize efforts to provide secure, error-free travel documents to those eligible 

to receive them, while denying them to those not eligible; and 

—Undermine progress made to ensure that visa requests are processed in a timely fashion. Visa processing times directly impact job creation in the United 

States; the Department of Commerce estimates that one job is created in America’s travel and tourism industry for every 65 visas issued. 

Sequestration would reduce our ability to help U.S. companies compete for foreign 

government and private contracts; navigate foreign regulations and settle disputes; 

and negotiate international agreements and treaties to open new markets for American goods and services. Our day-to-day work of opening overseas markets, promoting U.S. exports, and helping poor countries grow into more developed economies 

would suffer, reducing long-term prospects for U.S. prosperity and job creation. Specifically, cuts of this magnitude would: 

—Compromise our ability to help U.S. companies capture opportunities abroad in 

growing markets such as India, Brazil, and Mexico, with trade agreements, investment treaties, direct advocacy, and other diplomatic tools that open markets 

and ensure a level playing field; 

—Reduce economic and development assistance accounts by more than $400 million, setting back efforts to open markets overseas and create U.S. exports and 

jobs, while also lifting families from hunger and poverty; 

—Cut Foreign Military Financing (FMF), potentially resulting in a loss of sales 

to U.S. companies and a loss of jobs across the United States. FMF dollars purchase U.S. goods and services and create skilled jobs across the United States, 

strengthening our industrial base, and often lowering the cost for the same military articles and services to our own armed forces; and 

—Reduce export promotion programs that help U.S. businesses identify, pursue, 

and capture opportunities abroad and create jobs at home. 

Cuts would eliminate resources needed to fight disease and hunger, invest in global health, provide humanitarian assistance, and reduce the threats of climate 

change, undermining efforts to foster more stable societies and regions. We would 

be forced to make the following cuts: 

—More than $200 million from our humanitarian accounts, hampering our ability 

to respond to humanitarian disasters at a time when the world faces growing 

needs in Syria and its neighboring countries, and ongoing crises in the Horn 

of Africa and the Sahel; 

—Roughly $70 million from title II food aid, impairing our ability to provide lifesaving assistance to nearly 2 million people overseas; and 

—More than $400 million from our Global Health Program, including $280 million 

from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, hindering our ability to 

achieve global health objectives such as creating an AIDS-free generation, end-
159 

ing preventable mother and child deaths, and fulfilling our commitment to the 

Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations and to the Global Fund. 

In addition, we would be forced to: 

—Scale back efforts to end preventable child deaths, eliminate polio globally, continue progress toward controlling malaria in Africa, and mitigate highly virulent viruses such as H5N1 from developing into a pandemic and directly threatening U.S. citizens; 

—Make significant reductions to Feed the Future, the President’s global hunger 

and food security initiative, which helps countries improve food security, generate opportunities for economic growth and trade, reduce poverty, and ultimately decrease their reliance on international assistance, including emergency 

food aid, by cultivating sustainable agricultural sectors; and 

—Relinquish leadership on climate change, reducing our efforts to help countries 

invest in a clean environment and transition to a low-carbon future, and constraining the market for U.S. ‘‘green’’ firms. 

Cuts would limit the ability of the State Department and USAID to bring nations 

together and forge partnerships to address these and other global problems. Every 

day, we support the spread of open and accountable democracy around the world 

to advance freedom, dignity, and development. Sequestration would: 

—Compromise our ability to shape strategy in international fora (G–8, G–20, the 

United Nations, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and to use these organizations to obtain worldwide cooperation on global 

challenges, such as safeguarding against nuclear threats, strengthening economic cooperation, and supporting development; 

—Impede progress in Afghanistan by obstructing United States and international 

efforts in Afghanistan to sustain the economic and development gains made at 

great sacrifice over the past 10 years; 

—Jeopardize our allies in the Middle East. Sequestration would force cuts to economic assistance to Jordan and Egypt, a particular risk given the vital role of 

these partners in managing the unfolding transitions in the Middle East; and 

—Undercut our advances in creating a positive view of America and the American 

people by reducing our participation in international education and cultural programs that give foreign participants a real understanding of our country and 

its values. 

Sequestration also would undermine our work with more than 150 nations and 

international organizations around the world to protect our national security with 

a roughly $500 million cut to international security assistance. Sequestration would: 

—Cut Foreign Military Financing by $300 million, potentially reducing our military assistance to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and undermining our commitment 

to their security at an especially volatile time; 

—Reduce contributions to international peacekeeping operations by almost $20 

million, hindering our efforts to stabilize the conflict in Mali and prevent the 

spread of extremism in the Sahel; and 

—Jeopardize our efforts to counter terrorism by cutting roughly $35 million for 

our efforts to counter terror, prevent loose and dangerous weapons from falling 

into the wrong hands, and supervise the safe destruction of conventional weapons. 

Sequestration would force dramatic cuts to the platform which supports the State 

Department, USAID, and other U.S. Government agencies operating abroad, and 

would: 

—Erode efforts to enhance the security of U.S. Government facilities, the platform 

for safe and secure diplomatic operations, both domestically and overseas; and 

—Reduce USAID’s operating budget by nearly $70 million, reversing the progress 

made to better equip the agency to achieve the administration’s objectives in an 

accountable, transparent manner. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

This letter responds to your letter of January 18 requesting information on the 

impact that across-the-board spending cuts would have on the U.S. Department of 

Transportation’s discretionary programs in the event of sequestration. Thank you 

for giving me the opportunity to share my views. 

Sequestration will require indiscriminate spending reductions to be taken equally 

among the affected accounts, programs, projects, and activities within each account, 

severely restricting our ability to manage such large funding reductions. This will 

have serious impacts on transportation services that are critical to the traveling 

public. I am very concerned about this possibility and agree with you that the Amer-
160 

ican people should be fully informed of the consequences that will occur unless sequestration is averted. 

If a sequestration order is issued on March 1, 2013, the Department of Transpor- tation will be cut by nearly $1 billion, affecting dozens of our programs. Some of 

our Operating Administrations will need to restrict staffing and prioritize safety activities, which means delivery of our many grant programs may face unneeded 

delays. The Federal Transit Administration, the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials 

Administration, and the Maritime Administration are among those that will be affected. 

But perhaps the most serious result of this action would be the immediate impacts on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Sequestration would require 

the FAA to undergo a funding cut of more than $600 million. This action would 

force the FAA to undergo an immediate retrenchment of core functions by reducing 

operating costs, and eliminating or reducing services to various segments of the flying community. 

Given the magnitude of this reduction, it will be impossible to avoid significant 

employee furloughs and reductions in contracted services. On average, this means 

a vast majority of the FAA’s nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately 1 day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year in September, with a 

maximum of 2 days per pay period. This number could be lower for any individual 

employee depending on specific staffing needs, operational requirements, and negotiated collective bargaining agreements. Any furloughs would only occur after appropriate employee notification and in accordance with applicable collective bargaining 

agreements. The furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians 

will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely managed by the 

remaining staff. The result will be felt across the country, as the volume of travel 

must be decreased. Sequestration could slow air traffic levels in major cities, which 

will result in delays and disruptions across the country during the critical summer 

travel season. 

Aviation safety employees also would experience significant furloughs that will affect airlines, aviation manufacturers, and individual pilots, all of which need FAA 

safety approvals and certifications. While the Agency will continue to address identified safety risks, a slowed certification and approval process due to furloughs could 

negatively affect all segments of the aviation industry including those who travel 

by air. 

NextGen investments may be completed, but investments in advanced technologies and new tools will need to be postponed indefinitely. As a result, the delivery of some critical NextGen systems could be delayed for years to come. 

All of this means a less efficient and less convenient air travel service for the 

American traveling public, as well as impacts to our economy. Civil aviation contributes 10 million jobs and $1.3 trillion annually to the U.S. economy and sequestration places this contribution in jeopardy. 

I want to assure you, however, that our highest priority is to keep the aviation 

system safe even if it means disruptions and delays in service. 

It is also important to note that some of our transportation programs will not be 

impacted. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, our Trust-funded highway programs, motor carrier safety programs, vehicle safety programs, transit formula and 

bus grants, and airport grants programs are exempt from sequestration. These 

transportation programs would continue to operate at current funding levels. 

We also need to consider the longer term consequences of sequestration on the delivery of Federal programs into fiscal year 2014 and beyond. Should sequestration 

occur, we will need to make difficult choices about which services to continue, which 

services to drastically reduce, and which services to completely eliminate over the 

coming years. Our programs cannot be sustained indefinitely by one-time fixes and 

furloughs. Our choices should ensure these programs are positioned to continue in 

the future and provide the American people with services they can rely on, by passing balanced deficit reduction and avoiding sequestration. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views on this important matter. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Thank you for your January 18, 2013 letters sent to Secretary Geithner and Acting Commissioner Steven Miller regarding the possible impact of the sequester on 

the Department of the Treasury. 

As the administration has stated many times, sequestration would require indiscriminate across-the-board cuts and was never intended to be implemented. The administration has proposed solutions to avoid the across-the-board spending cuts 
161 

through balanced deficit reduction. The Department of the Treasury, along with the 

rest of the administration, hopes Congress will act to avoid sequestration. 

If the sequester does take effect, the cuts would harm taxpayers and employees 

across the Government. In concrete terms, the effects of sequestration would be felt 

in two ways: through a diminished capacity to carry out Treasury’s mission, primarily due to employee furloughs, and through reductions in payments, tax credits, 

and financial assistance programs that support small businesses and State and local 

governments. 

Under sequestration, most Treasury employees would face furloughs, which would 

have a cascading effect on employees’ families as well as on the economy at large. 

The effects would be particularly painful at the IRS, reducing the agency’s ability 

to provide quality services to taxpayers. For example, the cuts to operating expenses 

and expected furloughs would prevent millions of taxpayers from getting answers 

from IRS call centers and taxpayer assistance centers and would delay IRS responses to taxpayer letters. The IRS would be forced to complete fewer tax return 

reviews and would experience a reduced capacity to detect and prevent fraud. This 

could result in billions of dollars in lost revenue and further complicate deficit reduction efforts. In recent years each dollar spent on the IRS has returned at least 

$4 in additional enforcement revenue. Thus, each dollar the sequester cuts from current IRS operations would cause a net increase to the deficit, as the lost and forgone 

revenue would exceed the spending reduction. 

Treasury’s national security and enforcement functions would also suffer from a 

reduced capacity to carry out their vital mission. Spending cuts required by the sequester would force a reduction in Treasury support of counterterrorism and antimoney laundering investigations, which could undermine Treasury’s ability to block 

funds from flowing to dangerous individuals and organizations, affecting the security of all Americans. Overall, while our bureaus would implement cuts to reduce 

the extent of furloughs as much as possible—including hiring freezes and reductions 

in contract support, travel, training, supplies, and services—these actions would not 

be sufficient to avoid furloughs entirely as we already would be 5 months into the 

fiscal year. 

In addition to providing fewer services at lower quality, sequestration would require reductions in a number of important Treasury programs that would adversely 

affect economic growth. Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions 

Fund would award fewer or smaller grants to underserved populations and distressed communities, reducing financing to small businesses that are critical to job 

creation. Treasury would need to reduce payments that support certain State and 

municipal bond programs through lower levels of refundable tax credits and direct 

payments to issuers—likely increasing the borrowing costs to improve infrastructure, schools, affordable housing, and other needs for these communities. And we 

would reduce assistance for the development of renewable energy and tax credits 

that support small businesses, both of which would put American jobs at risk and 

restrain economic growth. 

We appreciate your interest in the sequester’s potential effects on the Department 

of the Treasury. I would be happy to answer any additional questions. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I am responding to your letter dated January 22, 2013, requesting information 

about the impact that sequestration will have on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s ability to protect the Nation’s environment and public health. As stewards 

of taxpayers’ dollars, we have set priorities, made tough choices and managed our 

budget carefully. Sequestration, however, will force us to make cuts we believe will 

directly undercut our congressionally mandated mission of ensuring Americans have 

clean air, clean water and clean land. I am enclosing our preliminary assessment 

of some of the impacts of sequestration, should it be implemented. Our assessment 

highlights a number of immediate impacts to programs, people and services. 

Should you have any questions about the information included, please have your 

staff contact Ed Walsh of my staff at (202) 564–4594. 

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION

AIR PROGRAMS

ENERGY STAR 

ENERGY STAR is relied upon by millions of Americans and thousands of companies to save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products 

and practices. 
162 

—Results are already adding up. Americans, with the help of ENERGY STAR, 

prevented 210 million metric tons of GHG emissions in 2011 alone—equivalent 

to the annual emissions from 41 million vehicles—and reduced their utility bills 

by $23 billion. 

Under sequestration, there would be three specific impacts that could jeopardize, 

delay or impair further progress: (1) EPA’s ability to keep ENERGY STAR product 

specifications up to date across more than 65 categories would slow down, including 

electronics, appliances and home heating and cooling systems; (2) EPA would have 

to reduce the number of energy-intensive industrial sectors it works with to develop 

energy performance indicators and Energy Efficiency Guides; and (3) EPA would reduce support for our Portfolio Manager, both the planned upgrade and our ability 

to support its users, including the approximately 10 major cities and States as well 

as the Federal Government, which use the tool in emissions and energy disclosure 

and benchmarking policies. 

Vehicle Certification 

Before new vehicles can be sold in the United States, EPA must first certify that 

they are in compliance with emissions standards. 

Sequestration would harm EPA’s ability to confirm in a timely manner that manufacturers are complying with all vehicle emission standards and creates the risk 

that some manufacturers would be delayed in their ability to certify their products. 

Without this certification, they would be unable to sell these products in the United 

States, thus depriving car-buyers access to the latest vehicles and potentially harming vehicle sales and the economy. 

State Air Monitors 

Air quality monitoring is vital to the protection of public health from harmful air 

pollution. 

Sequestration would reduce the funding EPA provides States to monitor air quality, likely forcing the shutdown of some critical air monitoring sites. Lost monitoring 

for high priority pollutants such as ozone and fine particles would impact the collection of data necessary for determining whether areas of the country meet, or do not 

meet, the Clean Air Act’s health-based standards. 

Sequestration would force the Agency to eliminate or significantly reduce essential air quality data systems like AIRNow, a popular air quality reporting and forecasting system. Americans that have or care for individuals with respiratory and 

cardiac health issues rely on AIRNow for information about when to take action to 

avoid health impacts from air pollution. The Agency would eliminate upgrades for 

the Emission Inventory and Air Quality Systems—the Agency would only fund operations for these systems. These systems store and process air quality monitoring 

and emissions data from across the Nation that informs EPA, State, tribal, and local 

air agencies’ decisions on steps needed to improve air quality. Without this monitoring data, future improvements in air quality would be hampered or delayed. 

ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS

Civil and Criminal Enforcement 

Americans expect their Government to protect them from violations of the Nation’s environmental laws that could harm their families and impact the safety and 

prosperity of their communities. Sequestration’s reduction to EPA’s enforcement 

budget would: 

—Reduce EPA’s ability to monitor compliance with environmental laws—as fewer 

environmental cops are on the ‘‘beat’’ to enforce environmental laws (note implementation of the sequester could result in 1,000 fewer inspections in fiscal year 

2013). 

—Limit EPA’s capacity to identify toxic air emissions, water discharges, and other 

sources of pollution that directly affect public health and the environment. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

EPA’s comments on environmental reviews are required by law and help to ensure that Federal agencies understand the potential environmental impacts and 

have considered alternatives to proposed projects on Federal lands. Sequestration 

would reduce support for environmental reviews and could slow the approval of 

transportation and energy related projects. 

Superfund Enforcement 

Superfund enforcement ensures that responsible parties pay for necessary and 

often costly cleanups at the Nation’s most polluted sites. Sequestration would cut 

work to press responsible parties to clean up contaminated sites in communities and 
163 

restore clean up funds for use at other sites—putting the costs back on the American public. (Note: estimated $100 million loss in clean-up commitments and cost 

reimbursements to the Government). 

TRIBAL PROGRAMS

EPA tribal funding supports environmental protection for 566 tribes on 70 million 

acres of tribal lands. This funding includes the most significant grant resources to 

help tribal governments build the core capacity necessary to protect public health 

and the environment. Funds are used to support staffing of environmental directors 

and technicians to implement environmental projects, including safe drinking water 

programs and development of solid waste management plans. Reduced funds under 

sequestration would directly impact some of the country’s most economically disadvantaged communities, resulting in loss of employment, and hindering tribal governments’ ability to ensure clean air and clean and safe water. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Air, Climate and Energy 

Under sequestration, cuts to EPA climate research would limit the ability of local, 

State and the Federal Government to help communities adapt to and prepare for 

certain effects of climate change, such as severe weather events. Without information provided by climate research, local governments would not know how climate 

change would affect water quality, and therefore would be unable to develop adaptation strategies to maintain protection of water quality as the climate changes. 

Implementation of the sequester would eliminate research to increase our understanding of exposures and health effects of air pollutants on susceptible and vulnerable populations, such as asthmatics, the growing aging population, and individuals 

living near air pollution sources which would impact the development of national 

air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act. 

Chemical Safety for Sustainability 

Under sequestration, the reduction in funding would impede EPA’s ability to assess and understand the effect of nanomaterials on human health and dispose of 

rare Earth materials used in electronics, thereby limiting innovation and manufacturing opportunities with these materials in the United States. The reduction in 

funding for endocrine disrupting chemicals research would limit our Nation’s ability 

to determine where and how susceptible people are exposed to endocrine disrupting 

chemicals, and to understand how these toxic exposures impact their health and 

welfare. Limiting the use of advanced chemical evaluation approaches recommended 

by the National Academy of Sciences would impair the ability of business, States 

and EPA to make decisions on both the safety of existing industrial chemicals, as 

well as on the development and use of safer chemicals. 

Sustainable & Healthy Communities 

Under sequestration EPA would reduce the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships (STAR and GRO) by approximately 45, thus eliminating any new 

fellowships. The Fellowship program, one of the most successful fellowship programs 

in Government, is educating the next generation of environmental scientists, which 

is critical to a strong and competitive economy. 

Reductions under sequestration would discontinue funding for two joint EPA/National Institutes of Health Centers of Excellence for Children’s Health Research. 

These centers are providing a greater understanding of how the environment impacts today’s most pressing children’s health challenges, including asthma, autism, 

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurodevelopmental deficits, childhood leukemia, diabetes, and obesity. Eliminating funding would negatively impact 

graduate students and faculty who would have to look for new funding to keep their 

research going and ultimately slow down the pace of scientific research in these important areas. Research in these areas translates to improved public health. 

EPA research and grants to academic institutions for studies to understand 

human health disparities at the community level would both be severely curtailed 

by reductions under sequestration. This would be especially significant to disproportionately affected communities across the United States. Important research would 

be stopped mid-stream and graduate students would be without expected funding. 

This would delay scientific research in these fields, which are important to advancing public health. 

Safe and Sustainable Water Resources 

Under sequestration reductions to green infrastructure (GI) research would slow 

the Agency’s ability to provide GI best-management practices to municipalities deal-
164 

ing with costly stormwater enforcement actions. Other benefits of GI, such as wildlife habitat, flood and erosion control, recreational opportunities, jobs and increased 

property values, would also be lost. 

Sequestration would cut research to find cleaner and cheaper solutions to help 

States and cities address the Nation’s crumbling water infrastructure that is contaminating clean drinking water and causing substantial loss of valuable quantities 

of water. 

Human Health Risk Assessment 

Reductions under sequestration would result in the significant delay of crucial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) human health related assessments (e.g. arsenic, styrene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and manganese) that would limit the ability of EPA and States to make decisions to protect people’s health. 

Sequestration reductions delaying the delivery of four major Integrated Science 

Assessments would limit the ability of EPA to make decisions that would protect 

people from certain air pollutants. 

Homeland Security Research 

Sequestration would stall development of approaches to manage waste from radiological contaminants following a terrorist attack or a nuclear accident. Opportunities 

to learn lessons from the Japanese Fukushima Disaster would be lost. 

Under sequestration, reductions in practical research on preparedness following 

disasters would inhibit the development of techniques and procedures for communities to prepare for and recover from natural disasters and industrial accidents 

(e.g., Deepwater Horizon, Superstorm Sandy). This would lead to longer recovery 

times and higher costs at the local, State, and national levels. 

WATER PROGRAMS

State Revolving Fund Program (SRFs) 

Under sequestration, cuts to clean water and drinking water SRFs would deprive 

communities from access to funding to build or repair decaying water and wastewater infrastructure that provides safe drinking water and removes and treats sewage. 

Water Program State Implementation Grants 

Reductions under sequestration would impact States’ ability to meet drinking 

water public health standards and to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution 

that contaminate drinking water supplies, cause toxic algae blooms, and deprive waters of oxygen that fish need to survive. This reduction would result in the elimination of more than 100 water quality protection and restoration projects throughout the United States. Examples of specific projects that would be impacted include 

but are not limited to: 

—Assisting small and/or disadvantaged public drinking water systems that need 

assistance to improve the safety of the drinking water delivered to communities. 

—Protecting children from harmful exposure to lead in drinking water by revising 

the Lead and Copper Rule. 

—Protecting public health from cancer-causing Volatile Organic Compounds in 

drinking water. 

EPA’s Water Program Implementation 

Reductions under sequestration would limit assistance provided to States and 

tribes to ensure safe and clean water, including protecting children from exposure 

to lead in drinking water; protecting rivers and streams from industrial and municipal pollution discharges; identifying and developing cleanup plans for polluted waterways; and developing science to support human health and aquatic life. 

Superstorm Sandy Appropriation 

Sequestration would reduce funding available to enhance resiliency and reduce 

flood damage risk and vulnerability at treatment works in communities impacted 

by Superstorm Sandy. 

COMMUNITY PROTECTION REDUCED

The Agency’s cleanup programs protect communities from the risks posed by hazardous waste sites and releases and returns formally contaminated properties to 

beneficial use. 

—The Superfund Remedial program would be unable to fund an estimated 3–5 

new construction projects to protect the American public at Superfund National 

Priority List sites due to constrained funding from the sequestration. 
165 

—Under sequestration, the Agency may have to stop work at one or more ongoing 

Superfund Remedial construction projects. Stopping any ongoing work would increase costs in the long run (due to contract termination penalties and the need 

to demobilize and re-mobilize construction contractors). 

—The sequestration would reduce funding available for other parts of the Superfund Remedial program as well. Critical steps leading up to construction would 

be curtailed. 

—Cuts to the Brownfield Program’s budget under sequestration would limit the 

Agency’s ability to provide cleanup, job training, and technical assistance to 

Brownfield communities. The Program leverages nearly $17 of private and public sector funding for every dollar expended by the Brownfields Program to clean 

up sites and help revitalize communities and support economic development. 

—Under sequestration, funding cuts would reduce Risk Management Plan (RMP) 

Program inspections and prevention activities. Both high-risk and non high-risk 

RMP facility inspections would be reduced by approximately 26 inspections per 

year, from 500 to 474. Of the reduced inspections, approximately 8 would be 

from high risk facilities and the RMP inspector training program would be reduced. 

—Cuts to the Oil Spill program under sequestration would reduce protection of 

U.S. waters from oil spills by reducing inspection and prevention activities. The 

largest program impact of an oil budget reduction would be on inspections at 

regulated facilities. EPA currently conducts approximately 840 inspections per 

year at SPCC-regulated facilities (which represents 0.13 percent of the total 

universe of 640,000) and 290 FRP inspections/unannounced exercises (about 6.5 

percent of the universe of 4,400). EPA would reduce approximately 37 FRP inspections in fiscal year 2013 and limit the development of a third party audit 

program for SPCC facilities, which may lead to a decrease in compliance with 

environmental and health regulations. 

EPA STATE CLEANUP AND WASTE PROGRAM CUTS

Under sequestration State cleanup program funding would be cut, reducing site 

assessments. 

Cuts in Leaking Underground Storage Tank State grants under sequestration 

would result in nearly 290 fewer cleanups completed at contaminated sites, limiting 

further reductions to the backlog of sites awaiting cleanup. It would reduce the 

number of sites and acres ready for reuse or continued use, and therefore, fewer 

communities would receive the redevelopment benefit of cleaning up LUST sites. 

Under sequestration, cuts in State grants would result in approximately 2,600 

fewer inspections, and would limit the States’ ability to meet the statutory mandatory 3-year inspection requirement. Decreased frequency of inspections may lead to 

a decline in compliance rates and could result in more UST releases. 

Since 75 percent of State clean up grants and 80 percent of State prevention 

grants support State staff, these cuts under sequestration could lead to the loss of 

State jobs. 

Under sequestration, cuts to the Brownfield Program would reduce funds to 

States and tribes for the development of voluntary response programs. 

A cut of $2.5 million to CERCLA 128(a) State and tribal response program 

Brownfields categorical grants program under sequestration would reduce the ability to fund new grantees (7 tribal grantees) without further reducing the allocations 

of existing grantees, and would decrease the number of properties that could be 

overseen by Voluntary Cleanup Programs by nearly 600. 

Cuts under sequestration would delay work on a 3-year project to develop a feebased system for managing hazardous waste transport (e-Manifest) that would 

produce the estimated $77 million to $126 million in annual projected savings to industry and the States. 

Sequestration cuts would reduce funding for maintenance to the only national system for tracking State and Federal RCRA permitting and corrective action. RCRA 

Info is vital to the U.S. economy since it enables States to prioritize and implement 

their hazardous waste programs by tracking facility activities regarding the handling hazardous waste (generators, or treatment, storage, or disposal facilities). 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

I am writing in response to your letter dated January 18, 2013, requesting the 

impact of sequestration on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) operations, 

employees, contractors, and State and local economies where the FBI operates. In 

short and in sum, sequestration will require immediate and significant reductions 
166 

to the FBI and to its operations. Because sequestration calls for across-the-board 

cuts, the FBI would be required to do less in all its programs, including against Al 

Qaeda and its affiliated groups, as well as the growing and sophisticated threats 

from cyber attacks, foreign intelligence, and national and transnational criminal activities. 

First, sequestration would have the net effect of cutting 2,285 employees—including 775 agents through furloughs and a hiring freeze. Every FBI employee would 

be furloughed for 14 workdays, nearly 3 full weeks. By the end of the fiscal year, 

this translates to approximately 7,000 FBI employees not working each day. (For 

individual FBI employees, this would mean a 12 percent cut in pay over the 5- 

month period from May to September.) The hiring freeze would result in 2,275 vacant positions at the end of the year, including 350 Special Agents, 275 Intelligence 

Analysts, and 1,650 professional support staff, including forensic and computer scientists, electronic engineers and technicians, contracting officers, police officers, and 

victim specialists. The hiring freeze would also have lasting effects beyond the immediate loss of new employees because, for instance, extensive background checks 

and Top Secret security clearance requirements would keep the FBI from immediately hiring new personnel at the conclusion of the freeze. To put these numbers 

in perspective, the loss of work years from the furloughs and hiring freeze required 

by sequestration is the equivalent of shutting down three of the FBI’s largest Field 

Offices—Chicago, Miami, and Baltimore. 

Second, sequestration would require us to eliminate and/or reduce joint task 

forces and other partnerships with other Federal, State, and local law enforcement. 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement have long relied on Federal task forces 

as a means to share information and as force multipliers in the fight against terrorism and violent crime. Joint task forces would be required to do less. 

Third, sequestration would reduce the FBI’s delivery of criminal justice services, 

including forensic and computer support that is often critical to cases involving child 

pornography and related trafficking in women and children. Critical civil services 

including the timely completion of checks by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) of persons seeking to purchase firearms—would also 

be affected. As you know, NICS is the national mechanism for licensed gun dealers 

to determine whether a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm (for instance, 

a convicted felon) at the point of purchase. When more than 3 days lapse after a 

dealer contacts NICS and NICS has not provided a determination to the dealer, the 

dealer is authorized by law to transfer the firearm without a final NICS determination. 

Finally, it is important to understand that under the terms of the continuing resolution, the FBI is already operating on funding levels below the amount needed to 

maintain current services in fiscal year 2013. Critical investments proposed by the 

administration to address the growing cyber threat and other key initiatives remain 

unfulfilled. Sequestration adds over $550 million to the operational shortfalls that 

already exist under the continuing resolution. The combined effects of the continuing resolution and sequestration would undercut the investments made by Congress in previous years to transform and build the FBI’s national security, intelligence, and criminal investigative capabilities and capacities commensurate with 

the threats facing the Nation. 

Enclosed are descriptions of specific program impacts. As outlined above and in 

the enclosure, sequestration will reduce the FBI’s ability to keep communities safe 

from national security and criminal threats. We cannot afford to let our guard down 

in this way. 

If you or your staff has any other specific questions about the impact of sequestration, please feel free to contact the FBI’s Chief Financial Officer, Richard L. Haley 

II, at (202) 324–1345. 

ATTACHMENT

IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION BY FBI PROGRAM

Sequestration will require immediate and significant reductions to the FBI’s operations. Foremost, sequestration would have the net effect of cutting 2,285 employees 

through furloughs and a hiring freeze. Accordingly, the FBI would be required to 

do less. The programs potentially affected include: 

National Security 

Cyber-intrusion and other computer-crime capabilities and initiatives would be 

impacted by a lack of personnel with the specialized skills and knowledge needed 

to investigate such incidents, the inability to acquire advanced technology used to 

analyze vast volumes of data and information that enables investigators to identify 
167 

and trace individuals responsible for attacks, the inability to acquire contractor expertise to assist investigators, and the inability to develop and deploy tools to assist 

investigators and analysts in detecting and defeating new cyber-based threats and 

attacks. 

Counterterrorism operations and investigations would be impacted by the loss of 

investigative, intelligence and other personnel needed to identify and assess individuals with known or suspected terrorist ties. Further, the FBI’s ability to proactively 

penetrate and disrupt terrorist plans and groups prior to an attack would be impacted. High priority investigations would stall as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. Overseas operations would be substantially scaled back, including 

in-theater support in Afghanistan where U.S. military and coalition operations rely 

on FBI investigative and forensic programs. 

Translation of time-sensitive conversations intercepted in compliance with court 

orders and other materials would be delayed, potentially resulting in missed opportunities to identify and disrupt operations being carried out or planned. Backlogs 

of materials requiring translation and unprocessed raw intelligence would grow. 

State and local law enforcement participation in Joint Terrorism Task Forces and 

Field Intelligence Groups would be reduced due to funding constraints, resulting in 

less sharing of threat and intelligence information among agencies. Some Joint Terrorism Task Forces may be eliminated. 

Response times at the Terrorist Screening Center and the Foreign Terrorist 

Tracking Task Force would increase due to lack of personnel, potentially allowing 

individuals on watch lists to gain entry to the United States. 

Timely deployment of FBI Render Safe capabilities and resources—a critical component to the integrated U.S. response in the event of a domestic WMD incident— 

would be negatively impacted due to furloughs and inability to conduct replacement 

hiring of WMD specialists. Maintenance of operational capabilities and readiness 

would be affected by reduced funding for training and exercises. 

U.S. classified information and national defense information would be more vulnerable to compromise by foreign intelligence operations due to reduced counterintelligence staffing and operational capability. Proactive initiatives to create and 

maintain counterintelligence awareness would be reduced in scope. 

Deployment of sophisticated—but labor intensive—surveillance and digital forensic techniques will be reduced, resulting in missed opportunities to collect and analyze intelligence information on high priority national security targets. The number 

of unaddressed surveillance requests would grow and the FBI’s surge capability for 

24/7 coverage would diminish. 

Reliability and availability of specialized operational technology systems and 

equipment will be more susceptible to breakdown due to lack of maintenance and 

replacement of components. 

Criminal investigations 

Sequestration will cause current financial crimes investigations to slow as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. In some instances, such delays could affect the timely interviews of witnesses and collection of evidence. The capacity to 

undertake new major investigations will be constrained. Left unchecked, fraud and 

malfeasance in the financial, securities, and related industries could hurt the integrity of U.S. markets. In addition, the public will perceive the FBI as less capable 

of aggressively and actively investigating financial fraud and public corruption, 

which would undercut the deterrence that comes from strong enforcement. 

Sequestration will impede violent crime investigations as FBI-funded task forces 

such as Innocent Images, Safe Streets, and Safe Trails will need to be curtailed and/ 

or eliminated. Such Task Forces successfully leverage limited Federal/State/local/ 

tribal resources. As a result, less information will be shared and in a less timely 

fashion among agencies, and agencies are more likely to duplicate effort as they 

work on common crime problems individually—rather than collaboratively. Identification and arrest of traffickers and producers of child pornography would be affected by a lack of resources, with the potential consequence of child victims being 

victimized for longer periods. Ongoing efforts and initiatives to curtail the sexual 

exploitation and trafficking of minors and women would be stymied by fewer Special 

Agents and Intelligence Analysts. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

will not be able to fill the void created by the loss of FBI funding, staffing, and intelligence. 

By reducing the number of Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, and other FBI 

personnel focused on crime and corruption along the Southwest border, sequestration will increase the risk of harm from violent crimes committed by Mexican Drug 

Trafficking Organizations affecting the United States. Fewer FBI resources will be 
168 

available to deploy against public corruption threats in the Southwest border region 

that only the FBI is positioned to address. 

Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory (RCFL) operations will be reduced and/ 

or eliminated. Digital evidence extracted from computers, cellular telephones, removable storage media, and other devices has become more common and more critical to investigations at the Federal, State, and local levels—RCFLs are joint FBI/ 

State/local partnerships aimed at exploiting such evidence and items. The RCFL 

partnership is more cost-effective for State and local participants due to the high 

cost of establishing, operating, maintaining and staffing individual computer forensic laboratories. The loss of funding to operate and maintain RCFLs would shift the 

burden of computer forensics to State and local agencies which often do not have 

sufficient numbers of trained personnel, nor access to necessary examination tools 

and technology, to conduct their own computer forensic analyses. 

Criminal Justice Services 

Timely processing and searching of National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS) requests for purchases of firearms would be affected by sequestration. On average, approximately 43,500 NICS searches are performed daily. The 

Brady Act requires the NICS checks to be completed in 3 business days or the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) can legally transfer the firearm to a purchaser—without a final NICS determination. The FBI is also mandated to provide an immediate 

determination no less than 90 percent of the time. Delays in processing and adjudicating NICS requests increases the risk of firearms being transferred to a convicted 

felon or other prohibited person which, in turn, would have a significant detrimental 

effect on public and law enforcement safety at a time when the NICS workload is 

expanding. 

Sequestration could negatively impact the timeliness of FBI criminal justice services depended upon by the Nation’s law enforcement and criminal justice communities. On a daily basis, police and sheriff agencies query the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) approximately 8 million times for traffic stops, investigations, 

and related activities. Access to, and reliability of, NCIC could be impacted by lack 

of hiring for the Criminal Justice Information Services program, loss of contractor 

support staff, and the inability to provide routine maintenance and replacement of 

system hardware. 

The capacity of the FBI to receive and process nearly 51 million checks of electronic and paper-based fingerprints submitted by State and local law enforcement 

to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) could be 

similarly impacted by lack of staff hiring, loss of contractor support, and the inability to provide routine maintenance and replacement of system hardware. As a result, criminals using false identities may go undetected or be released due to lack 

of a timely response. Further, fingerprints and criminal history information submitted to the FBI are used for background checks to assist in determining the suitability of persons seeking employment as school bus drivers, child care providers, 

teachers, law enforcement, bank tellers, and security traders, among others. Increased system downtime could also affect the ability of the FBI to process such requests. 

Operational Technology 

All FBI operations and investigations are dependent on technology. Sequestration 

would reduce funding available for operating and maintaining the FBI’s existing 

operational technology, as well as acquiring upgrades and new technology needed 

to address evolving threats and to counter the growing and sophisticated technology 

capabilities of terrorist, cyber, intelligence, and criminal adversaries. Deferral of 

routine maintenance or replacement of components would result in operational technology systems and equipment that are subject to more frequent breakdowns—with 

the potential consequence of lost opportunities to collect critical evidence or intelligence, Without adequate funding for maintaining existing operational technology, 

or investing in new technology, the FBI will fall behind in its ability to address existing and new threats to U.S. national security and investigate violations of Federal 

criminal laws. 

Operational Infrastructure 

To perform its vital and critical national security and criminal investigative missions, the FBI operates and staffs a network of 56 major Field Offices and approximately 370 smaller resident agencies in communities across the United States, as 

well as a criminal justice services complex, a training academy, an operational technology facility, and a forensic laboratory. Additionally, the FBI operates and staffs 

63 Legal Attache ́ posts in U.S. Embassies around the world. If reduced or closed, 

the loss of overseas Legal Attache ́ posts would reduce cooperation and collaboration 
169 

among foreign law enforcement partners. Connecting these locations are specialized 

information technology and communications networks and systems. Appropriate security measures are employed to ensure the safety of FBI employees, other agency, 

and contractor personnel and the physical protection of FBI work sites. 

Sequestration will hinder the FBI’s ability to successfully investigate computer intrusions in a timely manner through court-authorized electronic surveillance due to 

reductions that would impact the funding levels of these supporting efforts. In addition, a reduction would impact the FBI’s operational infrastructure that handles evidence regarding malware and intrusions. This ability is essential for enabling collaborative analysis across the FBI in support of computer intrusion investigations. 

Reductions to the Information Technology budget due to sequestration would not 

only extend the technology refresh rate, which has been drastically reduced from 

prior offsets, but also would increase the FBI’s risk of technological and operational 

disruptions, including system failure due to aging software and hardware. 

Due to already constrained IT budgets, 8- to 12-year old data storage devices on 

FBINet recently failed in multiple Field Offices and Divisions. Specifically, the Lab 

Division experienced an outage for over 2 weeks and could not process evidence critical to FBI operations, resulting in a backlog of critical tasks and loss of work-hours. 

Reductions from sequestration would impede the FBI’s ability to complete implementation of a Centralized Tiered Storage solution, which addresses these operational gaps. Data storage, backup, and replication are critical to the FBI’s ability 

to accomplish day-to-day missions. 

In addition to reducing the FBI’s ability to fix critical IT infrastructure issues, sequestration reductions would require the elimination of some key support contracts. 

Without these support and maintenance services, the FBI’s systems are subject to 

even greater risks in that they provide critical security patches and anti-virus software that safeguard systems and networks. 

Sequestration would impact the FBI’s operational infrastructure. It may become 

necessary, over time, to consolidate and/or close field locations, reducing access to 

FBI services in some communities. Maintenance or physical facilities would be deferred, resulting in more costly repairs in the future. Reliability of information technology and communications networks could be affected by an inability to provide 

routine maintenance and replacement of equipment that becomes obsolete or broken. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

This is in response to your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting information 

about the potential impacts of the March 1, 2013, sequestration on NASA. Our response articulates impacts of sequestration relative to the President’s fiscal year 

2013 budget request for NASA of $17,711.4 million in direct discretionary funding. 

NASA estimates that a March 1 sequester applied to the annualized levels in the 

current fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution (Section 101, Public 

Law 112–175) would reduce the total NASA funding level to $16,984.7 million in 

direct discretionary funding, or $726.7 million less than the President’s fiscal year 

2013 budget request, and $894.1 million less than the annualized levels in the current fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution. 

Overall, for purposes of this assessment, the Agency assumed that the fiscal year 

2013 continuing resolution, with all of its terms and conditions, would be extended 

from March 27 to September 30, 2013, and that the sequester would cancel 5 percent of the full-year amount, which would be the equivalent of roughly a 9 percent 

reduction over the remaining 7 months of the fiscal year. NASA’s assessment of the 

impacts of a March 1 sequester is presented in the enclosure. 

I would be pleased to discuss this information with you in greater detail if you 

wish. 

IMPACTS OF MARCH 1, 2013, SEQUESTER ON FISCAL YEAR 2013 PRESIDENT’S BUDGET

REQUEST FOR NASA

Science (President budget request: $4,911.2 million; ¥$51.1 million sequester impact 

to fiscal year 2013 budget request) 

Sequestration would reduce Science by $51.1 million below the fiscal year 2013 

budget request, which would cause NASA to have to take such steps as: 

—Reducing funding for new Explorer and Earth Venture Class mission selections 

by 10 to 15 percent, resulting in lower funding levels for new activities and 

causing minor launch delays, and 

—Reducing funding available for competed research (e.g., ‘‘research and analysis’’) 

projects by about 2 percent, resulting in about a 5 percent reduction in new 
170 

1The Agency is currently operating under a continuing resolution operating plan under which 

$53 million was transferred from the Exploration account to the Space Operations account ($3 

million) and the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account ($50 million). The effect of $53 million in transfers from Exploration to other accounts under the Agency’s continuing resolution operating plan is not included in this description. 

awards to support labor/jobs at universities, businesses, and other research entities distributed around the Nation this year. Ongoing projects started with 

awards made prior to this fiscal year would not be affected. 

Aeronautics (President budget request: $551.5 million; ¥$7.3 million sequester impact to fiscal year 2013 budget request) 

Sequestration would reduce Aeronautics by $7.3 million below the fiscal year 2013 

budget request. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate would need to take cuts to 

areas such as funding for facilities maintenance and support; air traffic management concept development; systems analysis conducted with the Joint Planning and 

Development Office; research into safety for vehicle and systems technologies; and 

research into civil tilt-rotor technologies. These reductions would decrease or delay 

NASA’s ability to develop technologies necessary to enable next generation air traffic management and to ensure needed safety levels. The reductions would also negatively impact NASA’s ability to maintain and operate national asset level test facilities to support the related R&D efforts, and would lead to cancellations of ongoing 

partnerships. 

Space Technology (President’s budget request: $699.0 million; ¥$149.4 million sequester impact to fiscal year 2013 budget request) 

Sequestration would reduce Space Technology by $149.4 million below the fiscal 

year 2013 budget request. At that funding level, the Space Technology Mission Directorate cannot maintain its technology portfolio as several projects underway require increased funding in fiscal year 2013 to proceed. Thus NASA would likely 

have to cancel one of these projects or be able to offer no new awards for programs 

that vary in scope from research grants, to public-private partnerships, to in-space 

demonstrations during fiscal year 2013. NASA would also consider the following: 

—Canceling 6 technology development projects, including work in deep space optical communications, advanced radiation protection, nuclear systems, deployable 

aeroshell concepts, hypersonic inflatable Earth reentry test, and autonomous 

systems. In addition, the program would consider delaying an additional 9 

projects. 

—Canceling several flight demonstration projects in development, including the 

Deep Space Atomic Clock, Cryogenic Propellant Storage and Transfer and the 

Materials on International Space Station Experiment-X projects. 

—Elimination or de-scoping of annual solicitations for Space Technology Research 

Grants (STRG), NASA Innovative Advanced Concept (NIAC), and the Small 

Spacecraft Technology (SST) Program. 

—Reduction in the number of Flight Opportunity program flights and payloads 

that could be flown in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. 

—Elimination of Centennial Challenges funding to perform new prizes. 

Exploration (President’s budget request: $3,932.8 million; ¥$332.2 million sequester 

impact to the fiscal year 2013 budget request) 1

Sequestration would reduce Commercial Space Flight funding by $441.6 million 

below the fiscal year 2013 budget request. After sequestration, NASA would not be 

able to fund milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 

2013 for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) such as the SpaceX 

Inflight Abort Test Review, the Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control 

Engine Development Test, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System 

Safety Analysis Review #2. Overall availability of commercial crew transportation 

services would be significantly delayed, thereby extending our reliance on foreign 

providers for crew transportation to the International Space Station. 

The sequester would also reduce Exploration Research and Development funding 

by $45.5 million below the fiscal year 2013 budget request. For Advanced Exploration Systems, the sequester would delay procurement of critical capabilities required for the next phase of Human Space Exploration. In the Human Research 

Program (HRP), national research solicitations/selections would be cancelled, with 

the largest impact likely being at the Johnson Space Center. Additionally, reduced 

resources for the HRP would likely result in reduced funding to the National Space 

Biomedical Research Institute and delay NASA Space Radiation Laboratory upgrades. 
171 

2The effect of a $50 million transfer from Exploration to CECR Exploration CoF is not included in this description. 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR) (President’s budget request: $619.2 million; ¥$251.7 million sequester impact from fiscal 

year 2013 budget request) 2

For the Construction of Facilities (CoF) program, the $227.8 million sequester impact would adversely impact the infrastructure needed for NASA’s Space Launch 

System (SLS), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Launch Services, Rocket Propulsion Test, 21st Century Launch Complex, Commercial Crew and Cargo, and Space 

Communications and Navigation (SCaN) programs. 

—Sequestration would leave NASA with almost no funds for Programmatic CoF. 

—Sequestration would cancel many institutional construction projects that would 

repair, refurbish, or replace critical infrastructure that supports NASA’s mission. These projects are required to repair NASA’s rapidly deteriorating infrastructure in order to protect NASA employees and meet Mission requirements. 

For Institutional CoF, projects are likely to be cancelled at the following locations: Glenn Research Center, Goddard Space Flight Center/Wallops Flight Facility, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, 

Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight Center. For the Environmental Compliance and Restoration program, the $23.9 million sequester impact would result in numerous delays to projects requiring re-negotiation 

of agreed upon compliance dates, with the potential for the imposition of fines for 

non-compliance. The most pronounced impacts would likely occur at the Santa 

Susana Field Lab, Kennedy Space Center, and White Sands Test Facility. 

Office of the Inspector General (President’s budget request: $37 million; ¥$0.4 million sequester impact from fiscal year 2013 budget request) 

Sequestration would reduce the Office of Inspector General by $0.4 million, which 

would reduce future hiring and mean that some critical positions are not back-filled. 

These impacts would likely result in fewer audits and investigations. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

This letter is in reply to your request for information regarding the impact of a 

possible sequester on the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) operations and activities. 

At NSF, the central focus of our planning efforts will be predicated on the following set of core principles: First and foremost, protect commitments to NSIT’s core 

mission and maintain existing awards; protect the NSF workforce; and protect 

STEM human capital development. 

By adhering to these principles and the Government-wide guidance provided in 

OMB memorandum M–13–03, ‘‘Planning for Uncertainty with Respect to Fiscal 

Year 2013 Budgetary Resources,’’ the Foundation will best accommodate the possible sequestration reductions in ways that minimize the impact on our mission, 

both short- and long-term. 

We do know, however, that the required levels of cuts to our programmatic investments would cause a reduction of nearly 1,000 research grants, impacting nearly 

12,000 people supported by NSF, including professors, K–12 teachers, graduate students, undergraduates, K–12 students, and technicians. 

Vital investments in basic research, leading edge technology, and STEM education 

would be jeopardized. Impacted areas could include: 

—NSF-wide emphasis on sustainability, including vital investments in clean energy research; 

—Major investments critical to job creation and competitiveness, such as advanced manufacturing and innovation; 

—Advances in cybersecurity aimed at protecting the Nation’s critical information 

technology; 

—Pathbreaking efforts to improve pre-college and undergraduate education, including new investments to transform undergraduate science courses. 

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction funding at $160 million or 

less in fiscal year 2013 will result in the termination of approximately $35 million 

in contracts and agreements to industry for work in progress on major facilities for 

environmental and oceanographic research. This would directly lead to layoffs of 

dozens of direct scientific and technical staff, with larger impacts at supplier companies. In addition, out-year costs of these projects would increase by tens of millions 

because of delays in the construction schedule. 
172 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this look at possible impacts 

of a sequester on the Foundation. Please let me know if you have any additional 

questions, and as always, thank you for your strong support of the Foundation. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the effects sequestration, if it occurs, 

would have on the small businesses throughout the country that receive services 

from the Small Business Administration (SBA). As you know, SBA’s mission is to 

give small businesses the tools they need to grow and create jobs. We deliver these 

tools through our ‘‘3 C’s’’—capital, contracting, and counseling. Sequestration’s indiscriminate cuts would limit our ability to deliver these vital services to small businesses at a time when they, and our Nation’s economy, can scarcely afford it. 

Capital 

To help small businesses across the Nation access capital, SBA guarantees loans 

made by banks to small businesses who do not qualify for traditional loans. Sequestration would cut SBA loan subsidy by $10.5 million. While this may not sound like 

a significant figure relative to the Federal Government’s overall budget, each subsidy dollar is used to guarantee an average of $51 worth of loans for small businesses. This means that sequestration would take away SBA’s ability to make 1,100 

small businesses loans—loans that could have helped small businesses access more 

than $540 million of capital. Additionally, these funds would have supported approximately 5,800 jobs in industries like manufacturing, food services and hospitality which are still struggling to recover. 

Contracts 

SBA works with Federal agencies to meet the statutory goal that 23 percent of 

the money the Federal Government spends goes to small businesses. We also work 

with small businesses directly, through training and business development programs, to help small businesses compete for and win contracts. Under sequestration, 

there would be both fewer Federal contracts for small businesses to win, and less 

technical assistance to help small businesses compete for those opportunities. This 

would put an additional burden on small business contractors who would see a decline in revenue of over $4 billion. Furthermore, our ability to identify and address 

fraud, waste, and abuse through 8(a) and HUBZone reviews would be compromised. 

In fact, the agency would be forced to do 350 fewer 8(a) reviews and 40 fewer 

HUBZone reviews. 

Counseling 

SBA’s nationwide counseling network of 68 district offices, nearly 900 Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), 110 Women’s Business Centers (WBCs) and 

350 chapters of SCORE, would all lose significant funding due to sequestration. Examples of how the funding losses would negatively impact our resource partners are 

set forth below. 

—WBCs would be equipped to serve 12,000 fewer small businesses. By extension, 

between 100 and 200 fewer women-owned businesses would start as a result of 

WBC assistance compared with fiscal year 2012. 

—SBDCs would be able to help 2,000 fewer long-term counseling clients. This 

would hit many SBDC programs in smaller States especially hard, since they 

rely more heavily on the leverage that Federal funding provides. 

—SCORE would be prepared to counsel approximately 19,000 fewer small businesses than in 2012. This would also affect SCORE’s ability to recruit and sustain volunteers, which could have long-term impacts on the strength of their nationwide volunteer cadre. 

—SBA would be unable to continue funding the Advanced Manufacturing Clusters. SBA would also not be able to participate in any new interagency cluster 

initiatives. SBA would continue funding the seven SBA Regional Innovation 

Clusters, but at a significantly reduced level. 

The impacts listed above are illustrative, not exhaustive. They represent merely 

a sampling of the most significant impacts that would likely result from sequestration. Additionally, the indirect effects of reduced funding on SBA’s business partners 

go beyond the impacts described above. For instance, most of SBA’s resource partners rely on matching funds from other, non-Federal sources. Historically, reductions in Federal funding have led to reductions in matching contributions. Losing 

both Federal funding and the State, local, or private funding it matches, could effectively double the negative budget impacts of sequestration for SBA’s business partners. 
173 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to describe the effects of sequestration 

on the small business community we serve. If you and your staff have additional 

questions about the matters discussed in this letter, please contact our Office of 

Congressional and Legislative Affairs at (202) 205–6700. 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the effects of sequestration on the Social 

Security Administration (SSA). It is important to understand that sequestration 

would further exacerbate the negative effects of over two straight years of funding 

levels nearly $1 billion below the President’s budget requests. These funding levels 

have led to significant increases in our 800 number answer time and derailed 

progress we were making at eliminating our hearing backlog. As Congress considers 

the impact of sequestration and our future funding levels, it is important to remember that none of our work is discretionary; we must complete all benefit applications 

we receive. The longer it takes us to get to our incoming work, the more expensive 

it is to complete, and the greater the burden on the public. Moreover, if we do not 

have enough resources to keep our records accurate, it causes improper payments. 

What has helped us endure lean budget years is our reengineered business processes and online suite of services without which our backlogs and wait times would 

be significantly worse. However, the core of our work is—and will likely always be— 

people based. Even with productivity increases over the last 5 years, if we do not 

have enough staff to keep up or if furloughs prevent them from working, the public 

can expect to wait longer in our offices, on the phone, and for disability decisions 

at all levels. 

If sequestration occurs, we estimate that visitors to our field offices could wait almost 30 minutes to see a representative, and callers to our 800 number would wait 

almost 10 minutes for us to answer. The pending levels of initial disability claims 

would rise by over 140,000 claims, and on average, applicants will have to wait 

about 2 weeks longer for a decision on an initial disability claim and nearly 1 month 

longer for a disability hearing decision. 

At this stage of our planning, sequestration would result in the loss (i.e. attrition 

without replacement) of over 5,000 more employees in fiscal year 2013, the termination of over 1,500 temporary employees and reemployed annuitants, and the 

elimination of overtime except for life, safety, and health concerns. We would be 

forced to reduce cost-effective program integrity work (continuing disability reviews 

(CDRs) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) redeterminations). Please note that 

every dollar spent on medical CDRs will yield an estimated $9 in program savings 

over 10 years, and every dollar spent on SSI redeterminations will yield an estimated $6 in program savings over 10 years. 

We would operate with minimum non-personnel spending, only funding the most 

essential costs such as mandatory contracts and rent on our buildings. As a result, 

we might reduce contractor support. Sequestration would significantly reduce our 

Information Technology (IT) funding. We would use our limited funds primarily to 

sustain our IT infrastructure. We would not have sufficient funds to invest in the 

type of automation that makes us substantially more efficient each year. 

We would try to prioritize our reductions to avoid furloughs that would further 

harm services and program integrity efforts; however, the possibility of furloughs remains uncertain at this time. The value of a furlough day is about $25 million. With 

each furlough day, we would not be able to complete roughly 20,000 retirement 

claims, more than 10,000 disability claims, and 3,000 hearings. It would increase 

the backlog of initial disability claims and erode the significant progress we have 

made in the hearings backlog. The wait for service in our field offices and on our 

800 number network would further increase. 

Sequestration would affect State and local economies as well because we must cut 

the administrative funding we provide State disability determination services to 

make disability determinations for us. In addition, growing backlogs would delay 

claimants’ first checks, which delays money going into State and local economies. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me 

or have your staff contact Bonnie Kind, our Associate Commissioner for Budget, at 

(410) 965–3501. 

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. For my members, I would like to thank 

the active participation, the fact that really everybody stayed pretty much within the 5-minute rule, I mean, it is now just a little 
174 

past 12:30 p.m. And I think this is really the tone and the tempo 

that I had hoped. 

We moved briskly. People exercised their due diligence. I thought 

the questions were excellent, very content-rich. 

And also—and I think, Senator Cochran, you would agree—the 

decorum of the committee was such that we would hope would be 

the tenor of this committee, and, hopefully, even spread within the 

Congress. 

So, yes, we fear outside foreign predators. We fear, at times, foreign competitors. But this is a self-inflicted wound. And I think we 

need to deal with it, and we need to deal with it expeditiously. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

So thank you. And this committee, if there are no further questions, Senators may submit additional questions. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the various Departments for response subsequent to 

the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DANNY I. WERFEL

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

Question. Information technology (IT) spending accounts for approximately 2 percent of the budget and is growing. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 

received recognition for its data center consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that have been gained and the amount of money that will be 

saved over time. Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS’s 

in IT to generate savings across the Government? 

Answer. In February 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiated 

the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) that called for all agencies to shutdown data centers we don’t need, and consolidate and optimize those 

that we do. DHS has been a leader in data center consolidation and is realizing 

many of the benefits outlined in the FDCCI, such as promoting green IT by reducing 

the overall energy and real estate footprint; reducing the cost of data center hardware, software, and operations; increasing the overall IT security posture of the government; and shifting IT investments to more efficient computing platforms and 

technologies. Many other agencies have also made consolidation a priority. The 

FDCCI Data Center Closings 2010–2013 dataset (https://explore.data.gov/FederalGovernment-Finances-and-Employment/Federal-Data-Center-Consolidation-Initiative-FDCCI/d5wm-4c37) provides a list of planned or closed data centers by agency 

and by city/State location since the inception of FDCCI. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

Question. Can you tell the committee what to expect in terms of closures or reduced services at national parks across the country if sequestration takes effect? 

What are some specific examples of activities that are at risk because of these cuts? 

Answer. The public should be prepared for reduced hours and services provided 

at the Nation’s 398 national parks, 561 refuges, and more than 258 public land 

units. Sequestration would reduce hours of operation for visitor centers, shorten seasons, and possibly close camping, hiking, and other recreational areas when there 

is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, and resources. 

The effects of sequestration would cause complete closure or program elimination 

at about 128 refuges. The visitor programs at nearly all refuges would be discontinued. Additionally, sequestration would limit the Department of the Interior’s ability to sustain a full complement of seasonal employees needed for firefighting, law 

enforcement, and visitor services at the time when parks, refuges, and land areas 

are preparing for the busy summer season. 

Examples of impacts to national parks include: 

—Delaying by 2 weeks the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road—the only road 

to access all of Glacier National Park—will result in up to $1 million in lost 

revenue daily for surrounding communities and concessionaires; 
175 

—Closing the Province Lands Visitor Center at Cape Cod National Seashore from 

May through October will affect at least 250,000 visitors; and 

—Eliminating most education and interpretive programs at Gettysburg National 

Military Park will impact 2,400 students and 4,000 other visitors. 

Local communities and businesses that rely on recreation to support their livelihoods would face a loss of income from reduced visitation to national parks, refuges, 

and public lands. As a point of comparison, the 435 million recreational visits to Department of the Interior managed lands in 2011 supported about 403,000 jobs nationwide and contributed nearly $48.7 billion to local economies. 

Question. Will cuts required by sequestration specifically impede progress toward 

improving energy production from public lands? Will decreased energy production 

ultimately cost the Federal Government money in the form of lost revenue from royalties and other payments? 

Answer. Development of oil, gas, and coal on Federal lands and waters would slow 

down due to cuts in programs that: issue permits for new development; plan for new 

projects; conduct environmental reviews; and inspect operations. 

Leasing of new Federal lands for future development would also be delayed, with 

fewer resources available for agencies to prepare for and conduct lease sales. As a 

result: 

—Efforts to expedite processing of offshore oil and gas permitting in the Gulf of 

Mexico would be thwarted by delays, putting at risk some of the 550 exploration 

plans or development coordination documents Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) anticipates for review this year; 

—Reductions would impact BOEM’s oil and gas activities in the Alaska region, 

including the processing of geological and geophysical (G&G) seismic permits, 

review and analysis needed for Environmental Assessments, work on Worst 

Case Discharge analysis for drilling permit reviews, and Air Quality data gathering and modeling work with other Federal agencies; 

—Approximately 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases would be issued in Western 

States such as Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico, delaying prospective 

production from those lease tracts and deferring payments to the Treasury; 

—Delays in coal leasing would defer as much as $50 to $60 million from the 

Treasury for each sale delayed; and 

—The Fish and Wildlife Service would conduct approximately 2,000 fewer consultations, delaying economic development projects and energy facilities that 

need environmental approvals. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Question. Sequestration would likely lead to hundreds of thousands of Federal employees being furloughed. For example, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could be 

forced to furlough customer service representatives who help taxpayers understand 

their obligations and revenue agents who pursue tax cheats. How would such IRS 

furloughs impact our ability to generate revenue and sustain economic growth? 

Answer. The effects of sequestration would be undoubtedly painful for the IRS, 

reducing the agency’s ability to provide quality services to taxpayers. For example, 

the cuts to operating expenses and expected furloughs would prevent millions of taxpayers from getting answers from IRS call centers and taxpayer assistance centers 

and would delay IRS responses to taxpayer letters. The IRS would be forced to complete fewer tax return reviews and would experience a reduced capacity to detect 

and prevent fraud. This could result in billions of dollars in lost revenue and further 

complicate deficit reduction efforts. In recent years, each dollar spent on the IRS 

has returned at least $4 in additional enforcement revenue. Thus, each dollar the 

sequester cuts from current IRS operations would cause a net increase to the deficit, 

as the lost and forgone revenue would exceed the spending reduction. 

Question. The testimony today makes clear that sequestration would be devastating for families, children, and seniors. This year, the sequester would cut $85 

billion. Are there tax loopholes that we could close that would achieve the same 

amount of deficit reduction? 

Answer. As the President has said, the administration supports significant deficit 

reduction on the order of $4 trillion over a decade that would put us on a fiscally 

sustainable path and allow our economy to grow and continue to create jobs. This 

should be achieved through closures of tax loopholes and reducing the value of deductions combined with spending cuts and entitlement reforms. 

Leaders in both parties have identified the need to get rid of tax loopholes and 

deductions that only benefit wealthy Americans and well-connected corporations. 
176 

The President’s proposal to Speaker Boehner, which is still on the table, identified 

$580 billion in deficit reduction by taking these measures. 

Working together, the administration and the Congress have already achieved 

more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, primarily through reductions in spending. To reach our $4 trillion goal, the President believes that we must take a balanced approach that includes both common-sense tax reforms, such as the ones the 

President has proposed, and further targeted spending cuts. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JON TESTER

Question. Department of Defense (DOD) contractors can charge taxpayers more 

than $750,000 for their annual compensation. For non-DOD agencies, only a fraction 

of contractors are capped at approximately $763,000, while the rest can charge taxpayers even more. Last year, under a statutory formula, contractors received a 10- 

percent increase in their compensation. Federal employees have had their pay frozen for the last 2 years, and may only receive a 0.5 percent pay increase later this 

year. Officially, the Office of Management and Budget has expressed support for 

capping at $200,000 only the five highest-compensated employees at each contractor. There was a provision in the Senate fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to cap contractor compensation at $200,000. The fiscal year 2013 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act contained a provision 

that would have capped non-DOD contractors at $400,000. Do you think this extraordinary taxpayer-paid compensation for service contractors is appropriate during these austere times? Does the administration support capping taxpayer compensation for service contractors at $200,000 and devote the savings to offsetting sequestration? 

Answer. Under current law, contractors that are paid based on their incurred 

costs may demand reimbursement for executive and employee salaries up to the 

level of the Nation’s top private sector Chief Executive Officers and other senior executives. These salaries and benefits have increased by more than 300 percent since 

the law was enacted in the mid-1990s, a staggering increase. The administration 

was encouraged by the congressional actions you identified that would lower the cap 

and cover all contractor employees—both defense and civilian. The administration 

has put forward specific legislative proposals that would create greater parity between what the Government pays for contractors’ executives and employees and its 

own executives and employees and give our taxpayers the overdue relief they deserve. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK BEGICH

Question. Mr. Werfel, in your testimony you state ‘‘it is wasteful and inefficient 

for the Government to operate under this cloud of uncertainty and to divert resources to plan for extraordinarily disruptive contingencies that are within the Congress’ authority to avoid.’’ Please elaborate on this statement. 

How would the Congress delaying sequestration, instead of passing balanced deficit reducing package including both revenue increases and spending decreases, result in additional diversion of resources and inefficiencies? Would you agree we need 

to consider solutions and compromise instead of delay? 

Answer. In order to plan for the orderly and responsible implementation of sequestration, the Federal Government must expend a significant amount of time and 

resources and divert attention from mission critical activities. At a time of tight 

budgetary resources, this is not a wise way for the Federal Government to operate, 

and prevents the Government from carrying out its core mission on behalf of the 

American people. 

Rather than a series of continued crises created by uncertainty surrounding 

whether the Congress will act, the President believes that the Congress should take 

prompt and comprehensive action to complete the job of balanced deficit reduction. 

This is the President’s goal. But should the Congress not have time to complete this 

goal before sequestration is scheduled to occur on March 1, the President has said 

that, at a minimum, the Congress should pass a small package of spending cuts and 

tax reforms that would delay the damaging effects of sequestration until the Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter solution. 
177 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. Mr. Werfel, does the President want unchecked authority to transfer 

funds among appropriations accounts as a tool to change or modify the effects of 

sequestration? 

Answer. The President believes the right answer to address sequestration is not 

to attempt to make the cuts themselves more manageable, as no amount of flexibility can avoid the significant and harmful consequences brought on by sequestration. 

Cuts of this magnitude will inevitably have significant and harmful effects, no 

matter how they are applied. Moreover, protecting certain programs only increases 

the amount that would have to be reduced from other programs. For example, fewer 

cuts to title I funding could just mean more cuts to IDEA grants for students with 

disabilities. Fewer cuts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation would just mean further cuts to the Bureau of Prisons or the U.S. Attorney’s office. 

The President believes that the right answer is for the Congress to work to enact 

balanced deficit reduction and avoid sequestration. 

Question. Secretary Napolitano and Mr. Werfel, this question is for you both. Information technology spending accounts for approximately 2 percent of the budget 

and is growing. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has received recognition for its data center consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that have been gained and the amount of money that will be saved over 

time. Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS’s in information technology to generate savings across the Government? 

Answer. According to data compiled for the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget, 

Federal information technology spending has actually decreased since fiscal year 

2009 after growing at an annual compound rate of 7 percent between fiscal years 

2001 and 2009. This is consistent with the administration’s policy of innovating with 

less. As a result, the Federal Government has seen significant progress in innovation and efficiency by decreasing duplicative investments, such as data centers, 

while investing in innovative technology, such as cloud solutions. Agencies will continue to cull from low-value and duplicative technology investment in order to invest 

in the innovation that is necessary to drive more effective and efficient Government 

operations. 

Many agencies are replicating in some manner the work ongoing at DHS. However, data center consolidation is just one piece of a larger push to innovate with 

less, and every agency in the executive branch should be working hard to identify 

low-value investment in order to create capital for the innovation that needs to 

occur. Larger, fragmented agencies will likely have similar opportunities to reduce 

duplication as DHS is, but even in the smaller less federated agencies there is also 

a great opportunity to innovate with less. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JERRY MORAN

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH GRANTS

Question. Due to the funding cycle of new grants at the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH), many of which are not awarded until later in the fiscal year, will existing NIH research feel the brunt of sequestration more significantly than new 

awards? How do you expect cuts to be distributed between existing and new research awards? 

Answer. NIH faces a cut of some $1.5 billion from its $30 billion budget under 

sequestration. The statute requires the reductions be applied equally to each program, project and activity (PPA). NIH’s budget structure includes approximately 35 

PPAs that are primarily at the Institute or Center (IC) level. For example, most of 

the 27 ICs are PPAs. The NIH Director does not have the discretion to change the 

amount of the reductions to each PPA. The application of the sequester cuts will 

depend on the circumstances of the particular IC. 

In general, NIH expects that grant funding within States will likely be reduced 

through both reductions to existing grants and fewer new grants. NIH expects that 

some existing research projects could be difficult to pursue at reduced levels and 

some new research could be postponed as NIH would make hundreds fewer awards. 

Actual funding reductions will depend on the final mix of projects chosen to be supported by each Institute and Center within available resources. With each research 

award supporting up to seven research positions, several thousand research positions across the Nation could be eliminated. 
178 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Question. Mr. Comptroller, we are living under constrained budgets and should 

sequestration go into effect, agencies will have to continue to do more with less. I 

am particularly concerned that NIH will receive a $1.6 billion reduction. With the 

creation of its newest Center last year—the National Center for Advancing 

Translational Sciences (NCATS)—NIH has renewed its focus on moving basic 

science from bench-to-bedside. In particular, I believe NCATS has used its resources 

wisely by partnering with universities, private research entities, and pharmaceutical companies to develop new treatments through repurposing existing drug 

compounds. For example, in Kansas, the University of Kansas Cancer Center has 

been engaged in a successful drug repurposing project—the Learning Collaborative—with NCATS and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. This project leverages 

Federal, State, and private dollars to develop new treatments for drugs previously 

discontinued by pharmaceutical companies. As we deal with sequestration and 

shrinking budgets, do you expect the Office of Management and Budget and NIH 

to continue to support these types of public-private partnerships? 

Answer. While NIH will continue supporting partnerships with private and notfor-profit organizations because these efforts help facilitate the discovery of new 

treatments, diagnostic tools, and prevention interventions, the $1.5 billion reduction 

required under sequestration would require NIH to carefully examine all of its 

projects and make difficult cuts that would impede its ability to develop new drug 

treatments, conduct critical research into life-threatening diseases, and fund numerous other critical priorities. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES

Question. Within our difficult budget environment, are there increased authorities 

that the NIH could benefit from to allow it flexibility to use their funds more efficiently? For example, would a more flexible licensing mechanism help NIH use their 

limited resources in a more effective manner? 

Answer. The President believes that no amount of flexibility can reduce the significant and harmful consequences brought on by sequestration. The sequester reductions must be applied equally to each PPA. The NIH Director does not have the 

discretion to change the amount of the reductions to each PPA. While NIH’s budget 

structure does allow for some flexibility, because most of the 27 ICs are PPAs, cuts 

of this magnitude will inevitably have significant and harmful effects, no matter 

how they are applied. Moreover, protecting certain programs only increases the 

amount that would have to be reduced from other programs. 

The President believes that the right answer is for the Congress to work to enact 

balanced deficit reduction and avoid sequestration. 

CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES

Question. As our baby boomers age, the Medicare program is expanding at an astounding rate. In fiscal year 2012 there were 50 million beneficiaries, and by 2022 

the number is expected to increase by about one-third, to almost 67 million people. 

Medicare’s benefit structure would remain largely unchanged and beneficiaries 

would not see a change in their Medicare coverage. However, a portion of Medicare 

spending, about $4 billion, is funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. This portion is used almost entirely 

for program management, such as payments to contractors to process providers’ 

claims, beneficiary outreach and education, and maintenance of Medicare’s information technology infrastructure. Over the past year, how has Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services (CMS) prepared for the possible reduction of program management funds? 

Answer. First, let us be clear that no amount of planning can fully mitigate the 

harmful effects of sequestration. While OMB has worked with all agencies, including 

CMS, over the past months to prepare to implement sequestration, these efforts will 

not prevent sequestration from causing significant disruption to a vast swath of programs and priorities. 

Under sequestration, CMS’s payments to program providers, health plans, and 

drug plans under title XVIII of the Social Security Act will be reduced by 2 percent. 

This would result in billions of dollars in lost revenues to Medicare doctors, hospitals, and other providers who will only be reimbursed at 98 cents on the dollar 

for their services to Medicare beneficiaries. The sequestration of funds to administer 

the Medicare program would not be subject to a 2-percent cap, but rather would be 

subject to sequestration at the same rate as other non-defense spending. 
179 

Sequestration would also limit the Department’s ability to realize savings produced through proven investments, such as the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program. For every $1 spent to combat healthcare fraud through law enforcement work we have realized more than $7 return on investment. In fiscal year 2012 

alone, we recovered a record-breaking $4.2 billion. These funding reductions will affect program operations and those who serve Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of 

the thorough planning activities in which CMS engages. 

Each agency is responsible for how it will implement the cuts required by sequestration, and I would refer you to CMS for specific information on how the agency 

prepared for the possible reduction of program management funds. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JOHN HOEVEN

Question. Mr. Werfel, as you allude to your testimony (pg. 3), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering, as a result of sequestration, furloughing 

Federal inspectors of meat, poultry, and egg products for 15 days. Establishments 

may not produce meat, poultry, or egg products without inspection, so furloughing 

inspectors would effectively shut these plants down for more than 2 weeks. This 

would mean financial hardship for those who work at these plants and for farmers 

and ranchers who would have no place to send their animals. In the past, it is my 

understanding that USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspectors 

have been considered ‘‘essential Federal employees’’ as they are ‘‘necessary to protect life and health.’’ 

Mr. Werfel, what options do Federal agencies, such as FSIS, have to ensure essential employees are not furloughed? If there are options available to USDA to avert 

this inspection shutdown, do you think USDA should do so given the threat to the 

economy and public health? Is there really no other place within the FSIS budget 

to come up with the estimated 9-percent cut for the remainder of fiscal year 2013? 

If you do not know what can be done, I urge you to work with FSIS to come up 

with options, and I request that you provide those options to the committee as soon 

as possible. 

Answer. Eighty percent of USDA’s total FSIS funding is spent on salaries and 

benefits. Of this total, 88 percent of FSIS employees are frontline personnel who are 

required by law to carry out inspection and inspection support activities for 6,290 

meat, poultry, and processed egg establishments nationwide. Sequestration would 

force FSIS to do an agency-wide furlough for approximately 15 days affecting all of 

its approximately 10,000 employees. 

Furloughing food safety inspectors would not be good for consumers, the economy, 

the meat and poultry industry, or the USDA workforce. Accordingly, USDA views 

such furloughs as a last option to deal with sequestration. However, were sequestration to become a reality, it simply would not be possible for FSIS to achieve the requisite level of reductions by furloughing non-front-line staff alone. Equally important, most components of the FSIS team, whether at the district offices or in the 

field, are integrated and dependent on each other for the proper inspection of meat 

and poultry products. 

Unfortunately, impacts such as this are an unavoidable consequence of sequestration, and that is why the President urges the Congress to act promptly to avoid 

these devastating cuts. 

Question. Mr. Werfel, as you mention in your testimony, most of the cuts required 

in sequestration affect discretionary programs, however, some of the cuts do affect 

mandatory programs, such as those authorized in the farm bill. According to OMB’s 

congressionally mandated report on sequestration, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at USDA, which funds many mandatory farm programs, will be subject 

to a cut of $469 million. You point out that the Federal Government has a responsibility to execute core mission areas on behalf of the American people and take all 

appropriate steps to protect this mission to the greatest extent possible. For USDA, 

ensuring the farm safety net is reliable for our producers is certainly a key mission, 

so for farmers who are signing up for farm programs, have you provided any guidance as to how USDA should ensure its legal agreements with farmers are honored? 

Answer. OMB issued multiple memoranda to agencies to help provide guidance 

and clarity on implementing sequestration. In providing this guidance, OMB advised agencies to engage in rigorous planning efforts to determine how to implement 

sequestration while protecting the agency’s mission to serve the American people to 

the greatest extent possible. As appropriate, OMB and agencies discussed legal 

issues concerning sequestration. Each agency is responsible for how it will implement the cuts required by sequestration and I would refer you to USDA for specific 

information regarding CCC. 
180 

Question. In North Dakota, two-thirds of the 36 critical access hospitals were operating in negative margins in 2012. The net operating margin across all these 36 

hospital last year was a negative $6.5 million. The financially tenuous state of these 

hospitals points to the challenge of operating an all-service hospital in a rural and 

super-rural area with an unfavorable payer mix, which is the environment of much 

of rural North Dakota. According to the conservative estimates of the leadership at 

these hospitals, the loss per hospital due to sequestration will be approximately 

$138,000; but, when an operating margin at best might be $10,000 for the year, for 

those hospitals not operating in the red, that is no small impact. Critical access hospitals serve a vital role in rural America and across my home State of North Dakota. What is your plan to mitigate the impact of sequestration on critical access 

hospitals in order to ensure that access is still available in these communities? 

Answer. Sequestration will lead to a number of deeply troubling and harmful impacts across critical Government programs. No amount of mitigation can prevent 

cuts of this magnitude from presenting significant and harmful effects. For this reason, the President continues to call on the Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction and avoid sequestration. 

Each agency is responsible for how it will implement the cuts required by sequestration, and I would refer you to the Department of Health and Human Services 

for specific information on how sequestration would impact hospitals. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO JANET NAPOLITANO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CYBERSECURITY—RISK TO FEDERAL COMPUTER

SYSTEMS

Question. In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) handled 161,500 cybersecurity incident reports, up from 106,000 in fiscal year 2011, and 

issued 8,000 cybersecurity alerts and information products, up from 5,200 in fiscal 

year 2011. President Obama has declared that, ‘‘. . . the cyber threat is one of the 

most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a Nation’’. In a 

constrained budget year, the fiscal year 2013 DHS budget proposed a substantial 

increase of 74 percent in cybersecurity funding to protect Federal systems and to 

support State and local governments and the private sector. This threat is real and 

it needs to be addressed with robust resources. 

You have testified that securing our Federal networks will be delayed under sequestration. Specifically, what impact will sequestration have on securing our Federal networks? 

Answer. Sequester reductions would require the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to scale back its development of critical capabilities for 

the defense of Federal cyber networks. Full deployment of the National 

Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS) intrusion prevention system, known as 

E3A, will be delayed from fiscal year 2015 to fiscal year 2016. In addition, the reductions would reduce NPPD’s ability to detect, analyze, and build capabilities into 

NCPS to respond to emerging cyber threats. 

Deployment of a cyber diagnostics capability for the 118 Federal agencies will also 

be affected. Reduced funding will result in the ability to cover an estimated 7-percent fewer devices, leaving Departments and agencies less protected. Also, some features of a Federal dashboard that leverages the cyber diagnostics data to enable 

managing risk across the interagency will be delayed until at least fiscal year 2014. 

In addition, sequestration will disrupt long-term efforts to build a qualified 

cybersecurity workforce, leaving 20 percent of the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team’s (US–CERT) planned workforce positions vacant. This will limit the 

overall technical expertise of US–CERT’s analytic staff and decrease the speed to 

which DHS can respond to cyber incidents. 

Question. When State and local governments and the private sector look to DHS 

for technical assistance and information in securing their systems, will DHS be able 

to deliver? 

Answer. NPPD would still strive to continue to deliver critical technical assistance 

and information to its Federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and international 

partners. However, the sequester reductions would limit ongoing collaboration and 

information-sharing efforts. 

Sequestration would result in cancelling the fiscal year 2013 cyberstorm exercise. 

The exercise is the Nation’s premiere and largest cyber exercise and encompasses 
181 

more than 20 States, 100 industry partners, 20 Federal departments and agencies, 

and 13 nations. 

In addition, a sequestration would require NPPD to reduce funding for the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Reduced funding will impact the Department’s 

ability to host, maintain, and enhance the NVD. This database provides analysts 

and users of the system with information related to computer vulnerabilities, security checklists, and patch sites. This reduction would hinder critical infrastructure 

owners’ and operators’ efforts to find and fix vulnerabilities existing on their critical 

systems, thus making U.S. critical infrastructure more vulnerable to exploitation or 

attack. 

NPPD would also conduct fewer onsite risk assessments with industrial control 

systems (ICS) partners and would cancel plans to make ICS security trainings available to its partners online. This change would be a reduction of 18 from the planned 

75 Cyber Resilience Reviews that identify specific cybersecurity management 

strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY DISASTER RELIEF FUND—IMPACT ON

RECOVERY

Question. The Congress just provided $11.5 billion in needed Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) funding for response and recovery to Hurricane Sandy 

and other ongoing disasters. The Congress just provided more than $50 billion of 

critical relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, including $11.5 billion for the 

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), $16 billion for community rebuilding grants and 

more than $10 billion for transit repairs. It is my understanding that the sequester 

would rescind more than $2.5 billion of this funding, just as communities are making their long-term rebuilding plan. There were 47 Presidentially declared disasters 

in 2012, including Hurricane Sandy, which the National Hurricane Center estimates 

to be the second-costliest disaster in recent history, after Hurricane Katrina. In 

2011, there were an unprecedented 99 Presidentially declared disasters. Every State 

in the Nation has pending disaster recovery projects with FEMA. 

You have testified that sequestration will reduce the total amount available in the 

FEMA DRF to help rebuild communities by $1 billion. Is it true that a sequester 

of $1 billion could result in FEMA having to shut down the disaster rebuilding process for Hurricane Sandy and other disasters across the Nation as early as August 

of this year? 

Answer. Under sequestration, reductions to the DRF could result in FEMA having 

to shut down the disaster rebuilding process for Hurricane Sandy and other disasters across the Nation. However, given that many months remain in the fiscal year, 

it is difficult to precisely project at this time when the imposition of Immediate 

Needs Funding (INF) restrictions could be necessary if sequestration occurs. Notwithstanding current DRF estimates, which are subject to change, sequestration 

could require FEMA to implement INF restrictions during hurricane season as a result of costs related to no-notice events, accelerated spending tied to new Stafford 

Act authorities included in the supplemental, the alignment of Hurricane Sandy 

projects across Federal agencies and required funding sources, and lower than projected recoveries. 

If INF were implemented, funding to recover from past disasters (including Hurricane Sandy) and respond to and recover from future disasters, as well as all related 

activities, would be curtailed and would result in delays in the disaster rebuilding 

process. 

SEQUESTER—GROWING THE ECONOMY BY ENHANCING TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES

Question. In January 2012, President Obama announced a major initiative to increase travel to the United States. Increasing the number of international travelers 

to the United States has a direct economic impact, including job creation. I want 

to grow the economy and create jobs. One way to do this is to enhance travel to 

the United States. Visitors to the United States often have to wait 1 hour to go 

through customs and I fear that if they have to wait much longer they will stop 

bringing their business to the United States. 

What would be the impact of sequestration on wait times for travelers entering 

our country through our air and land ports of entry? 

Answer. The automatic budget reduction mandated by sequestration would be disruptive and destructive to our Nation’s economy. 

At major international airports, average wait times to clear customs will increase 

by 50 percent. Reduced Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staffing would make 

4- to 5-hour wait times commonplace. Such delays could cause thousands of missed 
182 

passenger connections daily with economic consequences at both the local and national levels. 

And on the Southwest Border, our biggest land ports could face wait times of 5 

hours or more, functionally closing these ports during core hours. 

Question. How will sequestration impact wait times for passengers going through 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints at our Nation’s airports? 

Answer. Sequestration will affect our ability to process passengers through TSA 

checkpoints, and wait times would increase, particularly during peak travel periods. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Question. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New Jersey is home 

to the most at-risk area for a terrorist attack in the United States. An attack in 

this area could impact 12 million people who live nearby. Department of Homeland 

Security personnel—including the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP), and Transportation Security Administration—play a critical role in protecting this region. How would sequestration cuts impact the Department’s efforts to protect high-risk areas? 

Answer. Threats from terrorism and the need to respond and recover from natural 

disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts. Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities 

without placing our nation at risk. 

CBP would have to furlough all of its employees and reduce overtime, decreasing 

the number of equivalent work-hours by thousands of CBP agents and officers. 

USCG’s sequestration plans reduce planned operations by up to 25 percent less 

than current levels. Regarding New Jersey ports—Coast Guard operations in these 

ports might be scaled as follows: 

—Screening of vessels arriving from overseas may be reduced by 20 percent; 

—Port facilities inspections could fall by 10–20 percent; 

—Inspections of domestic commercial fleet could be reduced by as much as 20 percent; 

—Security patrols of key resources and critical infrastructure may fall by 10–15 

percent; 

—And security escorts of high-capacity passenger vessels and hazardous cargos 

may be reduced by at least 20 percent. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides State and local grants 

to protect high-risk areas through a number of programs, including the Urban Areas 

Security Initiative (UASI) grant program. Following sequestration, State and local 

homeland security grant funding would also be reduced, potentially leading to layoffs of emergency personnel and first responders. Preparedness grants, including the 

State Homeland Security Grant Program and UASI Grant Program, the Assistance 

to Firefighters Grant Program, and Emergency Management Performance Grant 

Program would face funding cuts. 

Vital assistance for State and local law enforcement efforts—such as training, 

technical assistance, security clearances, and connectivity to Federal systems and 

technologies—could all be scaled back under sequestration. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TOM UDALL

Question. New Mexico shares 180 miles of border with Mexico. You have stated 

that if sequestration goes into effect staffing cuts will have to be made to Customs 

and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

Do you believe sequestration cuts will jeopardize the gains made in the fight 

against drug smuggling and human trafficking? How concerned should border 

States and communities be about this? 

Answer. Sequestration would negatively affect the mission readiness and capabilities of the men and women on our front lines, and it would undermine the significant progress the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made over the past 

10 years to build the Nation’s preparedness and resiliency. It would negatively reduce the resources that we are able to devote to areas such as drug smuggling and 

human trafficking. 

As I stated in my testimony, the impact of sequestration would be disruptive and 

destructive to DHS, its missions, and our Nation’s security and economy. More specifically, sequestration would hinder border security, increase wait times at our Nation’s land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure more vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster re-
183 

sponse time and our surge force capabilities, and significantly delay cyber-security 

infrastructure protections. 

Sequestration would reduce ICE Homeland Security Investigations’ (HSI’s) ability 

to conduct key criminal investigations. Due to the funding level under sequestration, 

HSI must limit hiring and significantly reduce general expense spending affecting 

its ability to pursue enforcement actions (e.g., arrests, seizures, indictments, etc.) to 

target child predators, human smugglers and traffickers, drug smugglers and those 

smuggling dual use and weapons technologies to countries that sponsor terrorism. 

HSI would also be required to reduce Federal and State wire intercepts, travel in 

pursuit of investigations and mission critical training, purchase of information and 

purchase of evidence from confidential sources of information and suspects to support undercover operations. 

Under sequestration, CBP would have to furlough all of its employees and reduce 

overtime, decreasing the number of equivalent work-hours by thousands of CBP 

agents and officers. Sequestration will affect CBP’s ability to apprehend illegal 

aliens and seize illegal contraband. 

USCG is also involved in countering illegal drug trafficking and migrant interdiction. USCG would have to curtail its air and surface operations by up to 25 percent, 

reducing its patrols of the 3.4 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARK BEGICH

Question. Please elaborate on the expected decrease in Arctic operations by the 

United States Coast Guard due to sequestration. 

Answer. If sequestration takes effect, there will be a reduction of surface (cutters 

and boats) and air assets (helicopters and airplanes) that operate in the Arctic. Sequestration would result in a reduction of up to 90 patrol days of major cutter (flight 

deck equipped and capable of operating the harsh Arctic environment) or Polar Icebreaker capacity in support of Northern Slope Arctic Operations or support of Arctic 

Science missions conducted with our interagency partners. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Question. Please explain how sequestration or a year-long continuing resolution 

could affect the U.S. Coast Guard’s (USCG) ability to recapitalize its aging fleet of 

ships and aircraft. What could be the real-life consequences on USCG’s ability to 

perform its coastal and riverine missions? 

Answer. Unless adjustments are made, enactment of a year-long continuing resolution could be very problematic for USCG’s ability to recapitalize its assets in a 

timely manner. The administration has requested an anomaly to ensure that correct 

funding levels are provided for each of USCG’s Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements sub-appropriations subaccounts to support planned recapitalization in 

fiscal year 2013. Otherwise, for example, there would be insufficient funding in the 

‘‘Vessels’’ sub-appropriation to acquire the sixth National Security Cutter and additional Fast Response Cutters as requested in the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget. 

If sequestration takes effect, USCG would reduce operations (surface and air asset 

capacity); defer asset maintenance; stop some discretionary civilian workforce benefits (awards, discretionary overtime, maintain existing hiring freezes); defer training; and cut programmatic and travel funding. These reductions would impact 

USCG missions in all operating areas (e.g., offshore, coastal, inland waterways, and 

the Arctic). A real-life consequence of these decreases would be reduced drug and 

migrant interdiction, fewer safety and security patrols and vessel escorts security, 

and delays to repairs and maintenance of Aids to Navigations. 

Question. Information technology (IT) spending accounts for approximately 2 percent of the budget and is growing. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 

received recognition for its data center consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that have been gained and the amount of money that will be 

saved over time. Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS’s 

in IT to generate savings across the Government? 

Answer. The DHS experience of creating two designated Enterprise Data Centers 

to locate and consolidate DHS legacy systems/data centers is unique. However, the 

outcome of consolidating, downsizing, and updating legacy systems to a smaller, 

more efficient footprint while emphasizing modernization and cloud services is certainly replicable. DHS took the strong step to seek an appropriation and centralize 

consolidation-specific funding to encourage its component agencies to expedite consolidation projects. While this requires an initial investment of funds for the efforts, 
184 

it helped create an atmosphere of cooperation among the stakeholders. DHS’ data 

center migration activities have also led to a number of business innovations in the 

Department, including: 

—funding efficiencies—a DHS centrally coordinated migration fund to enhance 

Component migration efforts; 

—procurement efficiencies—Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) bundling and 

more effective vendor coordination; and 

—IT infrastructure and operational efficiencies—using the consolidation effort as 

an opportunity to consolidate and upgrade systems and move toward establishing the DHS Private Cloud. 

DHS shares its consolidation successes and lessons learned with other agencies 

through participation in the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Data Center 

Consolidation Task Force. DHS CIO Richard Spires initially co-chaired the Task 

Force which comprises data center program managers, facilities managers, and sustainability officers from 24 agencies that work together to share progress toward individual agency goals. The Task Force serves as a ‘‘community of practice’’ for agency CIOs and data center program managers to share best practices and enhance 

consolidation effectiveness. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL COATS

Question. In your testimony on the impact of the sequester you indicated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will not be able to maintain the required 

number of detention beds for the most dangerous criminal aliens. This raises a number of concerns and questions: 

Do you anticipate the need to release criminal aliens from detention given the inability to maintain 34,000 detention beds? 

Answer. ICE will continue to manage its detention population in order to ensure 

it can operate within the appropriations level provided by the Congress in the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act, 2013, and in consideration of reductions 

required by sequestration. To the extent that ICE is unable to maintain 34,000 detention beds with the funding provided, it will focus its detention capabilities on priority and mandatory detainees, including individuals who pose a danger to national 

security or a risk to public safety, including aliens convicted of serious crimes, with 

particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders. ICE will place 

low-risk, nonmandatory detainees in lower cost, parole-like alternatives to detention 

programs, which may include electronic monitoring and intensive supervision. 

Question. If you are forced to release criminal aliens from custody—what process 

will you undertake to ensure the most dangerous are kept in detention? Will those 

who are released be placed into other ICE programs such as Alternatives to Detention (ATD)? 

Answer. ICE does not anticipate that it will be forced to release dangerous criminal aliens as a result of sequestration. In the event that ICE reduces detention levels as a result of sequestration, it will take careful steps to ensure that public safety 

is not impacted. All release decisions will be made by career law enforcement officials following a careful examination of each individual’s criminal and immigration 

history, ensuring that priority and mandatory detainees remain in detention. Any 

individual released would be placed on an alternative form of supervision and all 

released individuals would remain in removal proceedings. 

Question. What additional impact from the sequester do you anticipate for ATD 

and its ability to effectively monitor individuals on the nondetained docket? 

Answer. Under sequestration, ICE will continue to both maintain the ATD program and effectively monitor individuals on the nondetained docket. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JERRY MORAN

NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY

Question. In September 2012, Secretary Napolitano testified before the Senate 

Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that ‘‘this country needs a 

bio level-4 facility’’ to assess animal disease and other dangerous pathogens. Secretary Napolitano said ‘‘it’s an essential part of our security apparatus.’’ The country 

needs this national security asset. Questions remain that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to address about the future of the National Bio and 

Agro-Defense Facility. DHS gave every indication a construction contract would be 

awarded in January, but failed to deliver without explanation. Why did this not 

happen? Current bids for constructing the CUP expire at the end of February, 13 
185 

days from now. What will happen should the deadline pass? Finally, the fiscal year 

2011 appropriation of $40 million for Central Utility Plant (CUP) construction could 

be in jeopardy if the contract is not executed soon. Will a contract be signed to begin 

construction on the CUP? 

Answer. DHS awarded and signed the CUP construction contract on February 21, 

2013. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ASHTON CARTER

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATTY MURRAY

CUTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE/MENTAL HEALTH

Question. Deputy Secretary Carter has testified to the many serious impacts sequestration will have on the Department of Defense (DOD). There is wide agreement that sequestration is not the best way to find budget savings in the DOD, but 

there is a serious need to find savings across the Federal Government. As the Deputy Secretary said earlier this week, DOD must do its part in resolving these fiscal 

challenges. Certainly these reductions must be made carefully. The rates of suicide 

across the services are both unprecedented and unacceptable. What effects will sequestration have on the Department’s ability to provide mental healthcare and combat suicide? 

Answer. As we work to address the impact of sequestration within the Military 

Health System, our focus will remain on providing exceptional, accessible care to all 

beneficiaries. We will do all we can to continue to provide high-quality mental 

healthcare, to continue and enhance efforts to combat suicide, and to minimize disruption to servicemembers receiving or seeking care—but sequestration will almost 

certainly challenge our ability to do so to the fullest extent our servicemembers and 

their families deserve. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

Question. Deputy Secretary Carter, the majority of Intelligence Community (IC) 

spending goes to agencies that are part of the Department of Defense (DOD) (e.g., 

National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the military service intelligence 

agencies). The way the Department implements sequestration, therefore, has a 

major impact on our intelligence capabilities. 

I understand that Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James R. Clapper has 

written a letter to the Department of Defense regarding DOD’s implementation of 

sequestration. In particular, according to news reports, the DNI believes that the 

decision to furlough civilian DOD personnel to the maximum extent allowed under 

law should not be applied to intelligence personnel funded out of the National Intelligence Program, and especially not without the approval of the DNI. Have the DNI 

and the Secretary of Defense reached an agreement on how to handle IC personnel 

under sequestration? If not, will you agree to ensure that the Department implements sequestration in a way that has the agreement of the DNI? 

Answer. Yes, an agreement has been reached. The Defense Department will ensure alignment with DNI Clapper on how to handle IC personnel and mission under 

sequestration. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Chairwoman MIKULSKI. The committee stands in recess, subject 

to the call of the Chair. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., Thursday, February 14, the hearing 

was concluded, and the committee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(187) 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 

HEARING 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The following testimonies were received subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the record.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FEEDING AMERICA

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the Senate 

Committee on Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record on behalf of Feeding America and for holding this hearing. 

Feeding America is the Nation’s leading domestic hunger-relief charity with a network of more than 200 food banks serving all 50 States through more than 61,000 

local food assistance agencies. Feeding America food banks, as well as food pantries, 

soup kitchens and other assistance agencies, rely on a variety of public and private 

funding streams to feed 37 million Americans a year, including 14 million children 

and nearly 3 million seniors. 

Nationally unemployment remains significantly elevated at 7.9 percent, nearly 40 

percent of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, 

and millions more families are scraping by on fewer hours or with one family income when there used to be two. Poverty and food insecurity are higher than ever 

and while our economy is recovering, millions of low-income families are still struggling to get by. Food banks across the Nation are stretched thin serving more people 

while donations and critical food sources have tightened. 

For those individuals facing food insecurity, the Nation’s Federal food assistance 

programs and emergency food providers provide a critical safety net. Nearly 46 million Americans participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. In addition, the Commodity Supplemental 

Food Program (CSFP) is providing nutritious monthly food boxes to a caseload of 

more than 595,137 people, more than 97 percent of them low-income seniors. Moreover, the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is providing more than 

$350 million worth of nutritious, American-grown commodities through mandatory 

and section 32 funds that helps food banks purchase foods. 

As the committee hears testimony regarding the impacts of sequestration, Feeding 

America respectfully offers insight on how sequestration would affect TEFAP administrative (storage and distribution) Funds, the Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program (WIC), Senior Meals, and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program 

which provide meals to millions of Americans we serve who are at risk of hunger. 

THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS

TEFAP is a means-tested Federal program that provides nutritious food commodities to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger relief. TEFAP commodities are distributed through organizations like food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, 

and emergency shelters. Historically, they have provided about 25–28 percent of the 

food distributed by our food banks. Last year, TEFAP food accounted for 17.3 percent of the food distributed by Feeding America, down from 28 percent in fiscal year 

2011. 

Unfortunately, the need for emergency food assistance has outpaced supply, in 

part because of sharp declines in TEFAP bonus commodities. These declines in 

TEFAP bonus commodity purchases have hit our food banks hard, significantly reducing the amount of food they have available for clients. This decrease has been 

mitigated by increased donations through our retail store donation program and 

through increased food purchases by food banks. While the increased donations from 

our retail partners are welcome, they have drastically increased our operational 

costs. Retail donations are one of our most expensive food streams, costing on average $0.24 a pound in capacity costs to store and deliver the food. In comparison, 

the cost to store and distribute TEFAP foods is defrayed in part by the appropriation of TEFAP administrative funds. TEFAP administrative funds are authorized by 
188 

the farm bill at $100 million a year, although unfortunately the annual appropriation has been much lower, around $49 million. These funds are subject to the 5- 

percent reduction under sequestration, which would be an approximately $2.45 million cut for fiscal year 2013. Providing the mandatory funding level for TEFAP commodities in addition to fully funding the authorized amount of $100 million for 

TEFAP administrative funds is critical if our emergency feeding agencies are to 

serve the growing numbers of people coming to them for help. 

Food banks are struggling to respond to a significant increase in demand that is 

likely to continue for some time. Without adequate Federal assistance, they will be 

unable to afford the rising costs associated with storing and distributing emergency 

food commodities. While the increase in TEFAP products that require refrigeration 

or freezer capacity has been a welcome addition for clients, these products are more 

costly to store and deliver across large service areas. Compounding these challenges 

are rising fuel costs that in some cases have nearly doubled transportation and delivery costs. It would be unfortunate if local and emergency feeding agencies had 

to reduce client distributions due to a lack of funding to safely store and distribute 

those foods. 

TEFAP administrative funds are critical to helping our food banks defray the 

costs of storing, transporting, and distributing TEFAP commodities, particularly in 

hard-to-serve rural and geographically remote areas. With food banks already struggling to respond to a sustained increase in demand, they can no longer afford the 

rising costs associated with storing and distributing emergency food if sequestration 

goes into effect. 

WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN NUTRITION PROGRAM

WIC provides nutritious foods, nutrition education, and access to healthcare for 

millions of low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children up to 

age 5 who are at nutritional risk. Current WIC resources are scarce. Clinics already 

stretch WIC dollars. WIC agencies have consolidated, closing clinics, laying off staff, 

and reducing service hours, which negatively affects nutrition education and 

breastfeeding support. WIC is susceptible to a 5.1-percent cut should sequestration 

run the full term of the remainder of the current fiscal year. Approximately 600,000 

women and children would be dropped from WIC. At least 1,600 WIC-related jobs 

will be cut, as well as several WIC sites closed. 

Feeding America is extremely concerned about the cuts to the WIC program. 

Many of our clients are also relying on WIC for the nutrition they need, and any 

cuts to WIC or other Federal nutrition programs will increase demand at food 

banks, and food banks will not be able to meet the added demand. 

SENIOR MEALS

The prevalence of food insecurity among older adults can have serious health consequences. Food insecure seniors are more likely to have lower intakes of major vitamins, significantly more likely to be in poor or fair health, and more likely to have 

limitations in activities of daily living. 

With so many seniors facing mobility challenges that make it difficult for them 

to do their own grocery shopping, home-delivered meal programs connect seniors 

with the nutritional foods they need. For a majority of participants in Meals on 

Wheels, home-delivered meals account for 50 percent or more of their daily food. 

These meals contribute to the overall health and well-being of participating seniors, 

including those with chronic illnesses that are affected by diet, such as diabetes and 

heart disease, and frail seniors who are homebound. The cost of feeding a senior 

for 1 year through Meals on Wheels is roughly equal to the cost of just 1 day in 

the hospital. 

Home-delivered meals also help seniors live independently and remain in their 

homes and communities. Low-income seniors on fixed incomes must sometimes 

make difficult choices between important necessities. Among Feeding America food 

bank client households with seniors, 29.6 percent reported choosing between paying 

for food and paying for medical care. Additionally, 34.9 percent reported choosing 

between food and utilities, and 26 percent reported choosing between food and gas 

for a car. Under sequestration, the Meals on Wheels Association of America estimates that senior feeding programs like Meals on Wheels and congregate feeding 

programs would be able to serve 19 million fewer meals to vulnerable seniors. 

EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM

The Emergency Food and Shelter Program provides immediate relief to communities impacted by unemployment and poverty and plays a crucial role in helping 

families back on their feet. The average annual appropriation of $100 million is used 
189 

for mass shelter, mass feeding, food distribution through food pantries and food 

banks, 1 month utility payments to prevent service cut-offs, and 1 month rent/mortgage assistance to prevent evictions or assist people leaving shelters to establish 

stable living conditions. These funds are subject to a 5.2-percent reduction under sequestration, which will also hurt our food banks and reduce the funding they have 

to purchase and distribute food. 

CONCLUSION

We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony today on behalf of 

Feeding America, our more than 200 member food banks, and the 37 million Americans our network feeds each year. For these growing numbers of Americans, food 

banks are truly the first line of defense, and many times the only resource standing 

between them being able to put food on the family dinner table or going to bed with 

an empty stomach. However, our food banks and the charitable food assistance network cannot meet the needs of these families alone. It is only through our publicprivate partnership with Federal Government through programs like TEFAP, CSFP, 

the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and sustained support for SNAP and 

other programs in the nutrition safety net that we can make real strides in the fight 

against hunger. These programs have historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support 

and have been protected in previous deficit reduction agreements. While we understand the need to address the deficit, we urge the Congress not to let sequester go 

into effect and to find a balanced approach to ensure that struggling low-income 

families are protected. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ZUNI TRIBE

The Zuni Tribe is presenting its testimonial statement to bring to the committee’s 

attention the already prevailing disparities in health, education, public safety, and 

socioeconomic development endeavors (in comparison to the rest of the Nation) that 

exists and will continue to escalate with the March 1, 2013 sequestration. Vast disparities continue to exist in a wide variety of socioeconomic areas; the Zuni people 

rank well below the national average in measures of healthcare, education, income, 

housing, and public safety. Furthermore, basic infrastructure, including clean drinking water, safe roads, and telecommunications are woefully inadequate or sorely 

missing. These disparities create serious barriers and inhibit or prevent meaningful 

economic development on the Zuni Indian Reservation. 

The Zuni Tribe understands the United States’ fiscal difficulties and challenges 

at this time and acknowledges that the administration and the Congress is focused 

on reducing the deficit; however, the Zuni Tribe is requesting they keep their promise to Indian tribes by protecting and hold harmless funds that need to be appropriated to the Native American Indian tribes—particularly the Zuni Tribe. Protecting the tribes from the devastating actions will allow Zuni Tribe to be full partners toward a better and sound fiscal path as they continue efforts toward socioeconomic recoveries. 

As the March 1, 2013 budget sequestration unfolds, The Zuni Tribe believes it is 

important that the committee be mindful and be guided by the fact that the United 

States owes a unique legal obligation and trust responsibility to the Zuni Tribe 

based on services by the Federal Government. As stated, this solemn obligation is 

carried out through the many Federal programs operated throughout the Federal 

Government, which, when not properly funded, results in a diminution of the Federal trust responsibility. 

Estimated fund reductions slated for the Zuni Tribe range from 5 to 9 percent of 

the fiscal year 2012 base funding. This action will have a devastating impact on the 

Zuni Tribe. Injurious impacts include a rise in a prevailing depressed unemployment in the community. Furthermore, fund reductions at the various Federal agencies that have direct Government-to-government relationship with the Zuni Tribe 

will also continue to have rippling and crippling impact on the Zuni Tribe’s effort 

toward self-sufficiency. The relationships range from providing a variety of programs and services, be it through contracting with the Federal Government through 

the authorities of Public Law 93–638 or direct services by the Federal Government. 

Self-Determination.—Pre Public Law 93–638, Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Zuni Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, acting on a commitment for 

success, contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department 

of the Interior and Indian Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) to perform functions previously carried out by the Federal Government. Namely these functions/programs with the BIA are: 

—Housing improvement; 
190 

—Law enforcement; 

—Detention center; 

—Tribal courts; 

—Higher education—scholarship; and 

—Road maintenance and social services/welfare assistance. 

Performances of these functions by the tribe were initially authorized under the 

authorities of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act with the promise of self-determination to operate programs fitting tribal needs. However, since the 1970s the 

Zuni Tribe has experienced drastic fund reductions in these contracted and other 

programs still administered/operated by the BIA. 

With the IHS programs the Zuni Tribe has contractual relationships in administering the following programs: 

—Audiology; 

—Otitis media; 

—Client services; 

—Safety and injury prevention program; 

—Optical; 

—Community health representatives; 

—Public health nurse for the detention center; 

—Alcohol/substance abuse prevention/intervention center; and 

—Wellness center. 

These programs, along with the IHS Service Unit work with the Zuni tribal community in addressing healthcare needs of the community. Like the BIA funding, the 

IHS programs have experienced drastic reductions in the programs. These reductions do not allow the tribe to adequately address the spiraling diabetes, kidney, 

heart, and cancer problems of the community. Furthermore, when hospitals and 

health centers fund reductions are made and inadequate funds are not available to 

staff specialized medical services, patients have to be transported to other facilities 

that would take care of the specialized needs. These actions increase healthcare cost 

in contract healthcare service areas. 

There are other HHS programs such Head Start, the Women, Infant and Children’s program and the healthy lifestyle programs for the community and the 

schools, however with the limited-woeful funds provided the devastating effect of 

prevalent health problems are not adequately addressed. Any further reductions to 

the above named programs when the sequester is applied would only enhance and 

escalate the problems of the Zuni tribal community. By no means would the Zuni 

Tribe be on the healing path to healthy lifestyles, economic self-determination, selfsufficiency, and prosperity. 

Furthermore, a critical component of the self-determination contracting policy is 

the United States’ obligation to provide the full amount of funding to a tribe that 

the United States would have if it were to continue to operate the program, including the administrative costs associated with operating a Federal program. These administrative costs, known as ‘‘Contract Support Costs’’, include items such as auditing, accounting, and insurance. The Federal Government’s obligation to fully fund 

Contract Support Costs has been confirmed in no less than three Supreme Court 

decisions. See, Cherokee v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005); Salazar v. Ramah Navajo 

Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181 (2012) and Arctic Slope Native Ass’n., Ltd. v. Sebelius, 133 

S. Ct. 22 (2012). The Zuni Tribe request the committee’s support and provide full 

funding of contract support and indirect cost without eroding base funding for Public Law 93–638 contracted programs and other Federal agency programs that have 

a Government-to government relationship with the Zuni Tribe. 

Economic Development.—The Zuni Tribe continues to face challenges of high unemployment due to lack of economic development on the Zuni Reservation. The tribe 

is not a ‘‘gaming’’ tribe. Lack of infrastructure inhibits economic development and 

growth; these are adequate transportation systems, railroads, airports, and adequate quality water supply. These are basic and primary to attracting and developing either commercial development or entrepreneurial efforts on the Reservation. 

The tribe believes that sustainable economic development is the best pathway to 

healthy and vital tribal communities and will help them overcome many of the challenges the tribe faces. 

The Zuni Tribe request continued support for funding the BIA Loan Guaranty 

Program within the BIA and the Native American Community Development Financial Institutions program within the Departments of Agriculture and the Treasury 

on the relending programs. These programs are, in many cases, the only source of 

capital for tribal and individual Indian economic development projects. 

In addition, energy development on tribal lands offers significant opportunities to 

enhance and grow tribal economies. Accordingly, the tribe requests the committee 

to provide funds for programs within both the Departments of the Interior and En-
191 

ergy that will encourage and support tribal capacity and project development in the 

area of clean energy development, whether it’s solar or wind energy funding. 

Tribal Public Safety and Justice Programs.—The United States has distinct legal 

obligations to provide public safety in Indian country. The Major Crimes Act codified 

the United States’ responsibility to investigate and prosecute most crimes committed on Indian lands. See, 18 U.S.C. 1152, 1152. Yet, the rates of serious crime 

within the Zuni community are close to exceeding that of major metropolitan communities. 

While lack of funding may not be the only cause of the current state of public 

safety on the Zuni Reservation; it is a significant contributing factor. It is impossible 

to have a safe community when there are only a few officers patrolling the 747 

square mile reservation. This is another reason the Zuni Tribe has been requesting 

funding every year in the President’s budget request to fund Conservation Law Enforcement Officer who would enforce law and order outside the immediate community covering the reservation-wide area where most of the illegal activities occur. Illegal activities include human trafficking, alcohol bootlegging, illicit drug trade, 

theft and destruction of sacred cultural artifacts at protected sites. 

The Zuni Tribe requests the committee support sufficient funding in both the BIA 

and the Department of Justice that will enhance public safety programs across Indian country-especially Zuni; including Detention Centers, along with the Violence 

Against Women Act programs—the legislation which has been recently enacted. 

Furthermore, tribal court systems are an integral part of the justice system. The 

Zuni tribal court was one of the original contracts in the early 1960s with the BIA. 

Throughout the years as the incidents and crime rates rise on the Zuni Reservation, 

funding for the Zuni tribal courts have not kept up with the increased need to take 

care of offenders that are processed through the tribal court. 

Education and Other Programs.—While education is one of the key factors to socioeconomic development on the Zuni Indian Reservation; however, program funds 

provided by the BIA and Department of Labor for higher education scholarship and 

vocational and technical training have not been able to meet the demands. There 

is at least an 85-percent funding shortfall in this area for Zuni’s educational needs. 

Students graduating from high schools do not have the funds available to pursue 

higher education; and, the 15 percent that are fortunate to attain higher education 

achievement do not return to the reservation due to unavailability of jobs due to 

depressed economies. This creates an intellectual and economic drainage to the Zuni 

Community. Adequate funding for these programs would assist the Zuni Tribe to 

minimize the ever-growing backlog in the need to fund students who are pursuing 

higher education. 

The foundation of the Zuni Tribe is the land and natural resources including real 

estate programs and water rights attorney programs—to protect the diminishing 

water rights and surface and subsurface water tables. The protection and enhancement of these resources are not only critical to the future of tribes; they are an obligation of the United States. Therefore, funds for these programs should be protected 

as well. Funding for tribal natural resources programs has declined significantly 

over the last two decades. Adequate funds for this investment will boost tribal 

economies, ensure greater food security, and protect and revitalize cultural practices 

throughout the community. This investment will lead to more productive resources 

and contribute to the overall economy of the Zuni Tribe. 

Housing and Infrastructure.—Finally, the Zuni Tribe is requesting your assistance 

in reauthorizing the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Assistance 

Act (NAHASDA). The Zuni Tribe is in dire need of housing development and improvement throughout the reservation. Some homes are more than 75 years old and 

are in need of extensive renovation or replacement construction. Some homes lack 

complete plumbing facilities, adequate heating and cooling systems, along with adequate communication systems such as basic telephones. 

Consequently, the Zuni Tribe is requesting the committee’s support in maintaining the current level of NAHASDA funding, as well as maintaining the funding 

within Department of Agriculture for rural housing development, and the BIA Housing Improvement Program. As part of this reauthorization there are improvements 

to the Act that will improve program management and efficiency in the delivery of 

housing services, which should achieve savings in this program. 

The Zuni Tribe fully supports efforts to improve tribal transportation programs 

such as roads maintenance under the BIA and the road construction program with 

the Department of Transportation. 

Æ