COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 5 

Page 

U.S. Department of Commerce ............................................. 1 

U.S. Department of Justice ................................................... 99 

National Science Foundation ............................................... 157 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............ 231 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
PART 5—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 


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

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2012 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking 

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

MIKE RINGLER, STEPHANIE MYERS, LESLIE ALBRIGHT, 

DIANA SIMPSON, and COLIN SAMPLES, 

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 5 

Page 

U.S. Department of Commerce ............................................. 1 

U.S. Department of Justice ................................................... 99 

National Science Foundation ............................................... 157 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration ............ 231 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

65–531 WASHINGTON : 2011 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman 

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

JERRY LEWIS, California 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

DENNY REHBERG, Montana 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

————— 

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., Illinois 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

WILLIAM B. INGLEE, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

2012 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

WITNESS 

TODD ZINSER, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome all the subcommittee members who will be 

here shortly for the first hearing of the 112th Congress. We have 

many familiar faces returning to the subcommittee and some new 

members as well, our new ranking member, Mr. Fattah, who has 

served on the Committee for nine years, and there have been others who have served on it for a number of years. We have new 

members, Mr. Austria of Ohio, Mr. Graves of Georgia, and Mr. 

Yoder of Kansas. 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2012 will be released on 

February 14 and we intend to pursue an aggressive hearing schedule through the months of March and April. And this will be a year 

of severe budget austerity and the subcommittee intends to have 

the hearings with heads of all the major departments and agencies 

to justify their requests and help us to identify areas in which 

spending can be reduced with the least impact. 

We are anxious to hear the agencies that come up because in 

many respects they know a lot better than, quite frankly, we will 

know. And we want to hear them to tell us from a priority basis 

where they think we can make these cuts. 

In addition, we will have a few selected thematic hearings, the 

first of which will be a hearing on prisoner reentry and recidivism 

this Friday. 

Our witnesses this morning are Mr. Todd Zinser, the Inspector 

General of the Department of Commerce, and Ms. Cynthia 

Schnedar, the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Justice. 

Before I recognize the witnesses to present their testimony, I 

would like to recognize my colleague, Ranking Minority Member, 

Mr. Fattah, for any comments he would like to make. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is an honor to serve with you on this Committee and under 

your leadership. I look forward to working with you towards the 

goals of the Committee, which over the years have been bipartisan. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
2 

I came on to the Committee when you were in a leadership role 

and you have returned to that role. And throughout, you have remained consistently interested in a whole range of issues covered 

by the Subcommittee. 

So I look forward to working through it. There will be some very 

tough decisions as we go forward, but I am convinced that we can 

arrive at those decisions in a bipartisan way, keeping the nation’s 

interest foremost in our minds. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Welcome, Mr. Zinser. We want to thank you for appearing before 

the Committee this morning to present the top management challenges facing the Department of Commerce. 

Your office issued a December 2010 report, Top Management 

Challenges Facing the Department, which focused on a range of issues including NOAA satellites, the $7.9 billion that Commerce 

received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 

2010 Decennial Census and IT security. 

All these efforts include rather large sums of money, so part of 

what the Subcommittee will ask you today is where you think 

there may be opportunities for saving. 

And, again, as I mentioned at the outset and when we met with 

the Secretary of Commerce, we would like to hear their comments. 

I guess in a real world if nothing had to be cut, it would be one 

thing. 

But based on the reality, and this Subcommittee has been given 

an allocation, and based on the reality of where we are, we in an 

open spirit want to hear from the Department to say the same way 

that we would around our kitchen table if we were being eliminated, okay, you know, maybe we will cancel the trip to Disney this 

year or maybe we will not get a new car, but we want to maintain 

the priorities of our family to make sure the family stays strong 

and we do everything the same way we want to do with the departments. 

So there may be things that the departments would like to have 

and maybe we would even like you to have them, too, but under 

the circumstances. So how do we maintain the sciences, maintain 

strong law enforcement, do what we have to do, but still reach the 

budget numbers? 

So we hope you will share with the Committee some of the recent 

oversight work that you have done. Mr. Zinser, if you would just 

summarize remarks, your full statement will appear in the record. 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member 

Fattah, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting 

me to testify this morning about our oversight of the Department 

of Commerce. 

The department is responsible for a highly diverse set of technical and scientific programs that range from issuing patents to operating weather satellites to conducting the census and managing 

our ocean resources. 

The President’s budget request for Commerce for fiscal year 2011 was $8.9 billion. In December of 2010, we issued our most recent 

top management challenges report. Our report discusses eight 

areas. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
3 

Two of the areas, IT security and acquisitions and contracts, are 

issues for all federal departments. 

IT SECURITY

In these two areas, the Department of Commerce is playing 

catch-up. With respect to IT security, the department will require 

additional resources compared to previous years. The management 

reforms underway in the area of acquisitions and contracts, however, should actually result in cost savings to the department. For 

example, the department has set a target of $50 million in annual 

savings through more strategic purchasing. 

Our December report identified six additional management challenges. 

NOAA ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE PROGRAMS

First and most important are NOAA’s two multi-billion-dollar 

satellite systems that are part of the national critical infrastructure. The Joint Polar Satellite System is a new program 

transitioning from its troubled predecessor, called NPOESS. NOAA 

is at a critical juncture in the transition and delays in the program, 

which could result from any interruption in funding, will further 

increase the risk of serious gaps in satellite coverage for the collection of weather data and forecasting. 

The Geostationary Operational Environment Satellite Series is at 

a less critical state in its development, but must avoid a return to 

the cost overruns and schedule delays that the program has suffered in the past. 

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

The next item on our list relates to the Recovery Act. In fiscal 

year 2010, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration awarded 232 grants totaling $3.9 billion under the 

Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program. The agency was 

successful in awarding the grants and obligating the funds within 

the deadline, but only about five percent of that money has been 

spent so far. This is a huge challenge and presents a significant 

amount of risk for fraud, waste, and abuse. 

The second area of the Recovery Act that must be closely 

watched are nearly 200 projects involving construction costing an 

estimated $1 billion funded through grants or contracts administered by NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Economic Development Administration. As you 

know, Mr. Chairman, construction projects are inherently susceptible to cost overruns, schedule delays, and fraud schemes. 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

The next management challenge included in our report is the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It has an annual budget of approximately $2 billion funded through a complex set of user fees. 

Everyone agrees that the current backlog and pendency of patent 

applications is unacceptable and that there is much work necessary 

to improve the operations of the agency. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
4 

According to PTO, in fiscal year 2010, the backlog of applications 

totaled 726,000 and it took an average of three years from the time 

an application was filed to make its way all the way through the 

process. Secretary Locke and Under Secretary Kappos have a number of reform efforts underway and Congress is working on reauthorization, but it is a significant and complex problem. 

One initiative that bears close watching is an IT modernization 

project for processing patent applications, which PTO estimates 

will cost almost $300 million over the next several years. PTO does 

not have a very good track record when it comes to IT projects and 

will require close oversight should the project move forward. 

2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS PLANNING

The final three areas in our report include NOAA’s stewardship 

of marine resources, the nearly $900 million, 13-year renovation of 

the Commerce headquarters building, and planning for the 2020 

decennial census. 

Of these three areas, the most critical for this subcommittee, Mr. 

Chairman, is the 2020 decennial. The 2010 decennial cost taxpayers approximately $13 billion. According to estimates by the 

Census Bureau and GAO, the cost of the 2020 census, if it is done 

the same way, could possibly double to between 22 and 30 billion 

dollars. Such costs are not sustainable, and Census must develop 

more cost-effective approaches to the 2020 count. 

Even though all the 2010 results have yet to be delivered, we 

strongly recommend that the department, the Census Bureau, and 

the Congress treat the 2020 decennial with a sense of urgency if 

we expect to develop the plans and systems necessary to avoid unacceptable levels of risk and cost for the 2020 census. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my summary and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The information follows:] 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
5 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 10 here 65531A.001
6 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 11 here 65531A.002
7 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 12 here 65531A.003
8 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 13 here 65531A.004
9 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 14 here 65531A.005
10 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 15 here 65531A.006
11 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 16 here 65531A.007
12 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 17 here 65531A.008
13 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 18 here 65531A.009
14 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 19 here 65531A.010
15 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 20 here 65531A.011
16 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 21 here 65531A.012
17 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 22 here 65531A.013
18 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 23 here 65531A.014
19 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 24 here 65531A.015
20 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 25 here 65531A.016
21 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 26 here 65531A.017
22 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 27 here 65531A.018
23 

NOAA SATELLITE PROGRAMS

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

Your December 2010 report included a section on NOAA’s environmental satellites focusing on two programs, NPOESS or the 

JPSS Program, and GOES–R. 

Last year, the Administration proposed a major restructuring of 

the NPOESS Program. According to the report, when NPOESS was 

begun in 1995 as a joint program between DoD, NASA, and NOAA, 

it was estimated to cost $6.5 billion and included six satellites, the 

first of which was to launch in 2008. That is the history. 

Now the JPSS Program is estimated to cost $14 billion. That is 

an estimate from 2008. It may actually be even higher. The first 

satellite will not launch until 2014. So here we were at 2008, now 

we are 2014. And now instead of buying six satellites, the government is only purchasing four. In short, the program cost has doubled. We are getting less capability than originally planned and we 

are six years behind schedule. 

Can you briefly summarize the problems with the NPOESS program that led to its restructure and can you outline how you intend 

to proceed with your oversight of the program? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I think the problems date back a number 

of years. I think that the plan was to merge governance of the program between NASA, DoD, and Commerce because there are Defense satellites as well as civilian satellites that NOAA and NASA 

are interested in. 

And the governance issues, I think, were a problem. The satellites were not a priority for the Defense Department and there 

were problems getting decisions made. 

I think the complexity of the instruments was a huge cost driver. 

There was one instrument in particular that ran into problems in 

its development. And at the end of the day, this marriage between 

Defense, NASA, and NOAA just didn’t work. And so to solve that, 

the decision was made to divorce from DoD, and the increase in the 

cost to this subcommittee is basically the result of cost shifting 

from DoD to the Commerce Department. 

As far as our oversight is concerned, right now the critical issue 

is this transition to JPSS, the name of the new program. And one 

of the things that is happening right now is there is going to be 

a launch of what they call the NPOESS Preparatory Project, the 

NPP. That is scheduled for a launch this fall. It was originally 

going to be a test satellite to test the instruments in orbit, but they 

have turned it into an operational satellite to actually go up and 

serve in an operational capacity. So we are watching that very 

closely. 

One of the issues we identified, for example, was there are problems right now with the ground system and the instruments on the 

satellite communicating with the folks on the ground. They are focusing on that issue right now and trying to resolve it. 

Assuming there is no further delay in resolving those issues, that 

satellite will launch in October. We are watching that very closely. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, are you confident that they have everything together now? I mean, this has been going on for quite a while and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
24 

the numbers continue to go up. Who is the contractor, the lead contractor? 

Mr. ZINSER. The lead contractor was Northrop Grumman, and I 

think Raytheon was also a contractor. 

You know, one of the problems they had even in the lab, was 

probably six or seven years ago. They were working on NOAA–19, 

and the contractor, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company, 

dropped the satellite and damaged it. And that caused some considerable cost overruns there. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you believe that NOAA is on the right path now? 

I mean, are you confident you would stake your reputation on that, 

that they are on the right path? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do think they are on the right path, sir. I think 

that it is an inherently complex program. It is very, very critical 

and we have dedicated staff to overseeing the program. I have staff 

embedded in this transition. We are watching them very closely. 

Mr. WOLF. This is about 25 percent of the budget for the Commerce Department, maybe a little bit more. 

How much of your staff is dedicated, 25 percent? How many people do you have on your staff, how many do you have that are dedicated to this and from a percentage basis? 

Mr. ZINSER. My staff is fairly small. 

Mr. WOLF. So the answer is you do not have very many people? 

Mr. ZINSER. I have two people who have been watching the program on a daily basis. They are supplemented with audit teams as 

we identify specific audit work that needs to be done. 

Mr. WOLF. And how many people do you have on your staff? 

Mr. ZINSER. I have about 150 total. That has increased. I have 

some extra on my staff because of the Recovery Act. I got some supplemental funding for Recovery Act that has allowed me to hire 

temporary people, but base is about 150. 

Mr. WOLF. But if this is such a large portion of the budget, 

should you have more people looking at it? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, we should. One of the things I had to do last 

year was to dedicate a significant amount of staff to the decennial 

census. And now that that is completed, we will be able to shift resources over to some of these programs such as the Satellite Program and PTO. PTO has got a lot of issues too. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Likewise, the GOES–R Program has experi- enced difficulties with a $1.5 billion cost overrun to $7.7 billion. 

And you can see why the American people get very skeptical, $1.5 

to $7.7 billion, fewer sensors, two satellites instead of four, and a 

three-year schedule slip. 

In addition, your report highlights additional areas of concern, 

namely the infrastructure of the NOAA facilities to accommodate 

another ground system. 

Will you please provide us with a high level overview of the 

GOES–R Program and the critical problems at this juncture. 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, the GOES–R Program, as I mentioned in my 

statement, is not at such a critical stage of development as 

NPOESS is. GOES–R has satellites up there. NOAA has set a policy that they want three satellites in orbit at any point in time. 

One covers the eastern part of the country, one covers the western 

part of the country, and then they have a third satellite up there 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
25 

as kind of an on-orbit spare. Those are all in place, and there is 

not the risk of gaps in coverage that there is with NPOESS. 

The department very wisely has outside independent teams that 

they have enlisted, experts in the field that come in and do evaluations of the program on a regular basis. Those teams have offered 

recommendations to NOAA in terms of managing the program. We 

are following up on those recommendations to see whether or not 

NOAA is implementing them. 

Mr. WOLF. Are the same people running the program now the 

people that were there at the beginning pretty much? 

Mr. ZINSER. Pretty much, sir, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Even though they may be wonderful people that you 

would like to have part of your family, maybe you would put different people in charge, because this has been going on for so long. 

I have one last issue and then we will go to Mr. Fattah and the 

other Members. And then we have a lot of other questions we will 

get to near the end. 

EXPORTS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

The Administration is making a big play to have exports. America is hollowing out. Our manufacturing base is pretty much eroding. We are literally eroding before our eyes. We used to think we 

were leading the world in high tech. We are no longer leading the 

world in high tech. 

So I support what the Secretary of Commerce wants to do. Every 

time he talks to us, he talks about exports and exports and exports 

because we want to create American jobs, manufacturing in Philadelphia and Kansas and in Texas. 

There is something I would like you to look at. I have been meeting with a number of companies, and I wonder if you know about 

this one company the other day said they have a product. They are 

very aggressive in exporting abroad. And I am trying not to name 

the product because they are afraid of having to be the focus of the 

attention. 

They were at a trade fair in Germany. Their competitors had a 

coffee bar, meaning they were giving, I guess, Jacobs coffee to 

someone, which is not exactly a bad thing to do. They were prohibited, they said, by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to even have 

a coffee bar. And so, therefore, they felt they really—they almost 

cannot compete. 

Since we have both the IG for the Justice Department and we 

have the IG for the Commerce Department—the Foreign Corrupt 

Practices Act is administered in the Justice Department, correct? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Correct. 

Mr. WOLF. I would like to get both of you on a quick basis, 

maybe a one week or two week basis so we are not pushing this 

thing off, because if we want to create jobs in America, not in 

China, not in Mexico, not in Timbuktu, but here in River City 

where we live, and there is almost a ‘‘de minimus’’ thing like ‘‘can 

I give you a cup of coffee,’’ ‘‘can I give you a pen with the name 

on it,’’ and if we are going to start prosecuting companies under the 

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, then you are putting American companies who are creating jobs for Americans at a disadvantage. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
26 

So without getting into too much detail, since both of you are 

here, like Esther in the Bible, for such a time like this, you both 

come together. If you can team up and look at this, the Foreign 

Corrupt Practices Act, and we can get some people to talk to you, 

I guess off the record. The company is afraid to say anything because they do not want to get the Justice Department to come in 

and crack down. 

But based on different things that I am hearing, if you can look 

at working with Mr. Zinser, you can look at your commercial 

attache ́s and see what they do and come back to the Committee in 

two weeks to give us kind of just a preliminary feedback, is this 

really such a problem, because if we are prosecuting for giving a 

cup of Jacobs coffee and they cannot compete with the Germans 

and the French and the Italians, then the Administration is not 

going to be able to create these jobs that they’re talking about and 

doing, creating jobs here in America so we can make things here 

and export there. 

I am tired of going into stores and seeing China, China, China, 

China, China. Let’s reverse it. But if we are really going to do what 

we say, and the President said the other day we are going to look 

at all these regulations, let’s really look at this and see. 

So if both of you maybe in two weeks could come back to us—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Sure. 

1. Commerce and DOJ IG should coordinate a quick review of the FCPA regarding 

its implementation, particularly with respect to whether it is being overly or aggressively enforced and thereby hurting U.S. businesses abroad. 

On March 2, 2011, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) delivered a letter, dated 

March 1, addressing this matter to the subcommittee. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
27 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 37 here 65531A.019
28 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 38 here 65531A.020
29 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 39 here 65531A.021
30 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Just maybe both of you come up to the 

Committee and tell us what you found. Is this a real problem? We 

will give the information that we have. Are there some changes 

that we need in the Foreign Corrupt Practices law? Is the enforcement being overly aggressive? 

So would you mind working together on this since Justice enforces the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and you provide oversight 

on the Foreign Commercial Service? 

Mr. ZINSER. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. WOLF. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I concur with the chairman’s concern about this, and I look forward to your report on it. 

2020 CENSUS PLANNING

But let me go back to the census projections because obviously 

the census is a duty that we have as a government given to us 

through constitutional mandate. 

You say that in the next census in 2020 the cost could be as 

much as twenty-two to thirty billion if we conduct the census as 

we conducted it this time? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. That is the estimate. 

Mr. FATTAH. Assuming we did the same thing and it did not cost 

us that amount this time, why would it cost us so much? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, you are projecting the costs over the next ten 

years, so you have somewhat of an inflation factor. And when you 

are dealing in billions of dollars, those add up pretty quickly. But 

the big cost driver for the decennial is the cost of the temporary 

workers that the Census Bureau employs. 

So, for example, the non-response follow-up operation that employed about six hundred to seven hundred thousand temporary 

workers cost over a billion dollars itself, about a billion and a half 

dollars itself. And those costs are going to increase simply for inflationary purposes, number one. 

NOAA SATELLITE PROGRAMS

Mr. FATTAH. Now, on the Satellite Program, DoD is out completely, right, so that raised the cost from about seven to eleven billion, is that—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, actually, even when the Defense Department 

was involved, they had their own satellites in the program. Those 

have been taken out. So the costs would have been much more 

than $11 billion had the Defense Department stayed in there. 

Mr. FATTAH. And so from a taxpayer’s standpoint, there’s a need 

for the Satellite Program, right—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. For early warning purposes for a whole 

variety of reasons? But there is almost a profit center involved in 

these satellites and the weather reports that are generated because 

you have companies, right, that then sell this data for weather 

forecasting purposes for which the taxpayers do not receive any remuneration; is that accurate? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
31 

Mr. ZINSER. The weather data is made available to private companies that then sell the weather forecasting and do the forecasting 

for various media outlets. 

Mr. FATTAH. Has there ever been any analysis of what, if any, 

cost sharing there could be between the taxpayers and the for-profit entities involved here so that we could recoup some of the dollars? Because the chairman is right, this has been going on since 

the early days of the Bush administration, if not before. What was 

the original name of the Joint Polar Satellite Program? 

Mr. ZINSER. It was called NPOESS. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. The costs have gone up. So at some point, because a lot of members here are very concerned about the cost of 

the Federal Government enterprise, if we have activities that we 

need to undertake to provide warnings for communities around 

major weather events, but we could recoup some dollars in the ongoing operations of these satellites, it would seem that we might 

want to explore that. 

Are you aware that anyone has ever made any judgment about 

what the economic value is of this weather information? 

Mr. ZINSER. We have not looked at that, sir. I think it is actually 

the other way around. I think NOAA issues contracts to people so 

that they can provide this kind of information to local communities. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. 

Mr. ZINSER. I think it is actually working the other way right 

now, but that would be a good review to do. 

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

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

And, Ms. Schnedar, we will hear your full statement. We separate it out so we just do the Commerce Department. You will have 

the opportunity—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. For a full statement. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I sincerely want to thank you for the work that you do. We 

in Congress are so inundated with information and have such a 

huge realm of responsibilities, the taxpayers we represent get so 

frustrated with the waste as we do that the Inspectors General Offices truly, I think, is one of the most essential and valuable parts 

of the Federal Government. 

We really appreciate what you do. It is very hard to get good information and we really, really appreciate the work that you do, all 

of you, all of your staff. 

This, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, is kind of a classic illustration of what is often so wrong with the Federal Government. The 

people, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, in your questions that, 

some of the people that have made the decisions that manage this 

program are still there. They are still running the program. 

There was, as I understand, Inspector General Zinser, the Satellite Program was initially designed to be run both by the Defense 

Department, NASA, and NOAA. The costs got too high. Defense 

Department pulled out. 

I gather they have their own separate—they have their own 

weather satellite system today? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
32 

Mr. CULBERSON. And they are not relying on NOAA or NASA? 

Mr. ZINSER. They actually share data. There are Defense Department satellites up there and there are civilian satellites up there. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. Defense Department, DoD has their own 

weather satellites? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Because they found the Civilian Satellite Program to be unreliable obviously and costs a lot of money and the 

problems. It reminds me of when the Air Force decided to pull out, 

they no longer launch their payloads through our manned Civilian 

Space Program after the horrible Challenger disaster. 

And the unclear chain of command, sounds like there is nobody 

clearly in charge. Nobody has really been held accountable for 

these vast cost overruns. 

And as the chairman pointed out—I was unaware of this, Mr. 

Chairman—that the, make sure I understood, just the Joint Polar 

Satellite System alone represents 25 percent of the Department of 

Commerce’s budget? Did I hear that? Was that right? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Just this one satellite system. 

Mr. ZINSER. If you take the entire cost of the program over a 

number of years, right now the estimate is close to $12 billion. The 

annual appropriation, the annual request from the Department of 

Commerce last year, was $8.9 billion. 

Mr. CULBERSON. It is just extraordinary. I mean, it is clearly an 

essential satellite system that we have got to have, but we are as— 

I have got to be able to reason together and find a far more efficient, effective, and particularly in this new era of austerity, costefficient way to manage these programs and get these absolutely 

essential weather satellite systems launched and that we not only 

get it launched, but we have a capable system that is going to last 

for many years. 

As the chairman said quite correctly in the private sector, this 

would just—this is just not acceptable. 

Are the folks in charge of this program at NOAA and the Department of Commerce career civil servants unionized, career civil servants protected by civil service laws so they essentially—nobody has 

been reassigned or fired at all over any of this? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, they have a large staff that works in the satellite service. It is a large part of NOAA. They have different services. The satellite service is a large part of that. 

I am not familiar with the past history in terms of personnel actions and personnel moves and things like that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are not aware of anybody being fired or reassigned as the chair—the chairman asked anybody reassigned. To 

your knowledge, has anybody ever been fired over this kind of grotesque mess—excuse me—this kind of grotesque waste of our kids’ 

money? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not know the answer to that, sir. Not to my 

knowledge since I have been there. I am starting my fourth year, 

so—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. No one has been fired in the time you have been 

there? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
33 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not think that anyone has been fired directly 

for the cost overruns or schedule delays or problems that—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. ZINSER [continuing]. NPOESS has experienced. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I am still infuriated no one has ever been fired 

for 9/11. It still galls me. I mean, has anybody ever been fired, to 

your knowledge, for—for example, who made the decision to spend 

how many billions of dollars on those hand-held computers the 

Census was going to use to go door to door and wasn’t that like 

thrown out the window and how much money of our—how much 

of our children’s money was wasted on that foolishness? And nobody was fired for that either? 

Mr. ZINSER. There were some reassignments or some retirements, but I do not think anybody was fired, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. How much money was wasted on the hand-held 

computer fiasco? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, the original contract was about $600 million, 

and I think the reason that they scrapped it is because of the problems they ran into to finish the development to where it would 

meet the original intent. The cost of that was rising to about a billion dollars, and so they decided to not go forward with it. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION AND OVERLAP

Mr. CULBERSON. It is a pattern we see throughout the whole 

Federal Government and I am convinced—as someone who represents a district in Texas, we have no state income tax, virtually 

no labor unions. You work at will. People can be fired if you are 

incompetent or you screw up the job. And you reward people for 

good performance with bonuses, but there are consequences if you 

do not do your job. 

And there is a clear chain of command. Typically in any kind of 

a big organization with making big decisions like this, you have got 

a General Patton. You have got somebody clearly in charge. There 

is none of this with the DoD and NOAA and NASA overlapping. 

Nobody is in charge. Nobody gets fired. Everybody gets reassigned. 

Nobody is responsible. 

And, of course, I suspect Congress also had something to do with 

this and that the original program—was the original design giving 

DoD, NOAA, and NASA that sort of overlap, was that a policy decision made by Congress or by the agencies? Before I pick on the 

agencies too much, I suspect a lot of that may come from this side 

of the table I have no doubt. 

Mr. ZINSER. To the best of my understanding, it came out of the 

national performance review that was done under the Clinton administration. 

Mr. CULBERSON. So it was done through the Executive Branch? 

Mr. ZINSER. As far as I know, but, again, Congress—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oversight. 

Mr. ZINSER [continuing]. Congress appropriates and Congress 

oversees the program. 

Mr. CULBERSON. True. True. We are all human. I know of only 

one human in history that was perfect, Mr. Chairman, and, you 

know, we are all human. And we are all overwhelmed and we, all 

of us, are devoted to do the best we can for our kids and our 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
34 

grandkids, but this is just unacceptable. And I am really glad the 

chairman has brought this to our attention. 

And I hope, Mr. Chairman and members, as we move through 

this, we could really rethink the way that the—for example, we 

are, and I cannot stress this enough, Mr. Wolf, who I just revere 

and admire so much, the chairman points out quite correctly that 

our kids, we as a country, I hope, are not—well, I hope we have 

not already gone over the cliff. 

I share Mr. Wolf’s concern that the level of debt, the level of deficit, the level of unfunded liabilities is already so huge, I hope we 

can pull out of what looks like, I hope, is a very scary time ahead. 

We are going to have to rethink outside the box the way we have 

approached problems in the past. 

And in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. I hope 

we will rethink the way, for example, that decision making is allocated on these programs. You know, we are going to have to, I 

think, to look at combining some of these functions of NOAA with 

NASA with a clear chain of command, with a responsibility if this 

is—if we are talking about satellite systems and outer space, I do 

not know why all of that is not done under NOAA. 

Why isn’t the Coast Guard doing fisheries and oceans—excuse 

me—done under NASA and then the Coast Guard doing the 

oceans? And, quite frankly, in these huge programs where somebody screws up, there needs to be accountability. There needs to 

be—people need to be fired. 

We need to revisit the way the civil service system operates and 

the unions and the inability to hold people accountable because we 

can withhold money and change the way the program is managed, 

but really to the extent that we can do so, we need to rethink the 

model. And we are going to have to come up with dramatic savings. 

It is not the deficit that is going to kill us, the debt, it is the unfunded liabilities, in particular the entitlement programs. And we 

have got an urgent task before us. 

I just thank you because truly in this age of austerity we are 

about to enter into, the work that you do is absolutely vital to the 

critical job that we have in oversight. And I thank you. 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

I am going to go to Mr. Austria. But Mr. Culberson just triggered 

a thought. Is there any overlap on the climate research issue between what NOAA is doing versus what NASA is doing? 

Mr. ZINSER. There is overlap, sir. I do not know precisely what 

it is, but I know that there is research being done at NOAA and 

research that is—— 

Mr. WOLF. But is there any that they are both looking at the 

same thing. I want to protect NASA to the best of our ability. But 

if there is something that NOAA is doing on a climate issue, maybe 

you can look at that and just get back to the committee. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yeah. There are three data sets that exist in the 

world on climate data. NASA owns one, NOAA owns one, and the 

other one is at East Anglia University over in England. 

Mr. WOLF. But what Mr. Culberson just kind of triggered, 

though, are there any areas that—I know iron sharpens iron and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
35 

competition is good, but are there any areas that are so relatively 

simple that they are both doing that you could then come together 

not to eliminate doing it, because I think looking at climate issues 

is very, very important, but if it is being done at NOAA and NASA, 

that way, there would be more money for research and development—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Understood. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. In space or others. So if you could just 

look to see—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Sure. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. What programs are similar. Then when 

the NASA people come up, we can ask. 

Mr. ZINSER. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, excuse me, to the inspector general for being here 

today. 

Just to kind of follow-up on what Mr. Culberson was alluding to 

as far as reducing our deficits by improving efficiency and rooting 

out things like waste and fraud and abuse, let me ask you, because 

I know in your testimony, you made reference to improving efficiencies. 

And I appreciate the plan that you have laid out before this committee in managing acquisition more effectively, increasing accountability with the Stimulus Program, improving U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office processing times, preventing cost overruns 

with the Commerce headquarters renovation, et cetera. And we can 

go on and on. 

And we are all tightening our belts. And right now when we talk 

about the delays that are happening right now, how do you propose 

that we are going to be able to be accountable for the taxpayer dollars when we are talking about this transition to whether it be 

JPSS and the developing of that program on the ground goes, not 

experiencing any further delays? 

In your opinion, you know, roughly how much taxpayer money 

could be saved or has there been any tracking of the tax dollars 

that—the cost of these delays has cost the taxpayers and then 

making these improvements that you have laid out, how much that 

might save the taxpayers? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yeah. I do not think there is an overall calculation 

on what we are going to save by reducing delays. I know that the 

department is engaged in a process very similar to what the chairman talked about where they have sat down and they have gone 

through a process trying to determine which programs are essential, which programs are less essential, and they have put them 

into a number of different buckets. And they are doing that kind 

of analysis to be prepared for the budgets that they are anticipating. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Is that information or that data available to be able 

to be viewed or when it is available or will we be able to view that? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think the department would be prepared to share 

that information in connection with the budget request that is coming up next week. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
36 

CENSUS PLANNING

Mr. AUSTRIA. I think that would be very helpful. 

Let me follow-up on the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his 

questions on the census because I think it is an important area 

that, you know, I have asked myself a lot of questions about this. 

And being a new member of Congress, you know, the cost of the 

census has always been higher than the census preceding it largely 

because we know there has been an increase in population to account for that. 

But in your current fiscal and the current fiscal environment, we 

need to, again, getting back to saving the taxpayers wherever possible, and it would seem that with the technology that is out there 

today that in today’s age where everybody is using a cell phone, a 

BlackBerry, an iPad, the technology that exists, that the census 

workers are still walking door to door with paper and pencil. 

Are there technologies or other efficiencies that could be embraced by the bureau to improve their operation and reduce the 

cost of this necessary exercise? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. That was the biggest disappointment about 

2010 was the fact that the Census Bureau could not get that technology ready for use. That would have saved money, would have 

saved a lot of money. They did not successfully implement that acquisition. 

In addition to hand-held devices like that, we have been encouraging the Census Bureau to come up with some way to use the 

Internet in the census. They have resisted that. And I think that 

they are trying to do some pilot testing in these early years of the 

decade to figure out how to use the Internet for the census. 

There are things that they could do to maximize the use of administrative records that already exist about the population, if only 

to update their address list. Right now, to update their address list 

very late in the decade, they send three hundred, four hundred 

thousand temporary workers out to locate every address in the 

country. The post office has that information; the Social Security 

Administration has that information. So there are things that they 

could do along those lines, which we are encouraging them to do 

and which we included in our testimony. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION AND OVERLAP

Mr. AUSTRIA. And, I mean, we all know, and I will conclude with, 

we all know that there are cuts that are coming to programs. 

Chairman Rogers has said that these will be the most severe reductions in the history of this Congress. And I have asked the 

question to businesses, to the colleges, to some of the military, sites 

across my district, and now I would like to ask you the same question. 

You know, where could we cut in your department? If the cuts 

are coming, you know, can you help us identify those areas that 

maybe we can look at that are less efficient or wasteful as far as 

cutting and what reductions would be least disruptive to your operation and also maybe those areas that we should not be cutting 

that you think we are seeing progress as far as cost-effectiveness 

and as far as efficiency? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
37 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. As I mentioned, the department is trying 

to prioritize where they could cut their programs. But I also think 

that the chairman was pointing out—and Mr. Culberson—that 

there is overlap. There is overlap. The Commerce Department does 

things that other departments do, and I think that is probably a 

good place to start focusing. 

I know that the President, for example, mentioned export promotion in his state of the union address. Earlier last year, the 

President signed an executive order that set up the National Export Promotion Cabinet. That cabinet has 16 different agencies on 

it. So you know there is overlap in responsibilities across the government. I think that is a ripe berry to look at. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. Thank you, Inspector General. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, if I was to tell you that I am happy to see that 

party in the majority, I would be lying to you. But if I had to see 

someone chairing the committee other than our side, I am glad it 

is you. You know, the relationship we have and, well, we get along 

and we work together. So I did not want to say that in the mike. 

There is a reason to my madness, you know. I did not want that 

recorded. 

CENSUS PLANNING

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I always have a disclaimer that I 

do at the beginning of any census questioning and it is that I have 

one brother, no sisters, and he has been working for the Census 

Bureau since 1980. I came to Congress in 1990, so he got the job 

way before I was in Congress. My understanding is that the 2010 census came in almost $2 billion under budget. Although I understand you have some concerns 

about the financial management of the census, I am more interested in knowing why it was so far under budget. Is it a result of 

the recession or are there other reasons? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. We—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Are we going to find out later that they should 

have spent that money and on a different job? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not think you are going to find out that they 

should have spent all of that money. I would offer two points. One 

is that I do not think the Census Bureau does a very good job 

budgeting in the first place, so the budget that they finally came 

up with, after they scrapped the hand-held, and revised their budget, was kind of fat actually. That is my view. 

But, secondly, the Census Bureau—to their credit—did do a good 

job with the money they were provided to get people more aware 

of the census through media and to increase the response rate 

through the mails. The fact that the response rate was up in the 

70 percent range contributed a great deal to the cost savings they 

did realize. It cost 45 cents to mail something back. It cost $80.00 

to send a census worker out to get that information door to door. 

Mr. SERRANO. Now, this is probably not a fair question to ask 

you since we are talking about the Commerce Department, but is 

that true for many departments that they over budget? Is it the old 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
38 

belief that you ask for more hoping to get what you really need and 

in this case, you got what you asked for? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think that the census is a separate issue from the 

other departments. Sure, I think that there is some padding that 

goes on in budget requests in general. But for the Census Bureau, 

I do not think their budget was done in bad faith. I just do not 

think they are very good at projecting their costs. And as we saw, 

there is a mix of good management and there is a mix of poor 

budgeting in that $1.6 billion figure that was returned to the 

Treasury. 

IT SECURITY

Mr. SERRANO. Right. In part of an IG report about IT security, 

there are said to be security weaknesses that undermine the department’s ability to defend its systems and information. That is on 

page one. 

Can you specify these weaknesses and how they are affecting the 

department’s functions? And I apologize if any of these questions 

have been asked already. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. The department has been working very 

hard on improving its IT security, but there are vulnerabilities that 

still exist. For example, last year as part of our audit work, we 

went through and did what we call vulnerability scans on computers. Well, the department did the same thing earlier in the 

year. Their scan showed like 1.3 vulnerabilities per computer. Our 

scan showed almost five significant vulnerabilities per computer. 

So they are just not bringing the skill level and the talent to the 

table necessary to really do what is needed to be done on IT security. 

RECOVERY ACT GRANT PROGRAMS

Mr. SERRANO. Do I have time for one more question? 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Go ahead. 

Mr. SERRANO. There is a mantra that I deal with on a daily basis 

here, for my 20 odd years in Congress, and that is what about the 

territories. And I always want the territories, Puerto Rico, Guam, 

Samoa, Virgin Islands, the Mariana Islands, treated equally. 

Granted they are not states, but as equal as possible under the 

Constitution. 

What is your sense, if it is within your purview to comment on 

this, of how the Commerce Department deals with the territories? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. The one area that I am most familiar with 

would be in the grants that are made by the department, especially 

grants under the Recovery Act, for example. And I know that the 

department was very conscientious about making sure that all the 

states and territories were represented in the grants that were delivered for the various Recovery Act programs. 

I do not have those numbers exactly, but I have never received 

a complaint or any concerns that the territories were not getting 

some kind of fair shake from the department. 

Mr. SERRANO. You say that with sort of a smile on your face. I 

am wondering if that is just your style or you know they were reading my press releases. 

Mr. ZINSER. No. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
39 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Just checking. 

Mr. ZINSER. I was not reading your press releases. 

Mr. SERRANO. Maybe they heard my request. Thank you so much 

and thank you for your service. 

Mr. ZINSER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

IT SECURITY

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

I am going to go to Mr. Yoder. But before I do, if I could followup on a thing that Mr. Serrano asked for. Were you there when 

Secretary Gutierrez’s computers were stripped in China? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir, we did look into that. 

Mr. WOLF. Can you tell the Committee so everyone knows, particularly new members, how the Secretary of Commerce’s computers were literally stripped and how extensive was that because, 

quite frankly, there are members of Congress now who travel to 

China. The minute you are off that airplane and you are into the 

airport, they are stripping your computer and you are bringing it 

back on your cell phone and your BlackBerry. But can you tell us 

so everyone can be educated what happened to Secretary Gutierrez—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And how extensive that was both when 

he was in China and how it impacted back on the computers in the 

department? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. Well, there were newspaper reports that 

Secretary Gutierrez had his computer compromised in China. We 

went down and looked into that. What he told me personally, was 

he did not take a computer to China. Now, his staff has taken computers with them. They have taken their BlackBerries with them. 

And what happens is it is such a problem that they have set up 

policies now where if you want to take a BlackBerry to China, you 

get a special BlackBerry with nothing else on it and you take that 

with you. It is scanned before you go. You take it with you. It is 

scanned after you come back so that that particular device is isolated and is not incorporated or introduced into the rest of the networks. And that precaution is set—— 

Mr. WOLF. This is the Chinese Government where the Administration gave a state dinner to President Hu Jintao who was the one 

who cracked down in Tibet. I went to Tibet 13 years ago. I went 

in with a trekking group. They have plundered Tibet. They have 

executed Buddhist monks and nuns. And the man who literally has 

the policy in effect is the man that we gave a state dinner to. 

But they are spying against us and every member should know, 

every staffer should know, and it is hard for the Congress, when 

they go to China, if they get off their airplane and they walk into 

the airport, they are stripping your computer. 

Now, did that computer come back into the network with the 

other computers in the department? 

Mr. ZINSER. Not that we know of, sir. We do not think that it 

was ever infiltrated into the department. Now, that is not to say 

that the department has not found occasions where foreign governments have taken information out. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
40 

Mr. WOLF. Well, that was my next question. How many cyber attacks have been against the computers in the Department of Commerce in the last two years and was China ever involved? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not have the exact numbers. I do know that 

there are a number of countries that—— 

Mr. WOLF. Was China one? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. And how often does China hit your computers? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not have that information. I can tell you that, 

for example, a couple years ago, the number of attempts to get into 

PTO computers alone totaled about a million in a year. 

Mr. WOLF. And do we believe that it was in some cases by the 

Chinese Government? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not have that information. I would—— 

Mr. WOLF. What would your guess be if you were under oath and 

you had to put your hand up and there was a Bible in front of you 

and asked the question? Would it be your expectation? The answer 

was that the Chinese Government was partially involved at some 

times? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. That would be one of the countries I would 

suspect. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Just for the record, my computer was stripped by the 

Chinese. They came in and got my computer and 17 other Members, the International Relations Committee, and they took everything off. And the FBI acknowledged it was the Chinese Government that did it. 

And I think every Member should know and hopefully the department now, based on the Gutierrez case, has laid the word out 

that, and I hope it is government-wide now, that when other agencies, the trade people, the Justice Department people, that when 

they go to China and countries like that, and there are other countries, Syria and other places that they do the same thing. So is that 

the policy now government-wide? 

Mr. ZINSER. As far as I know, it is, sir. I know the NSA, for example, has come around and has done a lot of outreach in the last 

couple of years, with departments trying to make sure that that effort is coordinated across the government. I know they came to the 

Department of Commerce. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may on that point. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Real quickly, guys, the problem is so severe that 

Google, when I visited Google headquarters, tells me they forbid— 

that when a Google executive visits China, they can only take a 

stripped down laptop that only has an Internet browser on it to 

China and then as soon as the individual returns, the computer is 

destroyed. It is that aggressive and that bad. 

Mr. WOLF. I have been told, too, that you really cannot clean it, 

that they can embed it whereby you can never actually technically 

clean it. So maybe the Chinese, even those who think that it has 

been cleaned, now feel very good, but the Chinese are having a day. 

Mr. Yoder. 

Mr. YODER. I will pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
41 

Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I just want to join my colleagues in extending my congratulations on your becoming chairman. I remember when I first was 

elected to Congress, I think you were chairing CJS at the time. 

And I came to testify, I was not a member of the committee obviously at that time, during Member Day. And I know that member 

testimony is not often the most scintillating of testimony and I 

know mine was not, but I was struck how diligently you listened 

to all the members that came to testify and how seriously you took 

their concerns. And I appreciated that commitment to your colleagues and have ever since. And congratulations. 

And, Mr. Serrano, what you said about the microphone reminded 

me when I was in the State Senate and the Senate president was 

giving an outgoing speech about one of the members and extolling 

their marriage. They were leaving the Senate. He said all these 

wonderful things about the member who was literally walking out 

the door and saying thank you, thank you, thank you. The minute 

the departing Senator left the room, the Senate president turns to 

the recorder and says, reporter, destroy that transcript. 

Mr. SERRANO. By the way, was I the ranking member when he 

was so nice to you? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I do not recall because I think that you would not 

listen to anything I had to say. You gave me the back of your hand. 

Mr. FATTAH. You were that memorable. 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mr. SCHIFF. I wanted to ask Mr. Zinser about the Patent Office. 

As you mentioned in your testimony, since 2000, patent pendency 

has increased ten months. The backlog has doubled. In the same 

period, the number of patent examiners has also doubled, but the 

number of patents has not kept up. 

I have been hearing about this problem for years from California 

high tech companies and I have been working on this issue for 

some time to try to address the backlog. Many of the stakeholders 

are willing to pay higher fees if they have the confidence in two 

things. One, that the fees would actually go to reducing the backlog, that the fees will not be diverted to pay some other government function unrelated to patents and, second, that the Patent Office will be efficient enough to use it effectively to reduce the backlog. 

What I would be interested to get a sense of is the relatively new 

head of the Patent Office has initiated some reforms. Do you see 

any signs of progress that the backlog is now moving in the right 

direction or is it still getting longer? 

If we were somehow to, in order to raise fees, commit that the 

revenues would go to the Patent Office and insisted that they develop a five-year plan to eliminate the backlog and that we have 

certain milestones to meet, is there a mechanism that could be 

used to make sure that we did not just increase patent quantity, 

but we also had patent quality at the same time? What is your 

sense of where the office is now and what will be necessary to remove the backlog? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
42 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I think they have made progress on the 

backlog. I think the number that I have seen is that they have reduced it by about twenty or thirty thousand applications last year. 

And I think it is headed in the right direction. The issue of whether additional funding would help reduce the backlog, I think, is 

probably just part of the answer. 

I know that the reforms that the secretary and Mr. Kappos have 

initiated are fairly new and they have to be tracked, but I also 

know that the secretary is tracking it. He has set up this effort 

called his balanced scorecard, where each of the agencies are coming in with their performance metrics. 

And one thing that PTO has is data. They have a lot of data 

about their operations. And I think the key is to figure out which 

of those data points are important to track and to really see whether those data points are valid. And that is the kind of work we are 

going to do in following up on those reforms that they have put in 

place. 

Mr. SCHIFF. How much of an issue is it that you mentioned that 

they have not been very good at anticipating the revenues and 

without a good model to anticipate their revenues, they cannot 

make planning decisions about how many patent examiners to hire 

and whatnot? How much has that impeded their operations? How 

much is the uncertainty about whether they can keep all the fees 

they generate an obstacle to their long-term planning? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not think the issue of them keeping their fees 

is—I know it is a historical issue for the folks in the patent world, 

but the recent history of this committee is that PTO has been appropriating all the fees that it has collected, basically. 

I think where the uncertainty comes in is in projecting what 

their revenues are going to be. There is uncertainty there, and 

what happens is it impacts their various business decisions on increasing staffing or what they spend on other contracts. There is 

uncertainty about their incoming revenue, so that creates uncertainty about some of their business decisions throughout the year. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NOAA SATELLITE PROGRAMS

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, when you get a chance. 

Mr. WOLF. Go ahead. 

Mr. FATTAH. I just wanted to follow-up with something the chairman asked earlier because I thought it was a very important point 

given the extraordinarily large cost relative to the Satellite Program and the relatively small amount of your own resources that 

you have allotted to it. 

Now, I am a big fan of inspectors general. I worked with Chris 

Shays who co-sponsored the bill that created these inspectors general and juiced them up years ago with a lot of resources. 

The question is, given your response, you are the taxpayers’ 

watchdog in the agency, right? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So here you have got this program in which there 

are satellite cost overruns. And when the chairman asked you— 

and I do not mean to put you on the spot. I mean, I am searching 

for how we get at some of these issues. He said, well, you only have 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
43 

two people watching over what is a multi-billion dollar program out 

of your entire staff. 

IG’S RESOURCE ALLOCATION

So my real question is not about that in particular, but how you 

rationalize your allocation of your resources to watch over the dollars in these agencies inside the Commerce Department. So you 

have got the department. You have got its various agencies. 

How do you go about as the public’s watchdog deciding where 

you are going to apply your resources and are you, you know, are 

you majoring in the minors, are you focused on the major dollars 

where there could be efficiency improvements? 

I am not as concerned about fraud. I assume that most of the 

people in the government are trying to do the right thing and if 

there is fraud, we have a Justice Department that will get the bad 

guys eventually. But in the meantime, efficiency is a big deal. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. And the intelligence community has satellite interests. DoD has satellites. NASA has satellites. NOAA has satellites. 

In the private sector, they put up satellites, right? And I know the 

chairman was talking about the Chinese. I mean, they are getting 

very proficient. I mean, we should know how to get a satellite up, 

right? 

And so my question is what is your rational basis, as the IG, for 

determining how you are going to apply your resources to look over 

the public’s money? And I would assume you would, you know, just 

rationally put more people focused where the money really is. 

Mr. ZINSER. It is an excellent question, sir. My philosophy has 

always been that I am going to deliver the best oversight I can deliver with whatever resources the Congress gives me, number one. 

We have a very diverse department. And the first thing I have 

to make sure of is that I do the work that is mandated by statute. 

For example, I have financial statement audits I have to do. The 

IT security audits are required by statute. I am required by statute 

to go out and audit a public safety interoperable communications 

program. Within the last couple of years, Congress has required 

that I audit the decennial census. Even the top management challenges report that we issued, that is required by law. 

So I have my statutory requirements. Then I get requests from 

time to time from members of Congress to do work, and I make 

that a priority. The secretary and the administrators ask me to do 

work. I make that a priority. 

Last year, for example, we looked at an acquisition that NOAA 

did on their west coast operations center. That was requested by 

Senator Cantwell. And, in fact, that is one of the jobs that we did 

that resulted in a very significant review by the secretary of how 

they do acquisitions in the department. So I think we got a lot of 

mileage out of that review. 

Mr. FATTAH. And if I could, I mean, so that is a great answer. 

You are doing what you are mandated to do. And that might take 

you away from looking at a multi-billion dollar expenditure like the 

Satellite Program because you have to go chase these things that 

the Congress has told you to do and to perform on a regular basis, 

right? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
44 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So if we want to find more efficiency where greater 

dollars are being expended, we will have to provide some relief or 

direct you in that way, right? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. Well, one thing I did do, and I have been 

here three years now, one thing I did do when I got this job and 

saw the Satellite Program, I did go out and find expertise, people 

that—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I know. I am trying to get to an answer here. I 

mean, Jesse James said he would rob banks because that is where 

the money was, right? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So if we are looking for efficiencies, we would have 

to have the watchdog looking where the money really is and not 

looking where, you know, the peanuts are, right? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FATTAH. So thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SERRANO. Betty Sutton. 

RECOVERY ACT AND BTOP

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Mr. Zinser, Commerce received $7.9 billion in February 2009 as 

part of Public Law 111–5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. This amount was almost as much as the $9.7 billion in base 

funding provided to the department in 2009. When you exclude the $1.9 billion increase provided for census in fiscal year 2009, the $7.9 billion in stimulus funding was nearly 

the same amount as the Commerce Department’s base budget. 

As of December 31, 2010, the Department has obligated about $5.9 billion in the Recovery Act funds as the law stipulated that 

most of the funds had to be obligated by September 30, 2010. 

However, even though about 92 percent of the funds have been obligated as of December 2010, only about $1.7 billion has actually 

been expended or about 22 percent of total funding provided nearly 

two years ago. 

Can you explain why there has been such a lag in sending these 

funds out the door and, secondly, does Commerce keep track of how 

its Recovery Act funds may have stimulated the economy and is 

any of this money able to be reclaimed, something that has not 

been used, because the purpose of the stimulus bill was actually to 

stimulate and create jobs? Can you explain why there has been 

such a lag in sending the funds out and can any be claimed? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. The discrepancy between the amount obligated and the amount spent is largely explained by the Broadband 

Program. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. ZINSER. The Broadband Program was the largest program of 

that pot of money. And they were required to award the grants and 

obligate the money by the end of last fiscal year, by September 30. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. ZINSER. And it became very schedule driven, but they did it. 

Now the spending will occur over the next two or three years as 

the grantees actually start spending money on those projects. So 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
45 

that explains most of the discrepancy and why the money was obligated but has not been spent. 

Mr. WOLF. Were there matches involved then because with the 

localities having such a difficult time, you are hearing California, 

and different states are having a tough time in localities? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. We are very concerned about that. The Broadband Program itself awarded 232 grants, $3.9 billion. The 

amount of match for those grants was about $1.4 billion, which has 

to be spent by the grantees. Whether it is a private sector company 

or a state or a county, those grantees have to come up with that 

matching amount. 

Mr. WOLF. Is there a time factor involved in that match? 

Mr. ZINSER. The way the program is run, I do believe that they 

have to show their match invested in the project all along the way. 

And when we go out and do audits, for example, of those grants, 

that is one of the things we look at, to see whether or not the 

match is actually being provided by the grantee. 

Mr. WOLF. Are there localities that are now having a difficult 

time making the match? 

Mr. ZINSER. For the Broadband Program, the funds just went out 

there, so we have not completed any audits on individual grantees 

yet. But I know in past grant programs, even in better economic 

times, there were a lot of problems with grantees providing their 

match. 

Mr. WOLF. Would there be a way, not to be a disincentive to the 

grantee obviously if this is something legitimate they are doing, but 

is there any thought of doing a kind of a checkup on everyone saying, okay, guys, you got the grant September 30 last year, we want 

to see in 60 days that you can comply? And if you cannot, tell us 

now because that money could be recovered. 

If it could be recovered, it would certainly impact on the debt— 

I mean, we are not trying to hurt anyone. Again, I am not trying 

to say, you know, get somebody. But if a locality really will not be 

able to make the match—in the transportation bill, we used to 

have what we call a use or lose. If you did not use, and I know 

you were at Transportation then, and if you did not use it over a 

period of time—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. You lost it. And this economy is very 

tough. So there may be a locality that had this great idea, but now 

the tax base—I saw Camden, New Jersey has had to lay off 50 percent of their policemen. 

Mr. ZINSER. I think it is a very high risk area, sir, and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, could you do that then? Could we request that 

you—again, this is not to be punishment. I just want to make that 

clear. But if someone knows they are not going to be able to make 

it, and if they are going to be able to make it, I think they should 

continue, but if they are not going to be able to make it, to let you 

know in a period of time so that the money could be reclaimed. And 

then if it were reclaimed, there may be a program that, you know, 

members here would like to continue that would allow it to continue if they knew this money were coming in. 

So is there a way for you to do that, to check, send a letter to 

everybody and say can you tell us within 30 days? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
46 

Mr. ZINSER. Yeah. Either our office could do that or the program 

office itself that is supposed to, in NTIA, that is supposed to be 

keeping track of these things. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, maybe we should ask them if they can do it because, you know, based on what you told Mr. Fattah, I know you 

have got a lot to do. But maybe we should just ask them. 

Mr. ZINSER. We could follow up with them as well. 

RECOVERY ACT AND CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Good. 

2. Can you ask NTIA to send a letter to all applicants to determine whether or 

not they are able to meet their match requirements? 

On March 9, 2011, my office transmitted a memorandum on this subject to Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and Administrator for NTIA. We provided a copy of the memo to the subcommittee on 

March 14. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
47 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 79 here 65531A.022
48 

Mr. WOLF. NIST received $360 million for its Construction Grant 

Program in the Recovery Act. Does NIST have the experience with 

construction funds and—— 

Mr. ZINSER. They do have experience actually contracting with 

construction companies to build research facilities. What they do 

not have a lot of experience with is part of that Recovery money 

is actually a grant program where they are granting money to 

other parties to do construction. That is a fairly new function for 

NIST and we do not think they have a lot of experience doing that. 

So that is a risk area that we have identified. 

Mr. WOLF. And so what is going to be done about that? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, we have got it on our work plan to go out and 

audit the program, specifically looking at NIST’s capability of overseeing those construction grants. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, have they begun construction? This comment 

says that as of December 2010, it looked at, at that time, it could 

have changed, that only $46 million or 13 percent of the $360 million has been expended. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes. It is very similar to the Broadband Program 

where the money has gone out and now the grantees are in the 

process of spending it, and it has been a slow process. 

Mr. WOLF. And are the matches there too? Probably not as much 

in—— 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not know the answer to that. I know that the 

construction grants primarily went to universities. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. ZINSER. There is a whole list of universities that received 

these monies. I do not know the grant requirement for those funds, 

but I can let you know that. 

3. Are the recipients of the NIST construction grants required to come up with 

a match? 

The NIST construction grant program requires recipients to provide at least a 20 

percent match, with the remaining 80 percent of the grant amount provided by 

NIST. For the 16 construction awards funded through the program, the matches 

ranged from 20 to 88 percent, with the median (and most common) match being approximately 50 percent. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Who will be responsible for the ongoing operations and maintenance of these facilities? Will it be the federal 

government or the organization that got the money? 

Mr. ZINSER. For the Grant Program, it would be the grantee. 

Mr. WOLF. The grantee. 

Mr. ZINSER. For the facilities that NIST is constructing itself, I 

think it is probably a mix. The answer is probably a mix of responsibilities. 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Before I go back to Mr. Fattah and then to the 

other members, too, let me go back on the patent issue. 

Last year, the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

voluntarily, and I stress the word voluntarily, there was no mandate by Congress, gave the Chinese Government our entire patent 

database and continues to provide regular updates to the Chinese 

with new patent applications. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
49 

Now, anybody here who has a company that has left to go to 

China, just think about it. Was that a good idea to give, voluntarily 

give the Chinese Government our entire patent database and to 

give them a regular update to the Chinese with new patent applications? Do we do this to the Russians, to the Macedonians? Was 

that a good idea? 

Mr. ZINSER. I am not familiar with that. I do know that PTO 

does share information with other governments. I was not familiar 

with that particular issue. 

USPTO AND IT SECURITY

Mr. WOLF. Could you look into that? And have you looked into 

the policy impact on Chinese theft of U.S. intellectual property? 

Mr. ZINSER. We can look into that. I do know that part of our 

emphasis on IT security, for example, is the fact that PTO would 

be such an economic target by other countries. That is why we are 

emphasizing IT security. 

Mr. WOLF. To think PTO just gave them the database so they did 

not have to be inconvenienced, the Peoples Liberation Army. Just 

give it to them so they could have more time to do other things? 

I mean, it does not make any sense to me. 

When the Patent and Trademark Office comes up, we are going 

to ask. Does that sound like a good idea to voluntarily give it to 

them? If you could check on it. 

Mr. ZINSER. I will, sir. 

4. If USPTO fees are raised, would that help reduce the backlog? 

We have not yet conducted audit work analyzing USPTO’s proposed 15 percent 

surchage on fees, the activities to which these additional revenues would be directed, or how those activities would reduce the patent application backlog and 

pendency. This fee increase was proposed in USPTO’s FY 2011 budget request and 

was expected to generate an estimated $244 million. According to the President’s 

FY 2011 budget request (p. 2), the proposed interim fee increase ‘‘. . . would fund 

the required hiring along with an attendant investment in information technology 

(IT). The USPTO will also create an operating reserve in FY 2011 to fully fund the 

cost of patent hiring in FY 2013 and maintain the reserve to protect the agency 

against unforeseen disruptions in revenue. Together, these will allow the USPTO to 

deliver on its pendency, quality, IT, and international objectives.’’ The FY 2012 

budget (p. 135) states that it would extend the interim increase for patent fees to 

fund the continued implementation of the 2010–2015 Strategic Plan. 

In short, the quetion is best directed to the agency. The question could be expanded along the following lines: Of the collections expected from the 15 percent 

surcharge, what amounts would be directed at which activities, how do those activities relate to reducing USPTO’s patent backlog and pendency challenges, and what 

measurable outcomes would be seen with respect to pendency and backlogs? 

Mr. WOLF. And see who else we voluntarily give it to. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I know at some point, the information about 

patent applications is made public. I do know that. 

Mr. WOLF. Of course, there are 30 Catholic bishops in jail in 

China today. If you go into an internet cafe ́ in Beijing and type in 

the Dalai Lama or type in freedom, nothing happens. So, I mean, 

it is not a good idea. So if you can look at it and get back to us 

about that, I would appreciate it. 

Currently all patent applications are made available on line for 

the world to see in 18 months even though the average backlog has 

grown to more than 35 months. 

Have we ever considered the impact of posting vendors’ trade secrets on line for up to two years before it is granted the patent? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
50 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not know the answer to that, sir. I will have 

to find out. 

Mr. WOLF. I mean, they are stealing. We know what they are 

doing. I know what they are doing, if the Patent Office does not 

know, but here we have all patent applications are made available 

on line for the world, i.e. the Chinese, i.e. the Russians, i.e. the 

Syrians, i.e. the Iranians, i.e., you could put whoever you want to 

put in. 

And what is the impact of posting a vendor’s trade secrets on line 

for up to two years before he is granted a patent? If you could look 

at that and check for us, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. ZINSER. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think PTO is doing everything it can to protect American intellectual property from cyber intrusions prior to 

public release of the patent applications at 18 months? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think they are getting better. I think they are paying attention to cyber security. I think they are getting better—— 

Mr. WOLF. Better meaning they went from zero to 15 or zero to 

87? I mean, because these are jobs. Everyone is concerned about 

losing jobs to China factories. 

I saw the other day this company in Massachusetts, the Evergreen Company, you may have seen it, just leaving. They got a 

bailout from the State of Massachusetts and they left. And they are 

laying off 800 employees in Massachusetts. Just literally they are 

walking off to China. I do not think it is an interest over at the 

Patent Department frankly. I think they are really—this is not 

their interest. 

But if you could look to see, and I would like to get a report 

maybe even before the Patent Office comes up, as to whether or not 

you think they are doing everything they can on that. 

Mr. ZINSER. I do think that by this time next year, they are going 

to be ahead of the department in terms of their IT security. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Fattah, you want to go ahead? 

Mr. FATTAH. I am willing to pass and submit whatever other 

questions I have for the record. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Fine. Okay. 

Mr. Serrano, okay. 

Let me just cover a couple of the—— 

Mr. SERRANO. If I could just submit some questions for the 

record. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Sure. Without objection. 

And I do not want to keep the Justice Department too. So we will 

have some questions, too, for the record on the broadband issue 

that you cover we assume there. 

2010 CENSUS BUDGET

Also, I think you may have covered this, but I want to ask it because I think Mr. Serrano referenced it, too, and I think it was a 

good question. 

Could you talk to us about the $1.9 billion budget savings being 

described by the census? Are they really cost savings or was it the 

census budget for certain activities was not very accurate? So I 

think you covered it, but was that a—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
51 

Mr. ZINSER. I think it was mixed, sir. I think that we have reported in the past, and GAO has reported, that the census budget 

estimation is not very good. And when the hand-held computer was 

scrapped and they had to revise their budget estimates for the decennial, the estimate shot up $3 billion. 

One thing that they did do right, I think, is they promoted the 

census. They increased awareness. They used appropriations for a 

media campaign that I think kept the response rate at a level such 

that it did save a lot of money. 

So I think you had a mix of bad budgeting and a response rate 

that helped reduce costs or keep costs contained. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think that the head of the Census should be 

a career person rather than a political appointee? I mean, you have 

changed a lot and it seems that—and I know it may sound opposite 

of what we were talking about earlier, but if you keep changing 

and changing and changing and changing it—— 

Mr. ZINSER. One of the things that have been proposed—I think 

it was in a bill last year—was to put the Census Bureau as a term 

similar to what they did to the FAA administrator so that the term 

would overlap—— 

Mr. WOLF. That is a good idea. 

Mr. ZINSER [continuing]. Overlap the administration and—— 

Mr. WOLF. The FBI is ten years. The director of the FBI is ten 

years. 

Mr. ZINSER. Yes, sir. I think the proposal was for the census director to be five years. 

Mr. WOLF. Now, whose bill is that? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think Representative Maloney put the bill in the 

House, and Senators Carper and Coburn put it in the Senate. 

Mr. WOLF. That sounds like a good idea. And if you bring the 

right person in and confirm them by the Senate, so obviously they 

have to go through that, but I think the change has made so much 

of a problem that—so maybe we will take a look at that. 

PSIC GRANT PROGRAM

Would you provide, on the Public Safety Interoperable Communication grants, would you provide the Committee with an update 

on the program? And we again understand the funds were all obligated by September 30th. But have any of the funds been actually 

spent? 

Mr. ZINSER. On the public safety interoperable communication 

grants, that program is a couple years old now and was funded by 

the auctioning off of spectrum. We had a requirement to go out and 

do annual reports, and we are obligated to go out and audit about 

25 of the grantees. 

The only problem we saw in that program is that the way the 

program started out, the department allocated the money to the 

states before the states really had an idea what they were going 

to do with it. And so they had a time deadline to do the projects. 

We found that they were not going to be able to complete their 

projects, so the Congress extended the deadline. And so far, the audits that we are conducting show that the projects are on track and 

that the problems we found have been corrected. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
52 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. So you do not think that this money that is not 

being used ought to be rescinded and returned to the Treasury, the 

funds, if it has not been used at this time, or do you think it is 

moving along? 

Mr. ZINSER. I think the PSIC Program is probably moving along, 

sir. 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Telework, this Committee was the one who 

pushed the Department for telework. And maybe you can just give 

us an update, and we will ask the PTO, but give us—and maybe 

you can tell us how you think—I have been a strong supporter of 

telework. I think it is important. There is nothing magic about 

strapping yourself into a metal box and driving 35 miles to sit before a computer when you can do it in another place. 

But if you can give us that and also if you can give us some information because I have been a supporter and have defended it 

and have been criticized by some of my colleagues on the Floor at 

times, which is all fair, but I maintain that from a continuity of 

government standpoint, because with 9/11, this place shut down, 

heavy snowstorms, the earthquake in California, if you did not 

have telework. Can you see how it has worked and if it improved 

productivity? Has it reduced sick leave? And if you could give us 

the raw truth on what it has done. 

Mr. ZINSER. We do plan to do some work this year on PTO’s 

Telework Program. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Mr. ZINSER. I think that they’ve put in place a very robust program and are relying on it as a key human capital tool. So we are 

going to do an audit of that program to try to measure how well 

it is succeeding. 

Mr. WOLF. And Mr. Schiff asked a good question too. The Patent 

Office increased the number of patent examiners from 4,258 in fiscal year 2005 to 6,225 in fiscal year 2010. Yet, the backlog persists. 

Why does it persist? And in your view, has PTO taken the necessary aggressive steps or should we bring in an outside group? 

Should we bring in a group of former Patent Office directors just 

to look to see because the backlog is increasing? The funding has 

been there. It really has. 

I know sometimes outside groups will come in and say, well, you 

know, but this committee has on both sides of the aisle, I have 

given everything that they have needed. They have got a pretty 

nice building down there too. Could have probably saved some 

money if the atrium had been a little lower maybe, but the backlog 

continues. And that changes too. I mean, I think we have changed, 

we have been changing PTO administrators often too. Maybe there 

ought to be a set term there too. 

What do you think the reason is? 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, it is very complicated. I think one of the things 

that you look at is the increase in patent applications themselves. 

I think those have gone up. I think you factor in that some of the 

patent applications have increased in complexity themselves. As 

technology gets more complex, I think the patent applications get 

more complex. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
53 

I think there have been labor issues there with the employees 

and the working conditions, and one which I think has been successfully worked out is the telework. But the idea of reaching out 

to outside parties—I think Mr. Kappos is doing that. I do not have 

a list of his efforts along those lines, but I have heard him talk 

about the outreach efforts he is making to people outside the little 

patent PTO circle. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE/COMMERCIAL FOREIGN SERVICE

Mr. WOLF. Okay. We can ask him. 

One last question and then I will go to Mr. Yoder to see if he 

has anything. 

How many Commercial Foreign Service, this is on the export 

issue, how many Commercial Foreign Service officers does the U.S. 

post abroad compared to Germany and Japan and other developed 

countries? Would you know that? 

Mr. ZINSER. I do not have that data at my fingertips, but I can 

get that for you, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Yoder, do you have any? 

Mr. YODER. I do not have anything. 

Mr. WOLF. No? Okay. Thanks. 

I think that is pretty much— 

2020 CENSUS PLANNING

Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Can I go back on my—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, yeah. 

Mr. SERRANO [continuing]. Decision not to ask another question? 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, yeah. No. Go ahead. 

Mr. SERRANO. I do not know, sir, if you have this information because it is related to the census but not directly to the Census Bureau. I have been involved as an elected official with the census in 

1980, 1990, and 2000 and 2010, and I have never seen the outside 

involvement from the media and different groups throughout the 

country in advertising the need to fill out your form and return it. 

For instance, I was asked to do about four PSAs including one 

which was a very serious effort by Telemundo nationwide asking 

people to return census forms. 

Were those collaborations with the Census and, if not, do we 

have any idea of how much money was spent by non-public organizations or non-public funds were spent on promoting the census? 

I mean, I know it is not dollars that you keep an eye on, but it is 

just—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Well, the use of media to raise awareness of the census really was not introduced until 2000. And so whatever awareness campaigns existed before that probably did exist out in the 

local communities. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. 

Mr. ZINSER. I am not sure that there is a lot of money—private 

money or non-government money—spent on raising awareness of 

the census. I think it all came from the Government. The media 

campaign, I believe, cost about $180 million. But beyond that, 

there is assistance provided by private parties. They provide meetVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
54 

ing facilities to have rallies to get the word out about the census. 

And people volunteer their time to help promote the census. But 

I am not aware of actual private money being used to promote the 

census. 

Mr. SERRANO. So when CBS says as a service of CBS or a service 

of NBC, you see these things that say make sure you turn in your 

census, or when Channel 4 asks you to return your census form, 

that was an ad for the Census Bureau and not something that 

Channel 4 did locally? 

Mr. ZINSER. Yeah. That may have been something Channel 4 did 

locally. I do not know what occurred in each of the various localities. But when the Census Bureau procured the ad in the Super 

Bowl last year, for example—— 

Mr. SERRANO. That is different. I understand. 

Mr. ZINSER [continuing]. Part of that deal was for the on-air talent to actually say some things about the census. That was part 

of the deal. 

PROGRAM DUPLICATION AND OVERLAP

Mr. SERRANO. Right. Okay. That I understand. All right. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

The last question is, and, again, you do not have to answer it, 

you can just talk to the staff, are there any, specific areas in Commerce that you see as duplicative or wasteful, similar to what Mr. 

Fattah was saying, if there are different things in different areas? 

Again, the whole purpose is not to hurt anything but to—based 

on where we are and the reality of maybe something could be postponed or pushed off for a while and the money could be put on to 

a program like the exports that the Secretary thinks important or 

whatever the case may be, but—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Sir, I think there are a lot of opportunities in Commerce just to reduce overlap inside the administration of the department. For example, every department has a CIO. NOAA has 

four CIOs. There are three or four different operation centers for 

IT security in the department. There are duplications even within 

the Department of Commerce that could be consolidated and perhaps save money. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if you will let the Committee know and, again, 

depending on what authority we would have, obviously we have to 

talk to the authorizers, too, but we can deal with that, again, not 

in a way that hurts the Department. 

And I think as I told the Secretary, we want to really be cooperative and help. And, you know, I think he is doing a good job personally and I have been impressed with him and on the export issue 

and other issues and things that he really thinks are a priority. 

And so, anyway, I thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it 

very, very much. And you do not have to stay, but you can go if 

you want to go. You can stay if you want to stay, but I—— 

Mr. ZINSER. Okay. 

Mr. WOLF. Anybody else have any other last questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. WOLF. Great. 

Mr. ZINSER. Thanks again. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
55 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 97 65531A.023
56 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 98 65531A.024
57 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 99 65531A.025
58 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 100 65531A.026
59 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 101 65531A.027
60 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 102 65531A.028
61 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 103 65531A.029
62 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 104 65531A.030
63 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 105 65531A.031
64 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 106 65531A.032
65 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 107 65531A.033
66 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 108 65531A.034
67 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 109 65531A.035
68 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 110 65531A.036
69 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 111 65531A.037
70 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 112 65531A.038
71 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 113 65531A.039
72 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 114 65531A.040
73 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 115 65531A.041
74 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 116 65531A.042
75 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 117 65531A.043
76 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 118 65531A.044
77 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 119 65531A.045
78 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 120 65531A.046
79 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 121 65531A.047
80 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 122 65531A.048
81 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 123 65531A.049
82 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 124 65531A.050
83 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 125 65531A.051
84 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 126 65531A.052
85 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 127 65531A.053
86 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 128 65531A.054
87 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 129 65531A.055
88 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 130 65531A.056
89 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 131 65531A.057
90 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 132 65531A.058
91 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 133 65531A.059
92 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 134 65531A.060
93 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 135 65531A.061
94 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 136 65531A.062
95 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 137 65531A.063
96 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 138 65531A.064
97 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 139 65531A.065
98 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. 

Ms. Schnedar, I appreciate your patience and you can proceed. 

Your full statement will be in the record and proceed as you see 

appropriately. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(99) 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2011. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WITNESS 

CYNTHIA A. SCHNEDAR, ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL 

MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES AT THE DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Fattah, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

testify. While my written testimony focuses on the top ten challenges facing the Department, today I will focus on three challenges: counterterrorism, the development of information technology systems, and grant management. 

Counterterrorism continues to be the highest priority of the Department and our reviews have consistently found that the Department must improve its information sharing and coordination efforts 

in order to be able to respond more effectively to the threat of terrorism. For example, we found in a recent review that while the 

FBI had taken the appropriate steps to prepare to respond to a potential incident involving a weapon of mass destruction, or WMD, 

the Department as a whole and its other components were not adequately prepared. We found that the Department had not developed coordinated response plans, had not designated anyone to 

have central oversight on this issue, and had provided little to no 

training for responding to a WMD incident. 

In another example we conducted a review which found that the 

FBI and ATF had developed separate and often conflicting approaches to explosives investigations, explosives related activities, 

such as training, information sharing, and forensic analysis. These 

conflicts resulted in unnecessary competition and duplication of effort, and also could result in problematic responses to terrorist incidents involving explosives. In a 2009 audit we found that the FBI 

did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the 

terrorist watch list in a timely manner and did not update or remove watch list records as required. We recently initiated a new 

review of the FBI’s management of the watch list to assess its 

progress in this area. 

The Department has taken steps to address the deficiencies we 

have identified in these and other reviews relating to counterterrorism and we believe it is important that the Department continue 

to focus its efforts on improving its ability to combat terrorism. 

Another significant challenge the Department faces is the planning and implementation of information technology, or IT, systems. 

Our audits have found that the Department has experienced significant problems in developing and implementing these IT systems 

in a timely and cost effective fashion. For example, when the FBI 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
100 

awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin in March 2006 to develop 

the Sentinel Case Information System, the FBI estimated that it 

would cost a total of $425 million and be completed by December 

2009. The FBI later revised its budget estimate to $451 million and 

its estimated completion date to June 2010. In our most recent report on the development of Sentinel we found that Sentinel is at 

least two years behind schedule and at least $100 million over its 

original budget. 

Since issuing its stop work order to the prime contractor Lockheed Martin in July the FBI has adopted a new agile methodology 

in which it has assumed direct management of Sentinel development and significantly reduced the role of Lockheed Martin as the 

prime contractor. We remain concerned that the FBI’s new projected estimate that it will finish within its original budget appears 

optimistic. We will continue to report on the status of this project. 

We have found similar problems in other Department IT development projects, including an ineffective requirements planning process, requirements being modified after much work has been done, 

and defects identified in the user acceptance stage that were costly 

to correct. 

Other federal agencies are also experiencing IT development 

problems and there are no quick and easy solutions. But the Department’s track record in this area is uneven and we believe the 

Department must focus on this increasingly important challenge. 

Another significant challenge that the Department faces is that 

of grants management, and this has been heightened recently because the Department was required to award $4 billion in grants 

under the Recovery Act at the same time that it awarded $3 billion 

in grant funding from the Department’s annual appropriations. 

Our reviews have found that the Department generally issued the 

Recovery Act grant funds in a timely, fair, and objective manner. 

We also found that the Department has been trying to improve its 

regular grant management practices by working to implement a series of recommendations that we provided them in 2009. 

However, our audit work has continued to identify areas where 

the Department could further improve its management of grants. 

For example, we found that the Department needs to implement 

better controls to ensure that it correctly scores and ranks grant 

applications. We also found that the Department was not consistently documenting its reasons for making discretionary awards, including its reasons for deviating from the ranking provided by peer 

reviewers, and was not consistently implementing a process to 

eliminate conflicts of interest among its peer reviewers. In addition, 

we found significant deficiencies in the use of grant funds by some 

grantees, and we recommended that the Department issue additional guidance to grantees to help correct this problem. 

In sum, the Department has made progress in addressing many 

of its top management challenges, but important improvements are 

needed in these areas. These challenges are not easily resolved and 

will require constant attention and strong leadership by the Department. To aid in this effort the OIG will continue to conduct vigorous oversight of Department programs and provide recommendations for improvement. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
101 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
102 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 147 here 65531A.066
103 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 148 here 65531A.067
104 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 149 here 65531A.068
105 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 150 here 65531A.069
106 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 151 here 65531A.070
107 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 152 here 65531A.071
108 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 153 here 65531A.072
109 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 154 here 65531A.073
110 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 155 here 65531A.074
111 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 156 here 65531A.075
112 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 157 here 65531A.076
113 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 158 here 65531A.077
114 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 159 here 65531A.078
115 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 160 here 65531A.079
116 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 161 here 65531A.080
117 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 162 here 65531A.081
118 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 163 here 65531A.082
119 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 164 here 65531A.083
120 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 165 here 65531A.084
121 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. Thank you very much. Your office reported in late 2009 that the FBI was failing to meet hiring targets 

for linguists in critical languages. In fact we were told they only 

made the hiring targets in two of fourteen critical languages, and 

the average time it took to hire a contract linguist increased to 

nineteen months. What are the major obstacles to correcting this 

problem? And what can the FBI do to get more qualified linguists 

on board more quickly? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. One of the obstacles we found in the delay in hiring was the background check process. And we thought there were 

things that they could do to simplify that process. There also was 

additional outreach efforts they could do in order to identify linguists and bring them on board. We did make a series of recommendations. 

What’s interesting, we did an audit in 2005 and we found that 

the hiring was actually worse in 2009 than it was in 2005. So this 

is—— 

Mr. WOLF. So it actually got worse? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. It actually got worse between 2005 and 2009. So, 

and many of the recommendations that we made in ’05 and ’09 

were actually similar. So we are going to go, this is something 

we’re going to be tracking very carefully and we will have to go 

back in at some point and see how they are doing in this area. 

Mr. WOLF. Well we would like to see what your recommendations 

were to the Bureau. And what is the impact, how much material 

is not being reviewed? And does the FBI have sound practices in 

place for prioritizing what material gets translated and what goes 

into the backlog? Because if they are actually doing, there is more 

almost to review now than there was in ’05, in some respects. So 

are they missing much? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We did find, I should point out between ’05 and 

’09 the number, the length of the backlog did go down. But we 

found in ’09 there was still significant amounts of materials that 

were not being reviewed in a timely fashion. And we found that 

part of the problem was tracking all of the materials they were collecting and then prioritizing it. And we made recommendations 

about how to implement a system that would improve, would help 

improve that. We, they are trying, implementing some of those reforms now. We have not gone back in to do another audit to assess 

that. But we do know they are trying to implement some systemic 

changes at this point. 

Mr. WOLF. Well maybe you can let us know before the Director 

comes up that way we can—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, we would be happy to talk with you about 

that. 

HIGH VALUE DETAINEE INTERROGATION GROUP

Mr. WOLF. Has your office reviewed the implementation of the 

HIG, the High Value Interrogation team, the new interagency terrorist interrogation unit that is found under the auspices of the 

FBI? If you could tell us your findings? And if not, I would like you 

to look into it. Have you looked into the HIG? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
122 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. No, we have not conducted an evaluation of that. 

Mr. WOLF. If you could I would appreciate it. At the time of the 

creation of the High Value Interrogation team, as you know it was 

the subject of a lot of controversy. And the Christmas Day Bomber, 

the High Value—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Interrogation Team was not implemented, was not used. And at the time of the creation I wrote to 

the Attorney General and the Director of the National Intelligence 

to urge that the HIG be colocated at the National Counterterrorism 

Center. Have you been out to the National—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I have not myself personally been out there. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. So. 

Mr. WOLF. Well then, you know what the Center is? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Oh yes, absolutely. We have done many reviews 

and I am very aware of what it is. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I just have not physically visited it. 

Mr. WOLF. I was told at that time that it was not possible. It is 

in my district and it is very large, if you have not been there. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. That they could not do it because of space limitation. 

I believe that by having the HIG at that location, because that is 

where the information is coming in, and if you are going to send 

a team out, whether it be to Yemen or wherever, the fact that they 

are almost colocated with the team as the information is coming in, 

would you look at whether or not the HIG could be strengthened 

by being at the National Counterterrorism Center? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, we could look at that, too. 

Mr. WOLF. And also, although they have expanded that quite extensively, is there someone, is there some function at the, and 

again it is a large, it is large. It is not a little place. Is there a function at the Counterterrorism Center that should be some other 

place in comparison to the HIG? Because if the HIG is there, had 

the HIG been on the site on Christmas Day, that team could have 

been sent out. There could have been a person who spoke the language, who understood the culture who, and that was not the case. 

And so it was just the FBI person working on Christmas Day in 

the Detroit office who may not have, who may be a wonderful person but may not have been the very best person that our country 

has. And you could have missed operations and things like that, or 

maybe they would not have read the Miranda rights right away. 

Who knows what the circumstances were? But I think if you are 

going to have the High Value Interrogation Team it ought to be 

used and I think it ought to be there. So if you can look at it there, 

should it be there? And then is there any other function out there 

that you could move to some other place? And have the HIG there 

on site? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. That is something we can certainly put in our 

queue. I would say we do, we will have to finish, there are some 

ongoing reviews that are coming near completion. So we would not 

have a team immediately available. But we would certainly 

prioritize that. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
123 

Mr. WOLF. But this is really a priority, though. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Because on 9/11 when the Pentagon was hit, thirtysome people from my congressional district were killed in the attack on the Pentagon. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, we would—— 

Mr. WOLF. And if we missed, if we miss something, and so I 

think this is really a priority. And with the funding that the committee has given with regard, this committee funds that. The FBI 

is the lead agency with regard to that. I think it is really a priority 

because if we are missing this, so—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, we would treat it as a priority. We would 

just, we do need to take a little bit of time to assemble the team 

and get started on that. 

GUANTANAMO DETAINEES

Mr. WOLF. I would hate to think of something happening, 

though, in the meantime, that we missed it. And then we would 

obviously say, ‘‘Why did we not do this thing?’’ In spring of 2009 

the Attorney General made arrangements to secretly release a 

number of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay into the United 

States. It is my understanding that an apartment was secured for 

these detainees in Falls Church, Virginia, very near my congressional district. This was released when my, this release was 

stopped when my office became aware of the effort and made inquiries to the Department and the White House. Has your office 

ever looked into whether or not they were going to release detainees and allow them to have an apartment in Northern Virginia? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. No, we have not looked at that issue. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you look into that? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. That is something that we could also look at here 

as well. I do, I am not as familiar with how much of that would 

be, we would have to talk to your staff and get a little bit more 

information. I mean, we are aware of what we read in the news 

but we have not done—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well the Attorney General made the decision. And if 

you cannot look at it no one—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. No, we certainly can look at it. I would just want 

to talk to your staff and get additional information and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. Sure, we can—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR [continuing]. Try to assemble, you know, put that, 

again, try to put our resources to that as soon as we can. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. We can, we can do that, give you the information. Mr. Fattah. 

COUNTER-TERRORISM

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you very much. And obviously the first place 

is to start at this counterterrorism responsibility because obviously 

we agree that that is the principal responsibility of the FBI now. 

After 9/11 there was a lot of debate about whether that was going 

to be the primary focus, whether or not we need to think anew 

about the overall mission of the agency. How do you see it being 

fulfilled within the context of the other priorities that the FBI has? 

We are almost ten years out now, and obviously the agency has 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
124 

done an extraordinary job in terms of protecting the country. 

Counterterrorism fits in, and still the FBI can carry on its other 

duties. Do you think that the right fit of responsibilities are there? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, that is I think one of the major challenges 

for the Department, is it has shifted a lot of its resource and attention to counterterrorism and at the same it has, you know, many 

needs, such as violent crime, organized crime, detention, incarceration. You know, it has many demands on its attention. We have 

found that overall the Department has I think made some major 

transformational changes and that is going well. However, there 

are many improvements that can be made to increase information 

sharing among the programs that relate to counterterrorism, and 

then those programs need to talk to the programs that are doing 

non-counterterrorism work as well. And so we continue to do these 

reviews that find areas where improvements can be made. 

Mr. FATTAH. Now the Congress has suggested that it is going to 

make some substantial cuts, and part of that is going to be an attempt to limit those cuts on national security issues. Now in the 

FBI it appears that a significant part of this budget, around, I don’t 

know, $4.5 billion or so, really seems to be related to national security. So I would suspect that a significant reduction at the FBI 

would have some impact on the agency’s ability to conduct its 

counterterrorism mandate? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. That is correct. I think one of the things the Department of Justice is doing, just as the Inspector General for Commerce said, I know that they are currently doing the internal process of listing what all their programs are and, you know, 

prioritizing and that type of thing, too. And what will be impacted 

with budget cuts. But I think that, again, we have consistently emphasized that counterterrorism is a top challenge and one that, you 

know, attention must continue to be focused on. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Mr. FATTAH. Now I know that you are the watchdog over the taxpayers’ money so I am going to go to some of these more unpleasant areas. Looking at the long list of IT projects that are challenged, three of them were found in the Department. One you have 

mentioned already, I want to go to that, the Sentinel program. So 

not only is it over budget, it is a couple of years behind schedule. 

And you said that a lot of the responsibilities the agency is taking 

in house. And these are challenging systems to set up, I understand. The question is, going forward, here is a project which is already over budget. And you say in your review you are wondering 

whether or not the expertise exists inside the Department, because 

what you have got to do is you have got to figure out who is going 

to use this, what they are going to use it for, and design a system 

that can capture all of this information and make it work on a day 

to day basis. So given that a half a billion dollars is a lot of money, 

the real question is if the agency does not have the internal capabilities, should we not be looking to provide the resources so it can 

have those capabilities? Or, if one contractor did not work out, normally, at least in the businesses that I am familiar with, you go 

find their competitor and you give them a shot at it. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
125 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well I think part of what we are concerned, or 

our major concern, is how much can they deliver with what they 

have left to spend? They have brought it basically more in house. 

They have this new agile methodology where they have assumed 

control, they have reduced the number of contractors, they say they 

are talking directly to the subs. But there are still many things 

that have not been delivered. For example, initially Sentinel was 

supposed to deliver eighteen forms, electronic forms, that could be 

completely, you know, used easily by the agents and the analysts. 

To date they have only delivered four of those, and of those four 

forms they are not even completely functional. They still have to 

print them out and, you know, keep a signed copy in their records. 

So with the money that they have left and the time that they 

have left one of the things that we are evaluating is what is it that 

the ultimate end product, are they going to be able to deliver what 

the agents and the analysts need to truly be effective in the field? 

And I think that is something that with some of the estimates we 

believe have been a little optimistic about that. And we have 

stressed to them that they need to do more consistent reporting. 

There are several reporting mechanisms that they have had, such 

as earned value management and some others, that they did not 

use consistently. And we think that is one of the things that they 

should be doing in order to keep on track with this project. 

DNA BACKLOG

Mr. FATTAH. Let me skip ahead now to the DNA backlog, which 

is mentioned in your full blown statement. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. What is it that you believe can be done to actually 

move this backlog? Is it more resources, and how much more resources? And, I know we spend a lot of time talking about cutting. 

But if we have to invest more money to deal with this problem, 

which is in effect to keep people safer and to make sure our criminal justice system works, what do we need to do to solve the problem? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Part of it is, additional analysts would help. DNA 

analysts who could review that. But in addition they can improve 

their process. We found, again, there is another IT system that has 

failed in the laboratory. They had an evidence tracking system that 

has not gone anywhere. And I think that would have helped them 

expedite and improve their process. And there were better methods 

of tracking, even doing it in the old way, I think we found they 

could improve the way that the evidence was being tracked as it 

went through. So even with the resources they have they could 

make some improvements, but again they also will need additional 

resources to significantly cut that backlog. 

Mr. FATTAH. Crime, serious crime is on the down swing in the 

country, which is good news. But there are still a lot of challenges. 

Only yesterday I visited the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is an agency funded in large measure by the Justice 

Department that helps track down about 2,000 children who are 

reported missing each day in our country. So there are a lot of 

issues that we cannot deal with on the cheap. I mean, they have 

a fairly extensive program there to reach out, and they have a lot 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
126 

of cooperation from various entities inside the Justice Department. 

And I know the chairman has been out to visit, and I went out to 

visit yesterday. I was quite impressed with the work they are 

doing. But it obviously costs money. But to my way of thinking, locating children who have been kidnapped is worth the dollars that 

we spend to do it. 

So I want to thank you for your answers, and maybe we will go 

back around again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. And I agree with what Mr. 

Fattah said, and it just triggered another thought, too. We were 

going to ask the Attorney General about it. I saw they just put out 

something on sexual trafficking. There are reports that anywhere 

from 100,000 to 300,000 women and young girls are sexually trafficked in the United States. Some people think it is in Albania, but 

it is also in Annandale, Virginia. It is all over. And can you look 

at this whole issue of sexual trafficking? I hope that we can carry 

language in there directing that every U.S. Attorney’s office have 

a task force to deal with this issue, and bring in the faith community. 

But could you look at the whole issue of sexual trafficking and 

how effective you think the Department has been? And I know that 

the argument sometime, and Mr. Fattah’s comment is true, it is 

that well, we are working on counterterrorism, we are working on 

this, that is really a local issue. But these women and young girls 

are being trafficked across state lines. 

In Northern Virginia and in the Northern Virginia suburbs I saw 

a list of some of the places, and we have given them to the U.S. 

Attorney Neil McBride. But it is kind of frightening the number of 

places whereby there are young girls sexually trafficked. And if you 

could kind of look into that? And also to see are there things, more 

things the Justice Department could be doing, in the sense that 

much of this is on the internet, and things like this. But—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. And I would also want you to be aware that 

we did do a review, it was maybe three years ago, on some of the 

grant money that was given to organizations to be extended to victims of human rights trafficking. And we did find some deficiencies 

in that, in that they were not good at doing outreach and actually 

finding the victims, and that they needed to do a better, we made 

some recommendations there as well. And we would be happy to 

give you some information—— 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR [continuing]. On that report. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. If you would? Mr. Yoder. 

Mr. YODER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today, and I appreciate hearing all this. I am a new member 

of Congress and a new member of the committee, so I am trying 

to—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well I am a new IG, so there you go. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONTRACTING/FBI SENTINEL

Mr. YODER. Well good, we will learn this together. And having 

gone through the process of visiting with constituents and listening 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
127 

to the frustrations, we hear over and over and over again that 

Americans are just frustrated that Congress cannot find a way to 

balance the budget, and cut spending. It just, to most Americans 

it just seems inconceivable that this continues to run on and on 

and on and on. And it is boiling over to anger in the country. 

And so I appreciate the work you do because it helps me understand where some of these holes are. And I took particular note of 

your discussion, and gentleman discussed earlier, regarding the 

overruns on the technology projects. And you noted the twenty-six 

projects across the federal government that experience problems 

such as significant cost increases, schedule delays. And then you 

listed a few here. And I am trying to understand how we got to this 

point, and where the error was, and who is to blame, and how we 

fix the problem going to forward, and how we stop the run on 

spending. It seems like there are cases like this all across government. 

You have cited the Sentinel project. And at first read, when I 

first read this paragraph, it appeared to be that Lockheed Martin 

was not doing their job. And that there had been an agreement, the 

agreement was to come in under a certain cost, and that actually 

did not occur. But as I read further into your report I took particular note of the reasons for the cost, the reasons for the delays, 

the cost overruns. And you cited, and in the LCMS proposal or 

project, but you said it was similar to what you find in all of the 

projects. And you said specifically we have found ineffective requirements; planning process; requirements being modified after 

much work had been done; defects identified in system integration 

and user acceptance that were costly to correct; and the failure to 

adequately address in a timely fashion the difficulties the contractor was having in meeting schedule and cost requirements. So 

that makes it sound like it is completely internal and that it is our 

fault in our management of these projects, which I take particular 

note of the idea that we would bring more of these projects in 

house and more control as opposed to outside control of these 

projects. And it appears to be the client, the Federal Government 

in this case, that is making decisions that are costly because they 

are making them after the fact. So poor planning is what you are 

citing. 

And so I guess I would first ask, is this a correct assessment of 

what is happening here? That these costs are being overrun because of decisions that are being made in the Department that are 

driving up the cost of the project? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well we cannot say that the contractors are without blame. But we do feel that in many of the systems that we 

have looked at the Department could be doing a much better job 

of exercising its oversight of the contractor; of making sure it has 

a tight set of requirements and that it sticks to that; that it looks 

to find the defects early rather than at a later stage where it is 

costly to correct. So we really do find a lot of areas for improvement 

for the Department. 

Mr. YODER. Well in particular in the Sentinel project you note 

that the original budget was $451 million. That we have spent 

$405 million of the $451 million. Two phases have been completed. 

And you believe that the most challenging work for that project 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
128 

still remains. So even the current estimates appear to be way 

under what this is going to cost, if we are only halfway through 

and we are estimating to be hundred million over budget. It sounds 

like it is going to be much, much greater than the budget. Do we 

have, does the Department or do you have an estimate of where we 

think this thing is actually going to end up? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We do not have a current cost estimate. I think 

one of the things we are tracking is what will be developed in the 

next nine months? For example, I mentioned that not all the forms 

have been developed. There is also, initially the plan was to migrate the existing system, the ACS database system, into a new 

system. And now the FBI has said it is not going to migrate, it is 

going to build an interface between the two. So they are basically 

in essence changing some of the requirements. So we have to see— 

or modifying some of those. We have to see what it is that, and this 

is one of the things that we have auditors on the scene now assessing this, what is it that ultimately, how will it be different from 

what was originally envisioned? And how much will that cost? 

Mr. YODER. When do you think that occurs? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well we are continuing in the Sentinel project. 

We are working on our eighth report now, and so our next report 

should be coming sometime spring or summer. But the FBI is estimating, it is hoping to make a lot of major strides within the next 

year. And, you know, so that is one of the things we will be tracking. How much will they be able to do in that time period? 

Mr. YODER. And then, noting that a lot of this appears to be decisions that were made within the Department that we have just discussed here, are there things that go into these contracts that can 

help the private contractor remain accountable? Not having seen 

this specific contract, are there things in here that say you receive 

a bonus if you can do it under budget and under time? You know, 

in the private sector there are all sorts of projects that, there are 

incentives for the producer of the outcome to do it quicker, in a 

quicker time, under budget. Are there things like that? Or is it essentially just a contract to produce a product, and it may come 

under budget or it may not? How do we keep the private contractor 

regulated and making sure they come under budget or within 

budget? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I do not know off the top of my head, although 

I am sure our auditors know, are there incentives or penalties built 

into the contract that they had with Lockheed Martin. I do know 

that one of the things we have reported on is that they were not 

doing enough of these, you know, reporting mechanisms that were 

made to do assessments as they go along. How is the project going, 

and what do we need to change? But I can get back to you with 

that answer about this, incentives and penalties. 

Mr. YODER. And then what would be your recommendations to 

this subcommittee and to this Congress? How do we try to root this 

kind of stuff out? We cannot just order that it get done in a timely 

fashion. I mean, that is what the whole point of the executive 

branch is. So what can Congress do to put in better controls and 

better accountability with the financing of these projects? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I do think oversight is a key provision, what this 

committee is doing here today. It focuses attention on the issue. I 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
129 

think it holds the FBI’s feet to the fire. This is the critical system 

that the FBI needs, so understandably it is something that the 

committee wants to fund but to make sure it is done as cost efficiently as possible. And again, we have done work in this area, the 

GAO has done work in this area. And I think that also helps in 

that regard. 

Mr. YODER. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Yoder. Following up on what Mr. 

Yoder said, though, is there one thing that can be done? This really 

is not new. I was on this committee before, and then I left years 

ago, and came back. I mean, it is the same thing. I think one of 

the last meetings I had we had some of the, we had Glenn Fine 

was up here, I think, a whole groups in this room. And I believe 

the Director was there, and now we are at this point. Do you really 

believe—I do not, to be honest with you—do you really believe that 

the expertise is in the FBI to do this? I mean, the FBI does a great 

job. I think Director Mueller, I am one of his biggest fans. I think 

he has done an incredible job. No one is perfect, and he came in 

at a very, very difficult time. So I have always been very supportive of the Bureau. 

But that is not what the Bureau does. The Bureau does not put 

together comprehensive technical systems like this. And now, just 

to give you a case history, the administration, the President has 

frozen federal pay. Do you think you are going to bring a great person in from whatever high tech company is out there to come in 

now to, I mean, is this really, so is it really real that this will be 

done by the expertise? Or are they going to have the ability to go 

out and find the very best person out there to kind of do this? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. In our last report, and I think this is still our 

opinion, we do think that their current estimates appear optimistic. 

And it is a difficult task if they have to finish what they are going 

to do in the time that they have to do it. 

They have made more efforts to bring expertise in but it is not 

something they can do themselves. They will have to work with 

contractors in order to do this. 

Mr. WOLF. Well I think Director Mueller will want to resolve this 

before he leaves, and his term will be up at the end of this year. 

I think September, if my memory serves me, or October of this 

year. Is that correct? I think he—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, it is September, I believe—— 

Mr. WOLF. And so I think the Director, who again I am a fan of, 

will want to resolve this. Is there three of the very best minds, 

somebody at MIT, and somebody at Caltech, or somebody elsewhere, can come in for thirty days to kind of look at this system? 

Because it is important, what they wanted to do. But I do not have 

the confidence that there is the expertise in the Department or in 

the Bureau to really resolve this thing. And I know Director 

Mueller is going to want to resolve it before he leaves, because he 

was the initiator of it. Is there something, what would your recommendation be? Rather than just throwing rocks at the place and 

telling him it is all screwed up, what would be the way to bring 

it in? Would we bring in three of the very, and I am reluctant to 

mention a company because I do not know the answer. But somebody? This is not, I mean, other companies, other places are doing 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
130 

these things. And so to bring in to kind of be an advisor to the Bureau, particularly since they have had the problem with Lockheed 

Martin? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. The recommendations that we have made are 

that they should, you know, redefine the requirements now that 

they are at the crossroads, if they have switched to this new agile 

methodology. And I think refocus on what it is they really need, 

and what they can get done. We do know that they have consulted 

each other, they have had assessments done by companies such as 

MITRE. They have had, you know, some outside expertise that is 

brought in. They have a fairly new person in charge of this project 

who comes from the private sector. 

Mr. WOLF. Where did he come from? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. From Lehman. And then he was with Microsoft 

before that. He’s, I forget his background off the top of my head. 

Mr. WOLF. Did he take a pay cut from Lehman to come in? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I would assume he would have had to take a pay 

cut. So, and part of that problem, too, bringing in the people from 

the outside, then they must become familiar with the government 

contracting process. I know he commented in an article about, you 

know, some of the difficulties he was encountering in learning the 

government contracting system. Where some of the obstacles that 

he became aware of after he entered the FBI. 

So I think again, part of it is again this continual assessment of 

what it is they are doing. Continual tracking, you know, to keep 

it on track which with this agile methodology they are doing twoweek sprints, where they report to each other, you know, report out 

what they do every two weeks. So that, you know, could be a positive step. Again, it’s still fairly new and we’re in there assessing. 

Mr. WOLF. I think I know the answer. But how many people 

have been, how long have you been at the Department? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Oh, I have been twenty years now at the Department. 

Mr. WOLF. How many people have been involved in this program, 

responsible for it since it was initiated by the Director? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Since the virtual case file? 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Three to four is what my auditor is telling us. 

Mr. WOLF. So that would be about—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well it was approximately ten years. It has been 

quite a while, so. 

Mr. WOLF. Yeah. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. And we have done, this is our eighth report on 

Sentinel, and we did a report on the virtual case file before that. 

So we certainly—— 

Mr. WOLF. I think they have a dart board with Glenn Fine’s picture on it in the FBI. I think. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. And this is something we will continue to follow 

closely, so. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, but I think it has got to be more than follow 

it closely. Because it is, because people lose confidence, and also it 

deals with the national security of the nation. And my sense is, 

maybe you can be in touch with the subcommittee staff to see if 

you know or the people that you know who could tell who would 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
131 

be the very best person or the team that you could bring in. Not 

to do it, but to assess, and make an evaluation. Otherwise, I think 

in fairness to Director Mueller, who has done a good job, this is 

something it would be ideal to get finished and resolved before he 

leaves. So. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, we would be happy to do that. 

GANG ENFORCEMENT

Mr. WOLF. The DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center, EPIC, has become a valuable resource for federal, state, and local law enforcement providing intelligence related to a broad range of criminal activity. You did a review. What did it show? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We found that overall they do produce a useful 

product and I think that users in the field found to be useful. However, we thought that not all users were aware of it. They could 

do a better job in their outreach to state and locals so that they 

are aware of that product. And we did find some areas where they 

could increase the type of information that they uniquely track, 

such as drug seizures, and try to gather that information together 

and conduct more analysis of it so that we could share that information and it could be used in the field. 

Mr. WOLF. Gangs, about eight years ago gangs were running 

rampant in Northern Virginia. I offered an amendment to set up 

a gang task force. We brought in the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Marshals Service. To a family that lives in an area that is gang infested, they are impacted like a, almost like a terrorist is in them. 

They are afraid. There were neighborhoods in Northern Virginia 

that I would talk to the families that lived in them and they were 

afraid to send their kids to school. 

The Congress in its wisdom has voted to abolish earmarks so 

there will be no opportunities to deal with this. And I might say, 

just for members, as you look in terms of the earmark issue, I was 

the author of the Iraq Study Group, which was an earmark, which 

the administration, we wanted to look at how the War was run so 

we put together the Baker-Hamilton Commission to look at this. 

On this gang issue I really worry, and I personally believe we almost need a new concept, a new idea. Gang membership has increased by more than 20 percent from 2005 and gangs now total 

more than one million members out of the population of over 300 

million in the country. Gangs are now developing a working relationship with U.S. and foreign based drug trafficking organizations 

and other criminal organizations. Your office did a review of antigang intelligence coordination in the Department. What is a weakness? What should be done? How do we really deal with it? Because, again, a person that lives in a neighborhood where they are 

afraid, they are impacted the same way that somebody would be 

afraid with regard to Al-Qaeda. I mean, their kids sending to 

school. What can we do and are we doing to really deal with the 

gang issue? And what did your analysis come up with? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We did look at two gang intelligence centers in 

the Department, the National Gang Intelligence Center and 

GangTECC, which is a more tactical basis. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
132 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We found with NGIC that its products were not 

as useful as they could be. They were, one person described it as 

they were writing history instead of writing leads. And we thought 

they needed more discussion with the field and back and forth so 

they could understand how their product was actually used and 

make it useful. 

We also found that the two centers, even though they were colocated, were not talking to each other and were not sharing information. And that they could, if they could work together they could 

be more effective. 

Since we issued our report they have made efforts to make them 

more cohesive. They have not fully merged them but they have 

placed them within the special operations division and there has 

been some change in that area. But, you know, it is not a complete 

merger as we initially recommended. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think that we are doing everything in the 

country to deal with gangs that we could be doing or should be 

doing? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I think that with the Department they certainly 

have made a lot of strides. But again, it is some of the problems 

that we have found in other areas. There needs to be more information sharing, more coordination. And this also goes to budgetary 

questions as well. The more that they can combine some of these 

different centers and work together and coordinate, they will actually have a better product in the end. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Mr. Schiff. 

DNA BACKLOG

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you about 

a couple of areas, about DNA as well as the gun trafficking along 

the Mexican border. In terms of DNA, I understand now from Justice, and I want to see if you can confirm this, that they have now 

eliminated the offender backlog. I know your report is pending, but 

will your report conclude that in fact the offender backlog is a 

thing of the past? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. They have said they have eliminated the backlog. 

We have just begun that review, so I cannot tell you yet if that is 

actually true and if it will stay eliminated. Our review will take a 

few months to do, but we just initiated that review. And it was 

really following our previous report on the forensic DNA backlog. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And on the casework backlog, what is the status of 

that now? Is that moving in the right direction? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. They have implemented many reforms. Again, 

there is also still a resource question. And one of the things that 

we intend to do is after we finish the offender backlog we are going 

to go back in and look at the case backlog because we think this 

is an important area that we need to continue to monitor. 

Mr. SCHIFF. When you look at the casework backlog can you in 

particular look at a subset of that and determine if there is any 

backlog in rape kits? I have been informed over the last few years 

that there is not a rape kit backlog problem in the federal government but I want to confirm that that is true. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I would have to double check and get back to you 

with the answer to that. I do know we found backlogs in general 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
133 

in different types of forensic DNA cases, but I will have to look at 

that and get back to you. 

ATF’S PROJECT GUNRUNNER

Mr. SCHIFF. In terms of the situation, the mutually destructive 

trade with Mexico in drugs and guns, I am interested to get your 

thoughts on an issue that you wrote about, and that is the current 

requirement that handgun sales of two or more within a certain period of time have to be reported but long gun sales do not. 

As I am sure you know, the administration—well ATF—sought 

an emergency rule that would allow them to require notification of 

long gun, multiple long gun sales, that would apply in some of the 

border states and track the current requirement for handgun sales. 

The administration, I was disappointed to see, at least temporarily 

has turned that down. Can you shed some light on the impact of 

not having that information? And whether, if you had to choose one 

or the other, to be informed of multiple handgun sales or multiple 

long gun sales, which is of greater significance in terms of information we need to combat the terrific violence in Mexico? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well we did find on the southwest border that 

the long guns were the more prevalent gun that was used in trafficking, and that is what is being reported out of the information 

that is being gathered through the cases and the arrests that are 

being made. And I do not know if I had to choose if it is better to 

choose one or not, because what is the cause and what is the effect 

of reporting, I do not know. But we did find that there was a need 

for that information and recommended that the ATF consider ways 

in which to capture that information. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well if the long guns are the more prevalent weapons, would it make sense that that is where the more valuable information would be? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. My only question is if, does reporting cause a 

shift from one to the other? I do not know. But yes, I do think it 

is information that the ATF says would help it in fighting crime 

on the southwest border. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I mean, right now if someone makes, you know, multiple, multiple purchases of an AK–47 there is no notice requirement. And it is discretionary, I guess, on the gun seller’s part? Is 

that right? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. There is not a requirement to report that by the 

gun seller, that is correct. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Your report has indicated a lot of problems with Operation Gunrunner. What do you think can significantly be done to 

enhance both Mexico’s ability and our ability to prosecute not just 

the straw purchases, as difficult as that has proved to be, but 

frankly to follow them up the chain to those that are trafficking 

large numbers of weapons. What is missing that we can do? Is it 

manpower, or is it sharing information? What are the biggest obstacles? Whenever I meet with Mexican law enforcement officials 

this is obviously what concerns them most significantly. They just, 

they are getting massacred. And you know, significantly with 

American made weapons. And they do not feel like we are doing 

much to deal with that problem. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
134 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We did find that the ATF should shift its focus 

less from the straw purchase to the organized trafficker. In fact, 

prosecutors that we spoke with told us they would prefer to see 

these kind of cases and that they are more likely to prosecute 

them. Sometimes the straw purchasing cases may not even rise up 

to the level of meriting a prosecution for various reasons. We found 

that they could be using OCDETF more, they could be coordinating 

more with ICE, they could be talking more between headquarters 

and their fields. Again, information sharing, to share this type of 

information, to build those cases instead of focusing on the straw 

purchases, which give you a lot of numbers but do not necessarily 

have the same impact as the organization traffickers. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well sometimes, having been a prosecutor, unless 

you can go after the low guy on the totem pole, you cannot roll 

them up to get the higher person, to get the higher person. I mean, 

what is preventing them now from going after higher level people? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I do think that we have seen a bit of a shift since 

we have done our report. I think they are trying to encourage those 

type of cases. I think sometimes the low level cases are the low 

hanging fruit, they are easier to do. It does take organization, it 

takes intelligence sharing between agencies and between components of ATF in order to build these more complex cases. And 

again, we did heavily recommend that they work more with 

OCDETF in order to build those type of cases. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And would it be within your jurisdiction, or one of 

the other agencies, to look at, you know, the very significant 

amount of money that we have been providing to Mexico for work 

on their side of the border to see how effectively that is being utilized to deal with the same problem? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. The Merida Initiative, I believe, is administered 

through the Department of Justice. So that would, I would believe 

that would be in our jurisdiction. We have not done a look at 

money going directly to Mexico. We are looking at the OPDAT, the 

overseas training for prosecutors, and ICITAP, the overseas training for law enforcement. But that is a more global look at what 

they are doing globally, not specifically at Mexico. And that is an 

audit that is underway now. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Well if there were one or two priorities that you 

think we should focus on in terms of trying to more successfully 

combat this traffic, what would your recommendations to the committee be? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well our recommendations to ATF were, again, 

to increase information sharing and to focus more on going after 

the gun trafficker rather than the straw purchaser. And also with 

Mexico there is a real, I think they could improve its gun tracing 

program. They are not sharing information in a timely fashion and 

I think building that program in Mexico, and that also would be 

helpful. 

Mr. SCHIFF. And what information sharing problem are you referring to on our side? Is it on our side of the border? Is it between 

U.S. and Mexican officials? I mean, what is, where is the breakdown that we can address? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We found some weaknesses in the liaison program, and that they were not building the relationships and exVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
135 

plaining some of the need to get the Mexican gun information in 

a timely fashion. They had distributed some equipment to the 

Mexicans but hadn’t given them training on how to use it. So we 

found that there were improvements that could be made. And part 

of that is just relationship building between the two countries. 

Mr. SCHIFF. So it is not so much an information sharing problem 

within U.S. agencies, but rather between U.S. and Mexican agencies? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well we also found it within U.S. agencies as 

well. For instance, ATF is not talking to ICE a lot. And there is 

a lot of overlap there, and there are cases that they could be prosecuting together, sharing information, having a stronger case together. And that they needed to implement a system for doing that. 

And then we found the ATF field was not coordinating with headquarters, and that that information needed to be shared that way 

as well so that it could be shared throughout the ATF when it 

needed to be. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Are there, I mean in addition to the people located 

at Justice, are there, is there one or two of the U.S. Attorneys in 

the region who are sort of the point people on this? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. The southwest border U.S. Attorneys’ offices are 

all very involved with the cases flowing out of Gunrunner and we 

did speak to a number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the southwest 

border states. So they are very aware of what ATF is doing and 

they did give us suggestions which we incorporated into our recommendations for ATF. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. We will try to go through 

these fairly fast, and if anybody has anything just say something. 

Any particular areas you think that the committee ought to look 

at with regard to targeting for cutting, please let us know. Again, 

not to be harmful. Just if there is something we are trying to balance off to protect things that are really important, to make sure 

that we can take from one to give to another in order to do what 

I think everyone in the country would like. 

On the Gunrunner question too, and I am going to have a series 

of questions on that we will just submit for the record, but since 

2009 we have appropriated more than $65 million for Project Gunrunner. You note in your November 2010 report ATF’s expansion 

of the e-trace system to trace guns in Mexico has yielded very limited information of intelligence value. Could you tell us what you 

mean? I mean, nothing? What is—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We found that a lot of the trace information that 

is coming back from guns that are seized in Mexico is stale and not 

useful. And I think of that is they need to increase, improve their 

relations with Mexico to get a better system for getting the information in a more timely manner so that it can actually be usable. 

Mr. WOLF. Is that because it is dangerous to go down to Mexico? 

Or is that because there are not enough ATF people down in Mexico? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I think again, part of it was building those relations between the people running the tracing project for ATF, and 

with Mexico, and a lack of training—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
136 

Mr. WOLF. Have we brought them up here? Have they come up 

here and have we gone down there? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I know we have had ATF down there. Yes. ATF 

has certainly been to Mexico. I do not know if Mexico has come to 

the U.S. for training on e-trace. But there has, we feel that there 

are many, just additional outreach effort, training systems that 

could be put in place to get these done more quickly and so that 

it could be more useful. 

Mr. WOLF. Maybe they should be invited up here. How many 

people does Mexico have working on this issue? Do you know? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I do not know that. I could find that out and let 

you know. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Mr. WOLF. Well there will be a number of other questions on 

that. Bureau of Prisons, in your audit of the Bureau of Prisons furlough program published last September one unresolved issue was 

a need for BOP to have a more effective means of coordinating with 

the union on policy changes. According to your audit the collective 

bargaining agreement expired nine years ago, and BOP contends 

that it will not have another agreement in place until 2017. Is that 

accurate? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. That is what they said to us at the time of the 

audit. I do know they are focusing increased attention to it since 

we issued our audit, so—— 

Mr. WOLF. Probably. Still awaiting implementation is a policy 

that would assure that victims of crime are notified when an offender is approved for a medical furlough. This notification has 

waited seven years for implementation and may not be implemented for another seven years. Why? That is a big issue. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, it is. It is a big issue. Since we issued our 

report they did jump this issue to the top of the queue and negotiate it. So they did implement a policy where that notification now 

takes place. However, there are other recommendations we have 

made in other reports that have not been implemented that they 

have told us it is due to delays in negotiating with the union. And 

we think they need a better mechanism to bring these issues to the 

table and get them negotiated in a timely manner. 

Mr. WOLF. Has that, because of the delay, has that jeopardized 

the safety or security of anyone? Are there any cases where certain 

things happened that would not have happened if that had been 

implemented? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I do not have a particular case to point out to 

you. But we, I would say that some of the policies that we think 

have not been negotiated yet can affect prisoner safety, inmate 

safety and guard safety. So we think it is an important issue. 

Mr. WOLF. Wow. I mean, it seems like it would, that would be 

something you would deal with pretty quickly. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes. And we certainly have pointed this out to 

the Department. I will say that this is something that has received 

renewed attention since our report came out. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Over the past twenty-five years the U.S. prison 

and jail population has skyrocketed to an all time high, with 2.3 

million people incarcerated, we are now number one in the world 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
137 

in incarceration, confining 23 percent of the world’s prisoners. 

Meaning we have in our jails and prisons 23 of the world’s prison 

population. Therefore, it has become imperative that the U.S. modernize its expensive, unsuccessful, and unsustainable correction 

policy. The goal of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and the Prisoner Reentry Initiative, programs which have now 

concluded, was to reduce recidivism among offenders released back 

into the communities. Your report on these programs provided lessons that can be applied to the existing Second Chance Reentry 

Initiative. While I am concerned about your findings that DOJ 

sometimes had difficulties awarding the grants consistently and assuring that grantees did not spend funds on unallowable expenses. 

Did these programs have the intended effect of reducing recidivism? That is the purpose of it. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We found that they could not say. And part of 

that was they did not have good measures. First of all, they were 

not even using a uniform definition of what constitutes recidivism. 

And so in order to measure that they need to implement better performance measures. They had not collected the data to allow us to 

make that assessment. 

Mr. WOLF. But this is a big issue. This is, the whole issue of recidivism. And there was a report we are going to have a hearing 

on Friday, I mean that is a big issue. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yes, it is. 

Mr. WOLF. I have a couple of others on a different subject, but 

let me try to stay on that for a second. Has your office investigated 

the dramatic decline in prison industries participation over the last 

decade? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We have not done a review on that. We have 

done a review on the e-waste recycling program that they had, 

which had some health and safety problems. And that is a program 

itself that has declined over the last few years. 

Mr. WOLF. Has your office looked at the impact of the loss of 

prison work on inmates’ violence against guards? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. No, we have not done a review of that. 

Mr. WOLF. I hope you will look at, you know the Congress is really to blame here and not the administration, on the whole working 

in the prisons. But if you put a man in prison for years and give 

him or her no work and no dignity, no skill, you are just going to 

have recidivism. And so if you could look to see what the impact 

has been on the ending, basically, of the Federal Prisons Industries, and what that impact has had, or potentially would have, on 

recidivism. 

Having a robust work program in our nation’s prisons is an important priority. We learned from your investigation that prior to 

2009 UNICOR’s management of the electronic waste recycling program resulted in numerous violations of health, safety, and environmental laws, as well as BOP policies. What were they, and what 

changes are being done based on your report? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. The electronic waste recycling was basically the 

breaking up of computers, and the cadmium and lead were being 

exposed. Some of these, many of these corrections were made actually prior to the start of our report. But we did make additional 

suggestions. They were not wearing proper protective gear. They 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
138 

did not have proper work stations with proper ventilation. Inadequate training, inadequate inspections, they were not, they ignored some of the early warnings that came in. So they have put 

in a series of reforms to correct many of these issues. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I would hope that we could convince the Congress to support a program of developing more work in the prisons, 

and having perhaps industries who are no longer making or manufacturing products in the United States. For instance, oversimplification, there are no televisions made in the United States. 

I am sure you have a television set, you may even have two. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Two, that is all. 

Mr. WOLF. So if we could have, and I am using this just as an 

example, manufacture televisions in prison so you are not in competition with American industry, you are in competition with something in Mexico or China, something like that. I would like to see 

in the federal prison system everyone works. And with that they 

get a skill and a training, and they have money that they can keep 

so when they get out of prison they have money to take with them, 

send money to their families, also use it for restitution. But I really 

think it is a tragedy that there is so little now because of the narrowing and hollowing out of the prison industries. So if you could 

look into that and give us a report of what you think or what you 

are seeing with regard to that, I would appreciate it. 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Next is the Black Panthers. Because of mounting evidence of improper activities in the Justice Department Civil Rights Division 

and the extremely troubling dismissal of the Black Panthers voter 

intimidation case, I felt it was essential that your office investigate 

the division. Inspector General Fine assured me that there would 

be an examination of the types of cases brought by the voting section and that any changes in these cases over time; any changes 

in voting section enforcement policy or procedures over time; 

whether the voting section has enforced civil rights law in a nondiscriminatory manner; and whether any voting section employees 

have been harassed for participating in the investigation of a particular matter. Will this investigation include all these issues? And 

when can we expect your review? 

And I want to kind of put out, so you know how strongly I feel 

about this. When the Voting Rights Act came up in the Congress 

I was the only member of Congress from the State of Virginia that 

voted for the Voting Rights Act. When I voted for it I was criticized 

by the Richmond Times Dispatch, and ripped apart in many newspapers in my area. I voted for the Voting Rights Act and I continue 

to be a strong supporter of the Voting Rights Act. 

But I want to see the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And 

no one should be intimidated, whether they stand in front of polls 

in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and there is a Philadelphia, Mississippi, or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And so we have been pursuing this and pursuing this and pursuing this. So when can we 

see your review of what you have found? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Our scope is the same as you just, as was described to you previously by Inspector General Fine. And we are 

working on it, we are in the middle of it. We are looking at docuVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
139 

ments, interviewing witnesses. It is very hard to predict when we 

will have it. It is still, you know months away. But I cannot give 

you a precise date because sometimes one thing leads to another 

in an investigation, so I cannot predict with certainty when it will 

be done. But we certainly have prioritized this and are trying to 

get it done as quickly as possible. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well again, as the only member of that delegation that voted for the Voting Rights Act, I feel passionate about 

this. And I just, I just want to see that this thing is done in an 

appropriate way. There will be some other questions on that issue, 

too. 

SEXUAL ABUSE OF PRISONERS

I have just one or two more, and then I will go back to Mr. 

Fattah. Let us see, prison industries, we have covered that. We 

have the Marshals Service, in your September 2009 report entitled, 

‘‘Department of Justice Efforts to Prevent Staff Sexual Abuse of 

Federal Inmates,’’ you recommended that the U.S. Marshals Service develop and implement a policy that ensures a zero-tolerance 

policy standard aimed at preventing staff sexual abuse of federal 

prisoners. Has this policy been implemented? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. They did take steps to implement this policy. 

And I know they, I do not know if it has been distributed throughout the Marshals Service. Yeah, they have not, it is not a closed 

recommendation so they have not finished with their steps to implement it. But they have, they are taking steps to distribute that, 

to develop the policy and distribute it throughout the Marshals 

Service. 

Mr. WOLF. As you may or may not know Congressman Bobby 

Scott and myself were involved in what we called the Prison Rape 

Bill. And some of the stories of prisoners being raped are just unbelievable. I have been really disappointed in the delay of the administration to finalize these regs. And but I think we will wait to go 

into that when the Attorney General comes up. 

EXPLOSIVES COORDINATION BETWEEN FBI & ATF

And I guess the last question I may have, or last two and I will 

go back to Mr. Fattah, is the ATF and the FBI, and you covered 

this briefly in the opening, share jurisdictions for investigation of 

federal explosive crimes. Disputes between the two have arisen 

where there is an absence of clear jurisdiction with respect to a 

particular investigation. In what situations has there been an absence of clear jurisdiction? And I keep reading about it in the 

paper. They do not want to work together? What is the problem? 

And cannot they resolve this, or either give all to one or all to the 

other? Or, I mean, how do you work that out? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. With explosives they have given FBI jurisdiction 

if it involves a terrorist incident and the rest falls to ATF unless 

there is some other FBI preexisting interest. And what we found 

was the guideline just was not very clear, the memorandum was 

not clear, and they were racing to the scene and, you know, trying 

to beat each to the scene in order to gain jurisdiction. 

The Deputy Attorney General has issued a new policy but we 

think a part of this will depend on implementation. And I think the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
140 

policy probably needs to be a little clearer about how the delineation will fall and we are continuing to track that to see how that 

works. 

Mr. WOLF. Does the expertise reside equally in both of them? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well the ATF I think has built, you know, they 

both have experts. You know, probably the ATF has more explosive 

experts but the FBI has them as well. And again, we found overlap 

in their labs, in their training, in their canine programs. So there 

is a fair amount of overlap. 

Mr. WOLF. Is not everything almost terrorism now in a way, 

whether it—— 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. That is the problem. How do they know when 

they are responding to the scene if it is a terrorist case or not? And 

that is where a lot of the conflicts arise. 

Mr. WOLF. Well maybe you can help us resolve it? Or maybe we 

should write something in. I am, I am supportive of both of them. 

But somehow there ought to be a delineation. That time that you 

are arguing could better be used from some other way. And you are 

always seeing news stories about the conflict and you constantly 

hear about it. And there ought to be some mechanism to kind of 

resolve it. 

And let me go to Mr. Fattah, and I think that would pretty much 

take it to the end. 

RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT

Mr. FATTAH. Well I do want to not necessarily delve into it but 

want to take note of your written testimony describing the efforts 

that the Department has taken to restore confidence in the Department in terms of some of the issues that arose in Senator Stevens’ 

case and other issues relating to professional conduct of attorneys, 

and other issues that have raised some public concern about activities inside of the Department over many years. I think that the Department has done a great deal in this regard, so I want to take 

note of it. 

But I want to go back to a question that we asked of your colleague from the Department of Commerce about your general resources. How many staff people do you have? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We have 430. 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. And how do you rationalize, and I know you 

are in an acting capacity, but how has it been rationalized, how 

and under what circumstances you would pursue the work as the 

watchdog for the public, and is it the case that you have a number 

of mandated responsibilities that prescribe most of these resources? 

Or do you have more of a free hand, a discretionary hand, about 

where to apply your resources? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Our current work plan was developed by Inspector General Fine, who left a week and a half ago. But I was his 

Deputy so I was part of that planning process. And we intend to 

continue with the same planning process. Some of our reviews are 

mandated, but that is not the majority of what we do. We do a very 

careful work planning process. We look at the Department’s top ten 

challenges and we try to find reviews that fall within those top ten 

challenges. We also consider very seriously any requests from committees with jurisdictions, congressional requests that are approVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
141 

priate for us to take on. And we, you know, then we have to divide 

our resources between our investigations to look at, you know, any 

corrupt law enforcement agents. And we look at the numbers coming in to make sure we have enough there. And then with our program reviews we try to identify those that would have the most impact. 

We also firmly believe in doing follow up reviews. So as in foreign language translation we will go back in after two or three 

years to see if they have actually implemented the recommendations that we made, if there has been improvement. And so we certainly try—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I assume that the dollars that we spend are well 

spent? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. We believe they are very well spent. We do think 

that inspectors general in general are cost savings because we do 

identify—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. So this should not be an area that when we 

are looking at cuts that we should be enthusiastic about? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Yeah, I think any inspector general would tell 

you yes, we are cost savings. So. 

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

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Thank you. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Where did Mr. Fine go? 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. He is taking some well deserved time off. He 

probably will find an opportunity in the private sector, but he has 

not identified yet what he will be doing. 

Mr. WOLF. I thought he was going to open up a bed and breakfast up in Vermont, or something like that. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Well he thought about taking on coaching a basketball team, but he has decided instead—— 

Mr. WOLF. Give him my best. I appreciate, you know, his service. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. I certainly will. 

Mr. WOLF. And thank you and thank all your people. And there 

will be questions that we will just submit for the record. 

Ms. SCHNEDAR. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. Okay, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
142 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 215 here 65531A.085
143 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 216 here 65531A.086
144 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 217 here 65531A.087
145 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 218 here 65531A.088
146 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 219 here 65531A.089
147 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 220 here 65531A.090
148 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 221 here 65531A.091
149 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 222 here 65531A.092
150 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 223 here 65531A.093
151 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 224 here 65531A.094
152 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 225 here 65531A.095
153 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 226 here 65531A.096
154 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 227 here 65531A.097
155 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 228 here 65531A.098
156 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 229 here 65531A.099
(157) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 

WITNESS 

ALLISON C. LERNER, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN WOLF AND RANKING MEMBER

FATTAH

Mr. WOLF. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. I want 

to welcome everyone today to our hearing on the state of management challenges at our science agencies. 

The witnesses are Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National 

Science Foundation, and Paul Martin, Inspector General, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

I want to thank you both for being here to go over the current 

budget and activities of the inspectors general. We will be looking 

to the IGs for guidance on where money can be put to very good 

use for program improvements and positive outcomes. 

We are going to need your help redirecting that. We are going 

to discuss management challenges and identify their implications, 

which are important to effective and efficient programs. 

Ms. Lerner will provide some brief overview and answer questions from the Subcommittee, and then we will turn to Mr. Martin 

and proceed the same way. 

Before we begin with Ms. Lerner, I would like to first turn to the 

ranking member, Mr. Fattah, for any opening comments. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thought yesterday was quite productive in terms of hearing 

from the IGs and look forward to this morning’s testimony, starting 

with the National Science Foundation. 

So I will reserve and we can get right to it. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Ms. Lerner. 

OPENING REMARKS OF INSPECTOR GENERAL LERNER

Ms. LERNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Office of Inspector General’s work to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the National Science Foundation’s programs and operations and to safeguard their integrity. 

My testimony will focus on two of the six top management challenges facing NSF in fiscal year 2011, improving grants management and strengthening contract administration, as well as some 

recent reviews our office has conducted of NSF’s operational expenses. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
158 

With regard to the first challenge, in 2010, NSF did more than 

55,000 awards at over 2,100 institutions. Since most of these 

awards are made as grants, it is essential that the foundation’s 

grants management process be robust enough to ensure the highest 

level of accountability and stewardship. 

Previous audits have found that the agency needs to improve its 

oversight of awardees and NSF has taken action to address these 

concerns including establishing an Award Monitoring and Business 

Assistance Program to provide necessary oversight. 

That program’s impact is limited as it can reach fewer than ten 

percent of the institutions receiving awards. In this time of increased concern about accountability and federal programs, it will 

be a continuing challenge for the agency to find new and cost-effective ways to ensure that awardees are accomplishing their goals 

and expending their federal funds appropriately. 

In addition to grant administration, we have focused considerable attention on contract administration at NSF, particularly on 

the agency’s efforts to manage and recompete its largest contract 

and its ability to manage high-risk contract reimbursement contracts. 

NSF obligated $283 million for such contracts in fiscal year 2010 

and the monitoring of cost reimbursement contracts was a significant deficiency in both the foundation’s fiscal year 2009 and 2010 

financial statements. 

These contracts are high risk because of their potential for cost 

escalation and because NSF often pays contractors before they 

incur costs. This risk is compounded by the fact that the agency 

has made advanced payments to contractors that do not have adequate accounting systems or approved accounting system disclosure 

statements. 

The risk of fraud, waste, and abuse on these contracts will continue to be high until NSF implements fully adequate cost surveillance procedures. 

NSF’s use of contingencies and budgets for its large major research equipment and facilities construction projects is an emerging management challenge. 

Two recent audits of cooperative agreement proposals for large 

construction projects found that the awardees’ budgets contained 

more than $169 million of unallowable contingency costs and that 

$55 million or 33 percent of this $169 million was funding from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

In addition, although the NSF allows awardees’ project officers 

to hold contingency funds for allocation during construction, we 

found that there were no barriers to prevent the funds from being 

drawn down in advance and/or used for purposes other than contingencies. As a result, there is an increased risk of fraud and misuse 

of these funds. 

We are working with the agency to resolve the recent audits and 

have started additional work in this area. 

My office also examines how NSF spends money internally for its 

own operations and activities. In light of the current economic climate, it is essential that we carefully study these expenses to identify opportunities for cost savings, so our funds can be put to better 

use within the foundation. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
159 

In this vein, we recently examined expenditures in two areas, 

both of which might yield cost savings with additional oversight 

and control. 

Our recent review of charges on NSF purchase cards for refreshments for panelists and others attending meetings at NSF identified nearly half a million dollars in food-related payments in both 

2008 and 2009. 

NSF pays for these refreshments out of program funds in addition to the compensation it is already providing to attendees to 

cover their expenses including meals. 

One-fourth of the purchases we reviewed exhibited at least one 

typical fraud indicator. In addition, we found there is no foundation 

level oversight or coordination of refreshment purchases and that 

purchasing practices vary widely across the agency. 

We recommended that NSF assess the prudence of these expenses and that if it decided to continue providing refreshments it 

centralize their purchase to improve control over the process. 

Our review of NSF’s Independent Research Development Program, which provides travel funds to temporary employees at NSF 

such as IPAs to travel to their home institutions and attend conferences, found that NSF could not tell without substantial effort 

how much it expends annually on IR&D travel or how such travel 

is used across the foundation’s various divisions. 

In addition, some participants used IR&D funds for more trips 

or longer trips or spent more on travel than proposed in their plan. 

Because of the weak oversight of the IR&D funds and the potential 

for abuse, we are currently auditing this program. 

Thank you. I would be happy to answer any questions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
160 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 237 here 65531A.100
161 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 238 here 65531A.101
162 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 239 here 65531A.102
163 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 240 here 65531A.103
164 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 241 here 65531A.104
165 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 242 here 65531A.105
166 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 243 here 65531A.106
167 

Mr. WOLF. Wow. Thank you very much. 

RESPONSIVENESS OF NSF

You raise a lot of issues. Are they paying any attention to you? 

Ms. LERNER. I think they are doing what they can to improve 

these areas. They do have, as I noted in grants management, a program in place to do some monitoring of awards, but we think that 

it is time to think of ways that they can do more. 

And one of the things that our office is starting to do is to develop a data analytic type capability that will enable us to do continuous monitoring of costs. NSF does this to a limited extent and 

we are hoping that if our efforts are successful, we can bring them 

along so that they can do more of that and hopefully have another 

cost-effective way of staying on top of how grantees are spending 

their funds. 

In the contract area, we have been working with NSF for quite 

some time. And they have made some progress. They have a new 

procurement executive coming on board, I believe this month. They 

have come up with some new policies and procedures for overseeing 

cost reimbursement contracts, but those were implemented relatively late in the fiscal year, and the auditor who conducts the financial statement audit has not had a chance to evaluate their effectiveness. We will be doing that this year. 

So they are attempting to tighten up their procedures over cost 

reimbursement contracts. They have also entered into an agreement with DCAA to do some of the much needed audits at the preaward stage and across the life cycle of awards so that there will 

be better assurance that money is being spent appropriately. 

So they are paying attention. There is just a lot of ground to 

cover and some real room for improvement. 

Mr. WOLF. How many people do you have on your staff? 

Ms. LERNER. Approximately 72 employees. 

Mr. WOLF. I guess I should get it out of the way early. I have 

been a little disappointed. I am going to tell the NSF people that 

when they come up. I have been a strong supporter of NSF. I think 

America needs to be invested in—— 

Ms. LERNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Math and science and physics and chemistry and biology, et cetera, et cetera, and I have always supported 

increased funding. 

About two years ago, we put language in asking the NSF to look 

at best practices with regard to having students get interested in 

science. The indications are that if they lose interest before fifth or 

sixth grade, you will lose them. 

Ms. LERNER. You are out of the pipeline. 

Mr. WOLF. It has been two years and they have never completed 

the report. Mr. Bement, who I always had a great amount of respect for, just left town without finishing it. 

We cannot get the NSF to respond to this. This is a very minor 

thing. We have done the same thing for prisons. We have asked the 

prison systems to look at best practices, and the Pew Foundation 

and the state governments helped us to come up with a report. We 

have asked NSF to do the same thing on what is working in eduVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
168 

cation to get young people through first through fifth grade, and it 

has been two years. 

And we cannot get an answer. Mr. Bement left town without the 

courtesy to call to say where the report is. The new director has 

never been up. 

And so I am beginning to think that it is a very sloppy operation 

out there. As another example, I remember initially the National 

Science Foundation fought strenuously against moving their headquarters. They did not want to move to their current location. 

Senator Robb had moved them out to the Arlington area, and 

they fought it and fought it and fought it. And now it is there, and 

someone said there may be some effort to move them again. 

Is there any thought of that? 

Ms. LERNER. The two buildings that the foundation is in, I think 

the Stafford One lease expires in 2013, I think Stafford Two in 

2014. So the process is in place to find a new building for the agency. 

Mr. WOLF. To move again? 

Ms. LERNER. It is uncertain at this point whether they will move 

again or whether the current lender will be able to get the current 

space up to standards where they could remain is my understanding. But, yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, they wanted to stay on Constitution Avenue in 

an old building that was falling down—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. So they could be close to the White 

House. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. If they come in and ask for money for that, I personally would not be very supportive. I mean, I think they ought to 

spend their time on science. 

Well, you just let the word go back. I do not know who is here 

from the NSF, if anybody is, but I am really so disappointed in Dr. 

Bement and the current leadership now for not even having the 

courtesy to come up and discuss the status of the education report. 

It was requested in the fiscal year 2009 language, and we cannot 

even get them to act. So if the Congress cannot get them to act, 

I wonder if you are able to do it. 

Ms. LERNER. I meet with the director tomorrow at one o’clock 

and I will make sure he understands your concerns. So I will do 

what I can. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if they really care about education—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And getting young people to be involved 

in the sciences—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. And I know they do. So I do not know why 

they would not be getting back to you and communicating with you 

on that or completing the work that you asked them to do. But I 

will certainly have that conversation with the director. 

Mr. WOLF. Somebody ought to tell Mr. Bement, too, who I really 

admired. I am really disappointed in him. He left town literally 

without cleaning up and dealing with this issue. And we have discussed it. We have had conversations. We have raised it in hearings. It is in the hearing record. It was in the bill. And he leaves 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
169 

town and does not do a thing. How hard you work on the last day 

is as important as all the work you have done before. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. You ought to stay until five o’clock or five-thirty and 

clean up everything. This was an act of Congress with regard to 

the sciences. This is not a—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Pork barrel project. We want young people to be involved in science. Last year, China graduated 700,000 

engineers. We only graduated 70,000. Half of them were foreign 

students. We want America to be number one. And here is something that could get young people involved, and NSF cannot even 

give us an answer. 

POSSIBLE NSF BUDGET SAVINGS

Making cuts in programs that are inefficient, ineffective, or simply low priority is one of the ways to meet our critical deficit reduction needs while still allowing necessary flexibility for important 

NSF programs that advance our national competitiveness. 

Using the knowledge you have gained by reviewing programs for 

waste, fraud, and abuse, and I think you have covered this, can you 

give the Subcommittee some specific areas that we could look at 

that would not hurt the sciences—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. But would allow us to make some necessary spending changes that would help save some money for the 

American taxpayer? 

Ms. LERNER. Right. Well, I think at a minimum, the half million 

dollars that is spent on refreshments for panelists is something 

that should be looked at carefully. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, if you could give us a list in addition. 

The OIG does not have a basis for saying that one NSF program should be funded 

over another program. We will continue to examine NSF’s external funding, particularly in regard to contingencies and contracting, as well as the Foundation’s expenditures for its operations such as travel in order to identify opportunities for cost savings and funds put to better use. 

Ms. LERNER. In addition to that? We will do what we can. And 

we are looking for more and more areas. So if you would like our 

thoughts beyond what we have identified in the light refreshment 

area, we will respond. 

Mr. WOLF. I think that is important, but I am thinking of more 

extensive even—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Than that. Has your office studied how 

the NSF measures the downstream outcomes from federal grants 

and tech transfers? What is the economic impact of National 

Science Foundation investments? 

Ms. LERNER. Not in the period that I have been there. But we 

have been having conversations just in the past month or so figuring about how my office can get a handle on measuring how NSF 

measures performance and outcomes because we think it is critical 

that someone be looking critically at what processes and what infrastructure is in place. So we will be expending more time and effort in that area in the coming months. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
170 

NSF’S MANAGEMENT OF STIMULUS FUNDING

Mr. WOLF. Two years after the enactment of the stimulus bill, 

less than a third of NSF stimulus funding has been spent. This is 

the lowest stimulus expenditure rate across the entire government. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. What does the extremely low outlay rate tell you 

about the stimulating impact of these funds? 

Ms. LERNER. From NSF’s view of the money it received from the 

Recovery Act is that, yes, what they do will have a certain stimulative effect to the extent that you have additional people. You are 

able to bring on additional investigators or folks to do the scientific 

research that is being funded. But their focus has been as much 

on the reinvestment, the second area that will come from the work 

that they are performing. 

They have also structured their awards, I think they ranged from 

two to five years, so that is part of the reason you see the obligations, the rate being as low as it is. 

Mr. WOLF. But the outlays of the stimulus funds have been even 

lower than NSF’s own projections. 

Ms. LERNER. And I do not know the precise reasons for why it 

is lower than their own projections. I know they do monitor the 

issue very carefully. But there are a variety of different lengths of 

projects and the scientific projects. 

In some instances, you have some that are cost heavy at the beginning, others where costs are more spread out evenly over time, 

and some where the majority of expenses come later in the project. 

So I can only presume that that is playing out in the slow pace of 

the obligation rate. 

Mr. WOLF. Most of the NSF funds were used for research grants. 

So some of the outlay problems may be due to inactivity on the 

part of the grantee. 

What is NSF doing to identify inactive grantees and recover 

these awards? 

Ms. LERNER. They are monitoring those pretty carefully. They 

have a 99 percent plus reporting rate from the entities who are required to report on a quarterly basis. So they are getting the quarterly reports, and I presume they are looking at the quarterly reports. 

We have asked that where there were areas, we were very concerned with situations where you had awards that had been made, 

and it had been a year and no costs had been incurred. And so we 

have tried to stay on top of the agency and ensure that they were 

monitoring those awards. 

And due to their own interest and the pressure that we were putting on them, they have reached out to the recipients where they 

have not had any expenditures at all to determine if there is a rational reason for it. 

Mr. WOLF. Has any of it been reclaimed? 

Ms. LERNER. Any reclaimed, I do not believe that any has at this 

point. 

Mr. WOLF. Because there are so many others who are waiting for 

an NSF grant. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
171 

Mr. WOLF. The number of people who apply is much higher than 

the number of people that receive. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. So if someone has applied and got a grant but has not 

acted on it—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. NSF is obviously more on top of the precise 

details of this than I am, but my understanding is when they did 

look at the situations where there had been that 12-month window 

without—the burn rate was not what it should be, that there were 

appropriate explanations for it in the instances where they followed 

up. 

So I do not believe that any amounts were reclaimed. That certainly would have made sense and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Wouldn’t it make sense to reclaim something to demonstrate to people that if they are going to get a grant and they 

have this great idea to save America—— 

Ms. LERNER. Absolutely. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. And do something for math and science, 

they ought to move on it rather than getting a grant and then laying back? I would urge you to ask them to reclaim a couple to stimulate the others to move ahead. If you had a stimulating bill, you 

want to stimulate. 

Ms. LERNER. And we did push them to do that when they were 

looking at this issue. And the feedback that we got was that there 

were appropriate reasons for—— 

Mr. WOLF. For every one, every single one? 

Ms. LERNER. There were only a small number of these is my understanding and that there were—— 

Mr. WOLF. How many were there? 

Ms. LERNER. There were, I think, fewer than 20. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you give us a list of the 20? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
172 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 256 here 65531A.107
173 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 257 here 65531A.108
174 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 258 here 65531A.109
175 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 259 here 65531A.110
176 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 260 here 65531A.111
177 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. I will give you a list of however many it was. 

My recollection is it was fewer than 20, but, yes, we will give you 

a list of that. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Fattah. 

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

NSF POLICY ON REFRESHMENTS FOR MERIT REVIEW PANELISTS

I guess on the front end of this, some could suggest that there 

is no federal law here or no constitutional mandate for us to be involved in basic research? 

I agree with you in your testimony, your written testimony, that 

this is a critically important area for the Federal Government, and 

it is one of the things that I am most proud of in terms of investments that we make as a country. 

The National Science Foundation is the premier entity in the 

world, and obviously the work that your office is doing to improve 

its efficiency is important. 

In defense of the coffee and doughnuts, I want to say that there 

are probably some areas where you could cut, but I am not sure 

that we should be inviting the most knowledgeable scientists in the 

world to sit around and talk about finding a cure for cancer and 

not offer coffee or some need. 

I think we need to not be foolish about our efforts here. This is 

a very important entity, and part of what you do is the collaboration of scientists. There are no earmarks here. This is all—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Rigorously reviewed, peer reviewed research that in so many ways has helped move our country forward. 

So I just think that the totality of the budget at the National 

Science Foundation is less than we would spend in half a month 

or that we are spending in half a month in Afghanistan. 

Ms. LERNER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. FATTAH. So we ought to be careful as we go forward. And I 

want to get into some of the real work that I think that you have 

been involved that has saved money, the recompete and the major 

construction efforts in Antarctica, and if you could also comment on 

the decision not to go forward in South Dakota in terms of the investment there. 

But I would just say that I hope that in the future, we can always afford to take the best minds in the world, put them over at 

the National Science Foundation for a day-long or two-day meeting, 

and I think it is quite appropriate that there be coffee and orange 

juice and whatever else they need so that we can get the best of 

their thinking. 

Ms. LERNER. Great. 

Mr. FATTAH. But please respond. 

Ms. LERNER. Sure. And, as you know, on the issue of refreshments, I think that is a management decision. The situation that 

we found was just a wide variety in amount spent per person 

across the agency. So there are some areas where you could still 

provide refreshments, but save a decent amount of money there. 

Beyond that, the—— 

Mr. FATTAH. The recompete and—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
178 

Ms. LERNER. The recompete—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

RECOMPETITION OF THE ANTARCTIC SUPPORT CONTRACT

Ms. LERNER. The recompete is an issue that we have been monitoring very carefully. It is a delicate thing for an IG to do when 

there is an open procurement. But we have been very concerned. 

NSF is not an agency that ordinarily has a lot of very large contracts. We are a big grant making agency. But every ten years or 

so, we have this enormous contract that has to be competed and 

has to be competed well. And we have been dealing with the flaws 

in the process of the last competition for the past 12 years. And so 

what we were hoping is that they would get it right this time. 

And I am sure you are aware that there has been one extension 

that they have had to grant to the current contract because they 

simply did not get their act together sufficiently in order to make 

the award at the time when they needed to so that the new contract could take place and where a second extension has now been 

necessary. 

NSF has really finally recognized that senior management has to 

pay attention to this process and make sure that it works or it is 

going to slip again. And they have a group of senior managers that 

meets I believe on a biweekly basis to stay on top of the process. 

They have a plan with dates. They had a plan the first time 

around, but there were no dates associated with it after they 

missed the first year, after they missed the first effort to get the 

contract in place. 

So they have a plan with dates. It is a plan that can work so that 

there will not need to be a third extension, but there is very little 

room for error in that plan because of the challenge that you have, 

the window of opportunity you have to do the transition. There is 

six months when nobody can get down to the pole. So there is a 

limited window when you can do a transition for a contractor. 

If there is any slippage in the current schedule there is a chance 

that it would have to be extended once again. So we are monitoring 

their progress. I know NSF management is monitoring their 

progress. There are some issues that are not within their concern. 

I am very happy to see that pursuant to our advice they are getting pre-award audits done of the proposals that are in the competitive range which should hopefully help eliminate some of the 

problems that plagued the past contract. But getting those preaward audits is going to take some time. 

They have budgeted a certain amount of time there based on conversations with DCAA about how much time they think they will 

need to do the work. But, I can tell you, you can think you know 

how much time it is going to take to get in to do an audit. But, 

until you get in there and start looking at the books, you really do 

not know what you are going to find. 

So if it turns out that DCAA needs more time to do those very 

important audits, then the schedule may not be able to hold. So we 

are monitoring on that and we are hopeful that if everything works 

and the planets align that they can have a new contractor in place 

and avoid a third extension. But, I do not know if that will pan out. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
179 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you so much for the work that you do. The inspectors 

general are really vital to help us do our job better and to help us 

be good stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

I am devoted as the chairman is and other members of this committee to the National Science Foundation and to ensure that they 

are given as much support as we can possibly give them in this environment that is difficult, but we are all going to work hard to 

make sure that NSF is protected and want to be sure the money 

we are sending them is well spent. 

NSF’S GRANT FUNDING ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

I wanted to ask about two areas, if I could. Could you talk about 

the level of funding we have been giving NSF and in your opinion 

from what you have seen and analyzed and the number of grant 

requests they receive what percentage of the requests that they receive are they actually able to fund? Do you know? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. It is about a 25 percent success rate. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Twenty-five percent of the—— 

Ms. LERNER. This year. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Twenty-five percent of the eligible grant requests that they receive, they are able to fund. And I assume that 

there are criteria. You cannot even apply for a grant unless you 

meet certain criteria. You are—— 

Ms. LERNER. It would depend on the program. There are many 

different programs, but there are two main criteria that NSF looks 

for, broad impact and intellectual merit. But beyond that, I am 

sure that individual programs may have specific criteria as well. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, excuse me. What I was talking about is the 

eligibility of the applicant to even receive the grant because one of 

the things I know that you are concerned about and mentioned in 

your report is the ability of NSF to ensure that the money is being 

well-spent. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That the recipient is actually doing what they 

said they were going to do—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. With the money—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Which is vital. And I think your report said that NSF is only looking at a very small fraction, seven 

percent, I think you said, of the—— 

Ms. LERNER. Through one particular program. Kind of the jewel 

in their crown of monitoring only is able to touch about seven percent. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the institute of this program in 2004, I 

think you said in your testimony—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. That to try to track how the money 

is being used by the recipient. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is there an eligibility requirement, though, before you can even apply? I mean, are there certain—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
180 

Ms. LERNER. I do not know that there are—— 

VOICE. There are a couple. There is the new awardee guide and 

some reviews of the institutions, but the institution eligibility is 

different than the PI eligibility. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. A lot of our awards are made to institutions 

and not individuals with the exception of certain programs, career 

programs or things like that, so—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. What I was driving at is just to ensure that 

they are not making awards to people that are not able to fulfill 

the request, certain minimum requirements to—like any other 

job—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. You have got to be a licensed law 

enforcement officer before you can apply to be a, you know, Texas 

state trooper, for example. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. And NSF is required to check the excluded 

parties list which is the list of people that are excluded from receiving federal funds before they make any awards, so they have a 

process. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Why are they excluded? What is excluded? For 

what reason will they be excluded? 

Ms. LERNER. The excluded parties list is a listing of individuals 

who have been suspended or debarred from doing business with the 

government for any number of a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes just lack of present responsibility, sometimes because they 

have committed crimes or civil crimes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Those folks for sure? 

Ms. LERNER. So they are supposed to accept that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But, I mean, there is a standard. You know, you 

come in—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. To apply for a job at a, like I say, 

use Texas, you know, if you are going to be a state trooper, you got 

to meet certain criteria. What are the minimum criteria of eligibility to even apply and receive a grant from the NSF? Are they 

in your opinion satisfactory? 

I know, for example, you award a grant to any of the major universities of any of our districts—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. It is going to be handled competently—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Professionally—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. In a way that we would all be 

proud of. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. What is NSF doing to make sure that there is 

nobody even coming to the door asking for money that is not capable of doing the work? 

Ms. LERNER. I think that is certainly something that is examined 

in the merit process when the panels look at the proposals. They 

will look at the people who are the proposed collaborators. I do not 

know if there is the—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
181 

Mr. CULBERSON. I do not know if they have a minimum set of 

criteria of eligibility. 

VOICE. It depends on the program. Some programs, if you are 

talking the PI, the person, there are some programs that do have 

criteria for those people. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Uh-huh. 

VOICE. You are talking institutions. There are criteria around 

their financial systems, but most of the requirements are placed 

back on the institution—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

VOICE [continuing]. To manage the awards. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. The burden is on the institution to—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. To oversee this. 

ICE BREAKING

Mr. CULBERSON. Let me also ask, and the chair has been very 

generous with the time, about the Ice Breaker Program. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that has been a concern of mine since I 

first got on this committee several years ago when Mr. Wolf was 

the chairman before. The Bush administration just issued an executive order that transferred responsibility for the Ice Breakers from 

the Coast Guard to the NSF which really alarmed me because, of 

course, they need to be replaced. It was a massive amount of 

money. They were in bad shape and needed to be replaced. And 

that just shifted that huge liability back on to the Coast Guard. 

And I think Frank LoBiondo, Mr. Chairman—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Helped fix that. There was a Coast 

Guard reauthorization done, is that correct, about three or four 

years ago, right be—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Does that sound right, like about four or five 

maybe years ago? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. That sounds about right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And the reauthorization, because I remember 

pestering, Mr. LoBiondo was wonderful about that, the Coast 

Guard is responsible again for those Ice Breakers? 

Ms. LERNER. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Is there adequate money to get the Ice Breakers 

upgraded, repaired? Are they in good shape? 

Ms. LERNER. I think there have been—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Do our scientists have the ability to get to Antarctica? Are we leasing Ice Breakers? What is the status of that? 

Ms. LERNER. My understanding at this point is that the two 

ships that the Federal Government has, the two Ice Breakers that 

they have, neither are capable of functioning. So we are relying on 

leases. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Out of commission? 

Ms. LERNER. They are both out of commission and in the process 

of getting refitted so that they can function again. There is talk of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
182 

procuring a new Ice Breaker. I gather that that is in motion right 

now. But currently we are relying on leased Ice Breakers. 

Mr. CULBERSON. And that may be a good solution. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I mean, have you all looked at that? It is a huge 

expense. And have you looked at it? 

Ms. LERNER. The Department of Homeland Security IG has done 

an audit of that process. I think they just completed that. 

Mr. CULBERSON. That would be something worth looking at, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. We can provide you with a copy of their report. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
183 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 274 65531A.112
184 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 275 65531A.113
185 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 276 65531A.114
186 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 277 65531A.115
187 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 278 65531A.116
188 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 279 65531A.117
189 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 280 65531A.118
190 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 281 65531A.119
191 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 282 65531A.120
192 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 283 65531A.121
193 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 284 65531A.122
194 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 285 65531A.123
195 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 286 65531A.124
196 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 287 65531A.125
197 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 288 65531A.126
198 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 289 65531A.127
199 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 290 65531A.128
200 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 291 65531A.129
201 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 292 65531A.130
202 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 293 65531A.131
203 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 294 65531A.132
204 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 295 65531A.133
205 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 296 65531A.134
206 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 297 65531A.135
207 

Mr. CULBERSON. And it may indeed—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Be more cost effective to—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Lease them. I think other nations 

are using leased Ice Breakers. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But ours are completely out of commission. I did 

not know that. 

Ms. LERNER. That is my understanding. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MERIT REVIEW

PROCESS

Mr. CULBERSON. Any areas I know the committee asked you 

about that you could identify—if they have already asked you, forgive me. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I was hung up and could not get here. Areas 

that you find we could help make the money we are able to give 

to the NSF to reach those grant recipients and how can we save 

money at the NSF and ensure the money reaches the folks that 

need it—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. And not diminish our already diminishing abilities in science? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, I think one thing that NSF is doing right now 

that is really exciting and that could lead to some savings and 

some efficiencies in their merit review process, they have an ongoing pilot of using Second Life as a way to conduct panels so that 

every panel does not have to be done at NSF. 

You have I think about 19,000 scientists that come to NSF every 

year to do merit review panels at NSF. You know, that is a lot of 

people coming through. A lot of time and effort to get them here, 

a lot of time for them away from their work. 

So NSF has a pilot right now where they are using Second Life 

to evaluate proposals. And they have done it, I gather, in about six 

instances and it seems to be working well. And I do not think that 

is a—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. If I could—— 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. Solution—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Forgive me. I am sorry—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yeah. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. For interrupting. And the chairman 

has been very generous and—— 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. I am going to pass because he has 

been so kind with the time. We want to make sure everybody 

knows what Second Life is. That is basically a virtual reality world 

where you sit—— 

Ms. LERNER. A virtual reality world. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Playing Avatar and we are all sitting—— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
208 

Ms. LERNER. You have an Avatar and they—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Looking at each other. 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. Are doing merit review by Avatar, exactly. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Time talking to each other. 

Ms. LERNER. You can talk to each other—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. We can all look like—— 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. So you get the camaraderie. You have 

the ability to talk and the feedback that is—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Real time. 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. In place from some of the people participating is that you have that ability to interact. You lose that if 

you try and do panels by mail. You just lose that human connection 

which is an important part of the merit review process. But with 

this Avatar situation, you have that, but you do not have the time 

to go out to dinner in the evening or lunch. 

So something is lost, but you gain people not having to travel. 

You may be able to attract some people who would not be able to 

take the time and effort to come to NSF and participate. So I think 

that that is a pilot program that they should really look at expanding and utilizing where appropriate across the foundation. I think 

it would be an efficient way. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Get a real-time meeting like this, we can all 

be—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. 21 years old and in perfect physical 

condition. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, maybe we could have our hearings 

like that, you know. 

Ms. LERNER. Well, and the beauty is it costs about $3,600 a year 

to have the agreement with the entity that runs Second Life and 

the average panel costs about $10,000. So you save. You know, you 

do one panel this way and you have paid for a whole year’s worth 

of the ability to use this. So I think it is exciting and wonderful. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me ask a serious question about that. What 

about the security of the—— 

Ms. LERNER. That is something that I want to have a conversation with NSF about and make sure that all the procedures are in 

place. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Have you found out that Second Life has been as successful as the panels coming in? Has anyone looked at that to see 

that the Second Life—is it teleconferencing? Is that pretty much 

what it is? 

Ms. LERNER. It is teleconferencing and then some because you 

have these Avatars sitting talking. 

Mr. WOLF. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Virtual world. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you then check to see that it has been as successful as it is when the panelists come in? Has anyone looked at the 

comparison? 

Ms. LERNER. My understanding is that the groups that have 

done this, some have found it to be useful and the panels have 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
209 

worked well. Some of the feedback that I have seen from the participants is very positive. Some missed the human touch. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Ms. LERNER. So I think that is why it is in pilot right now. And 

it is the sort of thing that has been tried in a focused area. It 

seems to me to make sense to expand it out, continue monitoring 

it. But the potential in that program is great for efficiencies and 

good ways to get the people who might not be able to commit 

to—— 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. Flying to D.C., especially in crazy 

weather like we have had lately, and participating. 

Mr. WOLF. It makes sense. 

Mr. Aderholt. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. I do not have anything. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Austria. 

TRENDS IN GRANT APPLICATIONS, EXTENSIONS AND AWARD RATES

Mr. AUSTRIA. Mr. Chairman, just I appreciate, as a new member, 

the Second Life is very interesting. I appreciate the things that you 

are doing in helping provide opportunities to research and science 

and engineering for our universities and colleges. Just a quick follow-up on the number of grants. You mentioned 25 percent. 

Ms. LERNER. Yes. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. How many of those are extensions and how many 

of those are new grants? And when you say 25 percent, is the number of requests increasing, decreasing? What is it made of because 

it seems like this is the way of the future? 

Ms. LERNER. Right. Right. And can I get back to you with what 

the answer is for that? I do not have all of those facts committed 

to memory. 

The OIG does not maintain its own information regarding the number of proposals, nor does it track trends. The most comprehensive source for the number of 

proposals submitted to NSF is the ‘‘Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review Process, Fiscal Year 2009.’’ The report is 

available at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/2010/nsb1027.pdf. That report’s executive summary (attached) provides an overview of awards made and some trends 

indicated in FY 09. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
210 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 305 65531A.136
211 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert graphic folio 306 65531A.137
212 

Mr. AUSTRIA. In general, I assume that the requests of grants 

are increasing; is it? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes, I believe so. I mean, do we—— 

VOICE. The requests for grants are pretty stable. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

VOICE. The issue is how much can we fund them because of the 

money. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. The number, if you heard my colleague, is 

pretty stable, but the issue is how many can be funded. And with 

more money, the success rate goes up or not. 

NSF PORNOGRAPHY SCANDAL FOLLOWUP

Mr. AUSTRIA. Let me just touch on another area. You know, soon 

after you came into the position as inspector general, there was 

some significant things that happened as far as within NSF with 

employees, with taxpayer dollars, with the computers, with going 

to inappropriate sites, things like that. 

Can you maybe just brief this committee or assure this committee that proper safeguard has been put in place to prevent that 

from happening in the future? And are you able to detail those 

safeguards that you put in place to assure that that does not happen again? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, most of those incidents predated my arrival 

at NSF, but we were in the process of dealing with the agency and 

ensuring that it made the changes that were necessary to plug 

some of the holes that allowed situations like that to occur. 

So it is the agency’s problem to fix. And as the IG, I cannot fix 

the problems for them, but I can make sure that they do. I am 

there to oversee and make sure that they do the right things. So 

as a result of that, they have put in place e-mail filters, and let me 

pull my little note here, e-mails and internet filters so that we will 

not have situations where someone can sit for eight hours a day for 

multiple days a week and watch porn at their desk. 

They have also beefed up their IT security training so that people are more aware of what they can and cannot do. They have circulated information out to NSF staff that they should report issues 

like that to my office so that if there are any further problems, we 

will become aware. 

We have followed up fairly regularly with the IT security staff 

to make sure that they are doing what they said they were going 

to do to ensure that these problems will not happen again. 

They have Blue Coat technology in place on most of their networks. They have a separate high speed network that is used by 

limited people for limited purposes that does not yet have Blue 

Coat technology, but we are working with them to make sure that 

they do what they can to ensure that that network will not be able 

to be used inappropriately. 

But it is a situation where you fix one hole and another one appears. So I think that it requires constant vigilance on the part of 

NSF management and on my office to ensure that we do not fix one 

problem and then have another one. 

Mr. AUSTRIA. And I appreciate your efforts to address that and 

put those safeguards in place. And I did not mean to imply at all 

that it was under your watch that all this occurred. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
213 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Well, this is a little bit toward the substantive area, 

which is not your involvement, but I do want to commend the agency. I have been paying some attention to the work related to neuroscience, both on the cognitive side and on the brain injury side. 

And given that our colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, was speaking in her own voice yesterday, I think that we should acknowledge 

the great science that really is going on as part of the efforts of the 

agency. I know you have a tough job because in all this good news, 

you are looking for the bad news. And that is what auditors do. 

That is what your job is. But given the $10 billion, both the annual and the stimulus dollars, and the thousands of awards, I think that it is pretty clear 

that this is a first-class operation. And obviously in any operation 

including our own here in the Congress, there are times when we 

have unpleasant circumstances that we have to deal with. So we 

appreciate the work you do in helping to make the National 

Science Foundation the premier entity in the world. 

CYBER SECURITY

I am all for Second Life, Mr. Chairman, but I think that we 

should be concerned about security issues. This is taxpayer-paid research and, as you know, you were talking yesterday about cyber 

security issues. And, particularly, we have a great deal of espionage by economic competitors and others. I know that we are for 

intellectual curiosity, and we are for sharing information, and we 

want to be friends to the world, but we want to get the first benefit 

of our research here in the United States of America and not have 

it shared. So just in the chase for efficiency, we ought to be careful 

and make sure that we do things that actually protect the longterm public interest. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, I think Mr. Fattah makes a very good point. I 

would share that too. And it leads me to ask the question, have 

there been any cyber attacks against your computers? 

Ms. LERNER. Yes, there have. 

Mr. WOLF. By what countries? 

Ms. LERNER. I do not know. We were not able to tell because the 

computers were wiped before our folks were able to look at them 

and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Who wiped the computers clean? 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. NSF IT staff and—— 

Mr. WOLF. Did they not tell you who did it? 

Ms. LERNER. I do not know that they know. What we understand 

is that some NSF material—and there was an article about this in 

Nextgov—turned up on a server in the former Soviet Union. And 

so my office is very concerned about how that happened and how 

the computers came to be wiped before we were able to see if we 

could work with prosecutors and get to the bottom of what happened there. And we are going to be working with the agency to 

ensure that situations like that do not happen again and that the 

IT security processes are tightened up. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
214 

Mr. WOLF. When did this happen? 

Ms. LERNER. Over Christmastime. 

Mr. WOLF. We are going to ask the FBI to look at it, too, if we 

can. My computer was stripped by the Chinese, and there were 16 

other Members of the House whose computers were stripped in addition to the International Relations Committee. 

A number of government agencies went out of their way to urge 

me not to say who had done it, but they knew it was the Chinese. 

I am sure NSF and NSA know who did it. And I think we should 

find out. 

Have there been other attacks over the last several years? 

Ms. LERNER. Not of that nature that I am aware of. 

Mr. WOLF. You have checked to see how many cyber attacks—— 

Ms. LERNER. NSF is supposed to activate a CERT that includes 

participation by my office when a situation like that occurs. And 

they have not activated that cert. 

My office has been increasingly concerned about the quality and 

the caliber of IT security within the foundation. And we are going 

to be expanding our efforts to evaluate the controls that are in 

place so that we can all be assured that adequate security, you 

know, that—— 

Mr. WOLF. Is there information given to NSF employees when 

they travel to China or Russia or Syria or whatever, not to take 

their BlackBerries or their telephones? 

Ms. LERNER. I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that. I 

am not aware. I can—— 

Mr. WOLF. Shouldn’t there be a policy? Has there been anyone 

from the NSF that has gone to China, Syria or Russia in the last 

year? 

Ms. LERNER. I know there have been folks who have been to 

China. I do not know in the last year, but certainly in the past couple of years. 

Mr. WOLF. But 30 seconds after you go through—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. The terminal, you are compromised. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. Could you ask the Bureau to see how many other attacks have occurred, and could you tell us what the travel policy 

is? Maybe when the director comes up here, they could tell us what 

the policy is for—— 

Since 2007, NSF’s Computer Incident Response Team (of which OIG is a member) 

was activated two times—once in 2007 and, most recently, in 2011. 

NSF informed my office that it does not have specific information security policies 

for NSF employees traveling abroad, though it did note the following: 

—All NSF staff are required to take annual IT security training. 

—All mobile ICT equipment (laptops, Blackberries, etc.) issued by NSF to staff 

are encrypted and password protected. 

—The Department of State must approve the travel of NSF staff travelling on official business to any country. OISE coordinates the ‘‘country clearance’’ process. 

When clearance is requested for travel to China, State provides warnings/guidelines 

related to use of mobile devices in China, and this is shared with each traveler. 

—The NSF overseas offices (Beijing, Tokyo, Paris) operate under Embassy umbrella and are therefore subject to all Department of State requirements for USG 

officials in each country. 

Ms. LERNER. Absolutely. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
215 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. NSF employees who travel abroad—— 

Ms. LERNER. We will absolutely do that. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Because I think Mr. Fattah is very accurate. 

Ms. LERNER. That is why our office was very concerned when we 

got word of this attack and then went to look into things and found 

that the machines had been wiped. So I think it is an area where 

we are going to be spending a lot of time. 

Mr. WOLF. And NSA did that? 

Ms. LERNER. Not NSA. NSF. 

Mr. WOLF. But who wiped them? Your own people? 

Ms. LERNER. Not my people. NSF IT staff is my understanding. 

Mr. WOLF. Why did they do that? 

Ms. LERNER. Because they believed it was standard operating 

procedure in a situation like that. So we have a lot of work to do 

in that area to ensure that they know how to handle an attack like 

this. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, maybe what we will do is just ask the FBI and 

their cyber people to come over to the National Science Foundation, 

and I think you should be there. They can give everybody a briefing 

as to what is going on and then look to see that your computers 

are sound and safe. We will do that. We will make a call this afternoon and connect the Bureau with your office. 

Ms. LERNER. Great. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

CONTRACTING PRACTICES

You have done a lot of work documenting NSF’s problems monitoring cost reimbursement contracts. But before we talk about 

those implementation problems, I want to talk about why NSF is 

using this type of contract vehicle to begin with. With cost reimbursement contracts, the risk is on the government, and they are 

the most difficult and expensive to administer. Yet, NSF relies on 

them almost exclusively. 

Do you think NSF has adequate justification for its use of cost 

reimbursement contracts, and could they effectively meet program 

goals using a different contract vehicle? 

Ms. LERNER. I think there may be some instances where—obviously the preferred method of contracting to use is fixed price contracting. I believe there are probably some instances where cost reimbursement contracts makes sense for NSF, but it has to be done 

right. It has to be done rigorously. 

I really question the use of advanced payments in here, but it 

cannot be done without the groundwork to ensure that we know 

how the costs are going to be charged and how we are going to be 

billed and there is agreement on that from the outset. 

And when NSF fails to get cost accounting disclosure statements, 

fails to have accounting systems audited, pays in advance on the 

high-risk contracts, you have just got a recipe for real problems. 

They could utilize the contracts when appropriate if they did things 

the right way. And I would have much less concern. I would still 

prefer that they rely more on fixed price contracts, but I understand there are certain instances when that just does not make 

sense. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
216 

Mr. WOLF. Through audits of existing contracts, you have found 

that the accounting controls needed to determine whether NSF is 

overpaying its contractors often do not exist. 

Until those accounting controls are fixed, what can we say about 

the chances that NSF has been making improper payments under 

those contracts? And if you can answer that, then do you know 

what the magnitude of these improper payments could possibly be? 

Ms. LERNER. I certainly think there is a risk of improper payments in the situation that we have found when there is no approved accounting system in place. The magnitude of it could be— 

I could not speculate as to that. 

Mr. WOLF. Could be what? Try to finish that sentence. 

Ms. LERNER. It would be pure speculation on my part. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, let’s speculate for a moment. 

Ms. LERNER. You know, it could be anything. I mean, it could be 

minor and it could be tremendously major. The problem is we just 

do not know. 

Mr. WOLF. What should we do to know? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, what I would like to do is under contracts, if 

I can, when we start our data analytics capability, we can monitor 

payments under the contracts on a real-time basis in a meaningful 

way and even potentially get down to the transaction level. So I 

think improved use of data analytics both by my staff and by NSF 

staff would give everyone a lot better sense that the money is being 

used appropriately. 

Mr. WOLF. This may be a controversial question, but I say this 

as a supporter of the NSF, and I think Mr. Fattah and Mr. 

Culberson are, too. In the CR that the House is marking up, we 

are doing everything we can to protect NSF. I believe America is 

falling behind in science, so I am with you. 

But should we ask GAO to look at how these contracts are being 

done? I mean, would it be helpful, not in an adversarial way, to 

have the GAO come in to look at some of these things? You know, 

iron sharpens iron. The intention is not to catch somebody, not to 

embarrass anyone. But should we ask the GAO just to look at 

these things? 

Ms. LERNER. Well, GAO has already come into NSF. In fact, one 

of the reasons that there is a significant deficiency in contract management of cost reimbursement contracts is because GAO looked at 

that issue across the government and focused a lot on several agencies including NSF in the 2009 time frame and found some real 

problems with what NSF was doing. They were looking at NSF in 

addition to I think it was about ten other different federal agencies. 

So they have come in and looked and pointed out problems, but 

certainly I think there could be value in having them come in in 

a nonadversarial fashion and look a little more deeply and carefully 

at—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, why don’t we just ask the GAO to do that, just 

to make sure that, as Mr. Culberson said, every dollar that is available is used in such a way that America can have a renaissance, 

be number one in the sciences, innovate and do all the things we 

want to do. So, we will ask that GAO do that. You can go back and 

tell NSF that we are not trying to catch anybody. I am sure that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
217 

every congressional office could be looked at up here, and they 

could—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF [continuing]. Probably all be run better if somebody 

came in to tell them better ideas. On another topic, your office has 

identified problems with the way that NSF allows grantees to access contingency funds that are built into the construction budget. 

Specifically, regular project funds and contingencies are 

intermixed, and the grantee does not need NSF approval to spend 

contingency money. 

How does this policy encourage poor fiscal management? 

Ms. LERNER. We are very concerned about that. This is a brand 

new issue. It first surfaced in an audit that was conducted by 

DCAA for us. It was issued at the end of September. It surfaced 

again in another audit that DCAA did in January. And we are trying to get a handle around the issue right now, how NSF has done 

this, how it has happened. 

Contingencies, I can certainly see in conducting a project why 

there might be a need for some contingent funds, funds for contingencies. But why NSF instead of holding the funds internally and 

providing them when they are needed to the awardee, why NSF 

just takes what looks to us to be a very generous estimate of what 

those contingencies would be and allows the awardee to handle it 

with very few constraints on it is concerning to us. 

So we are trying to understand better why NSF is doing what 

it is doing, how contingencies are handled by other federal agencies, and we are going to look specifically at some closed projects 

to see how the contingency funds that they had were actually 

spent. Were they used for contingencies or do they just cover cost 

overruns that relate more to problems with project management 

than to actual contingencies. So we are trying to dig very deeply 

into this issue that has just surfaced. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I just have a couple more questions, and we 

will submit others for the record. 

GRANTS MANAGEMENT

Some of NSF’s basic grant management activities decreased over 

the course of the last fiscal year. Site visits, for example, were 

down by 20 percent. 

What do you believe is the cause for this decrease in oversight 

activity? Is it tied to the workload burden of simultaneously managing stimulus grants with normal NSF activity and what do you 

believe has been the impact on the management of NSF grants 

generally? 

Ms. LERNER. NSF has indicated that they, instead of doing the 

30 site visits that they planned, they were only able to do 24 because of staffing, because of lack of resources. I do not know precisely how much money they have, but it seems to me that getting 

people out to do those visits should be a priority to NSF management. 

But I am concerned and have been concerned about the extent 

to which NSF staff has been stretched. You have got people who 

really care about what they do and who try to do the best they can, 

but they have a lot of work to do to start with. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
218 

And then with the stimulus activity being added on to it and no 

additional hiring being done in the administrative group, I think 

that people are being pushed to a level that is beyond their capability to do their job as well as they should. 

And we are starting a job right now to look at the extent to 

which the span of control of individual program officers has increased over time so that we can get a sense of how much these 

people used to have to do in the past and how much they are having to do now and what NSF is doing to make it so that, if as we 

suspect, they are having to do a lot more right now with less, what 

can NSF do to work smarter. 

I do not have the immediate answers, but I think it is a real concern that these people are stretched and we need to position them 

to be able to do their jobs well. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. I just have one last issue and then I will go 

to Mr. Fattah or any other members that have anything. And we 

will have other questions which we will submit for the record. 

DISSEMINATION OF STEM EDUCATION FINDINGS

NSF spends a lot of money and effort on research about how best 

to implement STEM education, creating model programs and developing curricula. But there are already many schools out there that 

are highly successful in STEM education and have figured out effective curricula and methods. 

That is why I had suggested that NSF get together some experts, 

identify those success stories, and focus on getting their methods 

replicated. 

Does this make more sense than investing so much effort in reinventing what these schools have already done? 

Ms. LERNER. It would certainly seem, you know. I know that 

there is a lot of question about overlap and effectiveness of those 

programs. And I think you raise a good question there. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, hopefully we can do that. We will ask them and 

you can raise it with them. 

I worry about, the country and whether we are falling behind. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. I mean, China graduated 700,000 engineers. We graduated only 70,000. Norm Augustine’s Gathering Storm report talks 

that about how last year, China graduated more English speaking 

engineers than we graduated. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. And America is falling behind. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. WOLF. And, yet, we know there are things out there that are 

working. When I go into schools and talk to the young people, there 

are some very positive things being done around the country that 

we could put out so that people could know where to go and so. 

Okay. Well, thank you for your testimony. Based on that, we will 

ask the FBI to look at the cybersecurity incidents. Tell them to 

keep us informed of any cyber attacks that are made. I think it 

should be publicized and not hidden, what attacks have been made 

and by what countries. Our FBI knows and NSA knows. 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
219 

Mr. WOLF. They know. They may not want you to say, but we 

should let people know. 

So we will ask the bureau to come over and do that. And then 

we will ask GAO to come over and look at some of these questions 

that we have raised. 

Mr. Fattah, do you have any thing else? 

Mr. FATTAH. I know we are going to move on. I want to ask some 

questions for the record. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 

DEEP UNDERGROUND SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING LABORATORY

Mr. FATTAH. One of the more successful efforts your office was 

involved in was looking at the ocean observatory initiative. And if 

you could supply some additional information about—— 

Ms. LERNER. Certainly. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. The issues there. And in South Dakota, 

I mentioned this earlier, I am on Energy and Water also, so—— 

Ms. LERNER. Uh-huh. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. There was a project which in the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy were 

going to collaborate—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. And which you have now decided, 

maybe for very good reasons, not to, and I do not know to what degree your office was involved, this is a program decision, so—— 

Ms. LERNER. Exactly. 

As the Ranking Member Mr. Fattah noted, NSF’s participation in DUSEL would 

be a program decision. The OIG does not have information pertaining to that matter. 

Mr. FATTAH. But if you have any information, we would be interested in it. And on the chairman’s point, one of the great programs 

that you have in terms of the development of scientists, this is 

women scientists, is a program where different institutions around 

the country have really become the focal point for getting young 

girls into—— 

Ms. LERNER. Right. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. STEM education. And I do not know 

whether you have looked at this for any particular reason, but I did 

want to mention it because I think it is one of the things that may 

be right up the chairman’s alley around some of the things that can 

be done to get populations that previously have not necessarily 

been at the very forefront of people’s minds in these areas engaged 

around them. 

So thank you for your testimony. 

And I thank the chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you have any follow up? 

Mr. CULBERSON. If I can very quickly. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
220 

CYBER SECURITY, CONTINUED

Mr. CULBERSON. I just wanted to confirm, make sure I understand that I heard you say you are increasingly concerned about 

cyber security at NSF. I heard you say that they do not have, it 

sounds like, any standardized policy for dealing with a threat once 

it is discovered. They thought it was standard—— 

Ms. LERNER. They have a policy, but I do not know if it is the 

best policy and I do not know if it is always followed. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. And also I did not hear you mention that 

they have any standardized policy to protect against attack. Apparently everything you mentioned were things they discovered after 

the fact. 

Ms. LERNER. They have patches, I mean, and they have monitoring. They were aware of the incident that occurred in December 

before the news occurred, hit the paper, but because they could 

see—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. After the fact. 

Ms. LERNER. They could—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. But my question is—— 

Ms. LERNER. Well, they could see the information being pulled 

out of the computers. So they are monitoring, but I think—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. But my—— 

Ms. LERNER [continuing]. They were not necessarily sensitive to 

why it might have been going. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, ma’am. Is NSF in the room? Sure. Okay. 

Great. We love you. We are devoted to you. But these are things 

when you come up, because truly you guys—our investment in the 

sciences and our space program and in encouraging kids to become 

scientists and engineers is what is going to save this Nation. So we 

are devoted to you. But this is really alarming. 

And the chairman is exactly right and Mr. Fattah. All of us are 

devoted to you, but this has got to stop. I mean, you have got to 

have obviously a policy in place to protect against attacks, which 

it sounds like you do not have, to handle them afterwards. Obviously there has been serious breaches of security attacks on NSF 

computers. 

And we are also, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, very concerned 

about when NSF comes in to talk to us that you are paying for 

work in advance before the work is done, that you are giving large 

sums of money to grantees before the research is done and do not 

have good accounting procedures in place to make sure that the 

money is actually being spent for the purpose for which either the 

contractor or the grantee applied for because dollars are so scarce. 

We are in a whole new environment. This is an age of austerity 

unlike anything this country has ever faced before. We want to 

help you and we are going to do everything we can to help you, but 

we just want to be absolutely certain, the committee wants to be 

certain every dollar we give you is actually reaching scientists and 

researchers that are going to do the work intended and that you 

are good stewards of our precious dollars and you are protecting 

the valuable intellectual property that you are stewards of. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LERNER. Thank you all. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
221 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 398 here 65531A.149
222 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 399 here 65531A.150
223 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 400 here 65531A.151
224 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 401 here 65531A.152
225 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 402 here 65531A.153
226 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 403 here 65531A.154
227 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 404 here 65531A.155
228 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 405 here 65531A.156
229 

Mr. WOLF. We are now going to hear from Paul Martin from 

NASA. 

Why don’t you proceed as you see fit. Your full statement will be 

on the record, and then there will be questions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(231) 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS 

PAUL K. MARTIN, INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 

OPENING REMARKS OF INSPECTOR GENERAL MARTIN

Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, and members of the 

Subcommittee: Today NASA finds itself in a state of significant uncertainty, particularly with respect to its Human Space Program. 

The immediate challenge facing NASA is managing the Agency’s 

broad portfolio of space, science, and aeronautics projects amid the 

continuing lack of clarity about its budget in 2011 and in the out 

years. 

Last month, we sent a letter to Congress describing conflicting 

directives in NASA’s 2010 Authorization Act and the continuing 

resolution that prevents the Agency from terminating Constellation 

contracts or initiating new space exploration programs. 

NASA officials told us that by March 1st they anticipate spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that had they been 

given a free hand, they would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back. 

Moreover, by the end of this fiscal year that figure could grow 

to more than $575 million if NASA is unable to move beyond the 

planning stages for its new Space Exploration Program. 

In our letter, we recommended that Congress take immediate action to address this situation, and we encourage this subcommittee 

to support a legislative solution as soon as possible. 

Moving on to the broader focus of this hearing, the OIG has identified the following as key issues facing NASA in 2011: The future 

of U.S. spaceflight; acquisition and project management; infrastructure and facilities management; human capital; information technology security; and financial management. 

My written statement contains a detailed discussion of these six 

challenges. Rather than restate that testimony, I offer three observations to provide context for our submission. 

First, with respect to spaceflight, NASA’s top priority is to safely 

complete the Space Shuttle’s two or three remaining flights. 

In addition, NASA is directed in the Authorization Act to develop 

a new space launch system and multipurpose crew vehicle that use 

Constellation and Shuttle technologies, ‘‘to the extent practicable.’’ 

At the same time, the agency continues its efforts to foster development of commercial cargo and crew capabilities. One key unanswered question is whether NASA will receive the level of funding 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
232 

necessary to address both of these priorities on an aggressive yet 

realistic time table. 

Second, NASA has historically struggled with establishing realistic cost and schedule estimates for its science and space exploration projects. The James Webb Space Telescope is the most recent example of this problem. 

In 2003, NASA said it planned to launch the Webb Telescope in 2011 at an estimated cost of $1.6 billion. However, last November 

an independent review concluded that the earliest possible launch 

date was September 2015. But even this date depended on the 

project making critical management changes and receiving an additional $500 million over the next two years. The new total estimated life cycle cost for the Webb Telescope: $6.5 billion. 

And third, it is important to keep in mind when evaluating 

NASA’s performance that for some projects it really is rocket 

science. And I say that both a bit humorously and a bit seriously. 

The engineering required for many of NASA’s science and space exploration projects is complex and visionary, but the agency must do 

a better job to manage costs and scheduling. 

To its credit, NASA has made a concerted effort over the past 

several years to improve its management practices and address 

these systemic weaknesses. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain. 

The Office of Inspector General is committed to providing independent, aggressive, and objective oversight as NASA seeks to meet 

these challenges. 

I would be pleased to answer the Subcommittee’s questions. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
233 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 337 here 65531A.138
234 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 338 here 65531A.139
235 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 339 here 65531A.140
236 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 340 here 65531A.141
237 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 341 here 65531A.142
238 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 342 here 65531A.143
239 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 343 here 65531A.144
240 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 344 here 65531A.145
241 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 345 here 65531A.146
242 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much. 

FINDING SAVINGS IN THE NASA BUDGET

From your perspective as Inspector General, what areas of the 

NASA budget would you recommend we look into as possible 

sources of budget savings? 

I think you have a subcommittee made up of people who are 

very, very supportive of NASA. I do not have a NASA facility in 

my congressional district, but, I think it is very, very important 

and I think that contribution to the country has been very, very 

important. 

And so knowing these tight times, what would you recommend 

that we look at if you have to eliminate? Also, in the process, are 

there programs where there is an overlap? Are NOAA and NASA 

doing the same thing, whereby NASA could do more of it and we 

could reduce the NOAA budget? Or NOAA would do it, and we 

would free up the NASA budget to put a man on Mars and keep 

faith with aeronautics? What are you thinking when you look at it 

from your perspective? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Let me tee up three areas. The first would be what I cited in my 

oral remarks and what we mentioned in our statement. And that 

is the conundrum created by the conflict between the holdover language in the CR that does not allow NASA to terminate the current Constellation contracts and begin a new program with the directives contained in NASA’s 2010 Authorization Act. 

There are big dollars at stake. I think NASA, to its credit, is 

doing what it can at this point to redirect those Constellation contracts to areas that it hopes will be part of the next Space Exploration Program, but they need to be freed from these constraints. 

So I think that is the first issue. And, again, there are significant 

dollars there. 

Secondly, and I also touched on this, NASA must do a better job 

with its project management both in its cost estimations at the 

front end and its project management as the project moves forward. 

I think the taxpayers, and certainly this Committee and the public, have the right to know that if we are going to do really groundbreaking technological science like James Webb, and it really is 

ground-breaking, NASA needs to inform the public we can do 

James Webb, but we can do it for $3 billion or $5 billion. 

And so NASA and Congress can make a decision with the limited 

resources whether that is where we want to expend our dollars. 

But to go into a program, even something as visionary as James 

Webb, and estimate that it is going to cost $1.6 billion and then 

find yourself ten years later multiple years behind schedule and 

several billion dollars above estimate is just not the way to run a 

railroad. 

So some of these projects are incredibly expensive and incredibly 

visionary and incredibly important. And NASA should be on the 

cutting edge, but they need to do a better job at the front end saying this is our business case, this is our best cost estimating, and 

as the project moves forward managing those resources. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
243 

And, third, I would cite as an area for possible cost savings, 

NASA has at least ten facilities, NASA Centers spread out across 

the country. I would cite the aging infrastructure. NASA has over 

5,400 buildings, laboratories, warehouses, and facilities. Eighty 

percent of NASA facilities are over 40 years old. There is a tremendous amount of what they call deferred maintenance. NASA spends 

about $300 million every year just fixing the roof and plugging the 

holes, sort of mandatory maintenance. There is $2.5 billion worth 

of deferred maintenance, major renovations, repairs, or demolitions 

and construction that need to happen. 

In the 2010 NASA authorization bill, Congress directed NASA to 

deliver a report by October of this year taking a hard look at 

NASA’s facilities, trying to identify redundancies, areas that we 

could downsize (I do not like to use the word right size) but looking 

at ways to handle this infrastructure problem because, again, with 

$2.5 billion in deferred maintenance, given the tight economic 

times, that number is only going to increase. 

So those would be the three areas I would cite. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. Well, it would be helpful if you had the report 

before October. Maybe you could ask NASA to update the Committee or the Subcommittee on a continuing basis. 

OIG FINDINGS ON CONSTELLATION SPENDING UNDER THE CR

On the Constellation spending, I have a question. NASA Headquarters told us they disagree with your findings, and they believe 

that they have appropriately targeted their contracts to activities 

that would be directly applicable to the new exploration program 

or are required to maintain a minimal level of program readiness. 

How do you respond to this contention? How do the data and 

methodology you used differ from what NASA is using to reach the 

opposite conclusion? I think this really has to be resolved. You cannot have he said, he said. We have got to resolve this thing. So 

what is your response to the NASA comments? 

Mr. MARTIN. I read the two-page NASA clarification, and I find 

it a bit ironic. Here is our methodology in coming up with the numbers that are in our letter. 

We went to the NASA people, the people running the Constellation Program, the people at Headquarters who the Constellation 

Program reports to, and we said given the conundrum created by 

the CR, the provision in the CR, along with the new directive in 

the NASA 2010 Authorization bill, if you were freed, if you had the 

ability to close down Constellation contracts and move in this new 

direction, what spending that you are doing now wouldn’t you do. 

These are their numbers. These are their answers. They are not 

our answers. They are not the Inspector General’s policy call about 

which money is not being used efficiently. That is our methodology, 

asking the program people. 

CHALLENGES WITH COST ESTIMATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Mr. WOLF. NASA continues to experience major challenges in accurately estimating costs and then managing programs to stay 

within the estimates. In the fiscal 2010 review of NASA’s costliest 

projects, the GAO found that 10 of the 19 projects have experienced 

overruns, with an average budget overrun of over 19 percent and 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
244 

an average schedule delay of 15 months. NASA implemented a new 

cost estimation policy in 2009 that is intended to produce more rigorous and realistic budget projections for major missions. 

When do you believe we can begin assessing whether this policy 

has actually improved the accuracy of NASA’s cost estimates? 

Mr. MARTIN. I think given the dollars involved and the importance, we need to start doing that right now. I think with two or 

three years under their belt, we will have some sense of whether 

their new procedures are effective. 

Again, as I mentioned at the outset, some of these more innovative, visionary projects, whether the technology is not mature and 

whether there is just not sound management practices, it is a very 

big issue. 

We have recently opened a new audit that is going to examine 

the role of project managers at NASA: do they have the appropriate 

experience, the appropriate training, are they given the appropriate 

authority to make the difficult calls as they manage these projects. 

Mr. WOLF. Okay. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NASA AUTHORIZATION ACT

We have been concerned about the Administration’s hostility toward manned spaceflight and exploration over the past two years. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget would have effectively 

ended NASA’s exploration program. However, the NASA authorization that the Congress passed explicitly mandates a strong exploration program. 

Do you believe that NASA is, to the best of its ability, complying 

with the exploration provisions of NASA’s authorization of last 

year? 

Mr. MARTIN. I do. Again, we have the conundrum that we articulated in our January 13th letter. I think they are doing about as 

well as they can under the constraint and the prohibitive language 

in the existing CR to try to effectuate what the new directive is in 

the 2010 authorization. But, frankly, they are between a rock and 

a hard place. 

Mr. WOLF. Have they come up to speak to the authorizers? If 

they do not agree with you, obviously they have not come up to say 

that. 

Mr. MARTIN. Excuse me. They do agree. They agree with the bottom line that NASA, this provision, the holdover provision in the 

CR needs to be removed. There is complete agreement. 

What they are dickering with a bit are the numbers. We cited 

it as politely as possible, ‘‘potential inefficient use of taxpayers’ 

funds,’’ the $215 million number and the $575 million number. 

That is what they are attempting to clarify. But they are not attempting to clarify, they agree a hundred percent, that this limitation in the current CR needs to be removed. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you have any recommendations on how NASA can 

achieve its exploration objectives beyond low earth orbit? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Wolf, I really do not. As a lawyer and as an Inspector General, we do not do policy. We do not, you know, say 

‘‘commercial crew development’’ versus keeping it in house at 

NASA. That is not really our role there. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
245 

Mr. WOLF. Then do we bring in four or five of the best minds in 

the country who are not connected to the issue that can look at this 

thing? Because we need a strong space program for military reasons and for other reasons. 

How do you bring clarity? Quite frankly, I am not so sure, with 

due respect to the Congress, that the Congress knows precisely 

what to do. If you had a very serious disease that no one could figure out, we would send you up to Johns Hopkins or maybe bring 

some of the very best people in the country to look at your case to 

make a recommendation. 

We know we want to have a manned space exploration program. 

I think everyone in the country agrees, except for maybe a handful. 

The science advisor at the White House may not be in that group, 

but everybody else agrees. 

How do we do it without this back and forth? 

Maybe you cannot answer that now, but it has got to be answered. You cannot just kick the can down the road. 

Mr. MARTIN. It needs to be answered. After spending about a 

dozen years at the Department of Justice, I have been Inspector 

General, at the NASA OIG for about a year now and it has just 

been fascinating. 

But there are starkly different policy-based visions, and I think 

everyone is of good faith, about what is the most appropriate and 

effective use of the taxpayers’ money moving forward. Should 

NASA really be a test bed of research and innovation and should 

it fund the commercial sector for some of the low earth orbit both 

cargo and crew? 

And NASA should think about this. Some of the legislative language they use funds the R&D for some of these sort of game 

changing technologies that could get us to Mars and beyond, is that 

NASA’s primary role while encouraging commercial, or should 

NASA continue as it has historically by building or contracting out 

and keeping under its purview the actual, you know, rockets and 

flight instruments themselves. And these visions really are conflicting. I think the Authorization Act attempts to bring them both 

together. 

Mr. WOLF. Do you think it did? 

Mr. MARTIN. I do not know about the science yet. But I do not 

know in these funding times whether this compromise, this sort of 

shotgun marriage, is going to be funded adequately to achieve this, 

on the kind of timetable that Congress is looking for, the capability 

to move beyond low earth orbit. I just do not know. 

I am not sure you can split the pie that NASA is going to get 

and say, well, we are going to give this amount to commercial crew 

and we are going to give this amount to NASA to fund its own 

heavy lift system. 

Mr. WOLF. Well, just think about it. If there are things that 

NASA is doing that are not part of the organic act, you could then 

take those resources to put them into what the authorization said. 

But let me just turn it over to Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said that what 

NASA is doing is, in large measure, actually rocket science, which 

I thought was a great line. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
246 

Mr. MARTIN. We used to use that, excuse me, over at the Department of Justice where we are saying it is not rocket science. 

Well—— 

Mr. FATTAH. I got you. And I want to use that analogy, I want 

to use that analogy in my own way. Which is that, you know, I 

really love the programs side of this. You have got a much tougher 

job. And people are generally not fans of auditors. So I want to 

focus on the purpose of NASA, all right? Because I went to the 

greatest high school in the world, Overbrook High School in Philadelphia. And we got a lot of attention because a great basketball 

player went there, Wilt Chamberlain. But we had another guy by 

the name of Guion Bluford, who ended up being an astronaut. He 

led one of the shuttle missions and he did not even get the same 

attention as a great basketball player, but he is a fantastic scientist. He went to Penn State, too. And I note that you went to 

Penn State. And I spent a few years on the Board of Trustees at 

Penn State. And it is a great university. The Creamery on the campus is the best deal. 

Mr. WOLF. And who is the coach there now? I am not sure who. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think they have a new coach. 

Mr. WOLF. I went to Penn State, and the same coach who was 

there when I was there—— 

Mr. FATTAH. He is still there. He is still there. 

Mr. MARTIN. When our children go to Penn State he will still be 

coaching. 

Mr. FATTAH. But let me just try to work with this rocket science 

deal, right? Because I think that sometimes those of us here in the 

Congress kind of forget that we are all kind of human and there 

are realities to some of this. We went to build the Capitol Visitor 

Center. I was in the Visitor Center this morning. When the first 

budget was released, it was going to be $200 million and it was 

going to be finished in 2005. Well, you know, it came in at $600 

million, $600.5 million, and it cost a lot more money, and this was 

not rocket science. This was just brick and mortar, right here, on 

earth, right? 

So you know, when you are talking about taking a human being 

and sending them out into space, it is a challenging thing. The 

technology for how to get that done, originally when President Kennedy set the original mission, nobody knew how to do it then. I 

mean, it kind of was the investment in our belief in ourselves that 

moved the country into this effort successfully. And I think that it 

is a challenge. 

When we went to Iraq, I do not know if you recall, but there 

were estimates given to the Congress about what the war was 

going to cost us. And it did not pan out that way. So I do not want 

anyone here to think that because NASA misjudges the finances on 

a particular project that somehow, that is different than the rest 

of the government. Because we often miss the mark. But it is not 

so much in the numbers. It is really in the overall purpose that we 

have to kind of keep focused on here. Right? 

So the Chairman says, you know, look, we need to have a space 

program. I mean, we are not in this world all by ourselves. We 

have allies, and we have potential adversaries, actual adversaries. 

We have circumstances that we have to manage on behalf of a 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
247 

great nation. So we have a responsibility here, and we just ought 

to be careful about how we proceed. 

Now you say that, and I think your letter to the Congress was 

a courageous act because the truth is that we can want to tilt the 

blame in any particular direction. It is really that Congress has 

been the one that has provided the lack of clarity. 

Now it is good that we have an authorizing bill, and our committee waited for us to have one. And I think that that is the direction we are going to head in. And we are going to make the wedding, shotgun or not, work out. That is our job, to make it work. 

But we have to take our foot off first base. So in the case of Constellation, at some point having the agency waste money that we 

know is a waste on a project that we have determined is not going 

to happen does not make any sense, especially in a climate where 

we say we do not want to waste money, that we want to cut spending. 

So we just need to assert the truth in the simplest fashion here. 

One is that there is not going to be in the realm of science a kind 

of perfection around cost that we may desire. We cannot even find 

it in the normal activities of the government, so we are not going 

to find it in this particular activity in which costs are in many 

ways immeasurable. I mean, when you start talking about taking 

a human being now, and not in lower orbit but into deep space, and 

the technology leaps that we will have to make to do that, which 

is what I think is really grand about what the President has put 

forward. It really is to set a mark and a destination that would 

cause the agency to kind of renew its commitment and renew the 

country’s covenant with it to really be the premier science agency 

in the world in terms of space flight. 

So I think that we should invest in the technology. And just like 

it was true many years ago, we did not know what the end result 

was going to be, and we did not know exactly how it was going to 

work out, but there was a belief in our ability to do it. So I just 

think that as you go and you look through your work—and I think 

it is appreciated—the main point, I think, is your letter to the Congress, that we need to provide some clarity. And we cannot steal 

second base without taking your foot off first. And we need to, if 

we want to save money, we have now passed an authorization, the 

White House has signed it, the United States Government has a 

firm commitment about how we want to proceed. So what we need 

to do therefore is stop spending money on something we have already decided we are not going to do. And that would seem to be 

the most commonsense way to proceed. And that is not rocket 

science. 

So I want to thank you for the work you are doing. I know that 

you are relatively new to this work in NASA. I am interested in 

this facilities issue because I do not have a, like the chairman, I 

do not have a NASA facility in my district. So this is not a jobs 

issue for me. There are no people working in my district relative 

to the space industry. I think this is purely a matter of national 

imperative. And we should be thinking about, you know, how we 

can, within the question of moving forward, if you have got fortyyear-old facilities, I mean, there is no question. There was an article last week about one of our economic competitors and major inVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:52 May 19, 2011 Jkt 065531 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A531P2.XXX A531P2

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
248 

vestments in space. We should not be proud of the fact that the 

majority of these facilities are forty years-plus in age, and we 

should be looking to how we can make some sense about how we 

go forward. 

And I know that some of my colleagues here from Alabama and 

Texas and Florida have a particular interest, but I think we have 

to think about how we modernize the agency with a modern mission. I do not see how it can possibly be a partisan matter. This 

is a matter that really should unify the country and unify the Congress. 

So I want to thank you for your testimony. I do not have particular questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Culberson. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We really appreciate 

your work. We are all devoted to the space program but because, 

as if you were in earlier have heard us talk about the scale of the 

financial problem the country faces is an age of austerity really unlike anything we have ever faced before. Is NASA in the room? I 

hope NASA is in here somewhere. Is NASA here? Oh, okay. Because it is important that NASA hear what we are discussing and 

the questions that they can anticipate. And I know we will be, we 

will have, the chairman is going to sit down and the ranking member before we actually bring the administrator in. 

CONFLICTING VISIONS FOR NASA

I wanted to, if I could, ask about a couple of areas, Inspector 

General Martin. The, I heard you say a moment ago there are 

starkly different policies, ideas, about the direction NASA should 

go, whether or not it focuses on commercial and R&D, or is space 

exploration. Did you mean within the agency you are aware of 

starkly, are you talking about in general with Congress and the administration, or within NASA? 

Mr. MARTIN. I was just responding to the Chairman’s suggestion, 

should we bring a panel in. You know—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh, okay—— 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. The facility of that. I think Congress, 

through its Authorization Act, has brought some clarity to what is 

the objective, what is the mission. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am just saying if you brought a panel in—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. You would have the problem of some 

might be for—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Okay. 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. A more commercial route versus keeping it in house. And that is the tension. 

Mr. CULBERSON. One thing I know that has concerned me and 

other members of the subcommittee and the Congress was that the 

administration abruptly about a year ago just announced that they 

were essentially shifting completely over into this commercial 

arena without coming to Congress, without any prior warning. We 

were, of course the Congress strongly resisted that. And we as a 

Congress have endorsed very strongly the idea of a manned space 

flight program as the principal mission of NASA, space exploration 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
249 

and a manned space flight program. And with Mr. Wolf’s leadership we were able to get that language in the authorization bill 

that NASA was going to build a heavy lift vehicle to go beyond low 

earth orbit and to develop a manned capsule. 

However, I continue to get reports back from NASA field offices, 

from the flight centers, that there is a continuing problem, it was 

particularly bad last year with the NASA administrators, people at 

headquarters, despite what Congress had put in the law, continue 

to attempt to shut down major sectors of the work being done on 

the heavy lift rocket. Could you talk about that? Is that still going 

on? Is NASA and the administration following the statute? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well again, I think you tee up the problem which 

is detailed in our letter. We have two conflicting statutes. We have 

the CR, which directs NASA—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MARTIN [continuing]. And—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Specifically the Constellation. 

Mr. MARTIN. Correct. And so they need to keep funding those 

Constellation contracts, be it Ares I, Ares V, or the Orion crew vehicle. So under law, under the existing law, they are required to 

continue funding. Now there is discussion about what amount you 

have to keep funding them. I mean, they had projections of hundreds of millions of dollars for each of these parts of the Constellation contracts. I think they have appropriately scaled those back 

trying to anticipate what is going to be the architecture for the 

heavy lift that is called for in the Authorization Act. But these are 

in direct conflict. 

Mr. CULBERSON. The statute signed by the President though, let 

me make sure I understand, would that not be a later enacted statute, the authorization act signed into law, that, the CR is of course 

ongoing and still in effect. But then we passed a statute that is 

very specific. You are an attorney—— 

Mr. MARTIN. I am. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. And I just recall in looking in other 

cases where you have conflicting statutes the one that was signed 

later and is more specific wins. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think as a general rule of statutory or congressional construction, that would be correct. But I think you, the 

problem here is you have an authorizing act that sets the policy direction. And then you have an appropriations act which talks about 

how you are able to spend the funds. And so the conflict is on the 

policy level. 

Mr. CULBERSON. But both, the CR language was statutory, I 

think. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Excuse me, the language in the last appropriations bill that you are referring to was statutory, and this is a later 

enacted statute. It is more specific. 

Mr. FATTAH. But Mr. Chairman, maybe I can help you out here? 

Mr. CULBERSON. No, please. Help me. I would love to get this 

straight. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me help you out here. It does not matter what 

you say in that authorizing bill. What counts is what the appropriators have said. And what we have said in this instance is to the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
250 

contrary. We have said in the CR that they cannot initiate any new 

program—— 

Mr. CULBERSON. Mm-hmm. 

Mr. FATTAH [continuing]. Or cancel any existing program. So you 

have an authorizing bill that says that we have worked this out 

and we know which way we want to go. That is where the conflict 

comes in. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, and we are going to try to fix that, I 

think. 

Mr. FATTAH. In a couple of weeks, we are going to pass a new 

CR. We can fix it or we can pass a new bill. 

Mr. CULBERSON. I think we are, in fact. I know Chairman 

Wolf—— 

Mr. FATTAH. Whatever we are going to do. But they cannot solve 

this problem. This is our problem. And we have to decide how we 

want to proceed. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah, I just wanted to explore it with Mr. Martin. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON. You are right, Mr. Fattah. And I think that, I 

am confident the bill that we are going to pass is going to give clarification of that, to ensure that the authorization act is the one that 

prevails and that we follow. The question of clarity then absolutely 

is essential. And the cost estimates, are you satisfied that NASA’s 

ability to, that the programs and the policies that they have put 

in place are going to give us more realistic cost estimates at the 

outset of these major flagship missions? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am hopeful. I am hopeful. Of course, as an IG’s 

office we are going to keep auditing and reviewing and pushing 

them that way. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Right. 

Mr. MARTIN. And to just comment on something Congressman 

Fattah indicated, I think NASA needs, the American people need, 

to have a visionary agency. So I was not being overly critical that 

they are starting a project like James Webb. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Oh we understand, sure. 

Mr. MARTIN. I just think we need to be more disciplined about 

how, and sort of put up front. Because one of the problems you run 

into with these significant cost overruns in the James Webb Space 

Telescope Program is it is frankly going to eat the lunch potentially 

of other important science programs. There are only so many dollars to go around. 

FINDING SAVINGS IN THE NASA BUDGET, CONTINUED

Mr. CULBERSON. Mm-hmm. Do you have specific recommendations that you could give us? There is a, the committee is going to 

produce a continuing resolution very rapidly. It is being written 

right now. Specific ideas or recommendations that you could give 

us for cost savings for the agency that would enable us to meet the 

charge that Chairman Wolf has to produce savings for all the agencies under our jurisdiction while preserving an agency that is vital 

to the national security of the country and that we are all devoted 

to. Have you got specific suggestions, Mr. Martin, that you could 

give Chairman Wolf and our very capable, professional staff, like, 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
251 

right now that could help us find some savings without damaging 

or injuring NASA’s core mission? 

Mr. MARTIN. I would be pleased to work with Diana and Bob and 

the staff to try to come up with some discrete answers, I have mentioned three overarching issues here. 

Mr. CULBERSON. We need real specific—— 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. 

Mr. CULBERSON [continuing]. Real quickly. 

Mr. MARTIN. We will do what we can. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUDGET SAVINGS WITHIN NASA PROGRAMS

• Removal of the language in the Continuing Resolution currently funding NASA 

that prevents the Agency from terminating Constellation Program contracts or initiating new space exploration programs. This will allow NASA to more efficiently allocate its funds to address the directives in NASA’s 2010 Authorization Bill that require the Agency to develop a Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. • NASA must exhibit greater discipline in managing its science and space exploration programs by, among other things, developing firm requirements, establishing 

more realistic cost and schedule estimates, and ensuring technologies are sufficiently mature before proceeding through development. • NASA should take a realistic look at its sprawling infrastructure and aging facilities, assess those aspects it needs to retain and potentially upgrade, and develop 

an aggressive plan to ‘‘right size’’ the Agency’s footprint to meet future challenges. 

Absent such an effort, NASA’s facilities will not be used effectively or efficiently, 

and the Agency’s deferred maintenance expense will continue to grow from its current estimate of $2.5 billion. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Yeah. And again, as we always stress, while 

protecting their core mission. I frankly, Mr. Chairman, really want 

to discuss this further. I have mentioned this to you before, and I 

want to talk to other committee members about it. I think ultimately in this environment, this age of austerity that we are entering which is unlike anything the nation has ever faced before, that 

we are going to need to look very carefully, as Mr. Wolf said, at 

combining some of the functions of, for example, NOAA. Why is not 

NASA responsible for the polar satellites, and the weather satellites? And the Coast Guard, for example, responsible for the 

oceanography mission of NOAA? That we are going to have to 

think about consolidating all sorts of things. The facilities that are 

80 percent of them over forty years old. We are going to have to 

look very, very hard at how do we protect the core function of 

NASA to have a vigorous, not just vigorous, the very best manned 

space flight capability in the world. And the very best robotics missions in the world. 

And in my mind the statute, the statute is there. We I think are 

going to need to protect the decadal survey missions. One way in 

my mind, and I wonder if you could just offer any comment, Mr. 

Martin, and I will pass on and yield my time, Mr. Chairman. If can 

you comment on the, if we are short of money and we were going 

to focus on manned space flight, and then we wanted to try to preserve the very, the best robotic missions, the most important 

robotic missions like Webb and others. To my mind we should focus 

on the decadal survey recommendations because that is an independent recommendation of all the best scientists in the world 

prioritizing the missions in separate categories, and would allow us 

to preserve NASA’s ability to fly those top missions in an era where 

we just really do not have the money. Could you comment on that? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
252 

Mr. MARTIN. I cannot comment on, you know, the priorities in 

the science program or really, you know, some of these major policy 

decisions. I can offer that NASA takes quite seriously the results 

of the decadal survey. And tees up to the extent they can, they 

have different tiers of priorities. The National Science Foundation, 

or whoever puts the decadal survey together, does. I know NASA 

takes those recommendations quite seriously. 

Mr. CULBERSON. Well I look forward to working with you, and 

thank you for what you do. And coming up with some short term 

recommendations, and then for the longer term as we produce a 

bill for the 2012 fiscal year. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Bonner. 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Serrano and I just came from 

meeting with the Inspector General of the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. And since we both got to this a little bit after Mr. 

Martin had started his testimony I am going to tee this up with 

first of all by saying I think everyone on this committee, Democrat, 

Republican, all sections of the country, certainly value what NASA 

means to our country, both our past and certainly for the future. 

But in talking with the Inspector General of the SEC he was going 

through some examples of some of the things that he had uncovered in terms of troubling expenditures, waste. A $15 million lease 

in Manhattan, which the gentleman from the Bronx pointed out in 

Manhattan terms is not that much money, but in Mobile, Alabama 

terms or in the Bronx terms it is a lot of money. $15 million for 

a lease of an office that they have not had a single employee in for 

the last five years. 

Can you give us, because again we all support NASA. But have 

you uncovered during your time as the Inspector General some examples that as taxpayers we all should be concerned about that the 

agency needs to be more focused on in this time, as Mr. Culberson 

said, of austerity? How can the, how can NASA look inside and find 

some of its own misappropriations of funds? 

Mr. MARTIN. Right. I do not want to repeat the areas about 

project management and about the conundrum created by the conflicting legislation. So those would be things I would put out number one. NASA also has a program called the SBIR Program. And 

these are grants for small business innovative research. And we 

have done a recent audit looking at the internal controls there. Our 

recommendation is that NASA can do a much better job improving 

the internal controls to ensure, number one, that the right people 

are getting the grants that they are qualified for. Number two, that 

they are producing meaningful research. And number three, that 

the expenses that they are charging the government are appropriate. We found over $2 million in unallowable or unsupportable 

costs. 

We also made recommendations about the lack of internal controls. NASA is just one of eleven federal agencies that are involved 

in the SBIR program. And some of the criminal investigations we 

have done over time have found individuals who would apply for 

an SBIR grant through NASA would also apply through another 

agency, turn the same term paper, the same research into both, 

and collect from both. So the agencies involved in this program 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
253 

need to talk and need to cooperate more to ensure that that kind 

of fraud does not occur. 

Mr. BONNER. And then just one more question at this time. You 

said in your written statement, the third paragraph, ‘‘the most immediate challenge facing NASA’s leadership is to manage the agency’s portfolio of space and science missions amid the continuing 

lack of clarity caused by conflicting legislative directives in the authorization act and a holdover provision in NASA’s fiscal year 2010 

appropriation law.’’ You have, in talking with Mr. Fattah and also 

with Mr. Wolf, you have addressed that as a concern. And I know 

your role as the inspector general is different than the administrator’s role or the President’s role or our role in Congress. But as the 

father of a fifteen-year-old daughter, and a soon to be this weekend 

thirteen-year-old son, I sometimes am having conversations, I am 

in no way drawing an analogy that NASA is our child. But we are 

proud of what NASA has accomplished. And I draw analogies to 

when my kids come to me telling me they want to do this, that, 

and the other. And my wife and I always say, ‘‘Well, when you 

make up your mind come back to us and we will talk.’’ Is the most 

immediate challenge the conflict between the authorization law 

and the appropriations, the CR? Or is it that we have yet to have 

someone like President Kennedy did in the 1960’s help give us a 

vision of where NASA will go in the next forty years? 

Because we all touch on it. We are concerned about what our 

friends and some of the people who are not our friends in other 

countries are doing in terms of investing in their space programs. 

Do we have a, from your perspective, I know you are not policy. 

But from your perspective, having been on the job, do you see a 

clarity of vision and purpose for NASA today? Because I know I am 

older than you are. But when I was a child and could sit around 

the TV set, and people would come from all over the community to 

watch those space launches, and those first steps on the moon, and 

the exciting days of the shuttle program. Even if we did not know 

all of the science that was being conducted, and all of the research 

that was being done that would change our life, there was an excitement about that vision. I do not see the vision, personally. But 

I would love for you to tell me I am wrong. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well again, as an inspector general, and as an inspector general who has been on the job for a little over a year I 

do not think I am qualified—— 

Mr. BONNER. That is a long time. 

Mr. MARTIN. On some levels it seems like yesterday, on some levels it seems like a lifetime ago. I cannot really address that. I think 

it would be inappropriate for me to address and kind of check the 

vision of NASA and NASA’s employees. I will say that NASA, excuse me, that the Congress has provided a roadmap and a blueprint in its 2010 Authorization bill and frankly has given marching 

orders for NASA. Now to what extent NASA at large has embraced 

those marching orders? I think they are absolutely following them. 

But again, when I talk about the most critical issue facing NASA 

it is a short term issue. NASA has to know what its funding 

stream is going to be. It needs to be freed from the constraints of 

funding the prior Constellation program so that it can begin to put 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
254 

resources into the new blueprint outlined in the 2010 Authorization 

Act. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you. I think Mr. Bonner really made a good 

point, though. And I feel the same way, too. I remember when I 

came to Washington and my parents came to visit me. We actually 

drove by John Glenn’s house, and it was so exciting to say, that 

he lived in Arlington, by Little Falls. And I think you are exactly 

right. There is not that feeling anymore. Mr. Serrano. 

Mr. SERRANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too apologize for my 

brief appearance here, being late and then leaving early. But you 

know how that works with all these subcommittees. And thank you 

for your service and for your testimony. 

IMPACT ON NASA OF MAJOR BUDGET REDUCTIONS

Inspecter General Martin, I do not envy, and this is in no way 

an attack, they know me better than that. I do not envy the majority party in the role they have taken to cut across the board incredible amounts of dollars. And some of those cuts will affect people 

and we will deal with that as time goes on, and they are very painful. But NASA, and any cuts to NASA, dramatic cuts to NASA is 

a very interesting situation. Because when the President talks 

about competing with other countries in the future and staying on 

top of our game, NASA to me is right there at the center of that 

competition and that preparation. 

And it is interesting that we are discussing this here because the 

chairman has made a career, and I say that in a respectful way, 

of singling out what happens with the People’s Republic of China, 

and how they treat their people, and how they interact with us, 

and how they in many cases attack us. And so we can bet that 

right now in China, and I am beginning to sound like him, there 

is the equivalent of NASA, not worrying about budget cuts, but 

worrying about how strong they are going to become in what they 

do and what they produce and what they invent. Because NASA 

has given us a lot, and it is not just Tang or Velcro, it is much 

more than that. Although those are very important. 

So without putting you in the middle of the budget cutting debate, you looked for waste, you looked for fraud, but you also must 

have an idea of how much an agency could sustain in a cut. Can 

NASA sustain the cuts that we hear may be proposed and remain 

viable? When the President says we have to compete he is basically 

saying there are some areas you could leave alone. Could we accomplish that? Or are we all dreaming that the cuts will come 

across the board and affect everybody the same? How much of a 

cut can NASA take? Not in dollars, but in getting away from their 

mission? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am going to apologize up front, Mr. Serrano. I cannot really address that because I do not know what level of cuts 

that the Congress is anticipating. But in addition it is a question 

really of prioritizing what the Congress does not want NASA to do. 

NASA can only do so much with the sizable budget that the Congress appropriates. So what science, what sort of visionary science 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
255 

programs or projects, or satellites, or missions to Mars does the 

Congress not want to make a priority for NASA? It is—— 

Mr. SERRANO. And do you feel we have given NASA too much to 

do? Or do you think they can handle their mission right now? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well again that is—— 

Mr. SERRANO. Before the cuts. 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. I do not think you have given NASA too much 

to do. NASA, again, and I keep using the word, really is a visionary 

place with people who are excited. There is no place like it in the 

United States, on earth, for both its history and its importance. So 

there are people clamoring to work at NASA and they can come up 

with, as Carl Sagan would say, billions and billions of projects to 

do. So no, I do not think you have given NASA too much to do. 

Mr. SERRANO. Right. And I, this may shock Mr. Culberson because he does not remember the last time I agreed with him on 

something, although we agree on a lot, especially on immigration, 

but that is another issue. He is cutting immigration funding enforcement, too. 

Mr. MARTIN. I hung up my DOJ hat. 

Mr. SERRANO. Yes, right. But I agree that maybe part of what 

we do is take a closer look at where there is overlapping responsibilities. Why are satellites handled by two folks when only one 

folks? 

It reminds me of this whole technology that you are so good at 

dealing with. I mean, there used to be an iPod, and there used to 

be a cell phone. And now each one of them can take pictures, can 

get you music. And you wonder, ‘‘Okay, do I need them all? Or do 

I just need one?’’ You know? I have a Walkman. I still have seventy-eight records, you know? Do you know why they were called 

albums? Do you know why? Because the seventy-eights used to go 

into an album, and you put six of them, which were twelve songs, 

and it was an actual album. I am the king of worthless information. Okay. I am. I have information you do not need. 

ETHICAL CONFLICTS AT NASA

Let me ask you a question on this whole issue of ethical responsibilities. There was a report that showed there were contractors 

working alongside NASA employees, and then in many cases NASA 

employees then went on to get jobs in the private sector that may 

or may not have been influenced by their working along with these 

folks. Now this is an issue across the government. The whole idea 

of contractors, and what rules they follow as compared to the federal employees, and how much they get paid, and their benefits, 

and what does that. So is there anything being done about looking 

at what ethical issues may come up in having that kind of a situation, where you have these folks working side by side and then 

some folks leaving later? 

Mr. MARTIN. It is an incredibly important issue and one that the 

Office of Inspector General stresses. We, our investigations division 

in particular, attacks any allegations of improper ethical conduct. 

I think the Agency does a pretty good job in ensuring that the employees, especially those that are dealing first hand with the contractors, are aware of their ethical responsibilities and obligations. 

But it is, as you see in the cases that we do, where senior members 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
256 

of NASA are convicted for improper use and improper influence. 

And so it is something that we just need to be continually vigilant 

on. 

Mr. SERRANO. So we know the number of contractors that work 

alongside NASA employees? I mean, is it a large number? Is—— 

Mr. MARTIN. It is a very large number. Eighty-five percent of 

NASA’s funds are pushed out to contractors. 

Mr. SERRANO. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

NEED FOR ENTITLEMENT REFORM

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. I am going to call on Mr. 

Aderholt, but I wanted to say that I am glad Mr. Serrano said 

what he said. I think he makes a very, very valid point. I think 

we are coming to a time when both parties are going to have to 

address this, as well as the audience, which is made up of probably 

a lot of contractors and people in the business. Everyone is going 

to have to face this. Simon and Garfunkel sang a song in Central 

Park called ‘‘The Boxer.’’ And it says ‘‘a man hears what he wants 

to hear and disregards the rest.’’ The reality is we can never solve 

these problems until you deal with the entitlements, if you do not 

look at Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. 

I gave a speech on the floor the other day saying that if I had 

the opportunity to serve on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, I 

would have supported the recommendations. Because I am afraid 

of what is taking place. You are going to squeeze programs that are 

so important to keep up. And as Mr. Serrano says, the Chinese now 

have 200,000 engineers working on their space program, and we 

only have about 90,000 or 95,000. We are falling behind. And as 

a father of five and grandfather of fifteen, I worry about where this 

country is. 

And so we need to deal with that. In the Senate, you had Tom 

Coburn, who I think is a good senator, and Dick Durbin both support what was in the Commission recommendations. Until you deal 

with the entitlement issue, you are making all of the cuts out of 

a very small, one-fifth or maybe one-sixth piece of the budget. 

There is a piece by Niall Ferguson, a great historian, who says 

great nations decline rapidly once the decline begins. I do not want 

to stand by and see my country basically decline. I will send a copy 

of the piece to every member of the Committee. I was disappointed 

with the President. The President set up this commission and then 

he walked away from it. He should force the Congress to address 

it, and the Congress should force him to address it. I think we can 

do it in a bipartisan way that literally saves the country. 

But if we, and as Mr. Serrano said, are not putting the money 

into math and science and physics and chemistry, into the space 

program, and investing, the decline comes. And I do not want to 

see our nation decline. Willie Sutton the bank robber said he 

robbed banks because that is where the money was. To make the 

necessary savings, to have a renaissance in this nation and to have 

a space program that has the excitement that Mr. Bonner is talking about really requires that we deal with the entitlements. The 

member who tells you he is going to solve the problems here by 

going after earmarks and waste, fraud, and abuse has missed the 

whole point. And I think the constituents have to say, well, that 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
257 

is not going to solve the problem. Otherwise we will see this nation 

begin to slip. And I do not want to be here, or ten or fifteen years 

from now sitting on a rocking chair in the Shenandoah Valley, 

while my grandkids come up and say, ‘‘You know, you were there. 

How did you deal with it?’’ The answer is that we should come together in a bipartisan way to deal with Medicare, Medicaid, and 

Social Security so we can continue to have other investments. 

If we continue the current process without looking at the entitlements, I will tell you another group that is going to suffer. The 

poor. In the tax bill that the Obama administration and the Republicans in this Congress supported that I voted against about a 

month ago, the 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax for social security gave a break to Jimmy Buffet and Warren Buffett. That cost 

us $112 billion, and the Obama administration and the Congress, 

Republicans and Democrats, said they were going to make up for 

that by borrowing from the general fund. The general fund is 

broke. We borrow from China. China that has Catholic bishops in 

jail, Protestant pastors in jail, has plundered Tibet and is spying 

against us. We are borrowing from them, and we are borrowing 

from the Saudis who are funding radical Wahhabism, which led to 

9/11 and led to what is taking place in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 

And here we gave the Buffet brothers or cousins, or if they know 

each other, a big opportunity under Social Security. So the poor 

will suffer, too. 

So I think you have got to deal with these entitlement issues. In 

a certain period of time, about twelve to fifteen years, every penny 

that comes in will go for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and 

interest on the debt. There will be no money for the space program, 

no money for education, and no money for anything else. Mr. 

Aderholt. 

OIG FINDINGS ON CONSTELLATION SPENDING UNDER THE CR, 

CONTINUED

Mr. ADERHOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the first questions you asked, I think the chairman asked you about the methodology of your findings. And basically how, again just briefly, what 

was that methodology to, that you, how you arrived at your findings? 

Mr. MARTIN. You are talking about the Constellation letter that 

we sent to Congress? 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. We went to the program. We went to NASA Headquarters and we went to the Constellation program people and 

asked them this specific question: if you were not bound by the language in the CR, which aspects would you walk away from, or diminish, reduce? These are their numbers. These are their answers. 

These are their numbers. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. All right. So, you know, of course I am from Alabama and of course represent the area around Marshall. So you 

spoke with the folks there at Marshall? 

Mr. MARTIN. We did. The Deputy Program Manager of the Constellation program and the Associate Administrator at NASA Headquarters. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Here in Washington? 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
258 

Mr. MARTIN. Correct. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. In your letter that was dated on January 13, 

2011 you state that the upper stage and related avionics elements 

of the Ares program are ‘‘insufficient use of funding,’’ citing a conversation with unnamed NASA officials. When you talked with 

them did they offer evidence that provide that these elements were 

not applicable to the new heavy lift system? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, we did not. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. And as far as the letter to Congress contradicts 

NASA’s ninety-day report to Congress, which states that the Ares 

project five segment boosters, J–2X upper stage engine, and the 

Ares I upper stage malfunctioning concepts and instrument unit 

assembly also could be applicable for SLS. How do you reconcile 

those two things? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, I am not sure I followed all of that. But 

NASA has not decided yet, again we do not do policy, we do not 

say liquid fuel, solid fuel, that is not what the Inspector General 

does. But clearly NASA has not decided yet which architecture it 

is going to use to implement the launch program directives as well 

as the crew capsule directives in the Authorization Act. They have 

an idea and Congress has given them the impetus to look first at 

shuttle technology and existing Constellation technology. So again, 

in this letter we are not making a judgment call. We asked the program people if you were freed from the constraints of the language 

in the CR, which aspects of Constellation that you are funding now 

would you either reduce, diminish, or defer? These are their answers. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. Why are these two contracts for the heavy 

lift vehicle being recompeted when number one, they are crucial to 

the HLV, and number two, appropriation language says existing 

contracts should be utilized? 

Mr. MARTIN. You really need to ask the Administrator or the 

General Counsel. I know they are looking at the issue of whether 

or not they can extend the current Constellation contracts and 

morph them into the new vehicles that are directed under the Authorization Act, or whether they would need to recompete. 

COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT

Mr. ADERHOLT. NASA is paying private companies to resupply 

the Space Station with commercial resupply funds, yet none of 

these private companies have proven that they are capable of going 

to the Space Station. Could you share your concern with that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I do not really have a concern with that. Again, it 

is a policy call where NASA and the Congress is going to put 

NASA’s money. I will note that one of the companies, SpaceX, 

Space Exploration, had two successful flights, first in July, and a 

second in December. The December flight with a dummy capsule 

that they called the Dragon capsule. That is the name for their, at 

some point, potentially crew-based capsule. Leaving the atmosphere, circling the earth twice, and splashing down. So I think they 

are still perhaps, you know, it depends on who you ask, anywhere 

from one to three years away from being viable and certified to 

take cargo from the earth up to the Space Station. But again, it 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
259 

is not my policy call that that is where NASA should put its money 

or they should build their own. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay. All right. That is all I have got right now. 

I may have some follow up. 

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Fattah. 

Mr. FATTAH. Let me explore some of this question about privatization or commercial crew, if you would. You said about 85 percent 

of NASA’s dollars are now contracted out to private sector companies? In fact, some of the private sector companies that are involved in the Constellation also are involved in commercial crew, 

right? That is to say that this notion as if this is a foreign effort 

that we would rely on the private sector which is, you know, the 

big push here and which is part of the compromise that is in the 

authorization is that there would be commercial crew and that 

there would be this continuation of some parts of Constellation, 

even though it is not said like that. But it is this whole heavy lift 

capability. 

But that in truth, the same company, a lot of the same companies that either contract with NASA now would be competing on 

the commercial side, right? So is that an accurate reflection? 

Mr. MARTIN. My understanding is that is accurate, yes. 

Mr. FATTAH. Right. So that NASA has always had a close reliance and connection and has been intertwined, it has been a public/ 

private venture from way back under the, you know, I mean there 

was a time in Philadelphia with the GE reentry systems for the 

original moon flights. There were thousands of engineers, Mr. 

Chairman, who worked in Philadelphia on the reentry system. So 

I think that in the public debate about this, somehow we act as if 

NASA has been acting as a government entity with government bureaucrats building spaceships and now that the administration 

wants to use commercial companies to do it, it is really commercial 

companies that have been intricately involved in this activity from 

day one and will be going forward. That this really is a question 

in the decision package related to whether or not we want to use 

the private sector. Because that is the great engine of innovation 

in our country, and use entrepreneurial activities and risk taking 

to deal with some of the kind of normalized lower space, low orbit 

travel. And then to use what would be much more risky, and obviously require heavy investment, something only the government 

could do, is to focus on going into deep space and to Mars or to an 

asteroid, and so on. 

So that this notion that we have not come to some agreement I 

think is defied by the fact that we passed the authorization. I 

mean, there is a deal. We call them deals in our business. There 

is a deal for how we are going to go forward. And all we need to 

do now is to effectuate or actualize it in the appropriations process, 

and then we can go on. And I think then the agency will have clarity. Because beating up on an agency for not having clarity when 

we are the ones who created the confusion just does not make any 

sense to me. 

So Mr. Chairman, I think that the sooner we do the CR, and 

whatever clarity that can be arrived at in which the House and the 

Senate and the White House can decide how to go forward, then 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
260 

we can get NASA to kind of lift off and not be kind of mired down. 

And it is kind of hard to reconcile the scientists with the politicians. And some of this has to do with jobs. I guess it is almost 

like an earmark. If you have a NASA facility, you have got a lot 

of jobs, and you have got a lot of interest. But we have got to have 

the national interest rise above that and think about where we are 

going, what we are doing. And we should get started because our 

competitors are not standing still. So we risk our own decline. And 

none of us as Americans should be interested in that. We should 

be trying to move our country forward, and NASA should be at the 

front edge of that. 

CHINESE INFORMATION SECURITY ATTACKS AGAINST NASA

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Fattah. Keying off of that, I just have 

one last question and then I will go to the other members. China 

uses information stolen from other countries to make up for gaps 

in its own technical knowledge. This allows the Chinese to make 

programmatic advances much faster than would otherwise be possible while simultaneously eroding the competitive edge of our own 

programs. To what extent can we trace recent advances in China’s 

space program to theft of information from NASA? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I cannot make that direct linkage. 

I can tell you—— 

Mr. WOLF. Well, but I would like you then to look at it, to come 

back—— 

Mr. MARTIN. I would be pleased to look at it. 

Mr. WOLF. If you can come back in thirty days and tell us, we 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. MARTIN. I can tell you that NASA as an agency is probably 

one of the top three or four targets of both economic and foreign 

government cyberattacks. 

Mr. WOLF. That was my next question. Can you tell us about the 

cyberattacks against NASA? 

Mr. MARTIN. They are frequent and they are detrimental. 

Mr. WOLF. And what country is making the attacks? 

Mr. MARTIN. Different countries. They have been traced to 

China. They have been traced to Russia. They have been traced to 

Estonia and other parts of Eastern Europe. They have been traced 

to Africa. 

Mr. WOLF. And how often does that take place? 

Mr. MARTIN. I cannot tell you the frequency, but it is not infrequent. And again, it is detrimental. I was pleased to inherit a very, 

very robust computer crimes division in the IG’s office. And we 

have had our special agents flying to Estonia and China and other 

parts of the world to work these cases. So we take this incredibly 

seriously. 

Mr. WOLF. I know the press is here and covering this. Can we 

honestly say that China or whoever is doing the cyberattacks? I 

know it is China. But whoever is doing the cyberattacks, there 

have been detrimental impacts to our space program that have also 

given information out that helps others. Is that right? 

Mr. MARTIN. There have been improper releases of NASA data 

that have been traced to computers or individuals in the countries 

I identified, yes. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
261 

Mr. WOLF. And China has been part of the process of 

cyberattacks against NASA? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Mr. WOLF. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. Now China as a government or Chinese citizens? I 

cannot make that—— 

Mr. WOLF. It is the same. They have got one of the most comprehensive cyber programs in the People’s Liberation Army and the 

government. It is China. I think we have got to say it. It is the 

same country that is spying against us, that has cyberattacks 

against us, that has Catholic bishops and Protestant pastors in jail, 

and is shooting people and taking their organs to sell for $50,000 

to $55,000. Anyone who is out there and wants to see the video, 

we will show you the video of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army 

executing people, then taking their corneas and kidneys out. So it 

is the same government. 

But I think this is something we have to face. So if you can get 

back to us in less than thirty days about the threat from China. 

Just tell us, both in a classified version and then an unclassified 

version. Then we can let other members know what takes place 

with regard to that. Thank you. Mr. Bonner or Mr. Aderholt. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
262 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 394 here 65531A.147
263 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 395 here 65531A.148
264 

Mr. BONNER. Mr. Chairman, I have got one question that I might 

submit for the record but I will pass to Mr. Aderholt who has one 

final question. 

Mr. WOLF. Sure, sure. Without objection then. 

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

Mr. ADERHOLT. In an IG report released last year you cited that 

four-year delay and $5 billion overrun for the James Webb Space 

Telescope. Do you believe or anticipate there will be further delays 

or cost overruns for the program? 

Mr. MARTIN. There was an independent review that I mentioned 

in my opening statement that was done in November of last year 

that anticipated that the earliest they could launch that incredibly 

important, incredibly sophisticated space telescope was September 

2015. But that was only if, as the panel said, critical management 

changes in NASA’s operation of the program were made, and an 

additional $500 million was added to the money that was already 

in the budget, the NASA budget for that. So do I think there are 

going to be additional delays? I would think so. I do not see where 

the Congress is going to come up with an additional $500 million 

on top of what is budgeted already for the Webb telescope. 

Mr. ADERHOLT. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you very much for your testimony. The hearing 

is adjourned. 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
265 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 406 here 65531A.157
266 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 407 here 65531A.158
267 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 408 here 65531A.159
268 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 409 here 65531A.160
269 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 410 here 65531A.161
270 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 411 here 65531A.162
271 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 412 here 65531A.163
272 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 413 here 65531A.164
273 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 414 here 65531A.165
274 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 415 here 65531A.166
275 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 416/650 here 65531A.167
(i) 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1Insert offset folio 1 here 65531P3.001

smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
(iii) 

I N D E X 

Testimony before Appropriations Subcommittee, Feb. 9, 2011 

Department of Commerce 

Inspector General Todd J. Zinser 

Page 

2010 Census Budget................................................................................................. 50–51 

2020 Decennial Census Planning.................................................................... 4,30,53–54 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ............................................................ 3 

Census Planning........................................................................................................ 36,37 

Exports and International Trade...................................................................... 25–26, 30 

IG’s Resource Allocation .......................................................................................... 43–44 

International Trade/Commercial Foreign Service ................................................. 53 

IT Security...................................................................................................... 3, 38, 39–41 

NOAA Environmental Satellite Programs ............................................................. 3 

NOAA Satellite Programs ..................................................................... 23–25, 30–33, 42 

Program Duplication and Overlap........................................................ 33–35, 36–37, 54 

PSIC Grant Program................................................................................................ 51–52 

Recovery Act Grant Programs ................................................................................ 38 

Recovery Act and BTOP (Broadband Program)..................................................... 44–46 

Recovery Act and Construction Grants .................................................................. 46, 48 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office................................................... 3, 41–42, 48–49, 52 

USPTO and IT Security........................................................................................... 49–50 

Department of Justice 

Acting Inspector General Cynthia A. Schnedar 

AFT’s Project Gunrunner..................................................................................... 133–136 

Civil Rights Division ............................................................................................ 138–139 

Counter-Terrorism................................................................................................ 123–124 

DNA Backlog ................................................................................................ 125–126, 132 

Explosives Coordination between FBI & ATF ................................................... 139–140 

Federal Bureau of Prisons................................................................................... 136–138 

Foreign Language Translation ............................................................................... 121 

Gang Enforcement................................................................................................ 131–132 

Guantanamo Detainees ........................................................................................... 123 

High Value Detainee Interrogation Group......................................................... 121–123 

Human Trafficking .................................................................................................. 126 

Information Technology ....................................................................................... 124–125 

Information Technology Contracting/FBI Sentinel............................................ 126–131 

Management and Performance Challenges at Department of Justice............... 99–101 

Restoring Confidence in the Department............................................................ 140-141 

Sexual Abuse of Prisoners ....................................................................................... 139 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1
Page

iv 

National Science Foundation 

Inspector General Allison C. Lerner 

Attempts to Improve the Efficiency of the Merit Review Process.................... 207–209 

Cyber Security.............................................................................................. 213–215, 220 

Contracting Practices........................................................................................... 215–217 

Dissemination of Stem Education Findings .......................................................... 218 

Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory .................................... 219 

Grants Management ............................................................................................ 217–218 

Ice Breaking.......................................................................................................... 181–182 

NSF’s Grant Funding Eligibility Requirements ................................................ 179–181 

NSF’s Management of Stimulus Funding .......................................................... 170–171 

NSF Policy on Refreshments for Merit Review Panelists .................................... 177 

NSF Pornography Scandal Followup.................................................................. 212–213 

Opening Remarks, Ranking Member Fattah ........................................................ 157 

Opening Remarks, Inspector General Lerner ....................................................... 157 

Opening Remarks, Chairman Wolf ........................................................................ 157 

Possible NSF Budget Savings ................................................................................. 169 

Recompetition of the Antarctic Support Contract ............................................. 178–179 

Responsiveness of NSF ........................................................................................ 167–169 

Trends in Grant Applications, Extensions and Award Rules .............................. 209 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Inspector General Paul K. Martin 

Challenges with Cost Estimation and Project Management ............................ 243–244 

Chinese Information Security Attacks Against NASA...................................... 260–261 

Commercial Spaceflight ....................................................................................... 258–260 

Conflicting Visions for NASA .............................................................................. 248–250 

Ethical Conflicts at NASA ...................................................................................... 255 

Finding Savings in the NASA Budget................................................ 242–243, 250–254 

Impact on NASA of Major Budget Reductions................................................... 254–255 

Implementation of the NASA Authorization Act............................................... 244–248 

Need for Entitlement Reform.............................................................................. 256–257 

Opening Remarks, Inspector General Martin.................................................... 231–232 

OIG Findings on Constellation Spending Under the CR.......................... 243, 257–258 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with HEARING-P1