S. HRG. 112–697 

Senate Hearings 

Before the Committee on Appropriations 

Commerce, Justice, Science, 

and Related Agencies 

Appropriations 

Fiscal Year 2013 

112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION 

H.R. 5326/S. 2323 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2013 (H.R. 5326/S. 2323) 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

72–305 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 112–697 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED 

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 

2013 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 5326/S. 2323 

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, AND FOR OTHER 

PURPOSES 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Justice 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Nondepartmental Witnesses 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

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

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

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

MARK KIRK, Illinois 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex officio) 

Professional Staff 

GABRIELLE BATKIN

JESSICA M. BERRY

JEREMY WEIRICH

JEAN TOAL EISEN

ART CAMERON (Minority) 

ALLEN CUTLER (Minority) 

GOODLOE SUTTON (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MICHAEL BAIN

KATIE BATTE (Minority) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 

Page 

Department of Justice: Attorney General .............................................................. 1 

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012 

Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation ..................................... 111 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 

Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary ............................................... 143 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration .................................................. 205 

Nondepartmental Witnesses ................................................................................... 247 

(1) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Mikulski (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Pryor, 

Brown, Hutchison, Shelby, Alexander, Murkowski, and Graham. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce, 

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (CJS) will come to order. This morning, we welcome the 

Attorney General of the United States, and as is the usual and customary way, Senator Hutchison and I will make opening statements. We’ll go to you, Mr. Attorney General, for yours, and you 

may summarize. With unanimous consent, all statements will be 

included in the record. 

Senator Shelby, our colleague and former ranking member on 

this subcommittee, has a banking hearing. With Senator 

Hutchison’s concurrence, we’ll go right to Senator Shelby for the 

first question. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Does that sound okay? 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And then we will observe Senators in their 

order of arrival, and we expect robust participation. We’re going to 

strictly adhere to the 5-minute rule. 

So, having laid the groundwork, I just want to say good morning 

and welcome to our first CJS subcommittee hearing, the Attorney 

General of the United States, in which we will hear his presentation on the Department of Justice (DOJ) budget. 

We have a very positive relationship with the Attorney General. 

He’s brought to the Justice Department the experience of a career 
2 

prosecutor. He’s been dedicated to fighting violent crime and terrorism. He knows that he is pioneering work now, working with 

our administration, on how to deal with the new and emerging 

threat of cybersecurity, which is, how do we protect our citizens, 

and his views and recommendations on protecting our civil liberties. 

Well, Mr. Attorney General, before we get into the numbers and 

the money, I would just like to thank you, and in thanking you, I 

want to thank all the hardworking men and women who do work 

at DOJ. There are 116,000 employees who work there; 25,000 are 

Federal agents, and people work at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the U.S. 

Marshals Service (USMS), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We have 20,000 prison guards and 

correctional staff, and 10,000 prosecutors and investigators. 

They’ve had some amazing accomplishments, which I’ll talk about 

when I get to my question period. 

But we want to thank them, because every day and every way, 

they stand sentry, either to do prevention and intervention, to 

make sure they are out on the street, doing traditional violent 

crime work, to really being all over the world, and then fighting 

issues related to white collar crime. 

As the chair of the CJS Subcommittee, I have three priorities 

when examining the budget: communities security, how does the 

budget support the mission of keeping our communities safe; national security, what resources are needed to keep America safe; 

and then, oversight and accountability. No boondoggles on the 

watch of this subcommittee. And I want to make sure the Justice 

Department has what it needs to do its mission. 

As I looked at the President’s budget, I noted that there was only 

one new initiative, and that’s the expansion of mortgage and financial fraud. That request is $611 million. It is a modest $5 million 

targeted increase, and we are going to want to hear more about 

that. Because we, in our own State of Maryland, have seen such 

a rising number of scams, and schemes, and predatory lending 

practices, and we need to know what you want to do with the 

money. 

We can’t have a strong, economically vibrant community unless 

they’re safe, whether it’s in our neighborhoods, whether it’s protecting small business on Main Street. So, I want to know how the 

budget will keep America safe at home on Main Street. 

The request for $2 billion for grants to State and local law enforcement, I wonder if it’s sufficient. This is $32 million less than 

the 2012, and we might have to consider, you know, reorganizing 

priorities. The State and local funding seems to have borne the 

brunt of budget cuts. Since 2010, grants have been cut by $1 billion 

in local funding. Now, part of this was the axe and acts of the Congress itself. 

Many of my colleagues don’t realize that cuts have consequences 

in discretionary spending. So, we need to hear your view on what 

we can do. We know the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

has recommended that you should conduct a review and eliminate 

unnecessary duplication. We support that. 
3 

We also want to work in community security at the protecting of 

our children. One of the areas of bipartisan support is in the money 

to catch predators who use the Internet to stalk children, break up 

children’s pornography rings, and track down and arrest these 

child molesters. We understand you are requesting $328 million, 

and we’ll look forward to seeing how you will allocate that, and 

what to do. 

The Southwest Border—my colleague, Senator Hutchison, has 

worked assiduously in that area. I want to know that this is not 

only bipartisan support—we think it ought to be nonpartisan to 

support our border, and I’ll let her raise those questions in there. 

In the area of cyberthreats, our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas, from hackers, cyberspies, and 

cyberterrorists. We need safe and resilient networks. We worry 

about online banking and commerce, the safety of our power grids, 

air traffic control systems, digitized records. 

Yesterday, with the administration, the Senate held a cyber exercise. The majority of the Senators were there to listen to an exercise on an attack on a major city’s power grid. It was chilling. It 

was terrifying to know what happened there, and what we could 

do to protect it. So, we need to know about cyber. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Finally, I want to know how the Justice Department is improving 

its accountability to taxpayers. You know, you’ve gotten a bad 

rap—some of them, about lavish banquets, cost overruns, the Inspector General doing its audits—and it should. So, we want to 

know how we stand sentry over the money we do spend. 

We have very specific questions, but with the number of people 

here, I’m shortening my statement. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Good morning and welcome to our first Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 

Agencies (CJS) Subcommittee hearing. We begin our examination of the President’s 

fiscal year 2013 budget by welcoming Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Today, we’ll discuss how the Justice Department’s fiscal year 2013 budget request 

strengthens national security and counter terrorism; protects the safety, security, 

and rights of U.S. citizens; and ensures taxpayer dollars are used wisely. 

We have a very positive relationship with Attorney General Holder. He has 

brought to the Justice Department the experience of a career prosecutor dedicated 

to protecting the American people from terrorism and violent crime. Welcome back, 

Attorney General Holder, and thank you for joining us today. 

I want to begin today’s hearing by thanking all of the hardworking men and 

women of the Justice Department’s 119,000 civil servants: 

—the 25,000 Federal agents of the Federal Bureau of investigation (FBI); 

—Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); 

—the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA); 

—the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)—and the people who support those agents; 

—the 20,000 prison guards and correctional staff; and 

—the 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts. 

They’ve had some amazing accomplishments during the last year. USMS arrested 

more than 12,000 fugitive sex offenders. DEA agents put more than 3,000 drug traffickers out of business. FBI dismantled 366 criminal enterprises involved in white 

collar crimes. U.S. Attorneys collected $6.5 billion in criminal and civil penalties. 

They are the guardians of our justice system, but they are often overlooked and 

undervalued. I want them to know that the CJS Subcommittee knows and appreciates what they do every day. 
4 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) totals $27.1 billion, which is $110 million less than the fiscal year 2012 level. 

The budget request also includes $368 million in cuts to prior year funding for core 

Federal law enforcement functions and grants. This year’s budget also relies more 

heavily than ever on payments into the Crime Victims Fund, which will finance 30 

percent of the Department’s operating budget in fiscal year 2013. The request reflects the stringent reality of our times. 

As chairwoman of the CJS Subcommittee, I have three priorities when examining 

the budget for the Justice Department. The first is community security. How does 

the budget support the mission of keeping our communities safe? The second is national security. What resources are needed to keep America safe from terrorism? 

And finally, oversight and accountability. Are tax dollars being spent wisely? 

I want to make sure that the DOJ has what it needs to uphold the rule of law 

and to protect this country from predatory attacks. 

There is only one new initiative in the Department’s budget request this year— 

an expansion of mortgage and financial fraud task forces. Our economy depends on 

the integrity of our financial markets. Our neighborhoods and communities have 

been rattled by mortgage fraud schemes and scams. 

The budget request includes $611 million to fight mortgage and financial fraud, 

including a modest $55 million targeted increase to hire new FBI agents, new attorneys, new specialized support staff, and new forensic accountants and in-house investigators. This will also be used to combat financial and mortgage fraud, going 

after the schemers and scammers who prey on hardworking families and destabilize 

neighborhoods. 

We can’t have strong, economically vibrant communities unless they are safe. So 

I want to know how the budget request keeps Americans safe here at home. The 

request is $2 billion for grants to State and local law enforcement. This is $32 million less than fiscal year 2012. 

State and local funding has borne the brunt of budget cuts. Since 2010, grants 

have been cut by $1.5 billion, or 43 percent. This is a time when we must be frugal. 

Tough choices have to be made. The CJS Subcommittee is committed to making 

sure our police are not walking a thin blue line. We need to know which grants are 

truly most effective and which programs we need to take a closer look at before reinvesting American taxpayers’ dollars in them. 

A recent Government Accountability Office report recommended that the Attorney 

General should conduct an assessment to better understand which grant programs 

overlap with one another to prevent unnecessary duplication. I think that is an excellent recommendation, and I encourage the Attorney General to complete this 

analysis. 

I know how committed the Attorney General is to keeping children safe from 

abuse, sexual predators, and cyber stalkers. The budget request includes $328 million to catch predators who use the Internet to stalk children, break up child pornography and prostitution rings, and track down, arrest, and prosecute child molesters. 

The FBI and USMS have crucial roles. FBI’s Innocent Images initiative targets 

sexual predators who use the Internet to distribute child pornography. USMS are 

charged with tracking down and arresting an estimated 100,000 unregistered sex 

offenders. 

The Adam Walsh Act called for 500 new Deputy U.S. Marshals to carry out this 

mission. But since 2010, we’ve been able to prevent furloughs and layoffs, but we’ve 

been in a holding pattern of 160 new Marshals. I want to make sure we’re putting 

the right resources in the right places to protect children from these despicable 

predators. 

The Department’s budget request includes more than $1.8 billion for Federal law 

enforcement efforts, including the DEA, ATF, FBI, and USMS, to dismantle drug 

cartels that smuggle illegal drugs, guns, and humans along the border, and terrorize 

citizens and neighborhoods with fear and intimidation. 

Drug trafficking-related homicides in Mexico continue climbing. There were a 

sickening 12,100 murders in Mexico last year, up 86 percent since 2009. We are 

very concerned about spillover violence. I want to know if the funds requested are 

sufficient to shut down the flow of firearms into Mexico, and to stop drugs and violence from coming into the United States from Mexico. 

Our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from hackers, cyber 

spies, and cyber terrorists. We need safe and resilient networks to protect our online 

banking and commerce, electrical and power grids, air traffic control systems, and 

digitalized records. 
5 

At the Justice Department, more than 1,500 personnel are working to prevent a 

broad range of cyber threats, such as computer intrusions, Internet fraud, intellectual property theft, and online child pornography; and to identify the perpetrators. 

The FBI is tasked with the most urgent cyber security responsibilities. They are 

on the front lines collecting intelligence and investigating computer intrusions that 

threaten our critical technology infrastructure. We will hear more details about this 

next week, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III testifies before this subcommittee. But I want to know what you see as the Justice Department’s role as 

a key guardian of our Nation’s cyber security. 

Finally, I want to know how the Justice Department is improving accountability 

of taxpayer dollars so that every $1 spent to secure our communities is $1 wellspent. The subcommittee has taken steps to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; prohibit funds for lavish banquets; control cost overruns; and require the Inspector 

General to do random audits of grantees. I want to know what concrete steps you 

have taken to put these guidelines into practice and give teeth to make sure they 

are followed. 

Given all of the Justice Department’s important roles and responsibilities, we 

must ensure that it has the resources it needs to protect the lives of 330 million 

Americans. But we also want to make sure the Justice Department is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and makes sure every $1 we spend to keep our Nation safe 

is $1 well spent. 

I thank Attorney General Holder for his leadership, and I look forward to continuing our work together making a safer, stronger America. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’m going to turn now to Senator Hutchison, 

and then to you. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, very 

much, not only for the deference on border security, where I live, 

but also on the way you run this subcommittee, which is for us to 

do what’s right for America. 

Mr. Attorney General, I do want to address some of the areas of 

border security. First of all, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funding is something that continues to be shortchanged by your budgets, and SCAAP, of course, is the reimbursement for local counties that incarcerate illegal alien prisoners. And 

along the border, our counties are generally very poor and don’t 

have those kinds of resources, and each year, you continue to not 

fund. 

We did put the money back in last year, $240 million, but I 

would hope that you would support increasing that, as we go 

through this process, because we must incarcerate these illegal 

alien criminals, who are mostly in the drug cartel and operations, 

so that this will not be borne by the counties on the border. 

In response to Operation Fast and Furious, language was included in last year’s bill that would prohibit Federal law enforcement agencies from selling operable weapons to cartels. This request that you’re giving us removes that language, saying it’s unnecessary. Mr. Attorney General, we just want to make positively 

sure that what happened does not happen again, and I would hope 

that you would support our insertion of that language again. 

Last year, our Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 

bill provided $10 million to expand the capacity at the overcrowded 

El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). And this is critical for our 

Southwest Border information sharing, and is the border’s focal 

point to help stop the flow of narcotics, combat illegal immigration, 

and end human trafficking and firearms smuggling. 
6 

It is imperative that EPIC and the DEA take full advantage of 

the resources available from DOJ agencies like the FBI, USMS, 

and ATF. And I hope that you can give us an update on the status 

of this funding and the project. 

There have been reports that cartels across the border are attempting to recruit college students to smuggle drugs into the 

country, and it says that minors are more appealing, because criminal penalties are lighter for them. One of the good parts of your 

budget request is $312 million for juvenile justice prevention programs. I will be interested in hearing if you are aware of these border threats to our youth, and if some of that money that you are 

requesting could be put on the border to try to make sure that we 

try to help our youth overcome the cartel overtures. 

The VALOR program, the Violence Against Law Enforcement 

and Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability, is one that I applaud your efforts to put in place. And unfortunately, the number 

of Federal, State, and local officers who died in the line of duty in 

America last year increased, from 153 to 173. 

The feedback from the training and research being conducted 

through VALOR is very positive, including the alert center at 

Texas State University, which was credited by the two officers who 

came into Fort Hood when Major Nidal Hasan started shooting unarmed military people. Both of those officers survived, even though 

Sergeant Munley was shot several times. But they both credited 

their swift response that day to the alert active shooter training 

program that they had received. So, that’s something that’s very 

good that I applaud in your budget. 

I want to state a concern that I have about the National Park 

Service pushing for construction, which is in progress, on an unmanned border crossing at the Big Bend National Park, in south 

Texas. This is not a DOJ decision, but it is going to affect some of 

the personnel, and I’m concerned that this is an area where illegal 

immigrants can walk across. The water is knee deep, and you can 

walk right across the river, and into Big Bend, and having an unmanned border crossing, I think, is insufficient. So, we’re going to 

talk about that at some point to see if we can get FBI, DEA, ATF, 

Border Patrol, somebody to man a place like that, where it is so 

vulnerable. 

And last, but not least, Attorney General Holder, I’m going to 

ask you some questions about your public integrity unit. I’m going 

to give you full credit for dismissing the case against the late Senator Ted Stevens when you learned of the corruption within that 

division of your Department. I’m going to ask you questions, because the report will be public within days, and if there’s anything 

that you should take as your major responsibility, it is that the 

public corruption unit and DOJ is fair and evenhanded, and, clearly, that was not the case in the prosecution of a great friend to 

many of us, and a great patriot for our country, who, unfortunately, 

was very badly abused by the DOJ. 

But, I will say, you did dismiss the case when you learned of the 

misbehavior, and I gave you credit on the Senate floor for doing 

that, and will again, but I do want to ask you about the report 

when we have time to ask questions. 

Thank you. 
7 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Attorney General. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. Chairwoman Mikulski, 

Ranking Member Hutchison, other distinguished members of the 

subcommittee. I want to thank you very much for the opportunity 

to appear before you today and for your continued support of the 

Justice Department’s critical work. 

I look forward to discussing the President’s fiscal year 2013 

budget for the Department and how these investments would be 

used to build on what I think is our extraordinary record of success. 

The President’s budget proposal demonstrates a clear commitment to advancing the Department’s core missions and augmenting 

our ability to fulfill our most important obligation, and that is protecting the American people. Despite the significant fiscal constraints the Federal Government has faced in recent years, the 

116,000 dedicated employees who serve in the Department offices 

around the world have made significant, and in many cases, historic progress in safeguarding our citizens from terrorism, from violent crime, from financial fraud, and from a range of threats that 

often disproportionately threaten the most vulnerable members of 

our society. 

We’ve also proven our commitment to acting as sound stewards 

of precious taxpayer dollars. As you can see in the most recent 

budget request, proposed spending increases have been exceeded by 

proposed cuts. In fact, as a result of numerous steps taken to 

streamline operations, almost $700 million worth of savings have 

been developed and reinvested in critical mission areas. I believe 

that the Department is perhaps more efficient and more effective 

than ever before. 

Our recent achievements underscore this point, especially when 

you consider our national security efforts. By continuing to work 

collaboratively alongside U.S. and international partners, we have 

identified and disrupted numerous alleged terrorist plots, including 

one by two Iranian nationals to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador 

to the United States. We have thwarted multiple plots devised by 

homegrown extremists, and we have secured convictions and robust 

sentences against a number of dangerous terrorists. 

In October, the Department obtained a guilty plea from Umar 

Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of an 

airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. Just last month, 

Abdulmutallab was sentenced to four life terms in prison. In November, we secured the conviction of Viktor Bout, a notorious arms 

dealer who sold millions of dollars in weapons for use in killing 

Americans. In December, Waad Ramadan Alwan pleaded guilty to 

23 charges, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. nationals abroad, attempting to provide material 

support to al Qaeda in Iraq, and conspiracy to transfer, possess, 

and export explosive devices against United States troops in Iraq. 

The list goes on and on. With the sustained and increased investments included in the President’s budget for the comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative, the high-value detainee interrogation group, the joint terrorism task forces, the Render Safe pro-
8 

gram, and other key national security efforts, the Department will 

be able to strengthen our critical surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities. 

It will also allow us to bring our fight against financial fraud to 

a new level. On Monday, as many of you know, President Obama 

issued a proclamation to mark the beginning of this year’s Consumer Fraud Protection Week, and I’m proud to note that the Justice Department’s Consumer Protection Branch has established a 

record of success in defending the interests of American consumers 

that is worth celebrating and will be expanded upon. 

In 2011 alone, our Consumer Protection Branch attained a 95- 

percent conviction rate, recovered more than $900 million in criminal and civil fines, restitution, and penalties, and obtained sentences totaling more than 125 years of imprisonment against more 

than 30 individuals. This represents remarkable and unprecedented progress, but it really is only the beginning. In fact, since 

the start of the administration, the Justice Department has signaled an unwavering commitment to combating and preventing a 

wide range of financial and healthcare fraud crimes, and we’ve 

taken bold steps to address the causes and the consequences of the 

recent economic crisis. 

Through the efforts of the President’s financial fraud enforcement task force, which was launched in 2009, and which I’m proud 

to chair, charges have been brought against numerous CEOs, 

CFOs, corporate owners, board members, presidents, general counsels, and other executives of Wall Street firms, hedge funds, and 

banks who have engaged in fraudulent activity. 

In recent months, we have obtained prison sentences of up to 60 

years in a variety of fraud cases, including multi-million-dollar 

Ponzi schemes, and the largest hedge fund insider trading case in 

U.S. history. 

Just this week, we secured a conviction against the former board 

of directors’ chairman for an international bank for orchestrating 

a $7 billion investment fraud scheme. The task force has established two new working groups: the Consumer Protection Working 

Group, which will enhance civil and criminal enforcement of consumer fraud, and the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities 

(RMBS) Working Group, which bring Federal and State partners 

together to investigate and to prosecute abuses in our housing markets. Both will help to amplify existing efforts, and to foster cooperation and collaboration in the Department’s response to these 

problems. 

Just a few weeks ago, a similar collaborative approach led the 

Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, as 

well as other agencies, and 49 State attorneys general to achieve 

a landmark $25 billion settlement with the Nation’s top five mortgage servicers, the largest joint Federal and State settlement in 

our Nation’s history. 

Although this will not, on its own, cure all that ails our housing 

market, this agreement builds on the record fair lending settlement 

obtained by the Civil Rights Division’s fair lending unit last year, 

and will provide substantial relief to homeowners. It also provides 

a blueprint for future collaboration across levels of government, 

State borders, and party lines. 
9 

There is perhaps no better illustration of our recent progress 

than the Department’s groundbreaking work to combat healthcare 

fraud. Over the last fiscal year alone, in cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as other partners, 

by utilizing authorities provided under the False Claims Act and 

other essential statutes, we were able to recover nearly $4.1 billion 

in funds that were stolen or taken improperly from Federal 

healthcare programs. That is the highest amount ever recorded in 

a single year. 

Over the same period, we opened more than 1,100 new criminal 

healthcare fraud investigations, secured more than 700 convictions, 

and initiated nearly 1,000 new civil healthcare fraud investigations. For every $1 that we have spent combating healthcare fraud, 

we have returned, on average, about $7 to the United States Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund, and others. 

These numbers are stunning, but my colleagues and I recognize 

that we cannot be satisfied, and this is no time to become complacent. That’s why in addition to helping us build on this record of 

success, the President’s budget request also would bolster our fight 

against drug trafficking, international crime networks, gangs, and 

cyber criminals. It would increase our efforts to protect the law enforcement officers who keep us safe, and expand upon the work 

being done by our Civil Rights Division to guarantee that the 

rights of all Americans are protected in border areas, workplaces, 

housing markets, and voting booths. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I am committed to building on these and our other many achievements, and I know that you understand that in this time of uncommon threats and complex challenges, we simply cannot afford to 

cut back on the amount and the quality of justice that we are obligated to deliver. The Department must remain vigilant in protecting this Nation and in enforcing the law, and these efforts must 

be appropriately and adequately funded. 

I look forward to continuing to work with the members of this 

subcommittee and your colleagues throughout the Congress to accomplish this, and I would be happy to answer any questions that 

you might have. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. And your 

full statement will be entered into the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. 

Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members 

of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

and the Department’s key priorities. 

I also appreciate the opportunity to tell you more about the good work that is 

being done by DOJ employees across the United States and overseas to protect all 

of our citizens from harm and to ensure equal protection under the law, in order 

to promote ‘‘liberty and justice for all.’’ 

The President has emphasized his goal to stabilize the economy by creating new 

jobs and reducing our national debt through greater revenue generation and spending cuts. To assist in the economic recovery, we continue to ask even more from our 

talented DOJ personnel. This is as true in DOJ as it is in the rest of the Federal 

Government. 
10 

The President has asked DOJ to do more with less, recognizing that many across 

the country are still suffering; I am committed to presenting the Congress with a 

serious and thoughtful budget, which clearly reflects this awareness, and allows us 

the resources to faithfully carry out DOJ’s mission and fulfill our obligation to the 

American people. 

Upon careful examination of our mission and the range of the priorities I will 

present here we cannot simply ‘‘cut back’’ on the extent or quality of justice that 

we are obliged to deliver; we cannot cease to enforce the law. We cannot ignore an 

indictment, or choose at the end of the process not to imprison a criminal, if sentenced. We are responsible for enforcing the law, and these efforts must be funded. 

What we can and must do, however, is examine the way we do our work, and find 

better ways to continue to do it well. In response to my call for savings across DOJ, 

my staff developed almost $700 million worth of budget offsets, so that we can reinvest that money and protect DOJ’s core mission and priorities. In presenting DOJ’s 

fiscal year 2013 budget, we have aligned the entire amount to pay for high-priority, 

mission-related needs. Specifically, we have proposed $228 million in program increases. Our overall discretionary budget authority is reduced from $27.2 billion in 

fiscal year 2012 to $27.1 billion in our fiscal year 2013 request. 

In this fiscal year 2013 budget, we have proposed changes in operational accounts, 

as well as leadership offices. We have used balances from prior years that were left 

on the books to offset this year’s costs, and we tried to find less expensive ways to 

accomplish the same outcome. 

Each of our proposed reorganizations and realignments has been developed with 

one goal in mind, to save taxpayers money, while remaining dedicated to our mission to protect our citizens. I can assure you that none of our reorganizations or realignments will compromise this fundamental mission; personnel and resources will 

be shifted to achieve the same end, to remake DOJ in ways that make us more responsive to the American people whom we proudly serve. 

To be clear, then, we at DOJ recognize that we are accountable to the American 

people, to identify and eliminate areas of waste, fraud and duplication, and also to 

marshal limited resources for the greatest return on investment. I have carefully reviewed with my staff DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, and have directed them 

to focus resources on programs that have a measurable impact and demonstrate success in keeping our citizens safe. 

In his fiscal year 2013 budget, President Obama proposes that the Congress fund 

the work of DOJ in the amount of $27.1 billion. In this hearing, I would like to focus 

on DOJ’s work in six critical areas, namely, 

—To sustain our Nation’s security interests; 

—To uphold DOJ’s traditional mission programs; 

—To combat financial, mortgage, and healthcare fraud; 

—To support our State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners; 

—To invest in Federal prisons and enhance detention capacity; and 

—To streamline programs and operations across DOJ. 

NATIONAL SECURITY

The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a total of $4 billion to sustain our first priority—DOJ’s national security mission. As with our law enforcement mission, the 

Department continues to work to build strong ties with intelligence and security 

partners around the world, to protect the American people. At the same time, we 

are diligent in protecting U.S. technologies, goods, services, and national security interests from illegal tampering, malicious manipulation and acquisition by other 

countries, in order to maintain our Nation’s competitive edge. 

The funding previously enacted, which the fiscal year 2013 budget maintains, for 

our national security programs ensures the continuation of critical investments 

made to improve intelligence coordination; expands information sharing efforts with 

trusted counterparts; secures our cyber infrastructure; widens investigations of drug 

trafficking organizations with ties to terrorist groups; and continues to extend antiterrorism training to our law enforcement partners. 

In the past year, we were successful in several key national security investigations. In October, DOJ obtained the conviction against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab 

for his role in the attempted bombing of an airplane full of holiday travelers on 

Christmas Day in 2009. He was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month. Working closely with our United States and international partners, we thwarted a plot 

by two Iranian nationals to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, 

as well as numerous other suspected plots by homegrown violent extremists. We 

also secured the conviction of notorious arms dealer Viktor Bout for his efforts to 

sell millions of dollars of weapons for use in killing Americans. In May of last year, 
11 

a grand jury indicted Waad Ramadan Alwan on 23 charges, including conspiracy to 

use a weapon of mass destruction against United States nationals abroad; attempting to provide material support to al Qaeda in Iraq; and conspiracy to transfer, possess, and export explosive devices against United States troops in Iraq. In December, Alwan pleaded guilty to all 23 charges. 

In the fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks to maintain critical counterterrorism 

and counterintelligence programs, and sustain significant, recent increases related 

to intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities; detecting and deterring cyber 

intrusions and fully supporting cybersecurity through the Comprehensive National 

Cybersecurity Initiative. We also look to maintain our investments supporting the 

High Value Detainee Interrogation Group; the Joint Terrorism Task Forces; and the 

Render Safe Program. 

TRADITIONAL MISSION PROGRAMS

In the fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks increases of $31.8 million in support 

of programs in DOJ’s traditional core mission of combating violent crime, 

cybercrime, crimes against children, and criminal trafficking in persons; and enforcing the Nation’s civil rights and environmental laws. 

Criminal Law 

In combating organized crime, I announced in January 2011 the single largest operation against the mafia ever undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), the result of unprecedented cooperation among Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement personnel. The operation resulted in the arrest of more than 

100 suspected mobsters—all without a hitch. In July, we announced the results of 

Project Delirium, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) operation targeting La 

Familia Michoacana (Mee-shoa-CA-na), a violent drug cartel and supplier of most 

of the methamphetamines smuggled into the United States. Working with other 

Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement partners, including the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), DEA oversaw more than 1,900 

arrests and the seizure of more than $63 million in U.S. currency; more than 2,700 

pounds of methamphetamine; more than 2,700 kilograms of cocaine; 900 pounds of 

heroin; nearly 15,000 pounds of marijuana; and $3.8 million in other assets. An ATF 

investigation targeting a gang in Philadelphia known as the Young Hit Men or Harlem Gang resulted in an 89-count superseding indictment charging 23 members 

with an array of Federal violations, including multiple firearms violations. The trial 

of these gang members is scheduled for May. And finally, in 2011, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) captured nearly 125,000 fugitives, including 7 from their ‘‘Fifteen Most Wanted’’ list in 2011. This was the fourth consecutive year that the 

USMS captured more than 100,000 fugitives. These are only highlights, but, as you 

can see, it’s been a busy year for DOJ. 

Investigating cyber crime and protecting our Nation’s critical network infrastructure is another of DOJ’s top priorities. Successful cyber attacks can have devastating effects on our national security, infrastructure, and economy; and hackers 

have been relentless in their efforts to attack U.S. Government agency Web sites, 

including ours. In combating these efforts, we continue to build and strengthen our 

capabilities to counter and prevent these attacks. Here again, DOJ works on a global scale to achieve success, in cooperation with our law enforcement partners 

abroad. FBI estimates that Americans lose hundreds of millions of dollars to cyber 

criminals based in Eastern Europe alone. Working closely with the FBI Cyber Division and with our legal attache ́ personnel in Bucharest, our Romanian counterparts 

have arrested more than 300 cyber criminals in the last 3 years. Our efforts to build 

relationships with foreign counterparts continue to produce real dividends. FBI, the 

DOJ Office of International Affairs, and the Southern District of New York cooperated closely with the Israeli National Police and the Israeli Ministry of Justice. Together, we took down two boiler rooms in Israel that had targeted elderly persons 

in the United States in a lottery telemarketing scam, and had swindled them out 

of more than $10 million of their hard-earned savings. Thanks to this cooperation, 

24 members of the ring were arrested in Israel and the United States; and 19 of 

the 21 have been extradited to the United States. Most pleaded guilty, and have 

been sentenced. 

In fiscal year 2013, DOJ is requesting an increase of $15.2 million within the Justice Information Sharing Technology program to transform, strengthen, and protect 

DOJ internal networks. This will counter newly emerging cyber security threats, including insider threats, provide advanced intrusion detection and response capabilities, and implement cost-efficient scalable enterprise architecture. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget also includes $3 million in new investments to combat 

transnational criminal organizations, and a total of nearly $2 billion to maintain the 
12 

security of our Nation’s Southwest Border. The budget also increases funding for 

international investigation and deterrence of intellectual property crime by $5 million, which brings our investment to nearly $40 million annually to combat online 

piracy and otherwise protect our Nation’s intellectual capital and maintain our competitive edge in developing American ideas and technologies to better compete in the 

global marketplace. 

DOJ’s budget request also supports our continuing work to prevent, investigate, 

and prosecute child exploitation crimes. Sadly, our caseload in this area continues 

to increase. Our budget request will fund ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute offenders such as those who participated in the so-called Dreamboard, an 

international, members-only, online bulletin board that was dedicated to the sexual 

abuse of children. Just as Dreamboard’s members operated across international 

boundaries in committing their crimes, so too did law enforcement personnel work 

across boundaries to take down this nefarious ring. To date, 72 Dreamboard members have been indicted; 53 have been arrested in the United States and abroad. 

DOJ has successfully investigated and prosecuted public corruption, not only in 

the several high-profile cases that made the news, but across the United States. The 

American electorate trusts that their public servants will obey the law; they expect 

DOJ to bring to full justice those who abuse that trust. 

Civil Rights 

A fundamental highlight of DOJ’s budget request for traditional mission programs is $5 million in new resources for the Civil Rights Division to prevent and combat 

human trafficking; hate crimes; and misconduct by law enforcement and public officials. These issues warrant our greater investment and vigilance as we advocate for 

every American—without exception. Safeguarding the civil rights of every American 

is at the heart of what we do, and represents our core mission. In this good work, 

DOJ continues to achieve success and helps our Nation to create ‘‘a more perfect 

union’’. 

In seeking redress for the host of inequities uncovered by the mortgage morass, 

DOJ has fought especially hard to protect the civil rights of Americans. Recently, 

I announced that DOJ had reached a $335 million settlement with a lender to resolve allegations of lending discrimination against African-American and Hispanic 

borrowers who qualified for mortgage loans, but were charged higher interest fees 

or were steered into sub-prime loans, solely because of their race and/or national 

origin. More than 200,000 Americans will be entitled to compensation. We have also 

acted to protect the civil rights of our servicemembers who have been targeted by 

these unconscionable, predatory lending practices. In May 2011, we announced settlements with two lenders to resolve allegations that they had wrongfully foreclosed 

upon active-duty servicemembers without first obtaining court orders, in clear violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act. The settlements provided more than 

$22 million in compensation to our men and women in uniform who were forced to 

worry about their families and losing their homes through unlawful foreclosures, 

while also having to endure the horrors of war. We fought hard for them because 

we believe that, as Americans, we are much better than that, and that our fellow 

citizens, who place their lives on the line for all of us, deserve far better than that. 

Our other civil rights priorities in fiscal year 2013 include a greater focus upon 

combating human trafficking; in uncovering and prosecuting hate crimes that target 

Americans for who they are and what they believe; in upholding and enforcing the 

constitutional right of every eligible American to participate in our Nation’s political 

process and vote freely; and fully implementing provisions of the Civil Rights for 

Institutionalized Persons Act. 

Environment and Natural Resources 

Since 2011, a team of our agents and prosecutors continues to lead the Deepwater 

Horizon Task Force, which has investigated the conduct of those involved in the 

tragic explosion and oil spill that claimed the lives of 11 people; despoiled the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico; killed scores of wildlife; and damaged the vibrant 

economy of a beautiful region, which our citizens have struggled mightily to restore. 

Financial, Mortgage, and Health Fraud 

In our fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks an increase of $55 million, for a total investment of more than $700 million, to investigate and prosecute financial and 

mortgage crimes that have sorely hurt the American people and damaged their trust 

in the financial markets they expect to engage in fair play. The abuses by many 

in the financial sector have had a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, and have 

contributed significantly to the economic suffering of so many Americans. It is essential that DOJ address these abuses forcefully, to hold fully accountable those 

who are responsible for these abuses and ensure that they are not repeated. In this 
13 

budget, we propose an increase in specialized staffing and technologies to combat 

and root out fraud in the area of securities and commodities; investment scams; 

mortgage foreclosure schemes; and increasingly, in healthcare fraud. 

The program increase of $55 million would provide funding for additional FBI special agents, criminal prosecutors, civil litigators, in-house investigators, forensic accountants, and paralegals to hone DOJ’s capacity to investigate and prosecute the 

full spectrum of financial fraud. Bringing aboard specialized and dedicated personnel, especially investigators and forensic accountants, is key to our successful detection and prosecution of complex financial schemes, and helps us to stay well 

ahead of the criminals who devise them. Of the $55 million program increase, $37.4 

million is to increase criminal enforcement efforts and $17.6 million would increase 

civil enforcement efforts. Our total request also includes $9.8 million for technology 

tools and automated litigation support. 

We have already been actively engaged in these efforts. Since fiscal year 2010, 

the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force has spurred investigation and prosecution of financial fraud that has been uncovered by the 2008 financial crisis and economic recovery efforts. The task force has charged and sentenced a great number 

of defendants involved in securities fraud, investment fraud, Ponzi schemes, and 

other financial fraud. In October 2011, the managing member of Galleon Management LLC was sentenced to 11 years in prison, based on DOJ’s investigation of the 

largest hedge fund insider trading scheme in history. We also continue to aggressively prosecute those who commit mortgage fraud. Mortgage fraud victims include 

distressed homeowners preyed upon by fraudsters posing as foreclosure rescue experts; the elderly who are victimized in Home Equity Conversion Mortgage or ‘‘reverse mortgage’’ schemes; U.S. servicemembers; and entire neighborhoods blighted 

by blocks of abandoned homes. In fiscal year 2011, the U.S. Attorneys’ offices filed 

513 cases against 947 defendants, an increase of 92 percent in just 2 years. 

Earlier this month, I joined Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun 

Donovan and the Attorneys General of Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Illinois, 

and Iowa to announce the unprecedented agreement reached by the Federal Government and State attorneys general with the Nation’s five largest mortgage servicers 

to address mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. This agreement—the 

largest joint Federal-State settlement ever obtained—provides substantial financial 

relief to homeowners and establishes significant, new homeowner protections. It 

holds mortgage servicers accountable for abusive practices and requires them to 

commit more than $20 billion toward financial relief for consumers. As a result, 

struggling homeowners throughout the country will benefit from reduced principal 

amounts and the refinancing of their loans. The agreement also requires substantial 

changes in how servicers do business, which will help to ensure the abuses of the 

past are not repeated. 

Moreover, on January 27, I announced the formation of the Residential MortgageBacked Securities Working Group, supported by current manpower and funds, to leverage State and local resources in a nationwide effort to investigate and prosecute 

crimes in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. DOJ will join the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York State Attorney General under 

authority of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force in leading the working 

group, which will be staffed by at least 55 DOJ agents, analysts, investigators, and 

attorneys from around the United States. 

Finally, DOJ remains fully engaged with the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) to prevent and combat healthcare fraud. Earlier this month, HHS 

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and I reported the success of our joint efforts, having 

recovered nearly $4.1 billion for U.S. taxpayers in fiscal year 2011. The 3-year average return on investment for healthcare fraud funding in fiscal year 2011 was more 

than $7 for every $1 invested—the highest ever for this program. 

In fiscal year 2013, we plan to redouble our efforts and ask the Congress for 

$294.5 million through the HHS budget for healthcare fraud funding to support 

DOJ initiatives to combat civil and criminal healthcare fraud. Increased funding will 

permit DOJ to expand Medicare Fraud Strike Force operations and to more effectively target locations where healthcare fraud activities are rampant. We also propose additional support to bolster civil enforcement efforts, including False Claims 

Act matters, to investigate and prosecute fraud by medical and pharmaceutical providers. 

STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

In our fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks a total of $2 billion to assist State, 

local, and tribal law enforcement personnel, especially in combating violent crime 
14 

and violence against women and all other victims of crime, and in supporting victim 

programs. 

DOJ’s budget request is strong on law enforcement; it’s strong on solid program 

research and development; it’s strong on juvenile justice; and it’s strong on innovation. In presenting this budget request, we’ve taken a long, hard look at what has 

worked best in these areas, in order to extend these best practices across the broad 

range of our work. 

The key to DOJ’s success in protecting the American people continues to be in 

developing effective partnerships with law enforcement counterparts throughout the 

United States and abroad to leverage a more focused and effective law enforcement 

response. To put this in perspective, there are 65,000 U.S. Federal agents dedicated 

to criminal investigations; by comparison, there are 700,000 State and local law enforcement officers in the United States, not to mention scores of others who work 

for agencies from other nations. Crime is increasingly transnational and global in 

scope, and criminals respect no boundaries. We owe it to the American people to 

work closely with our partners—at home and abroad—to prevent these criminals 

from harming our citizens, and to ensure that those who do so are brought to justice. 

Here at home, one of our most important partnering programs is the Community 

Oriented Policing Service (COPS) grant program. These grants assist State and local 

police in hiring officers for targeted patrol and other proven strategies to reduce and 

prevent crime. From fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2011, the COPS office funded more than 7,100 positions. More than 5,000 of these positions have been filled 

so far; nearly 4,000 of them as new hires. The budget requests an additional $91 

million for the COPS hiring program in fiscal year 2013, for a total of $257.1 million. Of this amount, $15 million will be dedicated to community policing development initiatives and $15 million will be directed to tribal jurisdictions. 

It is worth noting that COPS will be giving preference in any fiscal year 2012 hiring grant award to communities that hire post-9/11 veterans of our armed forces. 

Put simply, this is the right thing to do, and I assure you that this policy will continue in grants funded by the fiscal year 2013 appropriation. 

To give you an idea of the impact that COPS funding has had within local communities, let me tell you about Fresno, California. Given budgetary constraints, the 

Fresno Police Department had lost 100 sworn police officer positions and 265 civilian positions over a 3-year period. COPS funding added 41 front-line officers who 

helped Fresno reduce violent crime by targeted removal of dangerous criminals from 

the community’s streets. The results are impressive. In 2011, Fresno experienced decreases in violent crimes across the board and had its lowest murder rate in a decade. Without COPS funding, the Fresno Police Department would have been forced 

to disband its violent crime impact team and redeploy officers into patrol, and merely react to crime. Instead, COPS funding helped the people of Fresno become more 

active in safeguarding their community. 

In this area, too, DOJ seeks funding for grant programs proven to be effective in 

preventing crime. Increased funding is requested for the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program; for residential substance abuse treatment; for Second Chance Act 

implementation; for Part B Juvenile Justice Formula Grants; and for a new, evidence-based juvenile justice competitive demonstration grant program. 

The Adam Walsh Act significantly enhances DOJ’s ability to respond to crimes 

against children and vulnerable adults, and to prevent sex offenders who have been 

released back into the community from victimizing others. The fiscal year 2013 

budget also includes $20 million for States and local jurisdictions, and an additional 

$1 million to develop the National Sex Offender Public Web site. 

Finally, a significant outlay under the fiscal year 2013 budget includes increased 

funding to squarely address domestic violence and child abuse in rural areas 

through support of projects specifically designed to prevent these crimes in rural jurisdictions. A significant portion of these funds will be dedicated to implementing 

public safety programs in Indian country, to assist tribal law enforcement partners 

in reducing the disproportionately high levels of violent crime there. 

PRISONS AND DETENTION

In DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget, we are seeking $8.6 billion to ensure that prisoners and detainees are held in secure Federal facilities and to improve Federal 

prisoner re-entry. 

Last year, DOJ made strategic investments to enhance the Nation’s security and 

make communities safer. There are more than 2 million people incarcerated in the 

United States; estimates project the Federal inmate population in the United States 

to increase by 6,500, in addition to the estimated 5,000 inmates who will be proc-
15 

essed in fiscal year 2012. The fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation included partial funding for activation of new prisons in Alabama and New Hampshire. In the 

fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ requests funding to fully activate these facilities and 

initiate two others, in Mississippi and West Virginia. In all, DOJ plans to add 2,500 

prison beds and 1,000 new, low-security contract confinement beds in fiscal year 

2013. DOJ will also direct increased funding to hire additional corrections workers 

and cover increased costs to transfer, accommodate, and secure the larger prisoner 

population. 

While opening the secure facilities we need to confine criminals, DOJ’s budget request also addresses the parallel need to free up prison space and reduce long-term 

detention and incarceration costs. This budget recognizes the need to work with you 

in the Congress to make simple changes to the calculation of good conduct time, and 

to explore ways to further reduce recidivism. These proposals provide proven incentives for good behavior among certain eligible, nonviolent inmates, and their participation in programs designed to keep them from returning to prison, and will have 

a direct impact in relieving overcrowding in Federal prisons. Beyond the steps proposed in this budget, the Federal Government has an opportunity to build on the 

work of States like Texas and Indiana to modernize criminal sentencing, ensuring 

that violent and career criminals remain behind bars and off the streets, while 

strengthening programs to help eligible, nonviolent offenders to safely and productively re-enter their communities. 

The programs we propose to fund aim to reduce recidivism by expanding participation in these re-entry programs. DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget request includes 

expansion of the Bureau of Prison’s residential drug abuse program, which supports 

Second Chance objectives. This expansion will enable greater use of the sentencing 

credits available to eligible, nonviolent inmates who complete drug treatment programs. Thus, as this program contributes to reducing crime, it will also result in 

fewer taxpayer resources directed at incarcerating inmates. 

SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCIES

DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget presents a highly streamlined array of programs, 

which will help us to achieve our mission more efficiently while protecting the 

American people more effectively. 

DOJ proposes almost $700 million in efficiencies, offsets, and rescissions. We at 

DOJ recognize that we must do our part to help our Nation maintain its sound fiscal footing. In our fiscal year 2013 budget request, we seek to balance fiscal responsibility demanded by the American people with DOJ’s national security and law enforcement mission to prevent, prosecute, and bring to justice all who would do us 

harm. 

In leading this effort, I directed DOJ staff to identify areas where we would 

achieve significant savings for the American taxpayers by implementing changes in 

the way we execute our mission. These changes include improving the way we target funding, seeking support for programs that work; redirecting funding from the 

Department level to component agencies to reduce overhead and increase operational efficiency; and consolidating offices and redirecting or reducing personnel 

and resources. 

In all, we identified $646.6 million in administrative efficiencies, nongrant program reductions, and rescissions of prior-year balances, which will reduce our bottom line without impairing our mission or capabilities. 

In submitting DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, I emphasize that we continue to hold the line on expenses, seek to eliminate waste, and promote efficiencies. 

In this request, we propose to reorganize DOJ by consolidating offices. In doing so, 

we will become a leaner, more agile, and more responsive organization. Our goal is 

to enhance our service to the American people, without sacrificing the essential mission. Instead, we intend to realign our staff and resources to meet the greatest 

needs. 

In proposing these realignments, we add our efforts to the President’s Campaign 

to Cut Waste. In July 2010, I launched DOJ’s Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies, or the SAVE Council, to focus these efforts within DOJ. In just the last 

2 years, the SAVE Council has helped DOJ realize nearly $60 million in savings 

and cost avoidance. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget includes savings expected from merging detention 

functions currently performed by the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee into 

USMS, merging core functions of the National Drug Intelligence Center into DEA, 

and transfer management of the Law Enforcement Wireless Communication program to FBI, returning funding and the concomitant responsibility for radio operations and maintenance to DOJ’s law enforcement components. 
16 

Additional savings and efficiencies were identified in the areas of information 

technology, space requirements, overhead, administration, and operations. For example, the IT offset represents savings that will be developed through greater intercomponent collaboration in IT contracting; funds will be redirected to support DOJ’s 

cyber security and IT transformation efforts and other high-priority initiatives. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I am keenly aware that the President and I have asked DOJ’s dedicated employees to do much more with fewer resources during this period of economic recovery. That they have done so with continued dedication to our mission 

to protect the American people is truly exemplary and inspiring. 

I appreciate this opportunity to tell you about our good work at the Department 

of Justice, to thank you for your support to date, and to ask you to fund the important work that lies ahead. 

At this time, I would be pleased to take your questions. 

Senator MIKULSKI. As a matter of senatorial courtesy, we’re 

going to turn to Senator Shelby, who has a Banking Committee 

hearing that he must join, then I’ll pick up, followed by Senator 

Hutchison. We will recognize the members in order of arrival, and 

we’ll follow the 5-minute rule. 

Senator Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good morning. 

TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER AND NATIONAL

CENTER FOR EXPLOSIVES TRAINING RESEARCH

Senator SHELBY. Two key DOJ facilities will soon be operating 

on Redstone Arsenal: The FBI’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), and the ATF’s National Center for Explosives 

Training Research (NCETR). These two national assets will help 

law enforcement officials deal with the growing threat posed by terrorists and criminal use of powerful explosives. 

You and I have discussed these facilities previously, and I believe 

you agreed then with me that the missions of NCETR and TEDAC 

are distinct, but complementary, and that it made sense to colocate 

them at Redstone, where there’s a lot of property, a lot of land. 

For the benefit of the subcommittee, Mr. Attorney General, can 

you describe how DOJ will utilize NCETR and TEDAC? 

Attorney General HOLDER. TEDAC, run chiefly by the FBI, deals 

with the examination of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), that 

we see coming out of Afghanistan and other places. NCETR, by 

contrast, run by the ATF, deals with other, more common explosive 

devices. 

Senator SHELBY. More prevalent maybe? 

Attorney General HOLDER. More prevalent explosive devices that 

we see. I think that you’re right, they have fundamentally different 

responsibilities, but they complement one another, and the location 

of them in that place makes a great deal of sense. 

Senator SHELBY. Could you describe the value of colocating these 

facilities on a large Federal arsenal, with lots of range of space? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I think there’s a great deal of 

cross-pollination, the ability to talk to one another. Although the 

purposes are distinct, there are going to certainly be scientific 
17 

things, breakthroughs, perhaps, that you can exchange information 

about by having people who are relatively close by. Having the two 

agencies that are primarily responsible for explosives determination and prevention close by each other, even though they have distinct roles that have been pretty well delineated—it is good to have 

them there and talking to one another. 

Senator SHELBY. Also, you’re aware that the community there, 

near Redstone, Huntsville, has the highest per capita Ph.D. communities in science and engineering. 

Attorney General HOLDER. There are a lot of smart people there. 

That’s true. 

Senator SHELBY. You plan to utilize that then. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. We’ll use smart people wherever 

we can find them. There are a lot there. That is fair. 

ACTIVATION OF ALICEVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE

Senator SHELBY. Well, I want to go to another question. People 

make mistakes and pay for it, I guess. 

Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department is seeking 

funds this year to activate a new women’s prison in Aliceville, Alabama. This prison was designated as a female-only facility, based 

on input from your Department, and it cost nearly $250 million 

when it was finished. Does the Department plan to activate this 

soon? I know you’ve got a lot in it. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

said that was one of their top priorities. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We want to activate it. It was specially designed to deal with the unique needs that female prisoners 

have. We need to expand our capacity to handle female prisoners 

in the Federal system. Given the fact that the facility was specially 

configured for female prisoners, it would be our hope to activate it 

as quickly as we can, and for the use for which it was designated. 

Senator SHELBY. Well, you’ve got a lot in it, and it’s finished. 

And I’d hope you would do that soon, because to activate it, it costs 

hardly anything, compared to what it cost to build. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I don’t disagree with that. The 

need is clearly there for the expanding female population, unfortunately, that we see in the Federal prison system. 

Senator SHELBY. It would be a priority for you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Senator SHELBY. In that area. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We want to bring online as many of 

these facilities we can, and this is one that, as I understand it, is 

extremely close, where we’re just about ready to open it. 

Senator SHELBY. Good. Madam Chairman, thank you very much 

for taking me out of order, and I appreciate it very much. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Attorney General, I have two questions. 

I had many, but we’ll submit them for the record. 

FEDERAL PRISON FUNDING

First of all, Federal prisons. As I look at the Department’s budget, almost one-third of the Justice Department money is going into 

Federal prisons. That amount is now at $6 billion, and it is rapidly 

approaching almost what the FBI budget is, which is $8 billion. 
18 

Now, my question is: What’s going on with Federal prisons? First 

of all, we want the bad guys and gals off the street. So we want 

you to prosecute and incarcerate, particularly where there are people who constitute a danger to our country or to our communities. 

I don’t know if we can sustain this growth, and then I’m concerned 

about once we put them in, it’s a revolving door, and we keep expanding their prisons with the same people. They keep coming 

back. 

Could you elaborate on your Department’s needs? Are there any 

recommendations you’d have to begin to contain the prison population? Are we federalizing too many crimes? Is recidivism the 

problem? Again, safe streets—but this is really an ever-increasing 

part of our appropriations. 

Attorney General HOLDER. There are a whole variety of reasons 

why we see the prison population expanding. We now have about 

215,000 people in the Federal system. That number goes up every 

year, and it is for that reason that we consistently come back to 

this subcommittee asking for additional funds for BOP. 

There are a variety of reasons why you see people coming into 

the system. We are good partners with our State and local counterparts, and we try to help them, to the extent that we can. And so, 

some cases violate both Federal and State law, and if they are very 

serious criminals, we bring them to the Federal system if there are 

evidentiary rules or more harsh sentences that we can give to 

them. 

I think the point that you hit on, that we really need to focus 

on, is how can we rehabilitate people so that we cut down on recidivism rates? One of the things that we have talked about is the Second Chance Act, coming up with ways in which we make available 

to people re-entry possibilities, so that they have the chance of not 

being recidivists, coming up with educational, vocational, drug 

treatment programs while we have them in prison. 

We’ve actually seen pretty good success being made by some 

State systems that has been shared with me by the Pew Research 

Foundation. I think we can learn a lot from them in that regard. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, Mr. Attorney General, we would really 

look forward to specific recommendations. We want our local and 

our Federal law enforcement to prosecute and get bad people off 

the street, whether they’re terrorists or whether they’re terrorizing 

a neighborhood, like some of the drug dealers in some of my own 

communities in Maryland. 

At the same time, we don’t want our Federal prisons to be an incubator for more crime, where the lessons that they learn when 

they go to prison is not to commit crimes again, but how to be better crooks. We want our prisons to teach them how to be better citizens, and then to come back to a community support system where 

they don’t fall back into the behavior that got them. 

So, I’m concerned that our Federal prisons are such that we need 

to really look and evaluate, and learn some of these lessons. So, we 

want to work with you. I know you feel that way. You’re very experienced in street crime, which takes me to the other point. 
19 

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICE GRANTS

Ultimately, you’ve done this fantastic job of fighting terrorism, 

keeping America safe. It’s been stunning what our national security services have accomplished, both military and civilian. Again, 

I’ll come back to streets and neighborhoods. You know, we have 

communities that face crime every single day. And we talk to our 

local law enforcement, our local prosecutors’ offices, and so on. 

They feel they’re under the gun. They need Byrne grants, they 

need Cops on the Beat, and so on. 

Do you feel that this is sufficient funding? In fiscal year 2010, 

we had $3.7 billion that went into State and local grants. Due to 

acts of the Congress and so on, now, we’re down to $2 billion. Yet, 

everywhere I go in Maryland, from our local police commissioners 

to local district attorneys, or States’ attorneys, as they’re called in 

my State, people say we need those Justice Department grants. 

They give us better technology. They give us tools to deal with violence against women. They express gratitude for the lethal index. 

They need you. They love having you as a partner. 

Do we have enough money in the right places to do the job to 

protect our communities? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have in the budget request $2.04 

billion for State and local assistance programs; $1.4 billion for Office of Justice Programs (OJP); about $290 million for COPS; and 

$412 million for the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). 

This is the level that’s about equal to the level we requested last 

year. It is lower than numbers that you had said. But, I think that 

given the budget realities that we face, the amount that we have 

requested is strong on law enforcement. It’s strong for science. It’s 

strong for victims. 

Would I like to have more money? Yes, but the budget realities 

that we confront, and the need to stay within a budget in the executive branch have gotten us to this point. I think that through the 

provision of this money, through the technical assistance that we 

can also provide to our State and local partners, we can do the job. 

I met with the National Association of Attorneys General just 

this week, and I think the partnership that we have is an unprecedented one. I think that the combination of that partnership, the 

sensitivity that we have to their needs, and the $2 billion that we 

are seeking here will allow us to be good partners. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, we have many questions. So, I’m going 

to turn to Senator Hutchison. 

What I would find very helpful is two things. One, if you look at 

your Byrne grants, Cops on the Beat, and so on, what was the 

amount of money requested by State and local people to apply for 

those grants, and what could you fund? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I mean the request—oh. Sorry. 

Senator MIKULSKI. No. My time’s up. So I’d like that for the 

record. 
20 

[The information follows:] 

FUNDS REQUESTED BY STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR BYRNE GRANTS

COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICE OFFICE

In 2011, the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) office made 238 awards 

to fund 1,021 law enforcement officer positions, totaling $243,398,709. The total 

amount requested was $2,067,924,397 from 2,712 law enforcement agencies. 

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Because individual Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program awards are determined and limited by a specific, statutorily driven crime and population formula, 

States, local governments, and tribes cannot request more than the total amount 

available in any fiscal year. Because of this, it is not possible to determine what 

the unmet need was in fiscal year 2011 under the JAG program. In fiscal year 2011, 

there were a total of 56 States and territories and 1,348 local jurisdictions eligible 

for JAG funds, with a total of $365.9 million available in prescribed amounts. Of 

the local governments eligible for a direct JAG award, all but 127 applied for their 

funding allocation. Of the 127 that did not apply for their eligible funding, 120 of 

these jurisdictions would have received an award of between $10,000 and $25,000. 

As a result of these failures to apply, $1,949,103 in Byrne JAG funding was not 

awarded in fiscal year 2011. 

However, in fiscal year 2011, Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) released 63 funding solicitations and received 4,295 funding applications requesting a total of $3,793,937,608 in Federal funding from BJA. BJA had 

sufficient appropriations to meet 19.32 percent of this requested total, funding 51.66 

percent of all applications submitted. These figures do not include unmet demand 

from programs such as the State Criminal Alien Apprehension Program and the 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership, which had additional unmet funding requests. 

DUPLICATION OF SERVICES

Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs is a critical priority of the administration and the Department. The Department is committed to 

continuing efforts to prevent unnecessary duplication, streamline through approaches such as the consolidation of grant programs, and identify effective programs using evidence-based methods. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) grantmaking agencies closely collaborate on the development and implementation of grant programs to avoid the types of potential 

problems cited by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Managers from OJP 

and its bureaus, COPS office, and the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) 

often meet to coordinate programs and objectives. The following selected examples 

are illustrative of the Department’s commitment to work collaboratively among its 

own components as well as Federal Government-wide to improve government performance and effectively target the public safety needs of our communities. 

—In January 2011, I convened the first meeting of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council. The council is addressing short-term and long-term goals on prisoner re-entry through enhanced communication, coordination, and collaboration 

across Federal agencies. OJP is leading a parallel staff-level effort, which includes 35 people from 17 different Federal agencies—including the Departments 

of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 

Labor, Education (ED), Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Social Security 

Administration, and others. 

—OJP is also spearheading the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, 

which is an effort launched—at the direction of the White House—by DOJ and 

ED, to directly and locally address the needs of communities that continue to 

experience high levels of youth violence. Using comprehensive technical assistance, the Forum enables Federal agencies to serve as catalysts for broad-based 

positive change at the local level in a very efficient, cost-effective manner. 

—All of DOJ’s components and leaders are working together to provide the most 

efficient and timely information to tribal communities. As cited in the GAO report, beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Department created the Coordinated 

Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), which consolidates most of the Department’s tribal government-specific criminal justice assistance programs administered by OJP, OVW, and COPS under one solicitation. Through CTAS, tribes 

can apply for funding for many of their criminal justice needs with one application. 
21 

—The Tribal Law and Order Act enacted in July, 2010, contained amendments 

to multiple laws with an impact across DOJ activities in Indian country, including a number of OJP programs. The CTAS collaborative experience readied us for statutorily mandated coordination required for law enforcement, 

training, increased grants authority, and crime data analysis and reporting. 

—We are also partnering with other Federal agencies to conduct inventories of 

Federal resources, develop interagency memorandums of agreement, and 

long-term comprehensive plans to improve our performance, eliminate duplication, and identify gaps to better serve tribal governments and their communities, in consultation with tribes. 

—The Defending Childhood Initiative is being coordinated across OJP, COPS, 

OVW, the U.S. Attorneys offices, as well as other components within the Department and the Federal Government. 

The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative—which is a White House-led interagency collaboration—is executing place-based strategies to engage and support 

local communities in developing and obtaining the tools they need to revitalize their 

own neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. 

The Federal Government already directs significant resources to these neighborhoods, but we can always look for additional ways to continue to support them. Better alignment of Federal programs will help local leaders to use Federal funds more 

effectively, making our taxpayer dollars go further. 

Additionally, the Department is working as a whole to coordinate and improve our 

grants management efforts. There is a DOJ-wide Grants Management Challenges 

Workgroup, comprised of grants officials from COPS office, OJP, and OVW, that 

meets to share information and develop consistent practices and procedures in a 

wide variety of grant administration and management areas. In fiscal year 2011, the 

working group successfully implemented the DOJ-wide high-risk grantee designation program and a DOJ-wide, on-line financial training tool for DOJ grantees. 

Through our Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program, OJP and the Department will strengthen partnerships with HUD, ED, HHS, and the Department of the 

Treasury in distressed neighborhoods to implement effective strategies to address 

persistently high violent crime, gang activity, and illegal drugs. 

As mentioned, the Department is equally committed to consolidating grant programs as appropriate. The fiscal year 2013 budget re-proposes a consolidation that 

was also included in the fiscal year 2012 budget but not adopted, the consolidation 

(Problem Solving Justice) and expansion of funding for Drug Courts and the Mentally Ill Offender Act Program. The fiscal year 2013 budget also proposes the creation of a 7-percent tribal grant set aside to address the needs of Indian country, 

rather than several separate programs. 

As resources have become tighter, we are working smarter by promoting evidencebased approaches and developing and spreading knowledge about what works and 

what causes crime and delinquency. Evidence-based knowledge is critical to help 

policymakers at the Federal, States, and local levels know what to fund, but perhaps more importantly right now, what not to fund. For example, OJP has developed tools such as CrimeSolutions.gov and the Diagnostic Center, which help jurisdictions focus on evidence-based ‘‘smart on crime’’ approaches to maximize resources 

and improve public safety results. 

Senator MIKULSKI. The second thing is: The GAO report raises 

issues related to duplication of services, and I’d like to have your 

reaction to the GAO report on how we can streamline, get more efficiencies. I think you’re already on that road. 

But let me turn to Senator Hutchison. 

STEVENS CASE

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, we will have questions for the record, but I wanted 

to pursue this public integrity unit’s misconduct against Senator 

Stevens. 

After you moved to dismiss the case, the court appointed counsel 

to investigate the botched prosecution of Senator Stevens, and 

found that the prosecutors engaged in systematic concealment of 

evidence, but they were not guilty of criminal contempt. And according to the summary that was put out in the public, the full re-
22 

port coming later, the court said, ‘‘Despite findings of widespread, 

and at times, intentional misconduct, the special counsel, Mr. 

Schuelke, recommended against contempt charges, because prosecutors did not disobey a clear and equivocal order by the judge, 

as required under law.’’ 

Now, Judge Sullivan said, ‘‘Upon review of the docket and proceedings in the Stevens case, Mr. Schuelke concludes no such order 

existed in this case. Rather, the court accepted the repeated representations of the subject prosecutors that they were familiar with 

their discovery obligations, were complying with those obligations, 

and were proceeding in good faith.’’ 

My question to you is: Does it concern you that the only reason 

these prosecutors escaped criminal charges is that the judge in the 

Stevens case didn’t file an order specifically telling the prosecutors 

that they should follow the law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have to take into account a variety of things. When I was made aware of the issues that led to the 

inquiry that Judge Sullivan ordered, I made sure I ordered that the 

case be dismissed. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Dismissed. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I also ordered that an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report be done as an internal DOJ report, which has now been completed. It is now in its final stages 

of being worked through. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Will it be made public, Mr. Attorney General? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m hoping that we can. There are privacy interests that we have to deal with, but my hope is to get that 

report, or as much of the report, made public as we possibly can. 

It is an exhaustive study. It is hundreds of pages long. I think the 

people at OPR have done a good job, and there are recommendations with regard to sanctions that ought to be made. I’m hoping 

that we will make that available. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’m going to request that you do. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay. I’m not really at liberty to discuss the report that Mr. Schuelke did. We’ve gotten a limited number of those reports in the Justice Department, 10 or 15 of them, 

and we’re under orders by the judge not to discuss those. I’ve had 

a chance to review, certainly, the summary and portions of it, and 

some of the findings that are made there are disturbing. They were 

disturbing when I made the decision to dismiss the case. 

We have done a lot since that time to come up with ways in 

which we try to prevent those kinds of mistakes from happening 

again. We have an extensive training program. We have hired 

somebody who is responsible as a coordinator to make sure that 

discovery is handled properly in criminal cases and civil cases that 

the Justice Department is involved in, so we don’t fall back into 

those same kinds of errors. I have spoken to members of the judiciary. All to make sure that what happened in the case involving 

Senator Stevens is not replicated. I would urge everybody to understand that this Justice Department, this Attorney General, when 

we made that determination that mistakes occurred, took the extraordinary step of dismissing that case. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Which I give you full credit for. 
23 

PROSECUTORS IN STEVENS CASE

Now, let me ask you: Four of the six prosecutors, according to reports, who were investigated, opposed releasing the report, and 

their names have been redacted. I want to ask you if any of these 

prosecutors are still in the Justice Department system. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have to check that, just to make 

sure, but I believe all of the prosecutors who were involved in that 

case are still in the Department. I believe that’s true. I’m not totally sure of that. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Does that trouble you, that there would be 

findings of misconduct in such a sensitive area that you would not 

let them go outside of our justice system? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It depends on the nature of the misconduct, what it is that they did, the mistakes that were made. I 

think one has to look at the Schuelke report that is about to be released, combined with the OPR report and the recommendations 

for sanctions that are contained in that OPR report, to look at what 

exactly should happen to these people. Was the incident an isolated 

one? How serious was it? What is the nature of their contribution? 

Senator HUTCHISON. Are you going to do that, Mr. Attorney General? Are you going to make a decision regarding people who have 

clearly exhibited that they do not have the integrity to prosecute 

in this sensitive area? Will you tell the subcommittee what your actions are when you have made that determination? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t think there was any Privacy 

Act interest that prevents us from sharing with this subcommittee 

what actions we have ultimately decided to take against those people who are found to have been culpable. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I ask that you report that to the subcommittee. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Brown. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Attorney General Holder, for your service. 

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WORKING GROUP

You established the new RMBS Working Group. Thank you for 

that. I want to talk a moment about that. But, last week, Phil 

Angelides, from Senator Feinstein’s State, former chair of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, observed that the number of 

lawyers, some 55 lawyers, investigators, and other staff of the 

working group I just mentioned, that is far fewer than the 100 law 

enforcement professionals dedicated to the Dallas bank fraud task 

force during the savings and loan era. 

Mr. Angelides also suggested the Congress should extend the 

statute of limitations for financial institutions fraud from 5 years 

to 10 years, as the Congress did in 1989, when it passed the Federal Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act after the savings and loan crisis. And you, of course, are aware of the public 

sentiment of anxiety, frustration, outrage—pick your noun—toward 

the fact that so few people have been prosecuted. 
24 

Talk to me about the working group, the dollars you’re dedicating of the $55 million increase you’re asking for. Is it going to 

go into the RMBS Working Group? And comment, if you would, on 

Mr. Angelides’ recommendation that the statute of limitations, 

similarly 20 years ago on a, if not a similar scandal, surely a scandal, when it was lengthened to 10 years by the Congress then, if 

that’s something we should do. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would say, first off, that this whole 

mortgage fraud scandal that we are dealing with is something that 

we have taken extremely seriously. We brought charges against 

about 2,100 people last year, all over the course of the last few 

years, in connection with the mortgage problem. You mentioned 

there are 55 Federal personnel to go to the RMBS task force— 

that’s the Federal component. One of the things that I think is 

unique about that is that we’re working with our State and local 

partners, and, in particular, State attorneys general. So, the number of people who will be ultimately devoted to that task force will 

be substantially greater than that. 

I suspect we will also be adding people from various U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country. I think we’re looking at four or 

five that will be intimately involved in this, so that number will ultimately go up. We’re going to have adequate resources, in terms 

of the numbers of people, to do the job that we need to do with regard to the RMBS Working Group. 

With regard to the extension of the statute of limitations, that 

is something that I’d be more than glad to discuss with the members of this subcommittee after I’ve had a chance to speak with the 

prosecutors on the ground, to see if, in fact, that is something that 

we need. We want to use all the tools that we have, and also consider any possibilities that we might want to acquire, so that we 

can hold accountable the people and institutions who really had a 

devastating impact on our Nation’s economy, and continue to have 

a lingering effect on our Nation’s economy and, in particular, the 

housing market, which drags down the recovery. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Thank you for that. And we will be following up with your office on the wisdom, hearing from your prosecutors that might be in the middle of initiating these cases or in 

the middle of these cases, about the importance of that extra 5 

years of the statute of limitations. 

OIL AND GAS PRICE FRAUD WORKING GROUP

Let me talk for a moment about gas prices. You know, oil prices 

are more than $100 per barrel. The Department of Energy and the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission have told us inventories 

of oil are sufficient. Domestic production is up. We hear that. The 

number of rigs has grown. The consumption is down. All reasons 

that gas prices should not be going up, understanding that the turmoil in the Middle East and the discussion of Iran. 

Some analysts have estimated speculation may be adding 50 

cents to the price per gallon of gas. It’s my understanding over the 

last year, DOJ organized the Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working 

Group to determine the role speculators and potential price manipulation are having on the price of gasoline. 
25 

What have you found? What are your next steps? What can we 

expect? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That working group continues to be 

in effect. In fact, they’re having a call today to discuss the situation 

in which we find ourselves with regard to these rising gas prices. 

That working group, itself, will be meeting before the end of this 

week. The work of that group has been ongoing and looking to see 

if there are inappropriate manipulations of the market. 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also working in this 

area. I don’t want to speak for them, but I understand they’re 

working on a report of some sort that we should be seeing relatively soon. That is, again, the FTC working independently of us. 

But within the Department, that Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working 

Group has been active, and as I said, has a call today and a meeting that will happen, I think, by tomorrow. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. I would like to request that after the 

phone call, and after the meeting today or tomorrow, that task 

force brief me and other members of the subcommittee who have 

expressed interest. 

Attorney General HOLDER. All right. To the extent we can, we 

will certainly do that. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. All right. Mr. Attorney General, we really 

would like to see that. This is very, very, very important. 

We would now like to turn to Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr. Attorney General. Welcome this morning. 

STEVENS CASE

I want to follow onto Senator Hutchison’s questions regarding 

the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. I think so many of us were 

absolutely shocked. I was horrified, as a friend, and as an Alaskan, 

to read Judge Sullivan’s comments that this ill-gotten verdict not 

only resulted in the loss of Senator Stevens losing his seat, but in 

his words, tipped the balance of power in the U.S. Senate. Pretty 

powerful, in terms of what DOJ did to a great man. 

I appreciate, and I recognize, and I thank you for your actions 

in dismissing that case, and in your decision to not attempt to 

retry, and I join Senator Hutchison with that. But, there are questions that still remain. You know that. I have a long series of them, 

and what I would like to do is submit them to you today, and ask 

that you respond to them prior to the release of the report, which 

is due to come out next Wednesday, the 15th of March. So, I would 

appreciate your attention to that. 

ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR PROSECUTORS IN STEVENS CASE

I have a question regarding what is happening now with the release of this report. The USA Today reported that DOJ has spent 

$1.8 million in defending prosecutors from allegations that they 

broke the law in the Stevens prosecution. And Senator Grassley 

was one who mentioned that it seems like this is an unseemingly 
26 

high amount of money being spent by the taxpayers to defend what 

appears to be egregious misconduct. And, again, Senator Hutchison 

has noted the words that Judge Sullivan used in his order, saying 

that the report demonstrated significant widespread, and at times, 

intentional misconduct by the prosecutors. 

Now, I understand that the $1.8 million went for attorney’s fees 

to defend the actions of the Justice Department prosecutors who 

were under investigation for contempt by the counsel appointed by 

Judge Sullivan. The report of that counsel, again, is due to be released on the 15th. In addition to spending taxpayer money to defend your attorneys, did the taxpayers also pay for the attorneys 

to argue that the contents of this report should not be publicly released? You have stated that this is a matter that has risen to a 

level of public attention. So, if you can answer that question for 

me, and also whether the Justice Department supports the merits 

of the appeal that has been raised by Mr. Edward Sullivan, who 

is one of the prosecutors who has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for an emergency stay to prevent the release of this report next 

week. 

So, the question is whether you support the merits of that appeal, and, again, whether or not the taxpayers are on the hook to 

pay for his attorneys to argue that this report should be kept from 

the public. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t think we take any position 

with regard to what he has said about his desire to keep the report 

sealed. The Justice Department has indicated that we do not object 

to the release of the report. I think that given the issues that we 

found there, the magnitude of the case, and, frankly, the magnitude of the errors that led me to decide to dismiss the case, that 

there is a legitimate public interest in knowing as much as we can 

about what happened, why it happened, what steps the Justice Department has taken in connection with these findings of misconduct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So is the Justice Department paying for his 

attorneys’ fees in this matter, to keep this from being made public? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know about him, specifically, 

but I do know that as a result of the charges that were brought 

against them, the determination was made that there would be a 

conflict of interest for the Justice Department to defend them, 

which would be typically how we would do it, and they were, therefore, allowed to get outside counsel. Under the regulations, the Justice Department then pays for those legal representations, which 

has happened in a variety of cases, a variety of circumstances, 

former attorneys general and lawyers who have been reimbursed 

by the Government. I’m hoping I won’t have to do that, but other 

attorneys general have done that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So, even now that the independent counsel 

that Judge Sullivan had appointed, even though that counsel has 

found that members of the Stevens prosecution had engaged in significant, widespread and, at times, intentional, and again, intentional misconduct, does the Government have any recourse to recover the funds that have been paid for their attorneys’ fees, when 

they have engaged in intentional misconduct? 
27 

Now, you mentioned in your comments to Senator Hutchison 

that after the OPR report, that there may be sanctions that we will 

see, but is there recourse? Are you pursuing any recourse? It seems 

to me that in an instance like this, where it has been made clear 

that the conduct was intentional, that it was substantial, and it 

was widespread, that we should not be defending and paying for 

the attorneys’ fees to again allow these individuals to conduct such 

acts, and then to learn that they’re still within DOJ doesn’t give 

me much confidence. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Certainly, one of the things that happens is that because the Justice Department can’t represent these 

people, and they have their own views of what happened, they 

want to be able to explain, with counsel, defend themselves. That 

is why the expenditure of money actually occurred. That is why 

they are allowed to get outside counsel. As I said, that has happened, not frequently, but it certainly happened in the past, and 

we acted with regard to them as we have done in the past with regard to the retention of outside counsel. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I would think that $1.8 million to go to defend these attorneys, who have engaged in intentional misconduct, 

is just stunning to me. I’d like to think that there could be some 

recourse. 

Madam Chairman, I’m well over my time. I thank you for your 

indulgence. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It was important that you had the opportunity to completely pursue your line of questioning. The situation 

that has been presented by you and Senator Hutchison, reminding 

the subcommittee, is deeply troubling. We must have public integrity. We also must have an independent judiciary. We have to 

have, regardless of which party is in the White House, a Justice 

Department that we believe in, and that the American people believe in. So, I know the Attorney General will be responsive, and 

then we’ll take it from there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Madam Chairman, I just want to thank 

you for those comments, and agree wholeheartedly. And I do think 

the Attorney General took a major first step, when he dismissed 

the case. That was huge. But, now we must followup, so that there 

is no question that the people who did this, and the report will 

show whatever it shows, that they’re not able to prosecute ever 

again. Ever. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Pryor. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK PRYOR

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Attorney General, 

welcome to the subcommittee. Thank you for being here. 

PRISON OVERCROWDING

I want to add my voice to something that was said earlier about 

prison overcrowding. And I could go through the facts and figures 

on that, but you know those better than any of us do. It is just a 

real concern. 
28 

One of the prisons that’s on the short list is actually in Arkansas, 

and back in fiscal year 2010, it was scheduled to be funded in fiscal 

year 2014. Well, now, it keeps getting pushed back. Now, it’s fiscal 

year 2018. So, it’s an example of us not being able to fund some 

of the real needs that we have. I know I’m not alone in that. So, 

I want to voice my concern there. 

SEQUESTRATION

Let me ask about sequestration. I don’t believe anyone’s had a 

chance to ask about sequestration. And I’m curious about what the 

Justice Department perceives will happen to DOJ funding if sequestration does, in fact, take place, and what steps you’re taking 

to address that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I certainly hope that’s something that 

we don’t have to face. As I look at it, we’d be looking at an acrossthe-board cut of about 7.8 percent, which would mean a cut of 

about $2.1 billion. No Justice component would be exempt from 

those cuts. And from an operational perspective, we would have to 

cut personnel funding and nonpersonnel funding. 

We are estimating that we’d have to furlough all position types, 

including agents, Federal agents, FBI agents, DEA agents, ATF 

agents, and attorneys, who try cases, investigate cases, for an average of about 25 days. We would have to lose permanently a pretty 

substantial number of jobs. This across-the-board cut would have 

a devastating impact on the Justice Department’s ability to protect 

the American people, to do investigations. It would be something 

that would just simply be devastating. My hope would be that the 

Congress will find a way to avoid this sequestration, which, just 

from my own parochial interests, which I think actually are the 

Nation’s as well, to really avoid the very negative consequences 

that could have a permanent impact on our well-being. 

Senator PRYOR. And so, you’ve mentioned these furloughs, but I 

assume, also, you’d have to suspend the funding of many of your 

programs that help local and State law enforcement agencies. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s an excellent point. The consequences are not restricted to simply what happens to the Justice 

Department here in Washington and in our field offices. Our ability 

to be good State and local partners would certainly be impacted by 

the reduced amounts of money that we’d be able to share with our 

State and local partners, in terms of grants, Cops on the Beat. It 

would be a devastating thing for this to happen. 

THE JOHN R. JUSTICE PROGRAM

Senator PRYOR. And let me ask about personnel in a little different context. The John R. Justice Program has about 1,600 prosecutors and about 1,200 public defenders in the last fiscal year that 

received assistance under that program, to help them pay off their 

student loans, et cetera. But, this budget, as I understand it, does 

not have funding for that program this year. So, my concern there 

would be that we want the best and the brightest out there trying 

cases on both sides. Again, this is public defenders and prosecutors. 

And in our criminal justice system, it’s critical that we have good 

representation on both sides. And I’m afraid that we’re going to 

lose a lot of talent if we don’t have a program like this. Do you 
29 

share that concern, and what steps you think we can take to keep 

the best and the brightest coming on board? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do share that concern. We want the 

best and the brightest to come and take what are low-paying jobs 

on the prosecution side, on the defense side. These kids come out 

of law school with enormous amounts of debt. And I don’t want 

them to make career choices based on how they’re going to repay 

those loans, as opposed to following their passions, and taking their 

great skills to become members of the Justice Department, State 

and local prosecutors offices, or on the other side, to be good defense attorneys. And that is one of the things that I’m concerned 

about. 

We have a tough budget, and you’re right, the money is not 

there, to the extent that it was in the past. To the extent that we 

can work on ways in which we come up with creative things to do 

to make sure that those career decisions, especially those first job 

career decisions, by people coming out of law school, are not a function of their financial concerns, but really is a function of how they 

want to help build a better society. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

CYBERSECURITY

And Madam Chair, I don’t really have time to ask another question, but I would like to just make an observation. The chair of the 

subcommittee here yesterday took a leadership role in a cybersecurity exercise in a classified setting, and we appreciate her leadership in getting all of us to go and participate. It was very informative, very interesting. And I know that DOJ has been very involved in what’s going on with Federal Government cybersecurity 

issues, and all the task forces and everything you’re working on. 

But, I also hope that you will not neglect the private sector, as well 

as the State and local governments, because they have a role to 

play in this as well. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s exactly right. This is not something that the Federal Government can handle by itself. This is a 

national security issue, certainly, but it’s also an infrastructure 

issue which involves our State and local partners. Then one looks 

at just the amount of theft that occurs, intellectual property theft, 

in particular, so that the private sector has to be involved as well. 

We have to come up with mechanisms, means by which all of 

those various components talk to one another, if we ultimately 

want to be successful in what I think is the most pressing thing 

that we’re going to be facing in the coming years. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I want to 

go back to the excellent question Senator Pryor raised about the 

impact of sequester. Could we have that answer in more detail, in 

writing, so that everybody would have a chance to study it, and go 

over it in programs and so we can really grasp the full consequences? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 
30 

[The information follows:] 

IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) supports the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request, which would avoid a sequestration, if enacted as proposed. Therefore, I 

am not describing the impact of a potential sequester, which the administration is 

committed to avoiding. However, I can describe the impact of an across-the-board 

cut of 7.8 percent, or more than $2.1 billion, to DOJ’s budget authority. To implement this cut, DOJ would have to cut both personnel and operational funding. Personnel cuts would require DOJ to implement a hard hiring freeze, which would 

mean losing 4,800 positions, and furloughing all DOJ employees for 25 days. These 

personnel cuts, along with significant operational cuts, would mean reductions in 

the apprehension of violent fugitives, fewer Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

national security investigations, fewer affirmative litigation efforts, and more crowded prisons. For context, a 7.8-percent cut would mean that the Bureau of Prisons 

would be cut by $510 million, FBI by $730 million, the Drug Enforcement Administration by $175 million, the U.S. Marshals Service by $90 million, and the U.S. attorneys office by $150 million. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’d now like to turn to Senator Graham. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I’d like to add 

my voice to what you just echoed, and Senator Pryor, that sequestration, as it’s set up, would devastate DOJ, our ability to defend 

ourselves, and destroy the military, and surely we can find a better 

way to do it than that. So, I think you’re dead on. This is just an 

ill-conceived idea of cutting money blindly, in my view. 

Now, you were in South Carolina couple days ago, is that right, 

Mr. Attorney General? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It was yesterday. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yesterday. Well, we’re glad to have you. Hope 

you spent money while you were there. 

Mr. HOLDER. I did. 

NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER

Senator GRAHAM. But, the National Advocacy Center (NAC), in 

Columbia, that you visited, what would you tell the subcommittee 

about the NAC, in terms of being a value to the Nation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is an invaluable resource for us. 

Senator GRAHAM. Did you all hear that? 

Okay. I’m sorry. Go ahead. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. I mean it is. It is an invaluable 

resource for the training that goes on in the Justice Department. 

It is one that I think could actually be expanded. I’m concerned 

that we’re not interacting with our State and local partners to the 

extent that we once did in doing training with them. We’re trying 

to bring into the NAC people from the defense side as well. It’s 

where people learn to be good trial lawyers, learn a variety of 

skills, learn their ethical obligations. It’s an invaluable resource. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, we appreciate your visit, and it will be 

a place where, you know, cybersecurity is probably the issue of the 

21st century, and whether it’s a crime, an act of war, it depends, 

I guess, who’s involved, but a lot of local law enforcement folks 

probably have no idea how to handle this, and it would be a good 

way to kind of educate the country as a whole. And the collabora-
31 

tion between the University of South Carolina and the NAC, I appreciate. 

And I want the subcommittee to know that we took about 200 

or 300 DOJ jobs out of Washington, because after 9/11, we were 

worried about having every part of our Government in one city. 

And we moved those folks down to South Carolina, in Columbia, 

and you leased a building from the university. It saved about $35 

million. So, I just want to applaud you for trying to be creative to 

decentralize DOJ, so that in case we’re ever attacked here, we don’t 

lose all of our national assets, and it was a way to save money. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And we also have that relationship 

with the university about the rule-of-law component as well. And 

I think that’s been a good synergy. 

Senator GRAHAM. To my colleagues, and I’ve been to Afghanistan 

and Iraq, like many of you, and we’re trying to develop a rule-oflaw program in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa—you name it. Without 

some basic rule of law, no country can develop. And all the lessons 

we’ve learned the hard way, from making mistakes, but finally getting it right in many ways, we’re trying to create a center at the 

University of South Carolina, where those who have been overseas 

can share their thoughts about what worked, what didn’t. You 

could train before you went. DOJ, Department of Agriculture, and 

the Department of Defense, this is a team. 

This war requires a team concept. And we’re trying to reach out 

to the Islamic world and create partnerships with lawyers, and attorneys general, and judges in the Islamic world, so we can understand them better, and they can understand us. And I’m excited 

about it, and I appreciate your support. 

REVAMPING THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE

Now, Justice Scalia came out yesterday, or the day before, talking about, he thought it would be wise if we looked at our Federal 

criminal code, particularly in the drug area, to see if we could reform it. And I think he’s right. I think we’ve Federalized way too 

many crimes, creating work for our judiciary that could probably 

be handled better at the State level. What do you think about the 

idea of revamping the Federal criminal code, and looking at maybe 

undoing some of the over-Federalization? 

Attorney General HOLDER. When I came into office, I set in place 

a number of working groups to look at that issue. Are we bringing 

the right people into the Federal system? Are the sentences that 

we have for the crimes that are Federal ones appropriate? 

Senator GRAHAM. Like crack cocaine. We finally fixed that, but 

that was just sort of an indefensible sentencing disparity. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. I think the bipartisan effort 

that resulted in the lowering of that ratio from 100 to about 16 to 

1 was something that was long overdue, and was a great example. 

People don’t focus on it, but it was an example of Republicans and 

Democrats getting together and doing the right thing, not only for 

the system, but it was something that I think was morally right 

as well. 
32 

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

Senator GRAHAM. And an area where we may disagree, we’ll talk 

about the law of war later, we don’t have time here, but the recess 

appointments made by President Obama a while back to the National Labor Relations Board, is there a situation similar to that 

in the history of the Senate, or by a previous President, of appointing someone to a Federal agency under those circumstances, that 

you’re aware of? 

Attorney General HOLDER. If you look at the 23-page report by 

the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), they go through a variety of 

precedents. They look at the laws that exist, tradition, and the conclusion that they reached was that given the length of the recess, 

20 days, or so, that the appointments were, in fact, appropriate. 

This is obviously something that the courts are going to ultimately 

decide, but I think that the OLC opinion was accurately described. 

Senator GRAHAM. I think Senator Alexander will have a discussion with you about that, but I take a different view. But, I’ll let 

him discuss that with you. 

MILITARY COMMISSIONS

And finally, just to note, I think, maybe it was last week, we had 

a plea bargain with a military commission detainee who was one 

of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed close confidantes. And I know 

Mark Martins is the chief prosecutor, and you’ve got a good defense 

team down there. I do support Article III courts for terrorism 

trials, when appropriate. But, I just want to acknowledge your support for military commissions in appropriate circumstances, and 

with your help, I think we’ve got these things up and running, and 

I look forward to more action coming out of Guanta ́namo Bay to get 

some of these people through the legal system. So, thank you for 

that support. And to all those at Guanta ́namo Bay doing your job, 

you’re doing the country a great service, particularly the defense 

counsels. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that’s right. I think that people should understand that the revised commissions that exist, as 

I said in my speech at Northwestern, have many of the elements 

of due process that we consider vital to the American system. I 

think we have great defense lawyers down there. 

The military system doesn’t get the credit that it deserves for the 

fair way in which it deals with people, and under the direction of 

Mark Martins, who’s a person I’ve known for some time, I think 

we’ll be proud of the work they do. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. 

We’re now going to turn to Senator Feinstein. Before Senator 

Pryor leaves, I thank you and others for mentioning the cyber exercise yesterday, and all who participated. Next week, we’re going to 

hear from the FBI, and we’re going to do an open hearing, and 

then we’re going to do a classified hearing. This will be an opportunity to ask many of your cyber questions and go into the level 

of detail I think the subcommittee would like. So, thank you. 

Senator Feinstein. 
33 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and 

welcome, General. 

I want to associate myself with the comments of Senator Murkowski and Senator Hutchison. To me, the tragedy is that Senator 

Ted Stevens died before he knew this was a faulty prosecution. And 

that, to me, elevates this to a new height. And so, I think this investigation is really important. And I think that actions have to be 

taken. And I just wanted to express that. 

OIL SPECULATION

I wanted to followup on Senator Brown’s comment. It’s my understanding that there’s more oil available in the United States 

than demand calls for. And as a matter of fact, surplus is being 

sold outside. This, I think, would bring to special attention the 

issue of speculation. And I hope the study that you’re doing is 

going to take a good look at the financial marketplace, with regard 

to its ability to impact price in this way. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The Oil and Gas Price Fraud Working 

Group that we formed last year as part of the President’s Financial 

Fraud Enforcement Taskforce has been meeting. It just happens 

that they are having a call today, and a meeting, I think either tomorrow or on Monday. The full committee will be getting together 

to look at the issues that you’ve raised and the issues that Senator 

Pryor raised. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you. 

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT

As you know, title 7 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

(FISA) expires at the end of the year. This allows for electronic surveillance of targets outside the United States. Senator Mikulski 

and I both serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and we’ve 

done extensive oversight of the Government’s use of these surveillance authorities, and look forward to working with you to make 

sure Congress can reauthorize title 7 well before the end of 2012. 

We need to maintain the collection of critical foreign intelligence 

and provide certainty to intelligence professionals in that regard. 

For members of this subcommittee that don’t follow this issue 

closely, could you explain the need to reauthorize title 7 of FISA 

and the efforts taken to protect the civil liberties and privacy of 

Americans, as this title is carried out. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The surveillance authorities that are 

in the FISA Amendments Act are absolutely critical to our national 

security. On a day-to-day basis, I authorize FISAs, the head of the 

National Security Division does, sometimes the Deputy Attorney 

General. It is a critical tool that we have in keeping the American 

people safe. The administration strongly supports the reauthorization, and as you indicated, hopes that it occurs well before the end 

of the year, so that the certainty that is needed by the men and 

women who are in our intelligence community will have some degree of assuredness that those tools will remain there, and that our 

fight against those who would do harm to the United States can 

continue. 
34 

NATIONAL SECURITY

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. I also want to thank you for your 

enormous help and the help of FBI with respect to national security. FBI now has thousands of agents and analysts located around 

the United States, essentially doing intelligence work. So, that 

transition has been effectively made. 

Director Mueller, at a worldwide threat hearing, indicated to us 

that in the past year there have been 20 arrests in the United 

States of people in this country planning or participating in attempted terrorist attacks. And as you mentioned in your recent testimony, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was recently sentenced to life 

in prison. 

Now, I also want to say that even though its specific activities 

are classified, in your written testimony, you mention the HighValue Detainee Interrogation Group, or the HIG, as we call it. I 

can say that we’ve seen the excellent intelligence the HIG is producing. And earlier this week, also, four principle members of hacking groups, Anonymous and LulzSec, were charged with computer 

hacking, and a fifth member pled guilty. 

NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING

Now, to my question. It’s two-fold. I think we have to begin to 

look for redundancy and duplication of effort. We now have a 

counterterrorism center. We now have Homeland Security with intelligence, and we also now have FBI. And so I hope you will take 

a look at that, because the dollars are precious, and we’re already 

experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget. 

So, here’s my question. What are, in the national security area, 

your budget reductions? What will that mean for counterterrorism, 

and are there any gaps in our efforts? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have adequate amounts of money 

contained in the budget that we have requested. If you look at the 

amount of money that has gone to FBI in the national security 

sphere, since 2001 we’ve had about a 300-percent increase for the 

Justice Department. For FBI, it might have been about 400 percent. So, it’s a very substantial increase over the course of the last 

10 years or so. Even with the flat budget that we essentially have 

for the Justice Department and its components, including FBI, we 

have adequate amounts of money to keep the American people safe. 

I will tell you that to the extent that I feel that it is not the case, 

my voice will be heard. We have no greater responsibility than 

keeping the American people safe. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Feinstein, we look forward to working with you on that part of it. 

Senator Alexander. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and General 

Holder, welcome. It’s good to see you. I was thinking about a conversation we had during your confirmation about Griffin Bell, for 

whom you worked, and I know you admired him, and I certainly 
35 

admired him. I was a law clerk on a court when he was judge. And 

one of the things he used to say and which I’ve heard you say, I 

think, too, is that the attorney general is the lawyer for the United 

States, not just the lawyer for the President. 

RECESS APPOINTMENTS

So, in following up with Senator Graham’s comment on the socalled recess appointments, I wanted to ask you a question. As the 

lawyer for the United States, if the President calls you up and said, 

‘‘General Holder, I notice that the Senate’s gone into recess for 

lunch. I’ve got a Supreme Court nominee I want to appoint. Can 

we put him on the court without their advice and consent?’’ what 

would your answer be? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Going to lunch? That would not be a 

sufficient recess. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, what if he said they’re going to recess 

for lunch and for dinner, and they won’t be back until tomorrow? 

Would that be a sufficient recess? 

Attorney General HOLDER. What we’re getting at, if you look at 

that OLC opinion, they would—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. I’m asking your opinion, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I associate myself with that 

OLC opinion. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Does that mean you agree with it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. With the OLC opinion? 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. You do agree with it. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Then that means that the President, not 

the Senate, can decide when it’s in session for purposes of advice 

and consent. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, one has to look at the reality, 

the totality of the circumstances, in determining whether or not the 

Senate is actually in session, as that term has historically been 

used, and the determination made by OLC was that given the—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, if we look at that, Mr. President, was 

your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the Supreme Court in a 

letter 2 years ago that the Senate may act to foreclose recess appointments by declining to recess for more than 2 or 3 days at a 

time? And was Senator Reid wrong in 2007 when he really devised 

the plan for pro forma 3-day sessions, because he said he heard 

that President Bush was about to make recess appointments. And 

Senator Reid said on November 16, 2007, ‘‘With the Thanksgiving 

break looming, the administration has informed me they want to 

make several recess appointments. As a result, I’m keeping the 

Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get 

back on track.’’ And the next year he said, ‘‘We don’t need to vote 

on recess. We’ll just be in pro forma session. We’ll tell the House 

to do the same thing.’’ President Bush didn’t like it, but he respected it. 

So, are you saying that the President, not the Senate, can decide 

when it’s in session for purposes of a recess appointment? 
36 

Attorney General HOLDER. What we have to do and what we 

have done in this OLC opinion is look at history, look at precedent, 

look at the law, use some common sense when it comes to the approach of whether or not the Senate is actually in session. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Well, was Senator Reid wrong? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The determination that we made here 

was that with regard to that 20 days in which those pro forma sessions were occurring, that those were, in fact—— 

Senator ALEXANDER. But the Senate had decided it was in a 3- 

day session, according to the Reid formula. So, was Reid wrong 

about that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’d have to look at exactly what occurred during that 3-day period, but given the facts that were presented to OLC in this instance, I think the determination that they 

made was correct. 

Senator ALEXANDER. So, I don’t see why the President couldn’t 

look at the Senate and say, ‘‘I’m going to send up a Supreme Court 

justice, and I’m going to skip advice and consent.’’ I’m astonished 

by this, really. And I would think Democratic as well as Republican 

Senators would honor the Reid formula that President Bush honored. The Senate did the very same thing in January, and the 

President, nevertheless, made four appointments during the time 

when constitutionally he shouldn’t have, according to all the precedent that I’ve seen. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The only thing I’d correct is that the 

determination was not made by the President. The determination 

was made by OLC, we then shared that opinion with the President, 

and the President made the decision as to what he wanted to do. 

Senator ALEXANDER. He made the decision not to respect the 

Senate’s decision about when it’s in session or when it’s not, which, 

to me, is a blatant lack of regard for the constitutional checks and 

balances, and something that we ought to avoid. 

METHAMPHETAMINE LABS

May I ask quickly a question? Last year, the Department found 

money to support the work against methamphetamine, and I compliment the Department for that. I know it’s getting increasingly 

harder. In our State, we had the highest number of meth lab seizures in the Nation. The money’s running down. The State’s increasing its funding. Will the Department again be able to try to 

help States that are working on this, as you were able to do last 

year? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are certainly going to try to, as 

best we can. I know one of the things that we have seen with regard to the cleanup of meth sites is that there have been a number 

of these container activities. I think this is right, that Tennessee 

is actually a leader in that effort. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Yes. 

Attorney General HOLDER. There have been a number of States 

that have come up with things, and instead of it costing, I don’t 

know, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 to do that, it actually comes down to 

$200 or $300. The experience that we have seen there is something 

that we have to extrapolate and use in other parts of the country 

as well. 
37 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, General Holder. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No. I think—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. Oh. I’m sorry. Wait. Wait. It’s a little rockand-roll in here today. First of all, Senator Leahy, the chair of the 

Judiciary Committee, excuse me, and then Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

RECESS APPOINTMENT

Attorney General Holder, good to have you here. If I could just 

follow-up a little bit on what my good friend from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, said on the recess appointments. There is an easy 

way out of all of this. It requires a little cooperation on both sides. 

And I suggested this in the Judiciary Committee, that the President resubmit the nominations, and the Republicans agree to have 

an up or down vote, say, within 1 week or 2 weeks. The President 

did this, because even though everyone knew there were more than 

50 votes, which is normally what it takes to confirm somebody, 

available, my friends on the other side of the aisle were blocking 

having a vote. 

I understand the President’s frustration, but I think the easy 

way out of this is simply if the Republican leadership would agree 

to an up or down vote, say, within 1 week or 2 weeks, whatever 

amount of time needed for it to be, and resubmit them and have 

the up or down vote. That takes care of all the problem. I just 

would suggest that as an easy way out. It’s not as much fun on the 

talk shows, but it helps the Government. 

GRANT PROGRAM DUPLICATION

Mr. Attorney General, your Department administers many crucial grant programs that help victims and law enforcement, including ones that I’ve been very heavily involved with, the Violence 

Against Women Act programs. And as you know, Senator Crapo 

and I have a reauthorization bill on the COPS grants and the bulletproof vest partnership program. GAO has said there’s duplications and inefficiencies in some of the grant programs. 

Will your Department work to make sure if there are any duplications that they be removed? Because these are good programs, 

but there’s only so much money to go around. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s exactly the problem that we 

have. There’s limited amounts of money to go around, and we have 

to make sure that there’s not duplication. Managers from OJP, 

from COPS, OVW regularly meet to coordinate their programs, 

their activities. I think that one thing that people should not assume is that because, for example, you see the word ‘‘victim’’ in a 

number of the things that we do in the Department, that necessarily means that we’re duplicating efforts there. They have very 

distinct responsibilities. We are working to make sure that the 

money that we have is being used in an efficient and appropriate 

way. 
38 

BULLETPROOF VESTS

Senator LEAHY. One of the things I’m very proud of for my time 

here in the Senate is a bill that I wrote with then-Senator Ben 

Nighthorse Campbell on bulletproof vests, so much so, that I 

walked down the street in Denver, Colorado, 1 year or so ago, a police officer came up, asked if I am who I am. And I said, ‘‘Yes, I 

am Senator Leahy.’’ He just tapped his chest and said, ‘‘Thank 

you.’’ 

But, we’ve been told by GAO that there’s some funds that have 

not been obligated on the bulletproof vest partnership grant program. Law enforcement—especially in the smaller communities, 

where they do not have the budget to buy the bulletproof vests, 

which are $500, $600—need these funds. Can you check to make 

sure these funds are obligated as quickly as possible? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. To the extent that funds were 

not drawn down, we are taking steps to allow jurisdictions to use 

that unused funding, and have the time period with which they 

could drawdown extended, so that we can get these bulletproof 

vests out to these officers. 

Senator LEAHY. And I would reiterate what I had told you when 

we chatted earlier this week, when I was in Vermont, about your 

speech earlier this week in guiding drones and targeting of U.S. 

citizens, I still want to see the OLC memorandum, and I would 

urge you to keep working on that. I realize it’s a matter of some 

debate within the administration. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That would be true. 

Senator LEAHY. And please keep my staff and me updated on the 

progress of the review of the NYPD surveillance of Muslim Americans. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We will. 

SAME-SEX IMMIGRATION PETITIONS

Senator LEAHY. And last, I wrote to you and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to encourage you to hold 

marriage-based immigration petitions for same-sex spouses in 

abeyance, in light of the administration’s decision to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. I heard 

it may be granting individual cases. I hope you will reconsider the 

administration’s position. 

We have a case I’ve written to you about, Frances Herbert and 

Takako Uedo, who are married in Vermont lawfully. We have a 

number of States where same sex marriages are legal, but then 

they run up against the immigration problem. So, please review 

that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay. I will look at that case, and 

we’ll get back to you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Those were excellent points, Senator Leahy, 

and thank you very much. 

Senator Lautenberg. 
39 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, 

and welcome, Attorney General Holder. The job doesn’t seem to be 

getting easier, and I’m not blaming you. I’m just sympathizing in 

some ways. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It’s a good observation. 

VIOLENT CRIME

Senator LAUTENBERG. Not so much that I won’t ask for more, because we’re doing with less, and we see it in my State of New Jersey, 246 gun murders in 2010; 12 percent more than the previous 

year. We’ve had layoffs galore from cities that can’t afford to maintain their police force structure. So, when I look at the things that 

we’re doing, I worry about what it is that we can do from your Department and from others. What can we do to help these communities? State budget cuts have caused Newark, Camden, and other 

cities in New Jersey to cut their police forces at alarming rates; 

one-third of the police force in Camden, more than 100 terminations of police officers in Newark. 

In December, I wrote asking if you could provide Federal resources to assist our ailing cities, and I am pleased, Mr. Attorney 

General, to see an increase in the budget for COPS grants. Is DOJ 

planning other steps that we can use to help protect New 

Jerseyans from violent crime? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We’re certainly making sure that in 

terms of COPS grants we do the best that we can there. We have 

a substantial amount of money in the budget. I spoke to the mayor 

of Camden. I was at a reception and I saw her. We have certainly, 

with regard to Camden, in 2011 made available monies to hire 14 

officers, $3.79 million; 2010, 19 officers, $4.2 million. We’ll be looking at that kind of unique situation again this year. We certainly 

are putting into New Jersey, and in other places, task forces, so 

that the DEA, the ATF, the FBI are helping to the extent that we 

can, as well. 

There are a variety of ways in which the Federal Government 

can help, given the economic situation that many cities around the 

country are facing. We want to be good partners in that way. Camden is a place that deserves special attention, given the unique 

problem that we see there. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Can I ask your view on whether or not you 

think we’re doing enough between your Department, the FBI, our 

State and local police people? Are we doing enough, based on what 

we see with the statistics? Do you think that we’re doing enough 

to say honestly that we’re protecting our people appropriately? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have crime rates that are at historic lows, 40- and 50-year lows, and yet, I’m still troubled by the 

number of police officers, for instance, who have been killed in the 

line of duty in the last 2 years, where we’ve seen a 16-, 20-percent 

increase there. That is something that we have to work on. 

I’m concerned about the fact that although the numbers of murders are down, 67 percent of them occur by people who are using 

firearms. That’s an issue that we have to deal with. Too many of 

the wrong people have access to guns, and they use them in inap-
40 

propriate ways. The targets of many of those people are law enforcement officers, who are sworn to protect us, and we have to do 

everything that we can to try to protect them. 

HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, the wrong people or wrong laws? The 

man who shot Congresswoman Giffords last year used a gun with 

a high-capacity ammunition clip to kill 6 people, wound 13. It was 

only when he fired all 31 rounds in his clip that people were able 

to subdue him. And these high-capacity magazines were banned by 

the Congress until 2004. Last year, you said that you thought that 

reinstating this ban should be examined. What’s the result of that 

examination? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We’re still in the process of working 

our way through that. I think there are measures that we need to 

take. We need to be reasonable, understanding that there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms, but even the dissent 

in the Heller case indicated that reasonable restrictions can be 

placed on the use of weapons. What this administration has tried 

to do is to come up with ways in which we are respecters of the 

second amendment, and yet come up with reasonable, appropriate 

firearms laws that will ultimately protect the American people. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, your indulgence for one 

more question, please. 

NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE

Over the past several years, the NYPD has been engaged in surveillance of New Jersey’s communities and universities searching 

for those who might be accused of terror; Governor Christie and 

Newark Mayor Cory Booker both were apparently unaware of this 

large-scale investigation. How can the law enforcement agencies 

spy on another State’s residents without notifying the authorities, 

the Governor, the mayor even knowing about it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. We are in the process 

of reviewing the letters that have come in expressing concerns 

about those matters. There are various components within the Justice Department that are actively looking at these matters. I talked 

to Governor Christie. Actually, I saw him at a reception a couple 

days or so ago, and he expressed to me the concerns that he had. 

He has now publicly expressed his concerns, as only he can. I 

think, at least what I’ve read publicly, again, just what I’ve read 

in the newspapers, is disturbing, and these are things that are 

under review at the Justice Department. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, General Holder. Thank you, 

Madam Chairman. I assume the record will be kept open. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator MIKULSKI. The record will be kept open for questions, 

and we then ask the Department to respond within 30 days. Senators may submit additional questions. We ask the Department to 

respond within 30 days. 
41 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Question. The Department’s request for State and local grants is $2 billion. This is down from roughly $3.7 billion funded for grants in fiscal year 2010. 

What is the total amount of money applied for in these competitive grant programs versus the amount actually awarded to States and localities? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2011, Office of Justice Programs (OJP) received a total re- quest of more than $7.1 billion in discretionary applications; OJP awarded more 

than $850 million in discretionary funding. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) OVW had appli- cations totaling $1,150,510,742; OVW awarded $457,900,491 in grants. OVW’s yearly budget requests seek funding to support four core priorities of OVW: 

—preventing violence against women; 

—addressing sexual assault; 

—extending our programming to underserved communities; and 

—restoring and protecting economic security to victims of violence. 

For fiscal year 2012, $412,500,000 was appropriated to OVW to further the Department’s efforts to improve the Nation’s response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The fiscal year 2013 overall request for the OVW 

totals $412,500,000, making the fiscal year 2013 total resource request for OVW 

equal to the fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

received applications totaling $2,067,924,397. COPS awarded more than $313 million in grants funding. The COPS office received $243,439,595 for the COPS Hiring 

Program in appropriated funds for fiscal year 2011 and awarded $243,398,709. All 

agencies were asked to cap their request at no more than 5 percent of their current 

actual sworn force strength, up to a maximum of 50 officers. However, in order to 

provide funding assistance to the largest number of eligible agencies, the COPS office decided to further reduce the cap from a maximum of 50 officers to 25 officers. 

Had this methodology not been adopted as part of the hiring program solicitation, 

the total amount that would have been requested would have been $5,354,837,329. 

For fiscal year 2012, $166,000,000 was appropriated for the COPS Hiring Program. 

The COPS office will make 2012 hiring awards later this summer. The fiscal year 

2013 budget request includes $257,087,000 for the COPS Hiring Program. 

DUPLICATION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released an updated version of its 2011 report on duplicative Government programs, ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, 

and Enhance Revenue’’, as well as a new 2012 version of the report. In 2011 and 

2012, GAO counted Department of Justice (DOJ) programs among those that are 

potentially duplicative. 

Has the Attorney General conducted an assessment to better understand which 

State and local grant programs overlap with one another to prevent unnecessary duplication, as the GAO report recommended? 

Answer. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs is a critical priority of the administration and the Department. The Department is committed to continuing efforts to prevent unnecessary duplication, identifying overlaps 

in programs, and streamlining where it would ensure more effective grant assistance. The Department will initiate an assessment to better understand the extent 

to which Department grant programs may overlap and identify ways to mitigate the 

risks for unnecessary duplication. This assessment will be conducted by OJP’s Office 

of Audit, Assessment, and Management. 

Question. Has Department staff reviewed the report and conducted the analysis 

of grants recommended by GAO? 

Answer. The Department appreciates the work of GAO and has carefully considered the findings and recommendations presented in GAO’s report. The Department 

agrees that preventing unnecessary duplication in Government programs is a critical priority. The Department’s grant agencies have significantly improved collaboration and information-sharing to mitigate the risk of duplicative Federal spending. 

The DOJ grantmaking agencies closely collaborate on the development and implementation of grant programs and share information with each other to improve coordination prior to making awards. The Department components will continue to co-
42 

ordinate with one another to ensure sound stewardship and management of its 

grants. 

Question. What independent steps have the Justice Department taken—prior to 

the release of the GAO report—to identify potentially duplicative grant programs? 

Answer. DOJ grantmaking agencies closely collaborate on the development and 

implementation of grant programs to avoid the types of potential problems cited by 

GAO. Managers from OJP and its bureaus, COPS, and OVW meet regularly to coordinate their programs and objectives, and they pay particular attention to those 

areas where they have complementary joint programs. Additionally, the executive 

branch annual budget process provides a multi-level review of all component budgets and requires programs to be modified or deleted if overlap or duplication is identified. It is important to note, however, that overlapping activities do not necessarily 

signify duplication. For example, the following selected examples demonstrate the 

Department’s commitment to work collaboratively among its own components as 

well as Federal Governmentwide to improve performance and effectively target the 

public safety needs of our communities. 

—In January 2011, the first meeting of the Federal Interagency Reentry Council 

convened. The council addressed short-term and long-term goals on prisoner reentry through enhanced communication, coordination, and collaboration across 

Federal agencies. 

—OJP is leading a parallel staff level effort, which includes 35 people from 17 

different Federal agencies including the Departments of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor (DOL), Education (ED), Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Social Security Administration, and others. 

—OJP is also spearheading the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention, 

which is an effort launched, at the direction of the White House, by DOJ and 

ED, to directly and locally address the needs of communities that continue to 

experience high levels of youth violence. Using comprehensive technical assistance, the Forum enables Federal agencies to serve as a catalyst for broad-based 

positive change at the local level in a very efficient, cost-effective manner. 

—For the first time, all of DOJ’s components and leaders are working together 

to provide the most efficient and timely information to tribal communities. As 

cited in the GAO report, beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Department created 

the Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), which coordinates the 

applications of most of the Department’s tribal government-specific criminal justice assistance programs administered by OJP, OVW, and COPS under one solicitation. Through CTAS, tribes can apply for funding for many of their criminal justice needs with one application. 

—The Tribal Law and Order Act enacted in July 2010, contained amendments to 

multiple laws with an impact across DOJ activities in Indian country, including 

a number of OJP programs. The CTAS collaborative experience readied us for 

statutorily mandated coordination required for law enforcement, training, increased grants authority, and crime data analysis and reporting. 

—We are partnering with other Federal agencies to conduct inventories of Federal resources, develop interagency memorandums of agreement, and longterm comprehensive plans to improve our performance, eliminate duplication, 

and identify gaps to better serve tribal governments and their communities, 

in consultation with tribes. 

—DOJ is an active participant in the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG), 

which coordinates Federal strategies and programs to combat human trafficking. National Institute of Justice and the State Department co-chair the 

SPOG Committee on Data and Research. 

—The Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Initiative is being coordinated 

across OJP, COPS, OVW, the U.S. Attorneys offices, as well as other components within the Department and the Federal Government. 

—The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, which is a White House-led interagency collaboration, is executing place-based strategies to engage and support 

local communities in developing and obtaining the tools they need to revitalize 

their own neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. 

—The Federal Government already directs significant resources to these neighborhoods, but we can always look for additional ways to continue to support 

them. Better alignment of Federal programs will help local leaders to use 

Federal funds more effectively, making our taxpayer dollars go further. 

—Through our Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program, OJP and the Department will strengthen partnerships with HUD, ED, HHS and the Treasury in 

distressed neighborhoods to implement effective strategies to address persistently high violent crime, gang activity, and illegal drugs. 
43 

—The COPS office is heavily invested in the White House initiative, Strong Cities 

Strong Communities, where it provides technical assistance to the Chester, 

Pennsylvania police department on issues such as crime analysis, faith-based 

partners, and community-based government problem-solving. 

—To further advance national discussion regarding these important topics, the 

COPS office and OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance have convened an Officer 

Safety and Wellness Group that brings together law enforcement leaders, criminal justice practitioners, Federal agencies, professional organizations, and academics to share perspectives on improving officer safety and wellness. 

Additionally, the Department is working as a whole to coordinate and improve our 

grants management efforts. The Associate Attorney General’s Office leads the DOJwide Grants Management Challenges Workgroup. The Workgroup is comprised of 

grants officials from COPS, OJP, and OVW, to share information and develop consistent practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant administration and management areas. In fiscal year 2011, the working group successfully implemented the 

DOJ-wide high-risk grantee designation program and a DOJ-wide, online financial 

training tool for DOJ grantees. 

Question. Have you met with any roadblocks in the Department’s attempts to 

eliminate or consolidate potentially duplicative programs? 

Answer. The Department is committed to continuing efforts to consolidate grant 

programs as appropriate and use ‘‘evidence-based’’ approaches to identify programs 

that work, as well as those that do not. An example of this effort is the fiscal year 

2013 President’s budget proposal for the consolidation and expansion of funding for 

Drug Courts and the Mentally Ill Offender Act Program. A similar proposal also was 

included in the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget, but not adopted. 

In fiscal year 2012, the Congress supported the Department’s budget proposal to 

merge several youth-oriented programs under OVW into one single program. 

We are working smarter by promoting evidence-based approaches and developing 

and spreading knowledge about what works and what causes crime and delinquency 

because of limited resources. Evidence-based knowledge is critical to help policymakers at the Federal, State, and local levels know what to fund, what not to fund. 

For example, OJP has developed tools such as CrimeSolutions.gov and the Diagnostic Center, which help jurisdictions focus on evidence-based ‘‘smart on crime’’ approaches to maximize resources and improve public safety results. 

Question. Does the Department think that the programs listed in the report are 

duplicative? Why or why not? What grant programs do the Department view as duplicative? 

Answer. In its comments to the GAO on the report, the Department expressed significant concerns with GAO’s methodology and identified flaws in its analysis. This 

flawed methodology resulted in a substantial overstatement of the number of programs that might potentially be operating in the same policy area. GAO categorized 

253 solicitations into broad justice areas to identify ‘‘evidence of overlap’’ in justice 

areas. This approach is oversimplified and imprecise, resulting in a large number 

of solicitations in each broad category. Narrowing the justice areas would have provided for a more informative analysis of where DOJ funding is being applied. For 

example, the ‘‘technology and forensics’’ category is extraordinarily and unnecessarily expansive. Refining this justice area—such as information sharing standards 

development, criminal intelligence sharing, DNA backlog reduction, equipment and 

materials testing—would have been more informative, accurate, and less misleading. 

Additionally, the GAO report identified 56 solicitations providing victim assistance, citing these as overlapping. While some might look at DOJ and see overlapping programs related to crime victims, what we actually have are programs directed at providing direct assistance and counseling to victims and their families; 

programs directed at training community law enforcement entities to better address 

the needs of victims; academic and forensic programs directed at research on victim 

issues; and statistical collections providing national data on the incidence of victimization and the consequences to crime victims. 

GAO did not identify actual duplication; rather it cited examples of potential duplication. DOJ examined the award information of these grants and found no instance of grantees receiving funding to carry out the same activities. Although GAO 

acknowledges DOJ’s review, the examples remain in the report to support its ‘‘findings.’’ One example cited in the report as potential duplication involves the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and COPS grants to the Georgia 

Bureau of Investigation. DOJ determined that each of three grants is being used 

to target different issues: 

—child prostitution and potential sexual slavery issues in Georgia; 

—Internet crimes against children; and 
44 

—identification of sex offenders. 

A second example reports that one applicant received funding under two awards 

from OVC and OVW to support child victim services through its child advocacy center. DOJ reviewed these grants, to the Tuilpe Tribes of Washington, and determined 

that the tribe sought multiple funding sources because one source did not adequately cover the costs to establish the center and then carry out its activities in 

subsequent years. 

Further, the Department was concerned with the lack of understanding that GAO 

showed related to the Department’s ‘‘leveraging’’ and sustainability funding strategy. GAO concluded that DOJ’s granting agencies have awarded multiple grants to 

the same communities for the same or similar purposes. Although GAO acknowledges, ‘‘there may be times when Justice’s decision to fund grantees in this manner 

may be warranted’’, the content and tone of the report wrongly infers that recipients 

receiving related grant funding from more than one agency is wasteful or unnecessary. Due to limited funding, DOJ encourages grantees to use multiple funding 

streams in a complementary manner to support local needs and implement comprehensive programs. DOJ and other agencies encourage this as a ‘‘leveraging’’ and 

sustainability strategy. 

Question. What steps are the Department and the administration taking—both 

independently and together—to eliminate duplication, abuse, and waste in the Department’s grantmaking process in response to the GAO report? 

Answer. The Department has been proactive in identifying and addressing unnecessary duplication. During the program design and the annual budget formulation 

process, the Department carries out the following actions to avoid duplication and 

overlap: 

—Components regularly collaborate during the budget formulation process. 

—DOJ’s Justice Management Division Budget Division and senior officials review 

all component budgets prior to their submission to the Office of Management 

and Budget and require programs to be modified or deleted if overlap or duplication exists. 

In addition, there are systems and tools in place that can be used to ascertain 

if duplication of awarded funds exists. Such as: 

—All three DOJ major grantmaking components (OJP, COPS, and OVW) use the 

same accounting system and OJP and OVW both use the Grants Management 

System (GMS). All GMS users can access detailed program information. 

—OJP’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducts financial monitoring of 

grants of all three DOJ grantmaking components (OJP, COPS, and OVW) and 

identifies potential areas of overlap between programs and related funding. 

—DOJ grantee audits (both single audits and Office of Inspector General grant 

audits) represent an independent examination of funding at the grantee level. 

Single audits, which are mandatory for grant recipients who expend more than 

$500,000 in Federal funds during a fiscal year, provide the auditors with an opportunity to examine funding and related expenditures for all grant programs. 

As it relates to existing program areas that cross components: 

—OJP, COPS, and OVW regularly collaborate with other DOJ components in 

areas where programs overlap to ensure that efforts are efficient and effective. 

For example, the Attorney General has convened the Federal Interagency Reentry Council in which 18 Federal agencies participate. 

—DOJ coordinates intra-agency working groups to develop and improve programs 

and reduce the possibility of duplication and overlap. For example, CTAS involves DOJ, OJP, COPS, and OVW in development of a single solicitation for 

all DOJ grants for tribal governments. 

—OJP also leads interagency coordination groups to strategically utilize each component’s strengths and minimize duplication. For example, OJP leads the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention with strong participation from 

COPS, OVW, and other Federal agencies such as DOL, HUD, and ED. 

For grants management activities, DOJ grant components participate in the 

Grants Management Challenges Working group as previously described in another 

section. 

The Department has tackled the challenges of grants management aggressively, 

establishing policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure sound stewardship, 

strong programmatic and financial management, and effective monitoring and oversight of its grants and grant programs. These policies and internal control framework position the Department to carry out statutory mandates and requirements 

and to detect and prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse of the billions of taxpayer dollars the Department awards in grants each fiscal year. 

The Department is dedicated to continuously improving its oversight and monitoring of grantees and grant programs. The Department reduces risks for fraud and 
45 

abuse by identifying high-risk and at-risk grantees and ensuring compensating controls are implemented. The DOJ high-risk grantee program requires appropriate 

controls to be in place to ensure that grantees with outstanding noncompliance 

issues implement timely corrective actions to address the issues; a grantee’s risk 

status is addressed during the grant award process; enhanced oversight and monitoring is provided to the grantee. The Department ensures grantees have access to 

financial and grant fraud training. The OJP Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

provides training to grantee participants through its Regional Financial Management Training Seminars. These seminars cover critical topics such as subrecipient 

monitoring, cost principles for allowable and unallowable costs, reporting requirements, grant fraud, waste, and abuse, audit requirements, and prohibition of excess 

cash on hand. In December 2011, DOJ launched an on-line financial management 

training tool for all DOJ grantees and grant management staff. 

The Department’s Office of Inspector General works closely with the grant components to provide training on detecting and preventing grant fraud to its grantees 

and staff. For example, since fiscal year 2009, more than 600 OJP employees have 

participated in grant fraud training. 

FEDERAL PROGRAMS FACING CUTS

Question. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112– 

25), funding for virtually all Federal programs will face an across-the-board cut in 

January 2013 if the Congress fails to reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion. According to CBO estimates, this would result in a cut of roughly 8 percent to programs across DOJ. 

How would these cuts affect the Department? 

Answer. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112–25), 

virtually all Federal programs will face an across-the-board cut in January 2013 if 

the Congress fails to enact legislation that would reduce the national debt by an 

additional $1.2 trillion. According to CBO estimates, such an across-the-board cut 

would result in a reduction of at least 7.8 percent to programs across DOJ. A 7.8- 

percent reduction equates to a loss in funding of approximately $2.1 billion. 

Question. Please provide a list of expected workforce furloughs, cuts to grant programs, and other reductions at DOJ if sequestration is implemented. 

Answer. The Department supports the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request, 

which would avoid a sequestration, if enacted as proposed. However, the impact of 

an across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent would mean a reduction of approximately $2.1 

billion to the Department’s budget authority. To implement this cut, the Department would have to cut both personnel and operational funding. While the specific 

implementation of a 7.8-percent across-the-board cut cannot yet be determined, such 

a cut to DOJ’s budget could result in the loss of more than 15,000 personnel, including furloughing all DOJ employees for 25 days. These personnel cuts, along with significant operational cuts, would mean reductions in the apprehension of violent fugitives, fewer Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) national security investigations, 

fewer affirmative litigation efforts, and more crowded prisons. For context, a 7.8-percent cut would mean 5,400 fewer Federal agents and nearly 1,250 fewer attorneys 

available to investigate and prosecute violent criminals, perpetrators of fraud, fugitives from justice, transnational criminal organizations, and cartels and terrorists. 

In addition, the Bureau of Prisons would have 2,500 fewer correctional officers to 

operate prison facilities in a manner consistent with officer and inmate safety and 

the Department’s grant programs would be reduced by $110 million compromising 

relationships with State and local law enforcement organizations and programs critical to advancing public safety. 

Question. How would these cuts affect the Department’s ability to carry out its 

mission? 

Answer. An across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent would jeopardize the Department’s 

ability to fulfill its missions to prevent terrorism, enforce Federal law, and ensure 

the fair administration of justice. 

While the specific implementation of a 7.8-percent across-the-board cut cannot yet 

be determined, such a cut to DOJ’s budget could mean: 

—49,654 fewer immigration matters completed by immigration judges; 

—5,430 fewer matters opened by the National Security Division; 

—7,713 fewer cases filed by U.S. Attorneys; 

—9,705 fewer investigations conducted by the FBI; 

—$335 million more revenue in the pockets of drug trafficking organizations; 

—79 fewer local police hires; 

—300 fewer Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications filed by the National Security Division; 
46 

—$1.6 million decrease in restitutions, recoveries, and fines related to FBI white 

collar crime investigations; and 

—6,495 fewer bulletproof vests for State and local law enforcement personnel. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM—COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS

Question. Earlier this week, you gave a speech outlining some of the legal rationale for the use of lethal force against American citizens overseas in terrorism cases. 

In your speech, you stated that ‘‘the executive branch regularly informs the appropriate Members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the 

legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force 

is used against United States citizens.’’ While your speech was a welcome step toward more transparency about the legal rationale for these actions, it is no substitute for an independent review by the Congress of the actual legal opinion underpinning such actions. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have made repeated requests for the legal opinions upon which the administration has relied in 

taking such extraordinary actions against American citizens. 

Can you tell me when you will be sending me a copy of the Office of Legal Counsel 

(OLC) memorandum authorizing the use of lethal force against American citizens 

in counterterrorism operations, including the operation that killed Anwar al-Awlaki? 

Answer. OLC regularly publishes opinions that the office determines are appropriate for publication. The opinion in question is currently covered by executive 

privilege and therefore will not be released beyond the Department. Moreover, the 

Department does not comment on any specific case or individual. However, as noted 

before, the conduct and management of national security operations are core functions of the executive branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. In 

order to ensure proper oversight, and in keeping with the law and our constitutional 

system of checks and balances, the executive branch regularly informs the appropriate Members of Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the 

legal framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal force 

is used against United States citizens. 

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

Question. In recent months, we have heard troubling information about the surveillance operations of New York City Police Department (NYPD)—particularly targeting the Muslim-American community. According to press accounts, the NYPD 

has been compiling databases of information concerning Muslim Americans residing 

throughout the northeast, and has used informants called ‘‘rakers’’ and ‘‘mosque 

crawlers’’ to infiltrate mosques and Muslim student groups. There have also been 

reports of CIA involvement in NYPD’s surveillance program. Last week, you told a 

House Appropriations subcommittee that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was reviewing complaints it had received concerning the NYPD’s surveillance program, in 

order to determine what actions should be taken by DOJ. 

I would request that you keep me and my staff updated as to the progress of this 

review. Can you tell me the current status of the Department’s review into these 

allegations of civil rights violations by the NYPD? 

Answer. At this time, the Civil Rights Division is continuing its review into allegations of civil rights violations by the NYPD Surveillance Program. The Attorney 

General has authority to bring litigation to address patterns or practices by law enforcement agencies that deprive persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured 

or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (42 U.S.C. 14141). This 

authority has been delegated to the Civil Rights Division of DOJ and the Division 

often works with the local U.S. Attorney’s office. Each allegation of misconduct is 

reviewed and in a portion of cases, a formal investigation or another response is authorized. Investigations typically involve site visits, hundreds of interviews, and the 

review of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In addition to Division attorneys 

and investigators, the Division engages experts, typically well-respected law enforcement executives, to assist in the investigation. There is no way for us to provide 

a general timeframe for a preliminary inquiry or a formal investigation. Timelines 

for inquiries and investigations are controlled by the facts found. 

Question. As the Department conducts its review of these complaints, I also ask 

that you evaluate the extent of coordination between the NYPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I am particularly interested in whether data obtained 

through NYPD surveillance methods is shared with and used by FBI in accordance 

with DOJ guidelines. Will you do that? 
47 

Answer. FBI and NYPD work together on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, share 

investigative information, and exchange queries for operational and tactical de-confliction purposes in accordance with DOJ and FBI policies. However, FBI does not 

receive NYPD surveillance information. 

SAME-SEX IMMIGRATION PETITIONS

Question. On April 6, 2011, I wrote to you and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to encourage you to hold marriage-based immigration petitions for same-sex spouses in abeyance in light of the administration’s decision to 

no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA). 

The response I received on May 17, 2011, suggested that discretion may be granted 

in individual cases, but that the agencies would not exercise discretion in a categorical manner. Subsequently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) denied the 

spousal-based petition of a Vermont couple, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda who 

are lawfully married under Vermont statute. Particularly in States such as 

Vermont, where same-sex marriages are legally recognized, we believe that DHS 

has the legal authority to hold such cases in abeyance, and to exercise prosecutorial 

discretion for those in removal proceedings. I ask that you reconsider the administration position articulated in the May 17, 2011 letter. Will you do so? 

Answer. While we cannot comment on the specific example cited, DOJ and DHS 

are continuing to follow the President’s direction to enforce DOMA. Both DHS, 

through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), and DOJ, through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, 

have discretion to make individual case determinations, and have used that discretion in a number of recent cases. The agencies have not, however, granted any form 

of blanket relief to the entire category of cases affected by DOMA. As ICE Director 

Morton described in a June 17, 2011 memorandum, ‘‘Providing Guidance on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent With the Department’s Civil Immigration Priorities’’, ICE’s current enforcement priorities are aliens who pose a clear risk 

to national security or to public safety and those with an egregious record of immigration violations. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

PAN AM 103 BOMBING

Question. Only one person has ever been convicted in connection with the Pan Am 

103 bombing, and that person has since been released from prison. On February 28, 

2012, Secretary Clinton testified that the United States ongoing investigation into 

the bombing is primarily a Department of Justice (DOJ) responsibility. What 

progress has been made on the investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing? 

Answer. We remain committed to pursuing justice on behalf of the victims of this 

terrorist attack that took the lives of 189 Americans and many others. 

We continue to seek more information, as well as access to those who might have 

been involved in the planning or execution of the bombing. We have made clear— 

and will continue to make clear—to the Government of Libya the great importance 

of this case to the United States and our determination to bring all of those responsible to justice. 

The investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing remains open, and we will continue to follow any leads that could result in evidence to support a criminal prosecution. 

As this is an ongoing investigative matter, we cannot comment on specific investigative steps that are being taken. 

ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF TOBACCO

Question. Reports from the Government Accountability Office have identified an 

estimated tax loss of $5 billion a year due to the illegal trafficking of tobacco. The 

tremendous profits and low criminal penalties have attracted the involvement of organized criminal and terrorist groups. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

has primary jurisdiction on terrorism and organized crime, while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) holds primary jurisdiction on cigarette trafficking. How does DOJ ensure that the FBI and ATF work together to prevent illegal tobacco proceeds from financing organized crime and terrorists? 

Answer. DOJ’s agencies have strong and effective working relationships with their 

DOJ partners as well as other Federal, State, and local agencies and a history of 

highly successful joint investigations. Supervisors in the field regularly review investigations on a case-by-case basis and involve other agencies as appropriate. For 
48 

example, recently the ATF and the FBI worked together on ‘‘Operation Secondhand 

Smoke’’, an undercover investigation into a nationwide network of retailers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, and manufacturers who were avoiding cigarette taxes 

to make millions of dollars in profits. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND

ENSURING OFFICER RESILIENCE AND SURVIVABILITY INITIATIVE TRAINING

Question. Violence against law enforcement officers is at an all-time high. According to National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund statistics, Texas leads the 

Nation with most police officers killed the in the line of duty—1,594. Ensuring the 

safety of law enforcement is a top priority for all of us in this subcommittee’s bill. 

During the Fort Hood shooting rampage in 2009, Department of the Army civilian 

Police Sergeants Kim Munley and Mark Todd were two of the first officers to arrive 

on the scene. Sergeant Munley was shot multiple times. Sergeant Todd was able to 

wound and incapacitate the shooter before he could shoot Sergeant Munley again. 

Both officers credited their swift and heroic actions to the active shooter training 

they received through the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training 

(ALERRT) Center at Texas State University, which is a partner of the Department 

of Justice’s (DOJ) Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement and Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability (VALOR) Initiative. Their heroic actions show how 

a small investment in training can have an impact on the safety of our Nation’s law 

enforcement officers. 

Can you tell us about the successes of the VALOR Initiative and DOJ’s plans to 

expand this training? 

Answer. More than 3,100 law enforcement professionals have received the VALOR 

Initiative training, in 17 sessions across the country. We have heard from sheriffs 

and police chiefs that this curriculum has been successfully used in the field. Therefore, we plan to continue promoting, refining, and expanding its availability along 

with the VALOR Initiative officer toolkit. There have been 8,100 toolkits placed in 

the field and the Web site has received 2.5 million hits. 

The feedback from the training has been positive from the field. Some of the feedback includes: 

‘‘It was truly some of the best training I’ve attended in 12 years as a peace officer 

here in Georgia. I truly hope and urge you to bring this training back to Georgia 

for more officers to attend, I would definitely push this training for as many as my 

colleagues as I could through the chain of command.’’——Cartersville, Georgia 

‘‘This training was excellent, and every officer needs to take it. It’s an eye-opening 

experience! Excellent training!’’——Arlington, Texas 

‘‘Most relevant training ever to help prepare and heighten awareness.’’——Arlington, Texas 

‘‘I was involved in an incident where the training in pre-attack indicators really 

helped prevent a violent struggle with a suspect.’’——San Diego, California 

‘‘The training has helped me with being more vigilant and looking for pre-incident 

indicators of violent attacks and armed persons. Cops become complacent as time 

goes on. This type of training helps rid the complacency and reopens the eyes of 

a patrol cop.’’——San Diego, California 

Texas State University and its ALERRT active shooter training has been, and is, 

an extremely important component of the VALOR Initiative training. 

In fiscal year 2011, the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) received 

an award as the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) VALOR Initiative grantee. 

IIR, through its internal awarding processes, provided a sub-award of $200,000 to 

Texas State University for the delivery of 11 ALERRT Active Shooter hands-on 

training sessions. In fiscal year 2012, IIR will receive its second supplemental award 

for the VALOR Initiative. IIR has discussed with BJA how it intends to use the fiscal year 2012 funding, including awarding a second subcontract to Texas State University for an anticipated additional $200,000 to continue delivery of ALERRT 

trainings across the country. BJA has discussed and is in agreement with the overall proposed work plan. IIR follows its internal subcontracting guidelines as well as 

Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) guidelines with regard to the expenditure of Federal funds and subcontracting. 

Question. Is the Department able to keep up with the requests for this training? 

Answer. Given existing resource constraints, it is a challenge to satisfy the high 

demand of requests for this training. However, BJA is working closely with our 
49 

grantees to ensure that we are maximizing attendees at each event. To better meet 

the demand, we are requesting $5 million in fiscal year 2013, an increase of $3 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $2 million. 

Question. Last year there were 31 cases of violence against U.S. Marshal Task 

Forces. Seven of these instances resulted in fatalities of Deputy U.S. Marshals or 

State and local officers working on the task forces. 

Is there any type of training being conducted with our Federal law enforcement 

agencies? (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF] and U.S. 

Marshals Services [USMS] conduct training) 

Answer. DOJ, through BJA, reached out to Federal law enforcement agencies as 

the VALOR Initiative was being developed. Specifically, leadership levels of USMS 

have been briefed on the VALOR Initiative, and coordination and joint efforts, including exchanges of curricula to ensure consistent messaging, are in progress. A 

team from USMS was invited to and participated in the first VALOR Intiative class 

held in Tampa, Florida. BJA recently met with USMS staff to further develop coordination and information sharing between both the BJA and the USMS trainings. 

Leadership of ATF was also briefed on the VALOR Initiative, and collaborative discussions are planned. Staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was significantly involved in the development of the VALOR Initiative, in particular, the 

research that supports the program. Coordination with Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) law enforcement agencies is also expected. BJA has also coordinated 

VALOR Initiative trainings through U.S. Attorney’s offices, pursuant to the Attorney General’s direction that the U.S. Attorneys be engaged in assessing and responding to the officer safety issues in their districts. 

Question. Is there any type of coordination with DOJ and our Federal law enforcement agencies to ensure that best safety practices are being shared? 

Answer. BJA has made specific outreach to Federal law enforcement agencies to 

create best safety practices. BJA’s VALOR Initiative representatives will attend the 

current USMS training. USMS representatives will attend a VALOR Initiative 

training to ensure that best safety practices are shared. Additionally, leadership of 

the ATF was also briefed on the VALOR Initiative and further discussions are 

planned. 

DOJ law enforcement components participate in DOJ-wide working groups related 

to agent safety issues, such as body armor standards and requirements. DOJ law 

enforcement components also compare, collaborate, and share training techniques 

and methodologies, both formally and informally. 

The ATF, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and USMS purchase software 

licenses for three of the same online courses. Through cross-component discussion 

and collaboration, these courses have been established as important elements of 

safety training for agents of all three components. 

Components utilize co-located training facilities at Quantico and Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and agents train using driving and firearms 

ranges as well as simulators. FBI has traveled to other law enforcement component 

training sites to establish liaison contacts and share best practices. 

Furthermore, BJA and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have established the National Officer Safety and Wellness Group. This group brings together 

law enforcement thought leaders, criminal justice practitioners, and colleagues to 

share their knowledge and perspectives on improving officer safety and wellness. 

The group’s mission is to contribute to the improvement of officer safety and 

wellness in the United States by convening a forum for thoughtful, proactive discussion and debate around relevant programs and policies within the law enforcement 

field. Information and insight gained and shared will help enhance programs, policies, and initiatives related to officer safety and wellness. 

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES FORENSICS STUDY

Question. Prior to becoming ranking member, this subcommittee commissioned 

the National Academy of Science (NAS) Forensics Study. The intent was to show 

where DOJ lacked in supporting crime labs and how it could provide more support 

to the forensics community. Unfortunately, it evolved from a narrowly focused nonbinding study into a more far-reaching study than what the Congress intended. 

While the NAS study did produce some positive results, there are questionable 

and unrealistic ones, such as creating an independent bureaucracy responsible for 

oversight of forensics, excluding DOJ from oversight. 

Some special interest groups have even used a few of the individual bad cases in 

the NAS study to attack the credibility of all crime labs and law enforcement, resulting in impulsive and knee-jerk legislative proposals. 
50 

I would also note that some of these same organizations were also at the forefront 

of support for the Webb Crime Commission, which is an example of another ‘‘nonbinding’’ study to go bad and result in overreaching and unnecessary legislative proposals. 

Does the Department have a position on the NAS forensics study? 

Answer. DOJ believes the report from the National Research Council, ‘‘Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward’’, is a helpful addition 

to the public discourse on the state of the forensic science community. The report 

recommends many useful steps to strengthen the community and enables it to continue to contribute to an effective criminal justice system. The report did conclude, 

‘‘that forensic science, as a whole, produces valuable evidence contributing to the 

successful prosecution and conviction of criminals, as well as to the exoneration of 

the innocent.’’ However, the report does not, and was never intended to: 

—comprehensively assess the forensic science disciplines; 

—undermine the use of forensic science in the courtroom; 

—offer any judgments on any cases currently in the judicial system; or 

—recommend any rule or law changes in the area of evidentiary admissibility. 

Question. Does DOJ support creating an independent agency responsible for having jurisdiction over forensics? 

Answer. The Department concurs with the need for a concerted national investment to advance forensic science and its utility, which underlies all recommendations cited in the NAS report. However, the Department does not believe that a new 

forensics agency is necessarily needed to serve the interests of the criminal justice 

community at the Federal, State, and local levels. 

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PRESIDENT’S REQUESTS

Question. Attorney General Holder, there are a number of discrepancies between 

your fiscal year 2013 budget request and the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request in the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) appendix. This can only 

mean that OMB littered DOJ’s request with programs and funding proposals up 

until the last minute before releasing the budget. 

This is evidence of part of the budget process that is not transparent and should 

be made public. OMB and the White House are able to adjust program funding levels and direct agencies through ‘‘passback’’ communications that they refuse to publicly disclose, hiding behind the veil of ‘‘executive privilege’’. 

The White House and OMB insert unrequested programs into an agency’s budget 

request, forcing the agency to cut their own priorities to make room for it. A perfect 

example of this is the White House inserting $600 million for COPS Hiring into 

DOJ’s budget last year. We know you did not request that funding level and it 

forced you to cut other programs to make room for it. 

OMB has authored numerous memos promoting transparency. Since agencies are 

already required to postcongressional communications online, I hope that the chairwoman and my other colleagues will work with me in helping OMB close the circle 

of transparency by requiring all Federal agencies to post their OMB passback communications online. 

During these tough fiscal times, taxpayers, the media and watchdog groups deserve to have full transparency and understand how the White House and OMB influence the budget process and sometimes override what agencies request. 

Would you be supportive of being transparent and all OMB budget-related communications being available for the taxpayers to see? 

Answer. While DOJ supports transparency, the process involved in the formulation of the President’s budget request requires unimpeded, back-and-forth dialog 

within the executive branch. These discussions are considered ‘‘pre-decisional’’ and 

allow the frank and open consultation and discussion that is necessary to reach the 

most cost-effective and efficient resourcing decisions for the American taxpayer. 

These internal confidential discussions are not intended to shield dialog, but rather 

allow the consideration of a wide range of possible options and alternatives. This 

is based on section 22 of the OMB Circular No. A–11 (2011) ‘‘Communications with 

the Congress and the Public and Clearance Requirements’’. The executive branch’s 

internal deliberations regarding the various issues and options that were considered 

in the process leading to the President’s decisions, we believe, should remain a matter of internal record. This deliberative process is intended to promote free discussion between agencies and the President and is supported by the doctrine of the separation of powers. It also ensures policy consistency between the President’s budget 

and budget-related materials given to the Congress. 

Question. What are the discrepancies between the DOJ request and the President’s budget in the appendix? 
51 

Answer. There are several small discrepancies between the Department’s budget 

materials, including the fiscal year 2013 budget and performance summary and the 

individual congressional justifications, and the President’s budget appendix; these 

discrepancies have been footnoted where appropriate in the DOJ’s budget materials. 

The cancellation language proposed for USMS, FBI, DEA, and ATF included in 

DOJ’s budget materials differs from the language included in the budget appendix 

regarding the types of balances proposed for cancellation. DOJ’s budget materials 

reflect the correct language. 

The language included in DOJ’s budget materials for OJP, State and Local Law 

Enforcement Assistance, differs slightly from the language included in the Budget 

Appendix regarding funding levels for certain programs (i.e., National Criminal History Improvement Program, National Instant Criminal Background Check System 

Improvement Act Grants, and Prison Rape Prevention and Response). The Department’s budget materials reflect the correct language. 

The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) reported in the DOJ budget summary 

varies slightly from the numbers reported in the President’s budget appendix due 

to a difference in the methodology used to calculate the base FTE levels. 

While the DOJ chapter of the President’s budget states that a task force offset 

is proposed in fiscal year 2013, DOJ is just now finalizing its review of task force 

operations and an offset is instead anticipated for fiscal year 2014. 

Question. What do you attribute these discrepancies to? 

Answer. The majority of these discrepancies can be attributed to timing constraints during production of these separate documents, as it is the intent of both 

the language proposed in the Budget Appendix and the language proposed in the 

Department’s budget materials to accurately report the same information. 

The difference in FTE between the DOJ congressional budget submission and the 

President’s Budget Appendix can be attributed to a difference in the methodology 

used to calculate the base FTE levels. The DOJ congressional budget submission 

used the authorized FTE level to calculate the base for the enacted FTE in fiscal 

year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 and the request in fiscal year 2013. The President’s 

Budget Appendix used the actual fiscal year 2011 FTE level as a baseline for developing the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 FTE levels, as opposed to using the 

authorized FTE levels. This leads to a slight discrepancy in the reported FTE level, 

as footnoted in the Department’s budget and performance summary. 

DANGER PAY FOR MEXICO

Question. DOJ has given the subcommittee its word that it would be advocating 

danger pay for USMS and ATF. What is the status of DOJ’s negotiations on this? 

Why is OMB opposed to supporting law enforcement in Mexico receiving danger 

pay? 

Answer. DOJ is continuing to monitor the issue of differential rates of pay for 

DOJ agents and employees working in danger posts. We are actively engaged in discussions with the Department of State, which has jurisdiction over danger post determinations. The Department of State is acutely aware of our concern and has assured us that it is closely monitoring the situation in Mexico and will add additional 

danger posts as necessary. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TASK FORCES

Question. Task forces play a major role in the DEA, USMS, FBI, and ATF missions. I support the consolidation of duplicative efforts, but I am concerned that 

there may be confusion on the part of the administration in past proposals to consolidate task forces. 

Specifically, the USMS Fugitive Task Forces come to mind. USMS have made 

three times the arrests of all other Federal law enforcement agencies combined. 

Can you tell us about the uniqueness of USMS’s fugitive task forces and other 

task forces? 

Answer. USMS plays a unique role in implementing DOJ’s violent crime reduction 

strategy as USMS is the Federal Government’s primary agency for conducting fugitive investigations, and it apprehends more Federal fugitives than all other law enforcement agencies combined. USMS has also been named the lead DOJ component 

to investigate and prosecute crimes involving the noncompliance of sex offenders. 

While USMS is responsible for investigating and apprehending individuals wanted 

for escaping from Federal prison and for Federal parole and probation violations, 

it has a long and distinguished history of providing assistance and expertise to other 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive investigations. This support is coordinated though the USMS’s Domestic Investigations and 

Sex Offender Investigations Branches, 75 district-based task forces, and 7 regional 
52 

fugitive task forces, supplemented by three foreign field offices and a wide range of 

technical surveillance and criminal intelligence capabilities. USMS also participates 

on Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF); the OCDETF program has reported that its operations are substantially more effective when supported by USMS. 

The 75 district fugitive task forces operate areas not covered by the regional fugitive task forces. The seven regional fugitive task forces operate in the National Capital region, gulf coast region, Great Lakes region, New York-New Jersey region, Pacific-Southwest region, Southeastern U.S. region, and Florida. The combined regional fugitive task force has proven to be a vital tool in ensuring the safety of communities by arresting violent fugitives who prey on society. 

USMS’s task forces combine the efforts of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to locate and arrest the most dangerous fugitives. All USMS task 

forces are designed and managed to ensure the highest levels of cooperation, coordination, and deconfliction among participating agencies. While some of this coordination is informal in nature, in other cases, task forces use formal national and local 

information sharing and deconfliction systems to coordinate investigations and protect officer safety. 

USMS locates and apprehends Federal, State, and local fugitives both within and 

outside the United States. The warrants include but are not limited to: 

—homicide; 

—rape; 

—aggravated assault; and 

—robbery; or 

—if there was an arrest or conviction in the fugitive’s record for any of these offenses; or 

—for any sex offense as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act. 

In fiscal year 2011, USMS task forces: 

—arrested 36,268 Federal fugitives; 

—arrested 86,449 State and local fugitives; 

—cleared 39,398 Federal warrants; 

—cleared 113,287 State and local warrants; 

—arrested 3,867 homicide suspects; 

—arrested 5,005 gang members; 

—arrested 12,144 sex offenders; 

—arrested 299 fugitives in Mexico; and 

—the seven regional fugitive task forces made 41,654 arrests and cleared 52,078 

warrants. 

DOJ’s other primary task forces include DEA’s regional task forces, ATF’s violent 

crime impact teams, and FBI’s Safe Streets task forces. As these task forces act as 

the primary investigative and operational arm for their respective agencies, they 

each leverage unique expertise in fulfilling their missions. For example, DEA’s regional task forces have unparalleled knowledge and experience related to identifying, investigating, and ultimately dismantling drug trafficking organizations, 

which DEA brings to bear in cases throughout the country. 

Question. Are there any task forces that you feel may be considered for consolidation or elimination? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget does not contain plans to consolidate or eliminate additional task forces. Currently, DOJ is finalizing its comprehensive assessment of task force performance in coordination with ATF, DEA, FBI, 

USMS, the National Institute of Justice and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

The review will also take into account the extent to which there is overlap or duplication between DOJ-led task forces and those led by other departments and agencies or State, local, or tribal led task forces. This assessment will review all violent 

crime, drug, gang, and fugitive task forces to determine their effectiveness and will 

culminate in recommendations to maximize performance and reduce duplication and 

overlap. The Department anticipates that the assessment will result in the elimination or consolidation of some task force operations. 

FAST AND FURIOUS LANGUAGE REMOVED FROM THE REQUEST

Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement regarding Fast and Furious, 

language was included on the floor in last year’s bill that would prohibit Federal 

law enforcement agencies from selling operable weapons to cartels. The fiscal year 

2013 request removes that language saying it’s unnecessary. The amendment 

passed 99–0. 
53 

This budget proposes to eliminate a provision that prohibits facilitating the transfer of operable firearms to agents of drug cartels unless those firearms are continuously monitored. The budget request’s justification for removing this language only 

says this ‘‘is not necessary.’’ That’s hard to explain to the families of the Federal 

agents killed by those weapons. 

Can you elaborate on why the administration doesn’t think it’s necessary? 

Answer. In the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget, consistent with past practice 

of removing prohibitive language that limits executive branch discretion, we proposed not to continue the Fast and Furious provision, which was enacted in fiscal 

year 2012 with the intention of preventing future ‘‘gun walking’’ operations. The 

Fast and Furious provision does not need to be continued because, as stated on several occasions, the Department does not intend to engage in any such operations in 

the future. 

Question. Doesn’t the fact that it happened in the past suggest that legislation 

to block it in the future may well be necessary? 

Answer. The Attorney General has stated on several occasions that the Department has no intention of engaging in such operations in the future. Indeed, appropriate steps have been implemented to ensure that this type of operation does not 

occur again. However, given the sensitive nature of this issue, and in recognition 

of congressional intent to ensure appropriate oversight, DOJ would not object to this 

language being reinstated in the fiscal year 2013 bill. 

CARTELS RECRUITING COLLEGE STUDENTS AND MINORS

Question. There have been reports that cartels are attempting to recruit college 

students to smuggle drugs into the country, and college campuses could serve as an 

easy recruiting ground. It’s understandable how young students could be enticed by 

large sums of cash. The reports say that minors are more appealing because criminal penalties are lighter for them. One of the bright spots in your budget request 

is $312 million for Juvenile Justice Prevention programs. It’s imperative that we 

educate our children and students on the potential dangers of being involved in cartels. 

Are you aware of these threats to college students and Southwest Border youth? 

Answer. DOJ has become aware of the threats posed by drug cartels to both college students and students in elementary and high schools along the Southwest border through those who attend and conduct AMBER Alert Southern Border Initiative 

trainings. 

Question. Are any Juvenile Justice Prevention dollars being focused toward education and awareness programs for the Southwest Border youth to understand the 

dangers of cartels and the drug trade? 

Answer. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has 

not focused Juvenile Justice Prevention dollars toward education and awareness 

programs for the Southwest Border youth. However, OJJDP’s AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance program has developed a partnership with the Boys 

& Girls Clubs of America, a national nonprofit organization which provides expansion and development of sustainable Boys & Girls Clubs within tribal communities 

and other communities across the Nation. While OJP does not fund Boys & Girls 

Clubs activities directly through the AMBER Alert Training and TA program, we 

have awarded funding to a training and technical assistance provider that has a formal, established partnership with Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Through that 

partnership, Boys & Girls Clubs have been the conduit for information about gang 

and drug resistance education to youth who participate in Boys & Girls Clubs activities, and this may include education and awareness about the dangers of cartels and 

the drug trade for youth along the Southwest Border. 

OJJDP also has supported Boys and Girls Clubs. Boys & Girls Clubs provide a 

variety of prevention programs and activities for youth that help them develop character, education, social, and leadership skills. In addition, the Boys & Girls Clubs 

provide the Delinquency and Gang Prevention/Intervention Initiative. This community-based initiative targets young people ages 6 to 18 that are at high risk for involvement or are already involved with delinquency and gangs. These youth and 

teens are directed to positive alternatives and learn about violence prevention. 

OJJDP supports gang prevention education in schools. The Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, funded under title V, is a school-based, 

law enforcement officer-instructed, classroom curriculum administered by OJP’s 

BJA and OJJDP. The delivery and support of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is coordinated 

through the four Regional Training Centers, the National Policy Board (NPB), a National Training Team and two Federal agency partners: 
54 

—FLETC; 

—DHS; and 

—ATF. 

The goal of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is to help youth develop positive life skills 

that will help them avoid gang involvement and violent behavior. G.R.E.A.T. uses 

a communitywide approach to combat the risk factors associated with youth involvement in gang-related behaviors. The curricula was developed through the collaborative efforts of experienced law enforcement officers and specialists in criminology, 

sociology, psychology, education, health, and curriculum design and are designed to 

reinforce each other. The lessons included in each curriculum are interactive and 

designed to allow students to practice positive behaviors that will remain with them 

during the remainder of their developmental years. There are 495 law enforcement 

agencies in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas that are teaching G.R.E.A.T 

and 151 of those agencies are within 150 miles of the border of Mexico. 

BIG BEND

Question. Attorney General Holder, as I mentioned in the statement, I’m concerned about opening an unmanned border crossing in Big Bend National Park. The 

negative and unknown variables seem to outweigh the few and minimal benefits. 

Not to mention that during these tough fiscal times, these funds could be used more 

wisely elsewhere. It seems to me that if terrorists were to smuggle weapons across 

the border, they would do so in place that have easily accessible roads with the fewest amount of border officials. 

Although it’s not under DOJ’s jurisdiction, an incident involving criminal activity 

after the fact very well would be. What is DOJ’s position on an unmanned border 

crossing in this area or any other area? 

Answer. DOJ does not administer day-to-day activities regarding U.S. border patrol and defers to DHS in making determinations regarding the installation of border crossings. However, DOJ law enforcement components collaborate daily with 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement via field offices located throughout the 

country, including the Southwest Border, to combat crime and deter, detect, and disrupt any national security threats to the United States. DOJ stands ready to work 

with DHS to address any security concerns regarding border crossings or any other 

issue involving national security. 

SWB COMMUNICATIONS

Question. Big Bend Telephone Company (BBTC) is applying to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for a waiver from new rules that would lower the 

amount of Universal Service Fund (USF) subsidies that BBTC receives. BBTC is located in far West Texas, serves an area the size of Massachusetts, and covers 25 

percent of the United States-Mexico border. Without a waiver, we believe that 

BBTC may go out of business, with no other companies likely to serve the region 

because the area is so rugged and sparsely populated. Because BBTC provides network transport for the cell phone providers in the area, if BBTC goes dark, so too 

do the cell phones. Furthermore, BBTC provides critical communications service to 

numerous DHS facilities along and near the border (including two ports of entry) 

and to many State and local law enforcement agencies in the area. Without a waiver, these facilities would be at risk of losing their critical phone and broadband capabilities. 

If a waiver is not granted by the FCC to BBTC, and if BBTC goes out of business 

and thus its customers lose service, what would the impact be on national security 

and public safety if Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in the TransPecos region lost its voice and broadband Internet capabilities? Without such critical 

communications, would these agencies be able to maintain their effectiveness in patrolling and securing nearly 500 mountainous miles of the border? More specifically, 

how would this impact the safety of Texas communities in the border region? What 

impact would this have on any DOJ entities or communications? 

Answer. Should BTTC go out of business, DOJ would work closely with stakeholders, including DHS, to ensure that any negative impacts on public safety and 

national security are appropriately addressed. 

SENATOR STEVENS CASE

Question. Attorney General Holder, first, I want to compliment you for dismissing 

the case, and cooperating with the investigation of misconduct and mishandling of 

evidence in the Government’s case against former Senator Ted Stevens. 

After your request that the case be dismissed in April 2009, U.S. District Judge 

Emmett G. Sullivan appointed a team to investigate and report on the misconduct. 
55 

Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by Judge Sullivan to investigate the case, 

concluded in a 500-page report DOJ hid evidence that would have helped the Alaska 

Republican prove his innocence. Most notably, it was called a ‘‘systematic concealment’’ of evidence that could have helped Senator Stevens defend himself. 

Despite findings of widespread and intentional misconduct, Schuelke recommended against contempt charges because prosecutors did not disobey a ‘‘clear 

and equivocal’’ order by the judge, as required under law—which I question. 

Four of the six prosecutors who were investigated for their role in the case opposed releasing the report and their names were redacted. 

Since Judge Sullivan has ordered that the investigative report in the disgraceful 

prosecution of Senator Stevens be made public, can you promise this subcommittee 

that the report by Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) will also be 

made public? 

Answer. As DOJ’s disciplinary review process has not yet been completed, and due 

to limitations on public disclosure contained in the Privacy Act, DOJ is unable to 

release the relevant OPR report at this time. As I have stated previously, the Department will release as much as we can of the OPR report and DOJ findings, at 

the appropriate time and in a manner consistent with law and due process. 

Question. Are any of the prosecutors who engaged in ‘‘systematic concealment’’ of 

evidence in the Stevens case still in prosecutorial roles? 

Answer. Mr. Schuelke’s report examined the conduct of a number of current and 

former DOJ attorneys and found evidence of willful nondisclosure of Brady and 

Giglio materials involving two of those attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys 

(AUSAs) Joseph Bottini and James Goeke. Mr. Bottini is an AUSA in District of 

Alaska and handles criminal prosecutions. Mr. Goeke is an AUSA in the Eastern 

District of Washington and likewise handles criminal prosecutions. 

Question. Are any of their legal bills also being paid by the taxpayers? If so, 

please explain how much and the legal justification. 

Answer. It is DOJ’s long-standing policy to provide representation to Federal employees for conduct performed within the scope of their employment. The purpose 

for providing representation is to protect the interests of the Government by assuring adequate representation with respect to legal issues in which the United States 

has a concern and by freeing its employees from the fear that proper and vigorous 

performance of their duties may result in substantial personal legal expenses. This 

may be so even where the employee has erred or where, regardless of the lawfulness 

of the conduct, there is concern that failure to provide representation may result in 

the establishment of a legal principle that compromises the Government’s ability to 

perform its functions in a proper and lawful manner in the future. Moreover, where 

there are disputed facts regarding the conduct giving rise to the claim—or where 

the facts are under investigation—the employee is afforded the benefit of the doubt 

to the extent it is reasonable to do so. In all cases, the decision of whether or not 

to provide representation is based upon the currently available information. 

Consistent with this long-standing practice, 28 CFR 50.15 and 50.16, and Civil 

Division Directive 2120A, DOJ received representation requests from six individuals 

with respect to two matters. At the time representation was needed for the matters 

referenced below, the facts that it took the Special Counsel several years to gather 

were not available. In accordance with the usual processes available to Federal executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees, DOJ determined at that time that 

the prosecutors were acting within the scope of their employment and representation was in the interest of the United States. Private counsel was authorized because direct DOJ representation was not appropriate. 

DOJ utilized standard retention agreements that the Department commonly uses 

in its representation of other Federal employees. Those retention agreements imposed caps on the number of hours of work for which, absent unusual circumstances, counsel would be reimbursed. Those agreements also set hourly rates 

that are based on the attorney’s experience and are well below—and in some cases 

less than 50 percent of—the rates that DOJ uses when determining rates to pay 

prevailing parties against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice 

Act. With respect to the six individuals for whom representation was authorized, to 

date DOJ has spent $282,982.51 in connection with the contempt order entered by 

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 8, 2009, in United States v. Stevens, No. 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.), and $1,633,298.29 in connection with the subsequent 

investigation by Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by 

Judge Sullivan on April 9, 2009, and who ultimately produced a 500-page report regarding the investigation. 

Question. Does it concern you that the only reason these prosecutors escaped 

criminal charges is that the judge in the Stevens case did not file an order telling 

the prosecutors to follow the law? 
56 

Answer. Yes. DOJ expects its prosecutors to fully comply with their discovery obligations in every case regardless of the existence of a court order directing such compliance. As a result, when the nature of the undisclosed information was brought 

to my attention in 2009, I authorized DOJ to move to vacate Senator Stevens’ conviction and to dismiss the indictment. 

DOJ takes its discovery obligations seriously as evidenced by the policies and 

training requirements that have been implemented since the dismissal of the Stevens case. While DOJ continues to review the Schuelke report, and all of the facts 

and circumstances surrounding the discovery violations that occurred in the Stevens 

prosecution, DOJ prosecutors are expected to comply with their discovery obligations 

regardless of the existence of a court order. 

Question. What are the names of these individuals? Please list what positions and 

where these individuals have worked since this came to light—to present. 

Answer. The publicly filed version of the report identifies all of the subjects in the 

report. As noted, Mr. Schuelke found evidence that 2 of the 6 subjects willfully withheld discoverable evidence. DOJ understands this series of questions to pertain only 

to those two individuals. AUSA Joseph Bottini has continued to prosecute cases in 

the District of Alaska since the Stevens trial. After the Stevens trial, AUSA Goeke 

continued as an AUSA in the District of Alaska until May 2009, when he assumed 

the same position in the Eastern District of Washington. 

Question. Please list the cases that these individuals have participated in and the 

results. For example, one participated in the Alabama Bingo case which resulted 

in acquittals. Another involved the National Security Agency. Please list each case, 

the outcome, the individuals’ names, and what their roles in the cases are. 

Answer. We do not think it would be appropriate or useful to list every case on 

which each attorney has worked. We can tell you that since the Stevens trial, AUSA 

Joseph Bottini has handled a varied criminal caseload, and there have been no findings of prosecutorial misconduct in any of the cases that he has prosecuted. Similarly, AUSA Goeke has continued to handle a routine criminal caseload, and there 

have been no findings of prosecutorial misconduct in any cases that Mr. Goeke has 

prosecuted since the Stevens trial. If you can identify a specific need for additional 

information, we will be happy to consider it. 

Question. Will any investigation occur if the pending OPR recommends further action? 

Answer. No further investigation will occur, but OPR findings are part and parcel 

of the Federal disciplinary process. Whenever OPR reaches findings of misconduct 

involving current DOJ employees, imposition of any disciplinary action as a result 

of those findings must comport with the requirements of Federal law. Federal law 

requires generally that employees receive at least 30 days’ notice of any proposed 

disciplinary action and that they have an opportunity to respond both orally and 

in writing to the proposed action. After considering the response, the designated deciding official would determine whether the evidence supports the misconduct 

charge or charges in the proposal and, if so, whether the recommended discipline 

is appropriate. If a deciding official determines to suspend the employee for more 

than 14 days, the employee can appeal that suspension to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If the employee is suspended for 14 days or less, then the employee can 

file a grievance of the suspension with the agency. If the disciplinary process results 

in the affirmation of OPR’s findings of misconduct, then OPR would ordinarily refer 

the matter to the appropriate State bar disciplinary authorities for any action they 

deem appropriate. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

METHAMPHETAMINE IN TENNESSEE

Question. Tennessee had the second-highest number of methamphetamine lab seizures in the country in 2011 (1,687 labs), second only to Missouri. In 2010, Tennessee had the highest number of methamphetamine lab seizures in the Nation 

with 2,082 seizures. The average cost to clean up a methamphetamine lab is $2,300, 

and these costs are putting tremendous strain on State and local law enforcement. 

Last November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) helped Tennessee and other 

States by providing $12.5 million to address methamphetamine lab cleanup costs. 

However, this funding will run out in October 2012 according to the statewide Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force. Without cleanup funds, there is a real incentive to avoid seizing these labs. 

Given that this is one of the most urgent drug problems, especially in rural communities with limited resources, DOJ should find a way to help address this prob-
57 

lem. In this year’s budget will DOJ continue to support methamphetamine lab 

cleanup efforts in Tennessee? 

Answer. DOJ’s budget includes $12.5 million in funding to continue to support 

methamphetamine lab cleanups in Tennessee and other States. Funding will be 

prioritized for States, like Tennessee, that have established container programs because these container programs allows DOJ and its State and local partners to complete cleanups in a more cost-effective manner. 

In fiscal year 2013, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

requests $12.5 million to provide assistance to help stem clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing and its consequences, including the cleanup of clandestine 

laboratories. As in previous years, DOJ assumes that these funds will provide for 

meth lab cleanup activities. 

Question. What is DOJ doing to help State and local law enforcement deal with 

mobile methamphetamine labs, which account for a growing number of lab seizures? 

Answer. Over the past several years, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

has developed a container-based cleanup program. Under this program, DEA trains 

and certifies law enforcement officers to remove gross contaminates from labs (including mobile labs) and dumpsites; secure and package the waste pursuant to State 

and Federal laws and regulations; and transport the waste to a centrally located, 

secure container for storage. In States participating in the container program, hazardous waste contractors travel periodically to a central location to remove meth lab 

contaminates from across the State. In noncontainer States, hazardous waste contractors must travel to each individual lab or dumpsite to secure, package, and remove meth lab contaminates. 

DEA will be supporting cleanups in container and noncontainer States in fiscal 

year 2012 through its various hazardous waste contracts. Currently, eight States 

have operational container programs (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Tennessee), and DEA is working with five other 

States (Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) to implement the 

container program during fiscal year 2012. DEA expects these additional five States 

to have operational container programs in fiscal year 2013. Thus far, the program 

has resulted in significant cost savings per lab in States that have the containers 

deployed; a contractor cleanup averages $2,230 while a container cleanup averages 

$320. 

As container programs are more cost efficient and more States have operational 

container programs in fiscal year 2013, $12.5 million in funding, requested in the 

fiscal year 2013 President’s budget in the COPS appropriation, will continue to be 

sufficient in fiscal year 2013. DEA has also contacted an additional eight States for 

potential container program expansion. For those States without container programs, DEA assesses whether or not the program is a cost-effective option. If the 

state has only limited cleanups, the upfront equipment and training costs can exceed potential container program savings. In these cases, DEA will provide cleanup 

services through its hazardous waste contractors. 

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT AND WIND FARMS

Question. In 2009, Exxon admitted to killing approximately 85 protected birds, including waterfowl, hawks, and owls. The company paid a $600,000 fine and was required to implement an environmental compliance plan. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has referred similar cases to the Department involving wind farms. I am concerned that wind farms are not being treated the same as oil and gas companies with respect to enforcement of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

What concerns me the most is that the Justice Department’s lack of enforcement 

betrays a willingness to prosecute certain disfavored groups while giving others a 

pass. This kind of selective prosecution contradicts the Department’s promise of 

‘‘equal justice under law’’. 

Since it is a criminal violation to kill birds protected by the MBTA and we know 

that wind mills kills hundreds of thousands of birds each year, including protected 

bald eagles, why hasn’t DOJ taken action? Will DOJ step up enforcement for wind 

producers in the same way it has oil and gas companies? 

Answer. FWS’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) has primary responsibility for 

investigating potential criminal violations of MBTA, and refers appropriate matters 

to DOJ for prosecution. FWS’s OLE has stated publicly that, in the context of industrial takings of migratory birds, it focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting those who take migratory birds without identifying and implementing reasonable and effective measures to avoid the take. 
58 

In the context of the electric and oil and gas industries, reasonable and effective 

measures to avoid the taking of migratory birds have long been identified, and referrals have been made and legal action has been taken when companies knowingly 

fail to use such measures for avoiding bird mortality. Guidance on preventing bird 

deaths in the wind energy context has been more recent. However, some reasonable 

and effective measures for avoiding taking in this industry have been identified. The 

Department of the Interior released interim guidelines in 2003, and in March 2012, 

released final Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines designed to help wind energy 

project developers avoid and minimize impacts of land-based wind projects on wildlife and their habitat. 

DOJ reviews each referral from OLE carefully, and determines whether to initiate 

a prosecution based on the principles set forth in DOJ’s Principles of Federal Prosecution. DOJ is committed to the fair and evenhanded administration of the MBTA 

and other criminal wildlife protection laws. 

NATIONAL FORENSIC ACADEMY—UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

Question. The National Forensic Academy (NFA), which is located at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, has been providing hands on forensic training since 

2001 at one of the Nation’s only training centers where officers and investigators 

can practice forensic techniques in the classroom and in the field. 

NFA works closely with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ) to provide training courses to Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement and crime scene investigators, and this cooperation needs to continue. 

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive report on the 

needs of the forensic sciences community and concluded that we are not doing 

enough to support forensics. The report recommended new training and certification 

initiatives, among others. 

At a time when we are trying to control Federal spending, doesn’t it make sense 

to support programs with a proven track record, like those at NFA, instead of creating new Federal training programs to support our forensic training needs? 

Answer. NIJ is not creating any new Federal training programs to support the 

forensic science community. Providing high-quality educational opportunities for forensic science practitioners continues to be a critical goal to maintain high-quality 

forensic services. In order to increase the number of forensic science training opportunities available to the forensic science, law enforcement, medical, and legal communities, NIJ invested approximately $12 million in fiscal year 2010 and $5 million 

in fiscal year 2011. 

In 2011, NIJ’s Forensic Science Training and Delivery Program released a solicitation that sought proposals in two major areas: ‘‘Delivery of Training’’ and ‘‘Targeted Research on Forensic Science Training Programs.’’ 

One goal of the solicitation was to increase the number of no-cost educational opportunities for public crime laboratory personnel and practitioners in forensic 

science disciplines and provide forensic science training to other relevant criminal 

justice partners and professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault. NIJ 

sought to fund grant awards for the delivery of courses leveraging existing forensic 

science training curricula or courses developed under a previous NIJ award. Forensic disciplines supported by the program include, DNA, pattern evidence (e.g., fingerprints and firearms), trace evidence, digital evidence, and medicolegal death investigation. 

The solicitation conveyed the importance of cost-effectively leveraging existing 

curricula. For example, the 2011 training solicitation delineated that proposals 

should not include costs associated with further curricula development or modification. 

The University of Tennessee’s NFA received one award for $450,000 for ‘‘Specialized Crime Scene Investigator Training in Forensic Digital Photography and Crime 

Scene Mapping’’ in fiscal year 2011 (2011–DN–BX–K567. NIJ has competitively 

funded numerous trainings geared toward crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, and judges. Additionally, the University of Tennessee’s NFA, with grant funding from BJA, has produced successful and popular training courses for many years. The University of 

Tennessee’s Law Enforcement Innovation Center and its instructors do an excellent 

job training crime scene investigators during an intensive 10-week in house course. 

NIJ will not be offering a targeted solicitation for training in fiscal year 2012 in 

order to evaluate the various training programs, and it will conduct a gap analysis 

of critical needs. We hope to initiate this evaluation during fiscal year 2012 to determine how best to proceed with training in the future. However, there are still various training opportunities available through the ongoing training grants from past 
59 

years. Moreover, there are various Federal grants that may be used for the purpose 

of training individuals at State and local agencies, such as the DNA Backlog Reduction and Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement programs. For example, Paul 

Coverdell funds may be used to bring in a trainer to provide specialized training 

in-house or funds may be used to attend trainings/meetings related to improving the 

timeliness and quality of forensic and/or medical examiner services. 

In the fiscal year 2011 proposal from the State of Tennessee, one of the goals of 

the Office of the Acting State Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) is to educate county 

medical examiners, medical investigators, and/or regional forensic center nonphysician employees who serve as death investigators in basic death scene investigation 

techniques. Priority would go to individuals without any formal training in death 

investigation. While each grand division of Tennessee is included, this grant focuses 

on the smallest offices in the eastern division, because of a recognized need for very 

basic training in those regions. The OCME intends to send seven participants from 

across the State to either the winter or spring session of the Medicolegal Death Investigation Course in St. Louis, Missouri. 

BUREAU OF PRISONS

Question. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is estimated to be operating at 

43 percent more than rated capacity by the end of fiscal year 2013, and overcrowding at high- and medium-security facilities is projected to be 52 percent and 

63 percent, respectively. DOJ’s fiscal year 2013 budget submission states: 

‘‘In light of overcrowding and stresses on prison staffing, BOP’s ability to safely 

manage the increasing Federal inmate population is one of the Department’s top 10 

management and performance challenges identified by the Office of the Inspector 

General in the DOJ [Performance and Accountability Report].’’ 

Additionally, the Inspector General Performance and Accountability Report states: 

‘‘In sum, the Department continues to face difficult challenges in providing adequate prison and detention space for the increasing prisoner and detainee populations and in maintaining the safety and security of prisons.’’ 

I recognize the fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes funding for an additional 3,496 beds (2,496 beds in Federal facilities and 1,000 new beds in contract 

facilities). However, BOP is projecting its population will grow by 6,500 inmates 

during that time, which means crowding will only get worse. 

What additional resources are needed to provide the beds required to meet capacity? 

Answer. Continuing increases in the inmate population pose ongoing challenges 

for BOP. The administration has taken several actions to control Federal prison 

crowding including expanding capacity and supporting legislation that will control 

prison population growth. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $81.4 million in program enhancements to 

acquire 1,000 private contract beds and to begin activating two institutions, the 

United States Penitentiary at Yazoo City, Mississippi and the Federal Correctional 

Institution at Hazelton, West Virginia. These new contract beds and the two prisons 

will increase BOP’s capacity by 3,496 beds once fully activated. (Exhibit O, Status 

of Construction, in the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request for buildings and 

facilities gives additional information on pending construction projects.) 

In addition, the administration supports two prisoner re-entry provisions included 

in the Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 1231), which was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee but has not yet been scheduled for Senate floor 

action. The bill contains provisions to increase inmate good conduct time by 7 days 

per year and to provide a 60-day per year incentive for participation in recidivismreducing programs. If enacted, these legislative proposals will help control the longterm prison population growth and result in an estimated cost avoidance of $41 million; the President’s budget assumes enactment of these proposals and the corresponding savings. 

Question. Is contract confinement a cost-effective solution for housing low to minimum security offenders? Given current costs at contractor and BOP facilities, is 

contract confinement a cost-effective way to deal with overcrowding issues? 

Answer. Contract confinement can be cost-effective when used for housing low-security male criminal aliens. These inmates are particularly well-suited for contract 

confinement because their typically short sentence lengths and alien status generally preclude them from participating in sentence and recidivism reducing programs. Adding low-security private contract beds increases total system capacity 

and helps control overcrowding in low-security BOP facilities. At the end of fiscal 
60 

year 2011, low-security overcrowding was 39 percent, which equates to about 80 percent of low-security inmates being triple bunked, and in some cases regularly being 

housed in television rooms, open bays, program space, etc. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

INDEMNIFICATION OF LEGAL FEES INCURRED BY STEVENS PROSECUTORS

Question. How much money was in fact spent defending the prosecutors, what the 

money was spent defending the prosecutors from, and why did the Justice Department spent the money? 

Answer. It is the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) long-standing policy to provide 

representation to Federal employees for conduct performed within the scope of their 

employment. The purpose for providing representation is to protect the interests of 

the Government by assuring adequate representation with respect to legal issues in 

which the United States has a concern and by freeing its employees from the fear 

that proper and vigorous performance of their duties may result in substantial personal legal expenses. This may be so even where the employee has erred or where, 

regardless of the lawfulness of the conduct, there is concern that failure to provide 

representation may result in the establishment of a legal principle that compromises 

the Government’s ability to perform its functions in a proper and lawful manner in 

the future. Moreover, where there are disputed facts regarding the conduct giving 

rise to the claim—or where the facts are under investigation—the employee is afforded the benefit of the doubt to the extent it is reasonable to do so. In all cases, 

the decision of whether or not to provide representation is based upon the currently 

available information. Those facts revealed that in the referenced matters the prosecutors were acting within the scope of their employment and representation was 

in the interest of the United States. Private counsel was authorized because direct 

Department representation was not appropriate. 

DOJ authorized representation of six individuals with respect to two matters and 

used standard retention agreements that the Department commonly uses in its representation of other Federal employees. Those retention agreements imposed caps 

on the number of hours of work for which, absent unusual circumstances, counsel 

would be reimbursed. Those agreements also set hourly rates that are based on the 

attorney’s experience and are well below—and in some cases less than 50 percent 

of—the rates that DOJ uses when determining rates to pay prevailing parties 

against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice Act. With respect 

to the six individuals for whom representation was authorized, to date DOJ has 

spent $282,982.51 in connection with the contempt order entered by U.S. District 

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 8, 2009, in United States v. Stevens, No. 08– 

cr–0231 (D.D.C.), and $1,633,298.29 in connection with the subsequent investigation 

by Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by Judge Sullivan on 

April 9, 2009. 

Question. Did DOJ enter into any agreement with the prosecutors or their counsel 

prior to expending these funds? If so, please provide copies of all such agreements. 

Answer. DOJ did not enter into any agreement with the prosecutors. In accordance with our usual practice, we sent our standard retention letter to the private 

counsel retained to represent the prosecutors and received back DOJ’s standard retention agreement signed by private counsel. As noted above, the retention agreements imposed caps on the number of hours of work for which, absent unusual circumstances, counsel would be reimbursed. The agreements also set hourly rates 

that are based on the attorney’s experience and are well below—and in some cases 

less than 50 percent of—the rates that the Department uses when determining 

rates to pay prevailing parties against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Copies of the retention letters and executed agreements are attached. (see Attachment 1) 

ATTACHMENT #1 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009. 

KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN, 

O’Melveny & Myers, 1625 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20006. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 
61 

DEAR MR. WAINSTEIN: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears at this time that representation of Joseph Bottini in connection with 

a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is 

in the interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Bottini by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is 

inappropriate. Mr. Bottini has requested that the Department agree to reimburse 

you for his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your 

reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms 

and conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and 

made a part of this agreement. 

You and Mr. Bottini should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 

Bottini in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

The Department of Justice is continuing to experience delays in its mail delivery, 

as mail addressed to the Department continues to be forwarded to out-of-State facilities for irradiation. Therefore, please e-mail the signature page of the retention 

agreement to the attention of Ms. Lago at virginia.lago@usdoj.gov. In addition, 

please e-mail your invoices to doj.private-counsel-program@usdoj.gov, or you may 

mail them to Ms. Lago’s attention at P.O. Box 7146, Washington, DC 20044. Reimbursement of allowable fees and expenses will become available on the Civil Division’s receipt of the signed addendum. 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 
62 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 
63 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 
64 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Joseph 

Bottini, in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in 

United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past 

or future oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN

Date: April 23, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, June 16, 2009. 

MATTHEW I. MENCHEL, 

Kobre & Kim, 800 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. MENCHEL: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably 

appears at this time that representation of James Goeke in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is in the 

interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Goeke by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr. Goeke has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for 

his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and 

conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made 

a part of this agreement. 

You and Mr. Goeke should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 
65 

Goeke in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 
66 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted re- search that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs ex- ceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 
67 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 
68 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent James Goeke, 

in connection with a Special Counsel. investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08– 

cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and 

the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: MATTHEW L. MENCHEL

Date: September 18, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, May 19, 2009. 

ROBERT D. LUSKIN, ESQ., 

Patton Boggs, 2550 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. LUSKIN: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably 

appears at this time that representation of Nicholas Marsh in connection with a 

Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is in 

the interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Marsh by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr. Marsh has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you 

for his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and 

conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made 

a part of this agreement. 

You and Mr. Marsh should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 

Marsh in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 
69 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 
70 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 
71 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Nicholas 

Marsh in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in 

United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past 

or future oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: ROBERT D. LUSKIN

Date: May 26, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 
72 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009. 

CHUCK ROSENBERG, ESQ., 

Hogan & Hanson LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. ROSENBERG: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears at this time that representation of Brenda Morris in connection with 

a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is 

in the interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Ms. Morris by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is 

inappropriate. Ms. Morris has requested that the Department agree to reimburse 

you for her representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your 

reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms 

and conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and 

made a part of this agreement. 

You and Ms. Morris should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Ms. 

Morris in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 
73 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 
74 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 
75 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Brenda Morris in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United 

States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, 

together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future 

oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: CHUCK ROSENBERG

Date: April 30, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, April 22, 2009. 

BRIAN M. HEBERLIG, 

Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. HEBERLIG: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably 

appears at this time that representation of Edward Sullivan in connection with a 

Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is in 

the interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Sullivan by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is 

inappropriate. Mr. Sullivan has requested that the Department agree to reimburse 

you for his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your 

reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms 

and conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and 

made a part of this agreement. 

You and Mr. Sullivan should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 
76 

Sullivan in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 
77 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted re- search that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs ex- ceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 
78 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 
79 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Edward Sullivan in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United 

States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, 

together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future 

oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: BRIAN M. HEBERLIG

Date: April 24, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009. 

WILLIAM W. TAYLOR III, 

Zuckerman Spaeder, 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036–5807. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. TAYLOR: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably 

appears at this time that representation of William Welch in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in the above-referenced action is in the 

interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Welch by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr. Welch has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for 

his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and 

conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made 

a part of this agreement, 

You and Mr. Welch should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 

Welch in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 
80 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 
81 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 
82 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent William 

Welch in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United 

States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, 

together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future 

oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: WILLIAM W. TAYLOR III 

Date: May 8, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 
83 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, February 27, 2009. 

CHUCK ROSENBERG, ESQ., 

Hogan & Hartson LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. ROSENBERG: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears at this time that representation of Brenda Morris in connection with 

a contempt proceeding in the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United 

States, It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Ms. Morris by 

attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Ms. Morris has 

requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for her representation in this 

matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to 

the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the 

enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 

You and Ms. Morris should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Ms. 

Morris in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 
84 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 
85 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 
86 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Brenda Morris in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United 

States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, 

together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future 

oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: CHUCK ROSENBERG

Date: March 3, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, February 18, 2009. 

HOWARD M. SHAPIRO, ESQ., 

Wilmer Hale, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. SHAPIRO: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably 

appears at this time that representation of Patty Merkamp Stemler in connection 

with a contempt proceeding in the above-referenced action is in the interest of the 

United States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Ms. 

Stemler by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Ms. 

Stemler has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for her representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement 

will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions 

set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of 

this agreement. 

You and Ms. Stemler should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Ms. 
87 

Stemler in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 
88 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted re- search that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs ex- ceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 
89 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 
90 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent Patty 

Merkamp Stemler in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the 

applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents 

the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any 

past or future oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: HOWARD M. SHAPIRO

Date: February 19, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

CIVIL DIVISION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, DC 20530, February 18, 2009. 

MARK H. LYNCH, ESQ., 

Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004. 

RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United States v. 

Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) 

DEAR MR. LYNCH: The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears at this time that representation of William Welch in connection with a contempt proceeding in the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United 

States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Welch by 

attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr. Welch has 

requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for his representation in this 

matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to 

the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the 

enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement. 

You and Mr. Welch should be aware that, by entering into this agreement, the 

Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary liability that might be imposed against Mr. 

Welch in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the 

extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 

616–4328. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum, along with your firm’s tax identification number, to the following address: 

Virginia G. Lago, Esq. 

Torts Branch, Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 7146 

Washington, DC, 20044 

In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct Deposit 

Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the completed form to: 

Accounts Maintenance Unit 

Attn: Gina McLaughlin 

FAX: (202) 616–2207 

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most payments by the 

Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the delivery of remittance information, 

please contact the financial institution where your account is held. If you have any 
91 

questions regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at (202) 

616–8103. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

TIMOTHY P. GARREN, 

Director, Torts Branch. 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 
92 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 
93 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent William 

Welch in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in United 

States v. Stevens, 08–cr–0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, 

together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future 

oral agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: MARK H. LYNCH

Date: February 24, 2009 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 

Question. Did the Justice Department have any role in the selection of private 

counsel retained to represent its prosecutors? If so, how was this role exercised? 
94 

Answer. The Department of Justice, upon determining that private counsel should 

be provided, informs the employees to contact private counsel of their choosing. If 

an employee is having difficulty in doing so, the Department will attempt to assist 

the employee in finding counsel. Once the employee selects counsel, the terms of retention as outlined in our standard retention letter and agreement are explained 

and, if private counsel agrees to the terms regarding reimbursement, he or she signs 

and returns the retention agreement to the Civil Division. 

Question. What cost controls, if any, were imposed on the private counsel retained 

to represent the Department prosecutors? 

Answer. Cost controls are specified in the retention agreement and Civil Division 

Directive 2120A (see Attachment 2). The retention agreement used by the Department requires the submission of detailed monthly bills, provides for GAO audit of 

the private attorney time sheets, places a maximum limit on the attorney’s billable 

hours per month (however the agreement also provides that we will consider paying 

more if the press of litigation clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time), 

limits the maximum hourly fee that may be charged, and limits the services for 

which the private attorney will be compensated to those directly associated with the 

litigation. As noted above, the hourly rates are set based on the attorney’s experience and are well below—and in some cases less than 50 percent of—the rates that 

the Department uses when determining rates to pay prevailing parties against it 

in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

ATTACHMENT #2 

[U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Administrative Directive CIV 2120A] 

RETENTION AND PAYMENT OF PRIVATE COUNSEL

MAY 1, 2002 

Subject: Retention and Payment of Private Counsel 

1. PURPOSE. 

This directive sets forth the procedures for entering into agreements to retain private counsel to represent Federal employees at Federal expense and the procedures 

for paying private counsel fees and expenses. 

2. SCOPE. 

The provisions of this directive apply to all branches, staffs, and offices within the 

Civil Division. 

3. DEFINITIONS. 

a. A Private Counsel is a private attorney with whom the Department of Justice 

has entered into an agreement regarding compensation for the representation of a 

person, persons, or an entity being sued, prosecuted, or subpoenaed for acts performed in the service of the United States where the Department has determined 

that such representation is in the interest of the United States. The Department 

may enter into such compensation agreements with private counsel in any instance 

described in 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. Under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 517, the Department may also enter into such agreements with private counsel for the representation of a person, persons, or entity in circumstances similar to those described in 

28 C.F.R. § 50.15. 

b. The Assigned Attorney, or the ‘‘Department attorney assigned,’’ refers to the 

Civil Division attorney having assigned responsibility for the case and not to the Assistant United States Attorney who may be handling the case in the local district. 

c. An ‘‘Employee,’’ for the purposes of this directive, is a present or former employee of the United States or any other person or entity to whom or to which the 

Civil Division extends representation under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 517. 

4. AUTHORITY. 

28 C.F.R. § 50.16(b) gives the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division the 

responsibility for establishing procedures for the retention of private counsel, including the setting of fee schedules. 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(a) makes the retention of private 

counsel subject to the availability of funds. 

5. POLICY. 

a. Department attorneys responsible for cases involving the retention of private 

counsel will determine from the Civil Division’s Office of Planning, Budget, and 

Evaluation if funding is available for estimated private counsel costs PRIOR to sub-
95 

mitting the formal request for authorization to enter into a private counsel retention 

agreement. 

b. Once the Assistant Attorney General authorizes a private counsel representation agreement in accordance with 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.15 and 50.16, the Department of 

Justice will, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATIONS, pay a private attorney, or other members of the attorney’s firm, for those legal services reasonably necessary in the defense of a current or former Federal employee in civil, 

congressional, or criminal proceedings. The Department will not pay for services 

that it determines are not directly related to the defense of issues such matters 

present. Additionally, the Department will not pay for services, even if they are directly related to the defense of those issues, if the Department determines that the 

services are not in the best interests of the United States. The Department will not 

pay for services that advance only the interest of the employee. 

6. RESPONSIBILITIES. 

a. The Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, authorizes the representation 

of private counsel and determines what steps the Division will take when representation is warranted but funds are not available for it. The Assistant Attorney General may delegate these responsibilities to another appropriate Division official (a 

designee). 

b. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Torts Branch reviews and authorizes requests for additional private counsel hours and unusual private counsel 

expenses in cases that are the responsibility of other litigating divisions within the 

Department. He or she also decides whether the Department will reimburse an employee for previously incurred private counsel expenses. 

c. Directors of the Civil Division’s branches, offices, and staffs (hereinafter ‘‘Directors’’) send decision memoranda to the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) requesting authority to enter into retention agreements with private counsel and forward Memoranda for the File authorizing such agreements. They may sign letters 

presenting retention agreements to private counsel when the Assistant Attorney 

General has authorized retention of private counsel. They also review and decide 

routine private counsel billing disputes and requests for additional private counsel 

hours and costs after the assigned case reviewer has informed the private counsel 

of the Department’s disallowance of a fee or expense. Directors refer such disputes 

to the appropriate Deputy Assistant Attorney General to review and decide the 

issues when the nature or expense of the case suggests the need to do so. 

d. Reviewers for cases involving retained private counsel examine bills received 

from those counsel and certify them for payment, after review by the assigned attorney. Where the reviewer determines that the Department cannot pay for certain 

items as submitted, the reviewer informs the private counsel in writing of the Department’s determination and of the private counsel’s right to seek a redetermination from the appropriate Director. 

e. Attorneys assigned to cases involving requests for private counsel estimate the 

costs of private counsel, inquire about the availability of funds for private counsel 

costs, prepare requests to enter into private counsel retention agreements, secure 

the actual agreement with private counsel, request the obligation of funds, suggest 

the deobligation of funds, submit all related documentation for processing, and review and certify private counsel bills for payment. 

f. The Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation (OPBE), Civil Division, determines the availability of funds for private counsel, obligates and deobligates funds 

for the payment of private counsel, reviews bills for payment from private counsel, 

and arranges for the payment of private counsel from the U.S. Treasury. 

7. PROCEDURES. 

a. Obtaining Authorization For Private Counsel Retention Agreements. 

(1) Determining the Availability of Funds. Unless the retention of private 

counsel is clearly unwarranted under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16, attorneys responsible 

for cases in which the possibility of representation arises must DETERMINE 

THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS for any potential private counsel retention 

agreement BEFORE SEEKING APPROVAL to enter into any such agreement. 

(a) The attorney must estimate the cost of a private counsel for the fiscal 

year based on the kind of services needed, the schedule of fees, and the approximate number of hours to be worked. 

(b) The attorney should send a memorandum to the Director of OPBE inquiring about the availability of funds for the estimated private counsel costs. 

(c) OPBE will determine whether sufficient funds are available to enter into 

a retention agreement and will notify the attorney accordingly in writing. If 

funds are available, OPBE will commit to the case the amount estimated for 
96 

the current fiscal year and will simultaneously reduce funding availability by 

the amount of the estimate. OPBE will obligate funds following the execution 

of a retention agreement (see section 7.c.). OPBE will establish monthly reports tracking availability, commitments, obligations, and payments by 

Branch. 

(2) Requesting Authorization for Private Counsel Retention Agreements. 

(a) After the attorney determines the availability of funds from OPBE, the 

attorney’s Director will send a memorandum to the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) to obtain a decision on the retention of private counsel for 

the case. The memorandum will recommend whether to retain private counsel; will recommend, if appropriate, the private counsel to be retained; and 

will forward the supporting documentation necessary for the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) to make a decision. THE MEMORANDUM MUST 

TRANSMIT: 

1. a written verification from OPBE that the Civil Division either has or 

does not have sufficient funds to pay for the estimated private counsel 

costs. In emergency situations, the memorandum may report an oral 

verification from OPBE, with the written verification for the record submitted later. 

2. a Memorandum for the File, for the signature of the Assistant Attorney 

General (or designee), that will authorize the retention of private counsel 

and will approve the attorney to be retained (see Exhibit 1 for sample 

Memorandum for the File). 

(b) The Assistant Attorney General (or designee) will consider the availability of funds in determining whether to authorize private counsel pursuant 

to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. When private counsel representation is warranted and 

sufficient funds are not available, the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) may direct the Division to seek additional funding from the Justice 

Management Division. After signing the Memorandum for the File authorizing the proposed retention of private counsel, the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) will forward it to the originating Director, who will return 

it to the originating attorney. 

b. Establishing Private Counsel Retention Agreements. Where the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) approves the retention of private counsel, the private 

counsel must sign a formal retention agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions of the representation. This written agreement will describe the legal fees and 

expenses that the government agrees to pay and the format and frequency of the 

bills that the private counsel will submit for payment. 

Once the attorney receives the signed Memorandum for the File authorizing the 

retention of private counsel, the attorney will prepare the formal retention agreement, with a transmitting letter for the signature of the attorney’s Director. After 

the Director signs the forwarding letter, the attorney will send these documents to 

the private counsel for signature. Exhibit 2 is a sample forwarding letter with the 

formal retention agreement. 

THE PRIVATE COUNSEL MUST SIGN AND RETURN THE AGREEMENT TO 

THE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO THE CASE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CAN PAY FOR ANY SERVICES. 

c. Establishing an Obligation for Retained Private Counsel. Once the assigned attorney receives the signed agreement from the private counsel, the attorney will 

prepare and send a memorandum to OPBE requesting the establishment of a financial obligation for the estimated costs of the private counsel (see the sample memorandum in Exhibit 3). In this memorandum, the attorney will estimate the total cost 

of the legal fees and expenses under the agreement. If the attorney anticipates that 

the case will require the private counsel’s services longer than the current fiscal 

year, the memorandum should provide an estimate for each fiscal year. The attorney 

must attach to this memorandum: 

(1) a copy of the Memorandum for the File authorizing the retention of private counsel; 

(2) the signed retention agreement and forwarding letter; and 

(3) OPBE’s original written certification of the availability of funds for the 

agreement. After receiving the memorandum requesting an obligation with 

these supporting documents, OPBE will obligate funds for the payment of private counsel costs. 

d. Deobligating Funds. The assigned attorney will closely monitor the progress of 

the case and will promptly notify OPBE when the case concludes or when the need 

for private counsel ends. Thereupon, OPBE and the attorney will assess the total 

and expected payments, and, if surplus funds remain obligated for the case, OPBE 
97 

will deobligate those funds so that they will be available for other requests for private counsel representation. e. Payment of Private Counsel Bills. 

(1) The retained private counsel must seek Department approval for any additional hours of service or any unusual expenditures not specifically allowed in 

the retention agreement BEFORE undertaking such services or incurring such 

expenses. The private counsel will make written request for authorization to the 

Department attorney assigned to the case. The assigned attorney, in consultation with the assigned case reviewer, will convey the Department’s decision by 

letter to the retained private counsel. 

In cases that are the responsibility of other litigating divisions of the Department, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Torts Branch will review 

and authorize requests for additional hours or unusual costs. 

(2) Private counsel will submit bills on a monthly basis to the Director of 

OPBE for processing and payment. 

(3) OPBE will route the bill to appropriate individuals for review prior to payment. OPBE will attach a cover sheet to the bill with delineated spaces or 

blocks for each individual in the review process and a schedule for processing 

the bill at each stage of review. Each reviewer will enter the results of his or 

her review and will endorse the appropriate space on the cover sheet. 

(4) OPBE will examine each bill to ensure its consistency with the financial 

conditions of the retention agreement (billable hours, legal fees, expenses, etc.) 

and the accuracy of the mathematical calculations. OPBE will not examine the 

necessity or reasonableness of any service. OPBE will certify the correctness of 

the bill for the items within the scope of its review or will note any discrepancies it discovers. 

(5) OPBE will forward the bills, with the above certification or notation of discrepancies, to the assigned attorney for review and certification for payment. 

OPBE will not forward those billing items that the retained private counsel has 

indicated might compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to assigned Department attorneys, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the addendum to the retention 

agreement. In these instances, the Director responsible for the case will identify 

uninvolved Department attorneys who will independently review those sensitive 

portions of the bill directly for OPBE. 

On receiving the bill, the attorney will review and then certify, if appropriate, 

the necessity and reasonableness of the services indicated and will forward the 

bill to the assigned case reviewer for his or her certification. The assigned case 

reviewer will then sign the bill, if appropriate, and return it to OPBE for payment. 

(6) Once the appropriate parties have properly reviewed and certified the bill 

as payable, OPBE will submit it for payment to the U.S. Treasury, through the 

Justice Management Division. 

(7) Should this review process uncover any discrepancies or nonreimbursable 

items, the assigned attorney will prepare a letter for the signature of the assigned case reviewer to inform the private counsel of the items not payable as 

presented and to explain the reasons. The letter should ask the private counsel 

to submit either a revised bill or an explanation of any item for which information is insufficient to determine if the item is payable. The assigned case reviewer will forward a copy of the signed letter with the disputed bill to OPBE. 

Should the private counsel contest the disallowance of any items that the Department will not pay, the private counsel may submit a request for reconsideration to the appropriate Director, who will decide the matter for the Department and will inform the private counsel of the decision by letter. 

(8) THE PROMPT PAYMENT ACT REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF PRIVATE COUNSEL BILLS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT AND THE NOTIFICATION OF ANY DEFECTS IN BILLS WITHIN 7 DAYS OF RECEIPT IN 

THE CIVIL DIVISION. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THESE TIME REQUIREMENTS MAY RESULT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST PENALTIES. 

To avoid the possible assessment of interest penalties, OPBE will complete its 

initial review of private counsel bills and will forward them to the assigned attorney within 3 days of their receipt. Within 3 days of receiving the bill from 

OPBE, the assigned attorney will ensure the complete certification of the bill 

for payment and will return it to OPBE or will ensure the posting of a letter 

to the private counsel concerning defects in the bill. 

f. Payment for Previously Incurred Private Counsel Expenses. 

(1) Preparation and Routing of Request. In the event that an employee seeks 

reimbursement for private counsel expenses incurred in a matter that has already concluded or in which the direct representation by Department of Justice 
98 

attorneys has become available, the employee or the employee’s private attorney 

may submit a request to the General Counsel of the employee’s agency. The employing agency shall forward the request to the Director of the appropriate 

branch, office, or staff of the Civil Division. The Director will assign the matter 

to a trial attorney. 

(2) Content of the Request. The request for reimbursement for past representation must include a complete statement of the fees and expenses for which the 

employee is seeking reimbursement. This statement should follow the format 

described in the sample reimbursement agreement (see Exhibit 2). The request 

should also include an explanation from both the employee and the employing 

agency of the reason or reasons why direct representation by the Department 

of Justice was not sought or was not available. 

(3) Assessment of the Statement of Fees and Expenses. The assigned attorney 

will forward the statement of fees and expenses to OPBE for a review of computational accuracy and for consistency with the financial terms and conditions 

of the normal representation agreement. After that review, OPBE will return 

the bill to the assigned attorney with an explanation of any computational errors and non-conforming items. OPBE will also certify whether funds are available to pay the bill, after allowances for computational errors (no allowance 

being made for non-conforming items). On receipt of OPBE’s assessment, the assigned attorney will review the statement of fees and expenses, including any 

non-conforming items, and will certify them for payment if they are reasonable 

in light of all the circumstances. In no case will the Department approve an 

hourly rate in excess of the rate then applicable for an attorney of the experience level of the billing private counsel. 

(4) Preparation of Recommendation for Approval. The assigned attorney will 

then prepare a memorandum for the signature of his or her Director requesting 

that the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Torts Branch approve the 

payment of the private counsel. A request for approval must include: 

(a) the employee’s request and the agency’s views; 

(b) OPBE’s confirmation that appropriated funds are available to pay the 

bill; 

(c) a recommendation as to the amount the Department should pay; and 

(d) a Memorandum for the File to record the Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General’s decision (see Exhibit 4). 

A retention agreement is not necessary. 

(5) Instituting the Decision. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General will indicate his or her decision on the Memorandum for the File, sign it, and forward 

it with the requesting memorandum to the Director, who will send them to the 

assigned attorney. If the decision is favorable, the assigned attorney will send 

a copy of the Memorandum for the File and the statement of fees and expenses 

to OPBE, which will then obligate the funds and process the statement for payment. Finally, the assigned attorney will prepare a letter to the employee and 

the employing agency announcing the Department’s decision and indicating, if 

appropriate, that the Department is now processing the bill for payment. 

8. DOCUMENTATION. 

Documents associated with the retention and payment of private counsel often reflect the substance of communications between employees and their Justice Department counsel. Accordingly, they are entitled to the protection of the attorney-client 

privilege (see 28 C.F.R. § 50.15[a][3]). This includes documents related to the authorization of private counsel and the payment of their bills. 

The Civil Division will afford special handling to these documents in accordance 

with the instructions contained in the Assistant Attorney General’s memorandum 

of July 26, 1983, titled ‘‘Maintenance of Attorney-Client Information.’’ The Civil Division will treat these documents as a part of the official litigation case file for the 

particular matter, but will hold them in special file sections separate and apart from 

the remainder of the official case file. These special file sections will contain a cover 

sheet over the documents that proclaims: ‘‘This file contains privileged attorney-client information. Access is limited to assigned trial attorneys and their supervisors.’’ 

A similar message must appear on the outside of the file section folder near the 

identifying DJ number. Civil Division employees will take great care to prevent the 

unauthorized disclosure of the information in these documents, generally treating 

them as ‘‘Limited Official Use’’ information (see Civil Division Directive CIV–2620). 

When the case closes, the assigned attorney will promptly retire the remainder 

of the case file, but the Civil Division branch, office, or staff will retain the privileged file sections until the Department of Justice and the National Archives determine their ultimate disposition. A note will go into the official file indicating that 
99 

the Division has retained a privileged portion of the file, and a copy of the signed 

closure form will go into the retained privileged file sections. 

9. RATES PAID TO PRIVATE COUNSEL. 

OPBE will review rates paid to private counsel at least every 3 years to ensure 

that rates are sufficiently competitive to attract qualified attorneys. Determinations 

to change rates will be based on market conditions and funding availability. 

10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 

Additional information on this subject it available from the Director, OPBE (307– 

0034). 

ROBERT D. MCCALLUM, JR. 

Assistant Attorney General Civil Division. 

EXHIBIT 1

MEMORANDUM FOR FILE

Re: Request(s) For Representation By Private Counsel Of [insert name of employee(s)] in [insert case caption] 

The request(s) for representation by private counsel at Department of Justice expense in the above referenced matter is hereby granted, subject to the terms, conditions and limitation of 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.15. 50.16 and Civil Division Directive 2120A. 

DATE: lllllllllll 

llllllllllllllll 

Assistant Attorney General 

(or designee) 

CIVIL DIVISION 

EXHIBIT 2

SAMPLE PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION LETTER

[Insert Name of attorney or firm] 

[Insert address] 

Re: [Insert case name] 

Dear [Name]: 

The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears at this time 

that representation of [insert employee’s name] is in the interest of the United 

States. It also appears at this time, however, that representation of [insert employee’s name] by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. 

[Employee] has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for [his or 

her] defense in the above referenced matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 50.16(c)(1), 

your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the 

terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into 

and made a part of this agreement. 

You and [employee] should be aware that by entering into this agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility on the part of the United 

States Government for any monetary damages that may be imposed against [him 

or her] in connection with this matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for remunerating you in the course of representing [employee] 

to the extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to 

your client. 

Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this agreement, including 

the enclosed addendum, please contact [Department attorney assigned to the case] 

at ll- lll. 

If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please return the signed 

addendum to [name of assigned attorney] at the following address: 

[Name of assigned attorney] 

[Name of branch, office, or staff] 

Civil Division 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 
100 

Reimbursement of allowable fees and expenses will become effective on the Civil 

Division’s receipt of the signed addendum. 

Very truly yours, 

llllllllllllllll 

Director 

[Branch, office, or staff] 

Civil Division 

Enclosure 

CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR

REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of a private attorney’s legal services by the Department of Justice to represent current and former 

Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

1. NATURE OF RETENTION 

Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice agrees to pay an 

attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for those legal services reasonably 

necessitated by the defense of a current or former Federal employee (hereinafter 

‘‘client’’) in civil, congressional, or criminal proceedings. 

The Department will not honor bills for services that the Department determines 

were not directly related to the defense of issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the Department will not pay include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification proceedings against 

the United States on behalf of the client for any adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an adverse judgment; 

b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against plaintiff, unless the 

Department of Justice determines in advance of its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the employee and the employee agrees that any recovery 

on the counterclaim will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the 

costs of the defense of the employee; 

c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts or civil suits 

against the United States under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts, or on 

any other basis, to secure documents for use in the defense of the client; 

d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of the employee; and 

e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4 below. 

The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set forth above, but 

must negotiate any charges with the client and may not pass those charges on to 

the Department of Justice. 

THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will not 

reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an employee if 

they are not in the interests of the United States. 

To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the Department 

for a particular service under this retention agreement, the retained attorney should 

consult the Justice Department attorney assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before undertaking the service. 

2. BILLABLE HOURS 

The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for any amount 

of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney may use the services of any number of 

attorneys, paralegals, or legal assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate 

number of billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client 

is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to perform work 

in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does not bill the excess charge 

to the Department of Justice. 

The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120 hours in any 

given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial preparation) clearly necessitates the 

expenditure of more time. The retained attorney must make requests for additional 

compensation to the Department in writing in advance of such expenditures. 

3. LEGAL FEES 

The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00 per lawyer 

hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The charge for any services 
101 

should not exceed the retained attorney’s ordinary and customary charge for such 

services. This fee is based on the consideration that the retained attorney has been 

practicing law in excess of 5 years. 

In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other lawyers in his or her 

firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal assistant, the Department agrees to pay 

the following fees. 

a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per lawyer hour 

b. Lawyer with 3–5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per lawyer hour 

c. Lawyer with 0–3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per lawyer hour 

d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour. 

The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates paid to attorneys 

retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. If, during the period 

of this agreement, the Department revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in 

such cases, the Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the 

effective date of the revision in rates. 

4. EXPENSES 

While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually incurred (e.g., 

postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the retained attorney must itemize 

these charges. The Department will not accept for payment a bill that shows only 

a standard fee or percentage as ‘‘overhead’’. The retained attorney must describe, 

justify, and clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses. 

In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and clear in advance any 

consultations with or retention of experts or expert witnesses. 

The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given month. 

The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance approval for 

services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying costs exceeding 

$150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to a per page copying cost 

of $.15 per page. 

The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. 

The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or the purchase 

of books only in exceptional situations. The retained attorney must obtain advance 

approval for such expenditures. 

Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe accommodations. The 

retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel unless it is used to accomplish 

tasks related to the litigation. The retained attorney must specifically identify such 

tasks. 

The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-town travel. 

The Department will not provide compensation for client or other entertainment. 

The Department will not pay expenses for meals incidental to overtime. 

The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal bills and filing papers with the 

Court. The retained attorney must separately list and justify messenger services. 

The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for hiring local 

counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours must fall within the 120- 

hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to local counsel may not exceed the 

rates listed in paragraph 3 above. 

5. FORMAT OF BILLS 

The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating the date of 

each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal assistant performing the 

service; a description of the service; and the time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of 

an hour, required to perform the service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable 

hours, a bill must include all services rendered in a given month. The Department 

will not consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it has 

already received a bill. 

In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization must reflect 

each litigation activity for which reimbursement is claimed. 

The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel bills, and bills 

for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing statement. 

The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g., purpose of travel and 

number of miles). The Department will pay the standard government cost per mile 

rate for the use of privately owned vehicles. 
102 

Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it. If the retained attorney believes 

that the detail of the legal bill would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to 

Department attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those 

particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is 

appropriate under applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not 

discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having responsibility 

for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys review the items in question. 

After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any item or items nonreimbursable 

or if any item or items require further explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response will 

the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment. For that reason, 

the retained attorney must respond promptly. 

Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable under this 

agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of the Department’s determination. The retained attorney shall make such a written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing 

counsel must submit such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will 

not reconsider its determination. 

6. BILLING ADDRESS 

The retained attorney should submit all bills to: 

Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

United States Department of Justice 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building 

7. PROMPT PAYMENT 

The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments. Determinations of interest due 

will be made in accordance with provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office 

of Management and Budget Circular A–125. 

8. GAO REVIEW 

Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained attorney to submit 

copies of time sheets to the General Accounting Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding monthly bills, copies of which the Department will 

forward directly to GAO. 

9. TERMINATION 

The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its retention agreement 

with the retained attorney at any time for reasons set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.16. 

ACCEPTANCE

I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent lllll 

in connection with lllll will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, 

regulations, and the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement 

between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future oral 

agreements notwithstanding. 

Signature: llllllllllllllll 

Date: lllllllllllllllll 

Tax Identification Number: llllllllll 
103 

EXHIBIT 3

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Supervisor, Accounts Maintenance Staff 

Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation 

Civil Division 

FROM: [Name of Director] 

[Name of Branch, Office, Staff] Civil Division 

SUBJECT: Request to Establish Private Counsel Obligation 

A decision was made to reimburse private counsel for representation of a Federal 

employee in connection with [insert case caption]. 

It is estimated that [insert dollar amount] is needed for reimbursement in fiscal 

year [insert year]. Please establish the following obligation at this time. 

Law Firm FY XX 

[Name of private counsel] [insert dollar amount] 

(on behalf of [insert employee(s) name]) 

[Address of private counsel firm] 

The firm’s tax identification number is: [insert tax identification number] 

If you have any questions, please contact [insert name] of my office at [insert telephone number]. 

Attachments 

EXHIBIT 4

MEMORANDUM FOR FILE

Re: Request For Authorization To Reimburse [insert name of attorney] For The Representation of [insert name of employee] in [insert case caption] 

[Insert name of employee(s)] has requested that the Department of Justice bear 

the cost of representation in this case. It appears that representation of [insert 

name of employee(s)] would have been in the interest of the United States and that 

failure to make a timely request for representation is not attributable to any fault 

on the part of [insert name of employee(s)]. Reimbursement of [insert attorney’s 

name] in the amount of $llllll is hereby authorized. 

DATE: lllllllllll 

llllllllllllllll 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Civil Division 

Question. Would you agree with Senator Grassley’s characterization that ‘‘this is 

an unseemly high amount of money being spent by the taxpayers to defend what 

appears to be egregious misconduct?’’ If you disagree, please explain the reason for 

your disagreement. 

Answer. We respectfully disagree for two reasons. First, only reasonable and necessary fees were reimbursed. The amount expended was for the legal services for 

six different prosecutors and for two separate but related matters: 

—a contempt proceeding convened by the district judge; and 

—a court-ordered several-years-long investigation, both stemming from a highprofile criminal prosecution which proceeded to trial. 

The breadth of this undertaking is evidenced by the Special Prosecutor’s investigative report, which exceeded 500 pages. Second, as noted in our previous response, employees are given a reasonable benefit of the doubt on disputed factual 

matters and representation is provided while the facts are being fully developed. 

This practice is designed to protect the Federal workforce and to ensure that the 

interests of the Government with respect to the legal issues in which the United 

States has a concern are adequately defended. 

Question. On November 21, 2011, Judge Sullivan issued an order indicating that 

the report of his investigative counsel had been submitted and seeking the views 

of certain stakeholders, including the prosecutors, on whether the report should be 

made public. Did DOJ pay the legal expenses or associated costs of any of the prosecutors with respect to the issues raised in Judge Sullivan’s November 21, 2011 

order and if so, what public interest justified the expenditure of these funds and 

how much money was paid? 
104 

Answer. Judge Sullivan’s November 21, 2011, order asked DOJ, Senator Stevens’ 

attorneys, and the attorneys for the individual prosecutors to submit comments and 

state their positions on its release. The proceedings were conducted under seal and 

the Civil Division did not have access to any of the sealed submissions. While DOJ’s 

position was unsealed on January 9, 2012, the positions of the individuals were not 

revealed until March 15, 2012, when the Special Prosecutor’s report was released 

and Judge Sullivan’s February 8, 2012, order was made public. 

Pursuant to DOJ’s previous determination that representation in connection with 

the investigation by Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III was in the Government’s 

interest, and prior to the unsealing of the prosecutors’ submissions on March 15, 

2012, DOJ paid certain invoices for work that was conducted in connection with the 

prosecutors’ court-invited comments on Special Counsel Schuelke’s report. 

Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Brenda Morris on December 15, 2011, 

January 24, 2012, and February 16, 2012, and payment was approved on January 

6, 2012, February 10, 2012, and March 2, 2012, respectively. 

Invoices were submitted by attorneys for James Goeke, on December 23, 2011, 

and January 31, 2012, and payment was approved on January 6, 2012, and February 8, 2012, respectively. 

Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Joseph Bottini on December 13, 2011, 

and January 18, 2012, and payment was approved on December 20, 2011, and February 3, 2012, respectively. 

Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Edward Sullivan, on December 15, 2011, 

January 12, 2012 and February 14, 2012, and payment was approved on December 

20, 2011, January 20, 2012 and February 24, 2012, respectively. The foregoing payments total approximately $106,000. The time billed was used 

to review and analyze the Special Prosecutor’s 500-plus-page investigative report, 

formulate the client’s position, and file a response in accordance with the court’s 

order. 

In light of the Government’s decision not to object to the release of the report, 

DOJ has not paid invoices that were received after the prosecutors’ positions were 

unsealed on March 15, 2012, and that relate to efforts to prevent the release of the 

report. The Civil Division has received, but have not yet processed, an invoice submitted on February 29, 2012, from attorneys for James Goeke (who opposed release 

of the Special Counsel report). We also received, but have not yet processed, three 

invoices submitted on February 24, 2012, from attorneys for William Welch (who did 

not oppose release of the Special Counsel report). 

Question. On February 8, 2012, Judge Sullivan issued an order requiring that the 

investigative report and certain related documents in the proceedings be released 

to the public on March 15, 2012. One of DOJ’s prosecutors, an Edward Sullivan, 

filed a motion in the District Court to stay that order and when his request was 

denied filed an emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit to stay the release of the report. Does DOJ intend to pay the attorneys fees incurred by Mr. Sullivan in requesting the stay or the attorneys fees and/or associated costs he incurs in connection 

with his appeal? If so, what public interest justifies the expenditure of these funds? 

Answer. DOJ has received, but not yet processed an invoice related to Mr. Sullivan’s request for a stay and his emergency appeal. This invoice will be reviewed and 

processed in accordance with the terms of our standard retention agreement. As 

noted in a previous response, that agreement, among other things, limits the services for which the private attorney will be compensated to those directly associated 

with the litigation. And our practice is to require counsel to seek authorization from 

the Civil Division to take an appeal from an adverse ruling stemming from the litigation in which we have authorized reimbursement. In this case, we have no record 

that counsel for Mr. Sullivan contacted the Civil Division for authorization to pursue an appeal. In addition, the retention agreement provides that DOJ will not reimburse services even if deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of the employee if it appears those services are not in the interest of the United States. In 

light of the Government’s decision not to object to the release of the report, the Civil 

Division has not paid invoices that were received after the prosecutors’ positions 

were unsealed on March 15, 2012, and that relate to efforts to prevent the release 

of the report. 

Question. Does DOJ believe that the report of Judge Sullivan’s investigative counsel and related documents should be released on March 15 as Judge Sullivan has 

ordered? Does DOJ intend to oppose Mr. Sullivan’s appeal to the D.C. Circuit? 

Answer. Per the January 6, 2012, submission by DOJ (unsealed on January 9, 

2012), the Department did not object to the March 15, 2012, release of the Special 

Prosecutor’s report. DOJ has not entered an appearance in connection with Mr. Sullivan’s emergency appeal, but was listed by private counsel as an interested party 

on the docket. 
105 

Question. If DOJ supports Mr. Sullivan’s efforts to prevent public disclosure of the 

report and associated documents please state the public interest served by the Department’s position? 

Answer. See previous response. DOJ did not support Mr. Sullivan’s efforts to prevent public disclosure of the report and its associated documents. As I previously 

stated at the March 8, 2012 Senate appropriations hearing, DOJ does not object to 

the release of the Special Counsel’s investigative report. 

Question. In his November 21, 2011 order Judge Emmet Sullivan’ indicates that 

his investigative counsel has found that members of the Stevens prosecution team 

engaged in ‘‘significant, widespread and at times intentional—misconduct.’’ In light 

of this finding and other findings in the investigative report does the Government 

have any recourse to recover attorney’s fees and costs expended in the defense of 

its prosecutors’ conduct? If so does the Government intend to exercise its rights? 

Answer. Pursuant to long-standing policy, a Federal employee who has been provided representation either by DOJ or by private counsel is afforded the benefit of 

the doubt and his or her plausible version of the facts usually will be credited until 

a contrary factual determination is made by the employee’s agency, a DOJ prosecuting component, or the appropriate professional responsibility office. Representation continues to be provided until DOJ decides to seek an indictment against the 

employee related to the conduct concerning which representation was undertaken 

or the Department determines that continued representation of the employee 

through private counsel is no longer in the interest of the United States (28 C.F.R. 

50.16 (c)(2)(i) and (iv)). 

These rules apply whether the representation is provided by DOJ attorneys directly or through the Department’s private counsel program. Just as there is no provision to recover services already rendered by DOJ attorneys directly pursuant to 

an earlier decision to provide such representation, there is no provision under the 

guidelines for recovering fees already expended. 

PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

Question. ‘‘USA Today has reported that its 2010 investigation found that the department’s internal investigations frequently take a long time and that prosecutors 

faced little risk of losing their jobs even when officials documented serious misconduct. Court records show that most of the attorneys named in the Stevens case 

continue to be assigned to their official duties.’’ Is the USA Today writer’s observation that prosecutors face little risk of losing their jobs even in the face of documented serious misconduct accurate? Please explain. 

Answer. We are aware of the 2010 USA Today investigation. In January 2011 we 

created the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU) to handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at DOJ that arise from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations. The PMRU is now responsible for reviewing all OPR 

findings of professional misconduct against Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and 

Criminal Division Attorneys. The PMRU also is responsible for imposing discipline 

in those matters in which it upholds OPR’s misconduct findings. We created the 

PMRU following a comprehensive review of existing disciplinary procedures and 

processes with the aim of creating a more efficient and uniform system to provide 

consistent, fair, and timely resolution of these cases. We believe that the PMRU is 

fulfilling its mandate. 

DOJ is also forthcoming with information concerning OPR’s performance. OPR 

provides the Attorney General with an annual report of its activities. These reports 

include statistical information on OPR’s activities, significant policy changes and developments, and summaries of cases completed during the fiscal year. The reports 

are available to the public at http://www.justice.gov/opr/reports.htm. When making 

a finding of misconduct, OPR shares a draft report of its investigation with the subjects of the investigation prior to completing a final report. OPR’s misconduct findings then are subject to review by the PMRU (for AUSAs and Criminal Division 

prosecutors) and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General prior to the implementation of discipline. Provided that OPR’s findings of misconduct are upheld, discipline 

may range from a reprimand to removal from Federal service. 

Question. Has the OPR been tasked to investigation allegations of misconduct by 

members of the Stevens prosecution team? How long has this investigation been 

going on and when might the public expect that it be concluded? Once OPR’s investigation is completed, who is responsible for implementing its findings? Will the 

findings be made public? 

Answer. OPR conducted a 21⁄2 year investigation of the Stevens misconduct allegations. While OPR completed its 672-page investigative report on August 15, 2011, 

the entire disciplinary process involves various steps, and the process is not finished 
106 

until all the necessary steps have been completed. OPR’s misconduct findings are 

subject to review by the PMRU and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General prior 

to the implementation of discipline. No formal action is taken against a Department 

employee until the disciplinary process is final. Because DOJ’s disciplinary process 

is not yet complete, and because of limitations on public disclosure contained in the 

Privacy Act, the Department is unable to release the OPR Report at this time. Such 

a release also would be contrary to the integrity of the Department’s ongoing disciplinary process. As the Attorney General has stated previously, the Department 

plans to release publicly as much of the OPR report and the Department’s findings 

as possible, at the appropriate time and consistent with law. This cannot happen 

until the disciplinary process is complete. 

Question. What potential consequences could members of the prosecution team 

found culpable of misconduct in the Stevens matter face? 

Answer. While we cannot discuss at this time OPR’s specific findings in the Stevens case, when OPR’s findings of misconduct are upheld by the PMRU (for AUSAs 

and Criminal Division attorneys) and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, 

discipline may range from a reprimand to removal from Federal service. However, 

any suspension in excess of 14 days is appealable to the Merit Systems Protection 

Board. All disciplinary determinations must fully consider the 14 factors enunciated 

in Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 MSPR 313 (1981) that can mitigate or aggravate 

the level of discipline taken against an employee. 

Question. In his November 21, 2011 order, Judge Sullivan observes that his investigative counsel found misconduct on the part of members of the Stevens prosecution 

team—misconduct that was characterized as ‘‘at times willful and intentional.’’ DOJ 

has had access to the report of Judge Sullivan’s investigators since last November. 

Yet USA Today states that court records show that most of the attorneys named 

in the Stevens case continue to be assigned to criminal cases. As of March 8, 2012, 

does DOJ know who was responsible for the willful and intentional misconduct referred to in Judge Sullivan’s November order and has it nevertheless permitted that 

individual or those individuals to continue to work on criminal cases? Has DOJ 

acted on the findings of Judge Sullivan’s investigative counsel? If not, please explain 

why not. 

Answer. In November 2011, Judge Sullivan released the report of his investigative 

counsel, Henry F. Schuelke, III, to certain DOJ individuals under a protective order 

for the purpose of assessing whether privacy and/or privilege issues affected the 

public release of the report. The designated individuals reviewed the document and 

responded accordingly that DOJ did not object to the release of the report. The report recently was publicly released. We are aware that the report is critical of Department attorneys, and we are addressing the matter through our disciplinary 

process. OPR, which cooperated fully with Mr. Schuelke’s investigation, has conducted an independent review and has produced a detailed report concerning the 

misconduct allegations. This report is similar to Mr. Schuelke’s in that it addresses 

the same misconduct issues; however, the OPR report makes specific findings and 

recommendations regarding each subject’s conduct. Once our internal disciplinary 

review procedures are complete, and the subjects have been afforded an opportunity 

to comment on OPR’s report and any disciplinary proposals, we will impose appropriate discipline in accordance with the 14 factors enunciated in Douglas v. Veterans 

Admin., 5 MSPR 313 (1981) that can mitigate or aggravate the level of discipline 

taken against an employee. 

FEDERAL CRIMINAL DISCOVERY REFORM

Question. Could you briefly explain what the Brady rule states and whether it is 

in your judgment it is necessary to the guarantee of a fair trial? 

Answer. The Brady rule requires the disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment 

evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. 

83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The Supreme Court 

indeed held in Brady that Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. 373 U.S. 

at 87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. DOJ is committed to ensuring this constitutional 

guarantee is met in every Federal case. 

Question. Some would suggest that it is awkward for prosecutors to provide the 

defense with information that might undermine their hard work to gain a conviction. I believe that you would agree with me that the responsibility of a prosecutor 

is not to secure a conviction but to secure justice. Would you explain what DOJ is 

doing, particularly in light of the lessons learned from the Stevens case to ensure 

that Brady obligations are met? 
107 

Answer. DOJ takes its discovery obligations very seriously. For that reason, after 

discovery violations were uncovered in the Stevens case, the Attorney General 

moved to set aside the guilty verdict against Senator Stevens and dismiss the indictment. Furthermore, the Attorney General took decisive and unprecedented action to 

improve the criminal discovery practices within the Department. The following 

steps, among others, have already been taken: 

—The Office of the Deputy Attorney General issued memoranda to all Federal 

prosecutors providing overarching guidance on gathering and reviewing discoverable information and making timely disclosure to defendants; directing each 

U.S. Attorney’s Office to develop additional, more specific discovery policies; and 

providing separate guidance on discovery of electronically stored information 

(ESI). 

—DOJ developed a ground-breaking protocol concerning the discovery of electronically stored information in criminal cases in collaboration with representatives 

from the Federal public defenders and counsel appointed under the Criminal 

Justice Act. 

—DOJ dramatically expanded its discovery training requirements for all Federal 

prosecutors and institutionalized those requirements through codification in the 

U.S. Attorneys’ Manual. All Federal prosecutors are now required to undertake 

annual discovery training, so that roughly 6,000 Federal prosecutors across the 

country receive the required training annually on a wide variety of criminal discovery-related topics. 

—DOJ holds ‘‘New Prosecutor Boot Camp’’ courses for newly hired Federal prosecutors, which includes training on Brady, Giglio, and ESI, among other topics. 

—DOJ has trained thousands of Federal law enforcement agents and support staff 

in criminal disclosure policies and practices, and produced criminal discovery 

training materials for our victim witness coordinators. 

DOJ distributed to all Federal prosecutors nationwide a Discovery Blue Book that 

comprehensively covers the law, policy and practice of prosecutors’ disclosure obligations, and made it available on the desktop of every Federal prosecutor and paralegal. 

Question. In spite of DOJ’s efforts to educate its attorneys about Brady’s requirements, many commentators have noted that Brady practices vary from office to office and even within offices. It has been suggested that the Brady obligation should 

be codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In fact, Judge Sullivan wrote 

to U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Tallman, Chair of the Advisory Committee 

on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure suggesting that this approach be taken. It 

has been reported that DOJ opposed these efforts in 2006 and again in 2009 and 

the Advisory Committee chose not to pursue the issue in light of this opposition. 

Is this accurate and can you explain why this is the case? 

Answer. In 2006, DOJ opposed any effort to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure to codify or expand government disclosure obligations under Brady. In 

2009, this administration was prepared to codify the Brady rule within the Federal 

Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, the administration opposed the expansion of 

criminal discovery under consideration, because we believed the expansion being 

considered by the Advisory Committee would have damaged the carefully constructed balance created by the courts for criminal discovery and would have ignored the need to protect the rights of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, 

and national security in criminal discovery practice. 

Question. In light of DOJ’s lack of support for improving Brady practices through 

the Federal Rules, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has proposed a model Brady reform bill. I am preparing this bill for introduction in the 

Senate. Is it reasonable to expect that DOJ would oppose this proposal? 

Answer. We will oppose legislation that deviates from Supreme Court law, requires the disclosure of nonmaterial, legally irrelevant, and inadmissible information, or that does not properly account for and respect the interests of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers, and national security. 

Question. Would DOJ be supportive of the Judiciary Committees conducting a 

hearing on the Brady reform bill I intend to introduce and Brady practices overall 

in the near future? 

Answer. We think any hearing on criminal discovery legislation should include 

witnesses who can speak to all the interests of justice, including the interests of defendants, victims, witnesses, law enforcement, and national security. A hearing on 

discovery legislation should also explore the practical realities of the legislation. We 

would have no objection to such a hearing. 
108 

BILL ALLEN MATTER

Question. Is there anything you would like to say, in addition to what you told 

the subcommittee last year, which would explain why DOJ declined the recommendations of career prosecutors and professional law enforcement in this matter? 

Answer. The protection of children is of the highest priority for DOJ and we aggressively prosecute those who harm our Nation’s children. As a result of DOJ’s decision to expand Project Safe Childhood (PSC) in May 2011, the Department now 

coordinates closely with law enforcement at the Federal, tribal, State, and local levels to investigate and prosecute all Federal crimes involving the sexual exploitation 

of a minor, including those committed in Indian country and those that involve commercial sexual activity, whether or not they involve the Internet. 

Moreover, DOJ’s track record of vigorously prosecuting those who sexually abuse 

minors speaks for itself: 

—In fiscal year 2011, DOJ obtained approximately 2,713 indictments, against 

2,929 defendants, for offenses involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. This 

represents a 15-percent increase in the number of indictments more than fiscal 

year 2007 (in which 2,364 indictments were filed against 2,470 defendants). 

Since the beginning of fiscal year 2007, more than 11,447 defendants have been 

convicted in Federal courts of an offense related to the sexual exploitation of 

a minor. These crimes have ranged from production of obscene visual depictions 

of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; to receipt, distribution, possession, and/or production of child pornography; to the direct physical, sexual 

abuse of a minor. 

—Since fiscal year 2001, the caseload of the attorneys in the Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division has increased every year, and 

it has increased cumulatively by more than 1,100 percent. 

As the Attorney General has previously testified regarding the investigation of 

Bill Allen, any decision that we make to prosecute or not prosecute a case is governed by the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and we look at a host of relevant 

factors including the strength of evidence; the state of the law; the age of the case; 

the reliability of witnesses and other evidence; whether we can adequately address 

anticipated pretrial motions and discovery demands; and whether we believe any 

conviction can be defended on appeal, among many other factors. Very simply, we 

make all decisions to prosecute or not prosecute—including that relating to Bill 

Allen—based solely on the law and the facts and nothing else. 

Question. At my request, OPR has undertaken a preliminary inquiry into this 

issue. Can you tell me the status of that inquiry and explain what steps are being 

taken to ensure that OPR arrives at an independent and objective conclusion on this 

politically sensitive issue? 

Answer. OPR’s preliminary inquiry is ongoing. While OPR reports to the Attorney 

General, it operates independently, and the Attorney General’s office exerts no influence over OPR’s investigations or the content of its reports. 

Question. The Alaska Attorney General’s Office and the Anchorage Police Department investigative team have asked to meet with OPR to discuss their case. I have 

asked OPR to send a team to Alaska to understand how the case against Mr. Allen 

was prepared. Is OPR team authorized to travel to Alaska to meet with those who 

did the hard work to build the sexual abuse case against Mr. Allen? 

Answer. OPR has the authority to take whatever steps it deems necessary in 

order to complete an inquiry or investigation. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Before I recess the subcommittee, I want to 

conclude the hearing the way I began. As I listened to the questions, the answers, we’ve looked at the budget in the short time 

that we have to review, I want to end the hearing the way I began, 

which is to thank the men and women who work at the Justice Department. 

I’ve been on this subcommittee a long time. It’s been a great 

blessing and a great honor. And when I think about it, the scope 

and complexity of what our citizens and our country face, and what 

our Justice Department faces, it’s an amazing job, from community 

safety, to national safety—just in the last decade, the expansion in 

the national security portfolio, and the transformation of agencies. 

FBI is not, you know, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI any more. 
109 

So for everybody who works, everybody’s out on the street, everybody tracking sexual predators, everybody who’s doing their job, 

the prison guards, and all the wonderful support staff, the paralegals, the secretarial staff, the administrative staff, et cetera, we 

just want to say thank you. 

I think our country’s safer, because of your work. And we have 

to look out for our civil service, because we need an independent 

judiciary. We need a Justice Department that functions with absolute integrity. But we, who fund the appropriations, need to know 

that if you’re going to have a crackerjack civil service, we have to 

also support that crackerjack civil service. So, thank you, and God 

bless you, and God bless America. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

The subcommittee stands in recess until March 15, next Thursday, at 10 a.m. We will take the testimony of the Director of the 

FBI, in both an open hearing and then ultimately a classified hearing. 

The subcommittee is in recess. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Thursday, March 8, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 

15.] 

(111) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 

THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Hutchison, 

Murkowski, and Graham. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce, 

Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Senate 

Appropriations Committee will come to order. 

Today, we are taking the testimony of and engaging in a conversation with our Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), Robert S. Mueller, III. 

This will be a two-part hearing. One will be here in open and 

public session, and then, because of the sensitivity of issues and 

budget involved for the FBI’s fight against the global war against 

terrorism, we will have a classified briefing. So upon the conclusion 

of this phase, we will recess and reconvene in a classified environment in the Capitol Visitors Center (CVC), and all members are 

welcome. This is where we can have an additional in-depth conversation. 

Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Director of the FBI. 

We’re grateful for Director Mueller’s service and his agreement to 

serve 2 more years to work with our President in order to keep our 

streets, communities, and country safe. 

We begin our examination of the FBI’s fiscal year 2013 budget 

request with this open hearing. 

As chairwoman of this subcommittee, when I look at the FBI 

budget, I have three priorities: national security, which is how the 

FBI is working to keep America safe; community security, how the 

FBI is working with local law enforcement to keep our families and 
112 

our neighborhoods safe; and then also oversight and accountability, 

to ensure that we’re spending taxpayers’ dollars wisely and ensuring that we get value for our dollar. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

I’m going to ask unanimous consent, in the interest of time, that 

my full statement be included in the record along with a statement 

that Senator Mark Pryor has asked to be included. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Good morning and welcome. 

Today, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies Subcommittee (CJS) 

will hear from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Robert S. Mueller, III. 

We are grateful that Director Mueller agreed to serve for 2 more years. 

As Chairwoman, I have three priorities when examining the FBI’s budget: 

National Security.—How is the FBI keeping America safe? 

Community Security.—How is the FBI keeping our families safe? 

Oversight and Accountability.—How is the FBI ensuring our tax dollars are 

spent wisely? 

Today, we will learn more about how the FBI will use its funding to carry out 

its extraordinary responsibilities keeping 330 million Americans safe from terrorism 

and violent crime; dismantling organized crime and drug cartels; combating gang violence, and illegal drug and gun smuggling; and catching child sexual predators. 

Before we begin our hearing, I want to thank all of the hardworking FBI agents, 

analysts, and professional staff for their dedication and determination. Federal employees feel under siege and unappreciated. I want them to know that the CJS Subcommittee is on their side. We know what the FBI does every day to keep American 

safe, and we appreciate it. 

The President’s budget request for the FBI is $8.2 billion. The request reflects the 

stringent budget reality. There are no new initiatives in the FBI’s budget request 

this year. There is only one modest, targeted increase to enhance FBI’s abilities to 

fight mortgage and financial fraud. 

In fact, FBI will be asked to do more with less in 2013. In order to afford to continue critical FBI efforts begun in previous years—such as computer intrusions—the 

budget proposes $63 million in savings from lower-priority FBI programs. The FBI 

will also be required to give back $162 million in prior-year funding. FBI is also 

tasked with becoming the banker for all Federal law enforcement agencies on interoperable communications equipment purchases. I want to ensure that the FBI’s 

budget maintains the FBI as our pre-eminent law enforcement agency. 

Additionally, if we don’t avoid a sequester, FBI will be cut by 8 to 10 percent 

across the board. We will want to hear from Director Mueller about the consequences of a cut like that and how it will impact the FBI’s ability to carry out 

its mission. 

Our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from hackers, cyber 

spies, and cyber terrorists. Cyber security may be the most critical component to our 

Nation’s infrastructure. We need safe and resilient networks to protect our online 

banking and commerce, electrical and power grids, air traffic control systems and 

digitalized records. The budget request is $136 million for the FBI’s cyber efforts, 

which is the same as the current level. I want to know if the request is sufficient 

for the FBI to carry out its role as a key guardian of our Nation’s cyber security. 

After 9/11, the FBI was charged with a new national security mission to protect 

us from international terrorism. The FBI disrupts terrorist plots before they happen 

by identifying, tracking, and defeating terrorist cells in the United States. They dismantle weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil. Today, counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities make up more than 40 percent of the FBI’s budget. Just 

weeks ago, we saw the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts up close when they arrested 

a man who was on a suicide mission plotting to blow up a bomb at the U.S. Capitol. 

I want to know if this budget request is enough to tackle all counterterrorism responsibilities, including weapons of mass destruction, cyber computer intrusions, 

foreign counterintelligence, and critical incident response. 

I also want to know how the FBI is protecting Americans from violent crime in 

their communities. The budget requests $2.7 billion for traditional crime fighting efforts here in the United States. 
113 

The FBI targets sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on the vulnerable, 

including trafficking children for prostitution and schemers who scam families out 

of their homes. These organizations will do anything to make a profit. But I am concerned that this budget request is flat to fight violent crime and gangs. 

FBI’s State and local law enforcement partners work with the FBI on task forces 

by fighting gangs and violent crime. State and local budgets are under stress and 

Federal help has been reduced. Crime-fighting funding for State and local law enforcement has been cut by $1.5 billion or 43 percent since 2010. 

I am pleased that the budget request includes a modest increase to investigate 

the most complex financial crime cases, such as mortgage, corporate, and securities 

fraud. Mortgage fraud is the FBI’s number one white collar crime problem. The FBI 

is investigating roughly 2,600 mortgage fraud cases. This is down by 17 percent 

since 2010 peak of more than 3,100 cases. But the FBI expects its mortgage fraud 

caseload to remain high. Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are at the highest levels ever—93,000 last year. 

The budget requests $210 million to combat mortgage fraud. This is $15 million 

more than fiscal year 2012’s enacted level. This funding will help hire 40 new special agents and four forensic accountants. It will establish two hybrid squads made 

up of agents, forensic accountants, and financial analysts to investigate complex financial schemes. 

Director Mueller, I know you are with me. We want to send a clear message to 

the predators. No more scamming or preying on hardworking Americans. If you 

break the law you will suffer the consequences. 

The President’s budget request includes $109 million for the FBI to protect children, catch deviants who use the Internet to prey on children, and break up international sex trafficking and prostitution rings. 

The FBI plays an important role in enforcing the Adam Walsh Act. It’s also responsible for monitoring and targeting Internet predators. It runs Innocent Images, 

a national initiative that in 2009 convicted more than 1,200 producers, distributors, 

and possessors of child pornography. 

The FBI’s Innocence Lost initiative has rescued more than 1,100 children from 

prostitution since 2003, including a victim who was just 9 years old. Through this 

initiative, more than 500 pimps, madams, and their associates who exploit children 

through prostitution have been convicted. I want to hear from you if the budget request is sufficient to enhance child predator investigations, target predators before 

they strike and save children’s lives. 

Finally, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women of the FBI who 

are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, fighting to keep America safe from 

terrorism and violent crimes. 

We must ensure that the FBI has the resources it needs to protect the lives of 

330 million Americans. But we also want to make sure the FBI is a good steward 

of taxpayer dollars, making sure every $1 spent to keep our Nation safe is a $1 well 

spent. 

Thank you Director Mueller for your leadership. I look forward to continuing our 

productive relationship. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK PRYOR

First, I want to thank Chairman Senator Mikulski and Ranking Member 

Hutchison for their leadership and for conducting this important hearing to examine 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

I think that it is important that we work together with DOJ to provide our law 

enforcement organizations with the necessary funding to protect America and ensure the safety and security of its citizens. With that said, we all know that many 

tough decisions lie ahead as we strive to put our Nation’s fiscal house in order, and 

I believe that no stone can remain unturned as we seek to do so. Effective oversight 

will be crucial in preventing and detecting cases of waste and abuse, and I am hopeful that the Attorney General and Inspector General will join us in seeking to increase efficiency within DOJ. 

As this subcommittee reviews the fiscal year 2013 budget request for DOJ, I look 

forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are spent responsibly. 

Again, I thank Senators Mikulski and Hutchison for conducting this hearing. I 

look forward to Attorney General Holder’s testimony and look forward to discussing 

the fiscal year 2013 budget request. 
114 

Senator MIKULSKI. Having said that, my oral statement, to the 

point, is that we know that we ask the FBI to carry out extraordinary responsibilities, keeping 330 million Americans safe from 

terrorism and also violent crime; to continue their work to dismantle organized crime, which now has many new faces, many new 

locations, and many new techniques; and then the despicable drug 

cartels that continue to exist in our country and threaten our borders. 

We also ask the FBI to work to combat gang violence, illegal 

drug and gun smuggling, and at the same time to help us catch 

sexual predators. 

The President’s budget request for the FBI is $8.2 billion. This 

request reflects the stringent budget reality in which we find ourselves. There are no new initiatives in the FBI’s budget request 

this year, and only one modest, targeted increase, and that’s the 

FBI’s ability to fight mortgage fraud. In fact, the FBI will be asked 

to do more with less in 2013. 

In order to afford to continue the FBI’s critical efforts, the budget 

proposes $63 million in savings from lower FBI programs, and the 

FBI will also have a give-back provision. 

The FBI is also tasked to become the banker for all law enforcement, helping with interoperable communication equipment purchases, not just for the FBI, but for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and U.S. Marshals. We’ve counseled the FBI to 

really watch this very carefully because, as we looked at our cousins in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriation, 

interoperable communications has been one of the biggest boondoggles I saw. Everybody bought a gadget, everybody got a gizmo, 

and at the end of the day none of those gadgets and gizmos could 

talk to anybody. 

So we’re counting on the FBI to work to get it straight, and at 

the same time we need to get an update on their work on the Sentinel Program, our virtual case management file. Also, we want to 

be sure we take a look at the sequester consequences and what 

would be the impact on the FBI if there was an 8-percent cut, and 

we need to know how this will impact the FBI’s ability to carry out 

its mission. 

In the area of national security, the FBI was charged with protecting us from international terrorism. We disrupt terrorist plots 

before they happen by identifying, tracking and defeating them, 

and then also working to dismantle weapons of mass destruction. 

This definitely is not J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI anymore. Counterterrorism and counterintelligence make up a substantial part of the 

FBI budget. Just weeks ago, we saw the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts up close when they arrested a man who wanted to blow up 

the U.S. Capitol. 

Our Nation also faces a new kind of threat. That threat occurs 

in cyberspace. So we have cyber spies, cyber terrorists, and organized crime involved with cyber. Cyber is the new area, and we 

look forward to getting ideas and a concrete budget from the FBI 

Director on how we can keep us safe in that area and how they 

work with other intelligence agencies. 
115 

I also want to know how the FBI is protecting Americans from 

violent crime and also fraud in their communities. The FBI targets 

sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on the vulnerable: 

the child pornographer, the trafficking in children and prostitution, 

the schemes and scams and bilking people out of Medicare, or 

mortgage fraud, and I’m concerned that this budget is flat to fight 

violent crime and gangs. 

I know my very able and wonderful colleague, Senator 

Hutchison, is going to talk about the Southwest Border. She’s 

jazzed about it, and so am I, because of the ongoing threat at our 

border. State and local budgets are under stress, and we want to 

hear how you are leading that. 

I’m going to conclude my remarks, though, by saying this budget 

is not about numbers and statistics; it’s about people, making sure 

that Americans are not victimized by any bad person or anyone 

with a predatory intent toward them. But we couldn’t do it without 

the people who work for FBI. 

So, Director, before I turn to Senator Hutchison, I just want to 

thank you, and I’m thanking you for not only your service, but I’d 

like to thank you on behalf of all of those wonderful people who 

work every single day for the FBI, those that are out there in the 

field offices working on joint task forces, those that are around the 

world in, at times, very rugged and very dangerous positions. I 

know that the FBI works every day to protect us, that the people 

who work hard there every day are duty driven and dedicated, and 

they are in many ways our boots on the ground in local communities and also working with our intelligence and military agencies 

around the world. This is why I want them to know I respect them 

for the work they do, and I will fight for them in terms of their 

pay, benefits and pensions. 

So if we’re going to say thank you, we want to thank you not 

only with words but with deeds. 

Thank you, and I’ll turn to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you very much, Director 

Mueller, for coming before our subcommittee. I’m happy to say that 

last year we thought it would be the last time that you appeared 

before our subcommittee, and I was very pleased that the President 

offered and you accepted an extension of your term, because I think 

what has happened at the FBI during your term is exponential. I 

think the changes that have taken place and the responsibilities 

that you’ve had have been more transformational than probably at 

any time since the beginning of the FBI. 

I do want to start my remarks just very briefly by recognizing 

also the chairwoman of this subcommittee, who will on Saturday 

become the longest-serving woman to serve in the Congress in the 

history of the United States Congress. We’re going to make a big 

deal of that because we’re really proud of this little pint-sized 

mighty-might who has outlasted them all. 

So, Mr. FBI Director, let me just state a couple of points. I think 

that Senator Mikulski has really outlined the big picture. There 

are a couple of areas of interest that I have, and concerns. 
116 

Certainly, I think the Southwest Border has to be as much of a 

national security issue as any place that we have, and yet this request cuts the Southwest Border funding. I would question the priority of the administration in increasing the financial fraud enforcement and decreasing border security. 

So I’m going to say that I’ll be looking carefully at that and hop- ing to restore at least the $5 million that was included to make it 

look like it was even funding. But really, that was just required to 

sustain the positions that had been added in the fiscal year 2010 

border supplemental appropriations bill. 

So I’m hoping that we can add more where you think you need 

it the most, because that would be 13 border corruption task force 

members located in field offices across the border, as I understand 

it, and these are kind of the backbone of the FBI Southwest Border 

mission that provide intelligence and coordinate with the Southwest Intelligence Group (SWIG), El Paso Intelligence Center 

(EPIC), and the National Border Task Force. So I’m going to be 

looking at that very carefully. I’m also concerned and going to ask you about the $162 million 

rescission and what exactly that is going to impact. If it is as it appears, that it would be the processing for fingerprinting and DNA 

on improvised explosive devices, that’s an area where I think we 

could really link it to terrorists, and I wouldn’t want to cut that 

unless you have other plans for using money to assure that is able 

to be done. 

So, and then the other area is cutting the contractors of counterintelligence programs, which would be informant validation, the 

Terrorist Screening Center, and the Foreign Terrorist Tracking 

Task Force. I will ask your opinion of those. 

And then the other area that I will ask you about is the FBI 

agents that were involved in the prosecution of the late Senator 

Ted Stevens. We had a disturbing hearing with Attorney General 

Holder last week in which we talked about the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who apparently are still prosecuting at DOJ 

even after the report was released and the Attorney General himself dismissed the case against Senator Stevens because of misconduct on the part of the prosecutors. So I will want to know if 

there are people still at the FBI—I think there were just two 

agents that were accused of being involved in it. So I’d like to know 

your opinion of that, as well. 

So I thank you for all that you’re doing in the other areas that 

Senator Mikulski mentioned, but especially knowing the role of the 

FBI now in international intelligence and law enforcement. So that 

expansion has been on your watch, and I appreciate that you have 

been able to handle it and work with the intelligence agencies so 

well. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Director Mueller, please proceed. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

Mr. MUELLER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me also join 

the others on the subcommittee in congratulating you on your tenure, which is far longer than mine, I might add. 

Also, let me thank you for your comments with regard to the FBI 

personnel. I’m reminded of that because recently I had an oppor-
117 

tunity to talk to a number of agents, analysts and others who all 

worked 24 hours a day over the holidays in the case that we recently took down in Tampa, which was indicative of the degree of 

sacrifice that you see from the personnel in the organization. So, 

my thanks for commenting on that. 

Let me start by saying that the FBI continues to face unprecedented and increasingly complex challenges. As you know and as 

you pointed out, we must identify and stop terrorists before they 

launch attacks against our citizens. We must protect our Government, our businesses, and our critical infrastructure from espionage and from the potentially devastating impact of cyber-based attacks. 

We must root out mortgage fraud, fight white-collar and organized crime, stop child predators, and protect civil rights; and we 

must uphold civil liberties and the rule of law while carrying out 

this broad mission. 

For fiscal year 2013, the FBI has requested a budget of $8.2 billion to fund more than 13,000 Special Agents, more than 3,000 intelligence analysts, and more than 18,000 professional staff. This 

funding level will allow the FBI to maintain, just maintain our 

base operations, with a small increase, as you pointed out, for financial and mortgage fraud investigations. 

Let me summarize, if I might, the key national security and 

criminal threats that this funding will address. First, the terrorist 

threat. While Osama bin Laden and other key leaders have been 

removed, al Qaeda and its affiliates remain a top terrorist threat 

in the United States. Core al Qaeda, operating out of Pakistan, remains committed to high-profile attacks against the West, and 

meanwhile al Qaeda affiliates and adherents have attempted several attacks on the United States. Such attacks include the failed 

Christmas Day airline bombing in 2009, the attempted truck bombing of Times Square in May 2010, and the attempted bombing of 

U.S.-bound cargo planes in October of the same year. 

We are also concerned about the threat from homegrown violent 

extremists. As you pointed out, Madam Chairwoman, last month 

the FBI arrested Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan immigrant. Khalifi allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb in a suicide 

attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Over the past year we have 

seen similar attempts by homegrown extremists in Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington State. These cases exemplify the 

need to continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities and to get 

the right information to the right people before any harm is done. 

Turning to foreign intelligence: while foreign intelligence services 

continue their traditional efforts to obtain military and state secrets, they also seek technology and intellectual property from companies and universities. For example, last year a long-time Northrop Grumman engineer was sentenced to 32 years in prison for 

selling secrets related to the B–2 stealth bomber to several nations, 

including China; and last fall, a former Dow Chemical scientist 

plead guilty to transferring stolen trade secrets to individuals in 

Europe and in China. These are just a few examples of the growing 

insider threat from employees who may use their access to commit 

economic espionage. 
118 

Turning to the cyber threat: this will be an area of particular 

focus for the FBI in the coming years, as cyber crime cuts across 

all of our programs. Terrorists are increasingly cyber savvy, and 

like every other multinational organization, they are using the 

Internet to grow their business and to connect with like-minded individuals, and they are not hiding in the shadows of cyberspace. 

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has produced a full-color, 

English-language online magazine. Al Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, has its own Twitter account. Extremists are not 

just using the Internet for propaganda and recruitment. They are 

using cyberspace to conduct operations, and while, to date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, 

we cannot underestimate their intent. In one hacker recruiting 

video, a terrorist proclaims that cyber warfare will be the war of 

the future. 

And then you have State-sponsored computer hacking and economic espionage, which poses significant challenges as well. Just as 

traditional crime has migrated online, so too has espionage. Hostile 

foreign nations seek our intellectual property and our trade secrets 

for military and competitive advantage. The result of these developments is that we are losing data, we are losing money, we are 

losing ideas, and we are losing innovation. And as citizens individually, we are increasingly vulnerable to losing our private information. 

The FBI has, in the past several years, built a substantial expertise in order to try to stay ahead of these threats, both at home and 

abroad. We now have cyber squads in every one of our 56 field offices, with more than 1,000 specially trained agents, analysts, and 

forensic specialists. Borders and boundaries pose no obstacles for 

hackers, so the FBI uses our 63 Legal Attache ́ offices around the 

world to collaborate with our international partners. We also have 

Special Agents embedded in Romania, Estonia, Ukraine, and the 

Netherlands working to identify emerging trends and key players 

in the cyber arena. 

And here at home, the FBI leads the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, which brings together 18 law enforcement, 

military, and intelligence agencies in order to stop current and prevent future attacks. The task force operates through threat focus 

cells, specialized groups of agents, officers and analysts that focus 

on particular threats, such as botnets. 

Together, we are making progress. Just last week, DOJ and FBI, 

along with our domestic and foreign partners, announced charges 

against six hackers who align themselves with a group known as 

Anonymous. According to the charges, they were responsible for a 

broad range of high-profile cyber intrusions targeting companies, 

the media, and law enforcement since 2008. This case was successful because we worked extensively with our overseas partners, and 

we used our traditional investigative and intelligence techniques in 

the cyber arena. 

We must continue to push forward and to enhance our collective 

capabilities to fight cyber crime. We do need tougher penalties for 

cyber criminals to make the cost of doing business more than they 

are willing to bear. 
119 

Just as we did after September 11, we must continue to break 

down walls and share information to succeed in combating this 

cyber threat. And just as we do or did with terrorism, we must 

identify and stop cyber threats before they do harm. It is not 

enough to build our defenses and to investigate the harm after the 

fact. 

Now, let me spend a moment, if I might, to discuss a few of the 

most significant threats in the criminal arena. From foreclosure 

frauds to subprime scams, mortgage fraud remains a serious problem. In fiscal year 2011, the FBI had more than 3,000 pending 

mortgage fraud investigations, more than four times the number of 

cases we had in 2005, and nearly 70 percent of these investigations 

include losses of more than $1 million. In this budget for fiscal year 

2013, the FBI is requesting a program increase of $15 million and 

44 new positions to further address the mortgage and financial 

fraud schemes at all levels. 

The focus on healthcare fraud is no less important. The Federal 

Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to 

fund Medicare and other healthcare programs. Together with our 

partners at the Department of Health and Human Services, the 

FBI has more than 2,600 active healthcare fraud investigations. In 

fiscal year 2011, these efforts led to the recovery of more than $4 

billion taxpayer dollars. 

Violent crimes and gang activities continue to exact a high toll 

on our communities. According to the National Gang Intelligence 

Center, there are more than 30,000 gangs with more than 1 million 

members active in the United States today. Through Safe Streets 

and Safe Trails Task Forces, the FBI identifies and targets the 

most serious gangs operating, and targets them as criminal enterprises. 

Turning to the Southwest Border, which I know is a concern to 

Senator Hutchison, the continued violence along the Southwest 

Border remains a significant threat, and we rely on our collaboration with SWIG, the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task 

Force Fusion Center, and EPIC to track and disrupt this threat. 

With regard to crimes against children, we remain vigilant in our 

efforts to remove predators from our communities and to keep our 

children safe. We have ready response teams stationed across the 

country to respond quickly to child abductions, and through our 

Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams, our Innocence Lost National Initiative, and our Innocent Images National Initiative, the 

FBI and its partners are continuing to make the Nation safer for 

our children. 

Last, turning to the budget, the FBI budget for fiscal year 2013 

seeks to maintain our current base resources and capabilities in a 

restrained fiscal environment. But these resources are critical for 

us to continue responding to the broad range of national security 

and criminal threats we face today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, let me close by again thanking you for 

your leadership and support of the FBI, and most particularly the 

men and women of the FBI, in pursuit of its mission. Your invest-
120 

ments in our workforce, our technology, and in our infrastructure 

have made a difference to the FBI every day, and the transformation of the FBI that has been undertaken over the last 10 

years would not have been possible without the support of this subcommittee. My thanks, and I look forward to answering what questions you have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III 

Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members 

of the subcommittee. On behalf of the more than 34,000 men and women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), I would like to thank you for the years of support you have provided to the Bureau. 

The FBI remains focused on defending the United States against terrorism, foreign intelligence, and cyber threats; upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of 

the United States; protecting civil rights and civil liberties; and providing leadership 

and criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and international agencies and partners. Our continued ability to carry out this complex and demanding 

mission reflects the support and oversight provided by this subcommittee. 

More than 10 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the FBI continues to be 

a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization that is guided by clear operational 

strategies. And we remain firmly committed to carrying out these strategies under 

guidelines established by the Attorney General that protect the civil liberties of 

those entrusting us with the authorities to carry out our mission. 

As our Nation’s national security and criminal adversaries constantly adapt and 

evolve, so must the FBI be able to respond with new or revised strategies and operations to counter these threats. The FBI continues to shift to be more predictive, 

preventative, and actively engaged with the communities we serve. The FBI’s evolution has been made possible by greater use of technology to gather, analyze, and 

share information on current and emerging threats; expansion of collaboration with 

new partners, both domestically and internationally; and investments in training, 

developing, and maximizing our workforce. The FBI continues to be successful in 

maintaining this momentum of transformation even during these challenging times. 

The FBI’s fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $8.2 billion in direct budget authority, including 34,083 permanent positions (13,018 Special Agents, 3,025 intelligence analysts, and 18,040 professional staff). This funding level continues increases provided to the FBI in the past, most recently in fiscal year 2012, allowing 

the FBI to maintain its forward progress, including targeting additional resources 

on investigating financial and mortgage fraud. 

Let me briefly summarize the key national security threats and crime problems 

that this funding supports. 

NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS

Terrorism.—The terrorist threat facing the United States remains complex and 

ever-changing. We are seeing more groups and individuals engaged in terrorism, a 

wider array of terrorist targets, greater cooperation among terrorist groups, and 

continued evolution and adaptation in tactics and communication. 

While Osama bin Laden and certain other key leaders have been removed, al 

Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents continue to represent the top terrorism 

threat to the United States abroad and at home. Core al Qaeda remains committed 

to high-profile attacks against the United States. Additionally, al Qaeda affiliates 

and surrogates, such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), represent significant threats to our Nation. These groups have attempted several attacks against 

the homeland and our citizens and interests abroad, including the failed Christmas 

Day airline bombing in 2009 and the attempted bombing of U.S.-bound cargo planes 

in October 2010. 

In addition to al Qaeda and its affiliates, the United States faces a terrorist threat 

from self-radicalized individuals. Self-radicalized extremists—often acting on their 

own—are among the most difficult to detect and stop. For example, just last month, 

the FBI arrested Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan immigrant, for the suspected attempt to detonate a bomb in a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol building. 

According to court documents, Khalifi believed he was conducting the terrorist attack on behalf of al Qaeda and had become radicalized even though he was not directly affiliated with any group. The Khalifi case exemplifies the need for FBI to 
121 

continue to enhance our intelligence capabilities—to get critical information to the 

right people at the right time—before any harm is done. 

The basis from which acts of terrorism are committed—from organizations to affiliates/surrogates to self-radicalized individuals—continue to evolve and expand. Of 

particular note is al Qaeda’s use of on-line chat rooms and Web sites to recruit and 

radicalize followers to commit acts of terrorism. And they are not hiding in the 

shadows of cyber space: al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has produced a fullcolor, English-language online magazine. Terrorists are not only sharing ideas; they 

are soliciting information and inviting communication. Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, uses Twitter to taunt its enemies—in English—and encourage 

terrorist activity. 

To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, 

but we cannot underestimate their intent. Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward pursuing cyber attacks. 

These adaptations of the terrorist threat make FBI’s counterterrorism mission 

that much more difficult and challenging. 

Foreign Intelligence.—While foreign intelligence services continue traditional efforts to target political and military intelligence, counterintelligence threats now include efforts to obtain technologies and trade secrets from corporations and universities. The loss of critical research and development data, intellectual property, and 

insider information poses a significant threat to national security. 

For example, last year, Noshir Gowadia was sentenced to 32 years in prison for 

selling secrets to foreign nations. For 18 years, Gowadia had worked as an engineer 

at Northrop Grumman, the defense contractor that built the B–2 stealth bomber. 

Gowadia, a naturalized United States citizen from India, decided to offer his knowledge of sensitive design aspects of the B–2 to anyone willing to pay for it. He sold 

highly classified information about the B–2’s stealth technology to several nations, 

and made six trips to China to assist them in the development of stealth technology 

for their cruise missiles. 

Last fall, Kexue Huang, a former scientist for two of America’s largest agriculture 

companies, pled guilty to charges that he sent trade secrets to his native China. 

While working at Dow AgriSciences and later at Cargill, Huang became a research 

leader in biotechnology and the development of organic pesticides. Although he had 

signed nondisclosure agreements, he transferred stolen trade secrets from both companies to persons in Germany and China. His criminal conduct cost Dow and Cargill 

millions of dollars. 

And just last month, five individuals and five companies were indicted in San 

Francisco with economic espionage and theft of trade secrets for their roles in a 

long-running effort to obtain United States trade secrets for the benefit of companies controlled by the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). According to the indictment, the Chinese Government sought to obtain a proprietary chemical compound developed by DuPont to be produced in a Chinese factory. 

These cases illustrate the growing scope of the ‘‘insider threat’’ from employees 

who use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the benefit of another company 

or country. Through our relationships with businesses, academia, U.S. Government 

agencies, and with other components of the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and 

its counterintelligence partners must continue our efforts to identify and protect 

sensitive American technology and projects of great importance to the United States 

Government. 

Cyber.—Cyber attacks and crimes are becoming more commonplace, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. The scope and targets of these attacks and crimes encompass the full range and scope of FBI’s national security and criminal investigative missions. Our national security secrets are regularly targeted by foreign and 

domestic actors; our children are targeted by sexual predators and traffickers; our 

citizens are targeted for fraud and identity theft; our companies are targeted for insider information; and our universities and national laboratories are targeted for 

their research and development. Since 2002, the FBI has seen an 84 percent increase in the number of computer intrusions investigations opened. Hackers— 

whether state-sponsored, criminal enterprises, or individuals—constantly test and 

probe networks, computer software, and computers to identify and exploit 

vulnerabilities. 

Just as FBI has transformed its counterterrorism program to deal with an evolving and adapting threat, FBI is enhancing its cyber program and capabilities. To 

counter the cyber threat, FBI has cyber squads in each of our 56 field offices. FBI 

now has more than 1,000 specially trained agents, analysts, and digital forensic examiners that run complex undercover operations and examine digital evidence. 

Along with 20 law enforcement and intelligence agency partners, FBI is the execu-
122 

tive agent of the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. The task force operates through Threat Focus Cells—smaller groups of agents, officers, and analysts 

from different agencies, focused on particular threats. 

In April of this year, the FBI brought down an international ‘‘botnet’’ known as 

Coreflood. Botnets are networks of virus-infected computers controlled remotely by 

an attacker. To shut down Coreflood, FBI took control of five servers the hackers 

had used to infect some 2 million computers with malware. In an unprecedented 

step, after obtaining court approval, we responded to the signals sent from the infected computers in the United States, and sent a command that stopped the 

malware, preventing harm to hundreds of thousands of users. 

Over the past year, the FBI and our partners have also pursued members of 

Anonymous, who are alleged to have coordinated and executed distributed denial of 

service attacks against various Internet companies. To date, 16 individuals have 

been arrested and charged in more than 10 States as part of this ongoing investigation. According to the indictment, the Anonymous group referred to the distributed 

denial of service attacks as ‘‘Operation Avenge Assange’’ and allegedly conducted the 

attacks in support of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. The defendants are charged 

with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage to a protected computer. 

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities, along with our international 

and private sector partners, are making progress. Technological advancements and 

the Internet’s expansion continue to provide malicious cyber actors the opportunity 

to harm U.S. national security and the economy. Given the consequences of such 

attacks, FBI must be able to keep pace with this rapidly developing and diverse 

threat. 

CRIMINAL THREATS

Criminal organizations—domestic and international—and individual criminal activity also represent a significant threat to our security and safety in communities 

across the Nation. FBI focuses on many criminal threats, from white-collar crime 

and healthcare fraud to organized crime and gang violence to corruption and violence along the Southwest Border. Today, I would like to highlight a number of 

these criminal threats for the subcommittee. 

Financial and Mortgage Fraud.—From foreclosure frauds to subprime scams, 

mortgage fraud is a serious problem. FBI continues to develop new approaches and 

techniques for detecting, investigating, and combating mortgage-related fraud. 

Through the use of joint agency task forces and working groups, FBI and its partners work to pinpoint the most egregious offenders and identify emerging trends before they flourish. In fiscal year 2011, these efforts translated into roughly 3,000 

pending mortgage fraud investigations—compared to approximately 700 investigations in fiscal year 2005. Nearly 70 percent of FBI’s pending investigations involve 

losses of more than $1 million. The number of FBI Special Agents investigating 

mortgage fraud cases has increased from 120 in fiscal year 2007 to 332 Special 

Agents in fiscal year 2011. The multi-agency task force and working group model 

serves as a force-multiplier, providing an array of interagency resources and expertise to identify the source of the fraud, as well as finding the most effective way 

to prosecute each case, particularly in active markets where fraud is widespread. 

FBI and its law enforcement partners also continue to uncover major frauds, insider trading activity, and Ponzi schemes. At the end of fiscal year 2011, FBI had 

more than 2,500 active corporate and securities fraud investigations, representing 

a 47 percent increase since fiscal year 2008. Over the past 3 years, FBI has obtained 

approximately $23.5 billion in recoveries, fines, and restitutions in such programs, 

and during fiscal year 2011, FBI obtained 611 convictions, an historic high. FBI is 

pursuing those who commit fraud at every level and is working to ensure that those 

who played a role in the recent financial crisis are brought to justice. 

For fiscal year 2013, FBI is requesting a program increase totaling $15 million 

and 44 positions (40 Special Agents and 4 Forensic Accountants) to further address 

financial and mortgage fraud at all levels of organizations—both senior executives 

and lower level employees. These resources will increase FBI’s ability to combat corporate fraud, securities and commodities fraud, and mortgage fraud, and they will 

enable FBI to adapt as new fraud schemes emerge. 

Healthcare Fraud.—The focus on healthcare fraud is no less important. The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year to fund Medicare, 

Medicaid, and other Government healthcare programs. In 2011, FBI had approximately 2,700 active healthcare fraud investigations, up approximately 7 percent 

since 2009. Together with attorneys at DOJ and our partners at the Department 

of Health and Human Services, FBI is aggressively pursuing fraud and abuse within 

our Nation’s healthcare system. 
123 

The annual Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program report showed that 

the Government’s healthcare fraud prevention and enforcement efforts recovered 

nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in fiscal year 2011. This is the highest annual 

amount ever recovered from individuals and companies who attempted to defraud 

taxpayers or who sought payments to which they were not entitled. 

Gangs and Violent Crime.—Violent crimes and gang activities exact a high toll on 

victimized individuals and communities. There are approximately 33,000 violent 

street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members 

who are criminally active in the United States today. A number of these gangs are 

sophisticated and well organized; many use violence to control neighborhoods and 

boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun 

trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. Gangs do not limit their illegal 

activities to single jurisdictions or communities. FBI is able to work across such 

lines and, therefore, brings particular value to the fight against violent crime in big 

cities and small towns across the Nation. Every day, FBI Special Agents work in 

partnership with State and local officers and deputies on joint task forces and individual investigations. The FBI also has a surge capacity that can be tapped into 

during major cases. 

FBI joint task forces—Violent Crime, Violent Gang Safe Streets, and Safe Trails 

Task Forces—focus on identifying and targeting major groups operating as criminal 

enterprises. Much of the FBI’s criminal intelligence comes from our State, local, and 

tribal law enforcement partners, who know their communities inside and out. Joint 

task forces benefit from FBI surveillance assets and its sources track these gangs 

to identify emerging trends. Through these multi-subject and multi-jurisdictional investigations, FBI concentrates its efforts on high-level groups engaged in patterns 

of racketeering. This investigative model enables us to target senior gang leadership 

and to develop enterprise-based prosecutions. 

In addition, while the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to eliminate the National 

Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC), this will not hinder the FBI’s ability to perform 

the analytical work done there. FBI will continue to produce intelligence products 

and threat assessments, which are critical to reducing criminal gang activity in our 

communities. FBI will also continue to examine the threat posed to the United 

States by criminal gangs and will focus on sharing intelligence at the field level, 

where intelligence sharing and coordination between DOJ agencies and State and 

local partners already exist. For example, our Field Intelligence Groups regularly 

produce intelligence products covering criminal threats, including gangs. It is 

through these existing resources that we will continue to produce gang-related intelligence in the absence of NGIC. In fact, the responsibility for the production of that 

material will happen now at the field level where gangs operate in neighborhoods, 

districts, and communities. The field offices are the closest to the gang problem, 

have a unique understanding of the gang problem and are in the best position to 

share that intelligence. 

Violence Along the Southwest Border.—The escalating violence associated with 

drug trafficking in Mexico continues to be a significant issue. In addressing this 

crime problem, FBI relies on a multi-faceted approach for collecting and sharing intelligence—an approach made possible and enhanced through the Southwest Intelligence Group, the El Paso Intelligence Center, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force Fusion Center, and the Intelligence community. Guided by intelligence, 

FBI and its Federal law enforcement partners are working diligently, in coordination with the Government of Mexico, to counter violent crime and corruption that 

facilitates the flow of illicit drugs into the United States. FBI is also cooperating 

closely with the Government of Mexico in their efforts to break the power of the 

drug cartels inside the country. 

Most recently, the collective efforts of the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, 

and other United States and Mexican law enforcement partners resulted in the 

identification and indictment of 35 leaders, members, and associates of one of the 

most brutal gangs operating along the United States-Mexico border on charges of 

racketeering, murder, drug offenses, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. 

Of these 35 subjects, 10 Mexican nationals were specifically charged with the March 

2010 murders in Juarez, Mexico, of a United States consulate employee and her 

husband, along with the husband of another consulate employee. 

Organized Crime.—Ten years ago, the image of organized crime was of hierarchical organizations, or families, that exerted influence over criminal activities in 

neighborhoods, cities, or States. That image of organized crime has changed dramatically. Today, international criminal enterprises run multi-national, multi-billion-dollar schemes from start to finish. These criminal enterprises are flat, fluid 

networks and have global reach. While still engaged in many of the—traditional— 

organized crime activities of loan-sharking, extortion, and murder, new criminal en-
124 

terprises are targeting stock market fraud and manipulation, cyber-facilitated bank 

fraud and embezzlement, identify theft, trafficking of women and children, and 

other illegal activities. This transformation demands a concentrated effort by FBI 

and Federal, State, local, and international partners to prevent and combat 

transnational organized crime. 

For example, late last year, an investigation by FBI and its partners led to the 

indictment and arrest of more than 70 members and associates of an Armenian organized crime ring for their role in nearly $170 million in healthcare fraud. This 

case, which involved more than 160 medical clinics, was the culmination of a national level, multi-agency, intelligence-driven investigation. To date, it remains the 

largest Medicare fraud scheme ever committed by a single enterprise and criminally 

charged by DOJ. 

The FBI is expanding its focus to include West African and Southeast Asian organized crime groups. The FBI continues to share intelligence about criminal groups 

with our partners, and to combine resources and expertise to gain a full understanding of each group. To further these efforts, the FBI participates in the International Organized Crime Intelligence Operations Center. This center serves as the 

primary coordinating mechanism for the efforts of nine Federal law enforcement 

agencies in combating nondrug transnational organized crime networks. 

Crimes Against Children.—FBI remains vigilant in its efforts to remove predators 

from our communities and to keep our children safe. Ready response teams are stationed across the country to quickly respond to abductions. Investigators bring to 

this issue the full array of forensic tools such as DNA, trace evidence, impression 

evidence, and digital forensics. Through globalization, law enforcement also has the 

ability to quickly share information with partners throughout the world and our outreach programs play an integral role in prevention. 

FBI also has several programs in place to educate both parents and children 

about the dangers posed by violent predators and to recover missing and endangered children should they be taken. Through our Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams, Innocence Lost National Initiative, Innocent Images National Initiative, Office of Victim Assistance, and numerous community outreach programs, the 

FBI and its partners are working to make our world a safer place for our children. 

OFFSETS

FBI’s fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes offsets totaling approximately $63 

million, including program reductions. Proposed offsets, which are expected to result 

in little if any impact on the missions and responsibilities of FBI, include: 

—elimination of the NGIC; 

—reduction of one training day and equipment provided for Federal, State, and 

local bomb technicians and the Special Weapons and Tactics and Hostage Rescue Team training; 

—reduction of contractor workforce funding supporting national security programs; 

—reductions in funding for permanent change of station transfers, which relocates 

staff to meet organizational needs and carry out mission requirements; and 

—reducing funding for information technology, facilities, and other administrative 

initiatives. 

We will work to sustain our efforts in these program areas and minimize the impact of these proposed reductions. 

CONCLUSION

Responding to this complex and ever-changing threat environment is not new to 

FBI; in fact, it is now the norm. The budget proposed for FBI for fiscal year 2013 

seeks to maintain current capabilities and capacities achieved through increases 

provided in the past, as well as target additional resources to address financial and 

mortgage fraud. These resources are critical for FBI to be able to address existing 

and emerging national security and criminal threats. Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, I would like to close by 

again thanking you for this opportunity to discuss FBI’s priorities and detail FBI’s 

fiscal year 2013 budget request. Madam Chairwoman, let me again acknowledge the 

leadership that you and this subcommittee have provided to FBI. The transformation FBI has achieved over the past 10 years would not have been possible 

without your support. Your investments in our workforce, our technology, and our 

infrastructure make a difference every day at FBI offices in the United States and 

around the world, and we thank you for that support. 

I look forward to any questions you may have. 
125 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Director Mueller. 

To my colleagues who have arrived, we’re going to have one 

round of questions here, recognizing people in their order of arrival. 

When we’ve completed that, we will recess and then move to a classified hearing with the Director, particularly on those sensitive 

matters, and we will do that in our classified center and recess to 

CVC–217. 

Director, I want to move right into my questions. First of all, in 

your testimony, you showed the breadth of the work of the FBI, 

from international terrorism to cyber threats, to really working 

with our cops on the beat, and dealing also with where there is 

need, there’s greed, like mortgage and healthcare fraud. 

So let me get right to, I think—we need to have for the record the major categories for FBI, which is how much of your $8 billion—which is actually a modest request, held very tightly pretty 

much to last year’s funding—how much goes into national security, 

and then how much goes into traditional crime fighting, and then 

also where do they cross, like in the area of cyber? Because I think 

many people don’t realize that the FBI has such a substantial role 

in counterterrorism, counterintelligence. FBI has transformed since 9/11. Could you elaborate, on your $8 

billion, what goes into those categories? 

Mr. MUELLER. Under the budget, 60 percent, or approximately $5 

billion, is scored to what I would call the national security programs. That would be Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, Directorate of Intelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and additional pieces of other programs. That’s about 60 percent of our 

budget, $5 billion. But also scored are pieces of other programs. For 

instance, the cyber program is split between criminal and national 

security. Sixty percent of the cyber program is scored to national 

security and relates to intrusions, whereas the other 40 percent relates to programs such as Innocent Images, which addresses child 

pornography on the Internet, and intellectual property rights—the 

intellectual property crimes that we also address. 

So, 40 percent of it is cyber crime. The other 60 percent of it is 

perceived and scored against the national security piece of the 

budget, and that relates to computer intrusions. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, let’s then go to the threat of sequester. 

I’m concerned that the Congress doesn’t have a sense of urgency 

about cyber, but I’m also concerned that the Congress does not 

have a sense of urgency about the threat of sequester. Given this $8.2 billion, when one looks at what all we spend on 

other security issues, this is really modest. When you think of the 

scope, depth, technical expertise, personal integrity required of the 

agents and all who work there, what would happen to the FBI if 

sequester were triggered? 

Mr. MUELLER. We tried to estimate what would happen in the 

event of sequestration, and the preliminary figures show that we 

would face a cut of $650 to $800 million of the $8 billion appropriated in 2012. That would translate into a 25-workday furlough 

across the FBI, and a reduction of 3,500 work years for Special 

Agents, intelligence analysts, and professional staff. 

Given what I’ve described in terms of the threats, we would have 

to do some very substantial prioritization, and it would have a 
126 

huge impact on our investigations, our intelligence collection, and 

most particularly and not to be underestimated, it would have a 

very large impact on the morale of the workforce. 

We would have to rotate the furloughs to lessen the impact. We 

would have to reprioritize. But it would set us back to where we 

were many years ago, and the impact of that sequestration would 

be felt for many years in the future. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I have a whole set of questions related to 

cyber which I will defer to our classified meeting. 

In terms of accountability, as you know, I want to ask a question 

about Sentinel, on where you are in achieving the programmatic 

goals and keeping it within a budgetary framework. As you know, 

we’ve been at the Sentinel program, which was initiated a long 

time ago, to provide FBI with essentially virtual case files—to 

make them more effective and more productive. In the old lingo of 

post-9/11, connect the dots. Could you tell us, are we really getting 

Sentinel connected while we’re busy trying to figure out how to 

connect the dots? 

Mr. MUELLER. As you are aware, the contract was entered into 

a number of years ago. We had phase 1; that was produced. Phase 

2, from our perspective, was not adequate. So we restructured the 

contract to bring in-house much of the software development. We 

had anticipated that we would be through the tests last fall and 

ready to start Sentinel. We had tests of the software, as well as the 

infrastructure to support the software. The software worked well, 

but the infrastructure needed updating. 

So, since the fall, we have put in new servers and built up the 

infrastructure to be able to handle the software package that is in 

the last stages of being completed. 

There are three factors that go into Sentinel. First, I want a 

product that people can use, that will be embraced in the field, and 

that actually works and is helpful. Second is the budget, and staying under budget. And third was doing it in a timely fashion. I 

have had to sacrifice the timely fashion in order to make certain 

that the product that we put in the field will be embraced by the 

workforce and, second, to keep it under budget. 

We have built up the infrastructure as a result of the consequence of the test we put in in the fall. We are testing that, and 

the tests are positive. My expectation is that certainly by the end 

of this fiscal year, by the fall, that we will have completed this and 

Sentinel will be in the field, and it will be under or just at budget. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, keep us posted on this. 

I now want to turn to Senator Hutchison, then Senators Lautenberg, Graham, and Feinstein. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Madam Chairman, I’m going to let 

Senator Graham have my time, and I’ll come back at the end because I’m going to stay anyway. I do have questions, but I’m going 

to defer to Senator Graham. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you. This has been a very informative 

hearing. 

Is it fair to say that we do not have the legal infrastructure in 

place to deal with the cyber threats that we face, that the Congress 

needs to give you better legislative support? 
127 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Is it fair to say that, of all the things that we 

should be concerned about, cyber attacks from foreign governments 

and terrorists is a growing threat by the day? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Would you consider a cyber attack generated from the People’s Liberation Army of China against our national security infrastructure, should that be considered a hostile 

act? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, you’re in an area that’s somewhat beyond 

my purview, but in the way you would describe it, absolutely, it 

would be a hostile act. Now, I don’t know about the connotations 

that hostile act has for—— 

Senator GRAHAM. See, I don’t know either, but I think we need 

to come to grips with that because you’ve got a law enforcement 

model—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. Against cyber attacks where people engage in economic espionage. They may try to shut down a 

powerplant or the grid. When is it a crime, and when is it a national security hostile act done under the law of war? I think that’s 

what we need to consider among ourselves, and I would argue that, 

let’s say, these Web sites generated by al Qaeda, if an al Qaedabacked organization tried to commit a cyber attack, would you consider that an attack on the United States? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. So if we captured somebody involved in a cyber 

attack that was affiliated with al Qaeda, they would be treated differently than a common criminal. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. It depends on the circumstances. I see where 

you’re going, and—— 

Senator GRAHAM. You could use one or two models. 

Mr. MUELLER. You could, and if I may, what you point to is one 

of the difficulties in the cyber arena. 

Senator GRAHAM. I agree with that. 

Mr. MUELLER. Because at the point in time of an intrusion, you 

don’t know whether it’s going to be a country, a terrorist, or the 

18-year-old kid down the block. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right, and the best way to find that out, I believe, is to hold someone that you suspect of being involved in terrorism and gather the information in an orderly fashion, and I do 

believe the law enforcement model has deficiencies in that regard. 

The people at Guanta ́namo Bay, there are some people being 

held there for multiple years. Is that correct? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Have FBI agents interviewed the population at 

Guanta ́namo Bay—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. On a regular basis? Have we gathered good information over time from that population without 

using waterboarding? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 
128 

Senator GRAHAM. Don’t you agree that the best way to interrogate someone is not to torture them but to use traditional military 

law enforcement techniques? 

Mr. MUELLER. That’s somewhat of a loaded question. I will say 

that—— 

Senator GRAHAM. You can say ‘‘No.’’ 

Mr. MUELLER. I will say that we follow our rules, and what we 

have had for years—— 

Senator GRAHAM. And yet you don’t torture people in the FBI, do 

you? 

Mr. MUELLER. Pardon? 

Senator GRAHAM. You don’t torture people, do you? 

Mr. MUELLER. No. No, Sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. And you get good information. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally agree. 

So what I would suggest to the subcommittee is that, Senator 

Mikulski’s questions about sequestration, if this is not a wake-up 

call for the Congress, what would be? You just heard the FBI Director, who I think is doing a marvelous job, and all his agents, tell 

us that if we do what we’re planning to do, we’re going to devastate 

one of the frontline agencies in the war on terror. 

Ten years ago, what was FBI’s budget when it came to national 

security issues? What percentage of your budget? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say two-fifths of the budget back in fiscal 

year 2001 was national security, and I would say the principal percentage of that was addressed to espionage in the Counterintelligence Division. 

Senator GRAHAM. So before 9/11, what percentage of your budget? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say approximately two-fifths. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. So if your budget has gone up from twofifths, it’s now 60 percent dealing with national security issues, 

something’s got to give. Has your budget gone up? How much has 

your budget gone up in the last 3 years? 

Mr. MUELLER. Last 3 years I’d say maybe $1 billion. I’d have to 

check. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. What percentage of increase is that? 

Mr. MUELLER. I can tell you since fiscal year 2001. Our budget 

in fiscal year 2001, which I’m much more familiar with, was $3.1 

billion. It is now $8 billion. So it has almost tripled over that period 

of time. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. And these resources have been needed? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you have enough money to do all the jobs 

that you have told us that you do? And if you don’t, tell us, because—— 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, it is a prioritization. We have to prioritize. 

As you saw, the threats that we face are substantial. 

Senator GRAHAM. Mr. Director, it’s one thing to prioritize. Everybody does it at home and in their businesses. It’s another thing to 

just have to do it on the cheap. 
129 

Are we giving you enough money not only to prioritize but to 

fully and robustly deal with the threats the United States faces? 

And if you think you need more money, now is the time to tell us. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would say that my concern in the immediate future is having sufficient funds to build up the capabilities to address cyber in the same way we had and were afforded the funds 

to address counterterrorism. And whether that’s fiscal years 2013, 

2014, or 2015, I think that is an issue that is going to require additional funds down the road. 

Senator GRAHAM. Could you give us some estimate, privately or 

whatever is appropriate, about how to build up the cyber account? 

Because not only do we need new laws to deal with the cyber 

threat, we probably need to fund you more robustly. 

So, thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Will you be able to come to our classified—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, ma’am. If I can get back from my press 

conference about Medicare, I will be there. And if we can save 

money on Medicare, we’ll give some of it to him. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Graham, thank you very much, and 

we’ll look forward to seeing you in the classified hearing. Your considerable expertise in Armed Services and, again, you’re a Judge 

Advocate General officer, this exchange was very informative. 

I also want to comment, on this side, Senator Lamar Alexander 

is absent because of a family illness. He sends his regards and will 

have questions for the record. I wanted to note his absence was due 

to a very compelling family reason. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

And thanks, Director Mueller, for the wonderful work that FBI 

has done, the diligence and the competence that your people operate with, and hats off to you for your leadership there. It’s quite 

incredible when we hear a review of what has happened 

budgetarily for these years. 

And I’m reminded that on 9/11, the loss of lives and the restructuring of our society took place in a way that is not yet fully understood. On D-Day at Normandy, on Pearl Harbor day, we didn’t lose 

as many Americans as we did on 9/11. And what we find, the proliferation of guns—and I’m not doing a second amendment review 

here. We’re talking about guns in the wrong hands. We’re not talking about people who apply and go through the rigors of testing, 

as they do now. 

One of the questions that I’m really anxious to review is, we now 

understand that people from the New York Police Department 

(NYPD) were doing surveillance in the State of New Jersey, across 

the river into our sovereignty. Last week, the Special Agent in 

Charge (SAC) of the FBI Newark Office criticized the NYPD surveillance of New Jersey communities and universities saying, and 

I quote him, ‘‘It makes our job much, much harder.’’ 

Mr. Director, how do you feel about that? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start off by saying that we have a very 

good relationship with the NYPD, and the work that the NYPD has 

done since September 11 to protect New York and the surrounding 
130 

communities is first rate, and there has not been a successful attack on New York, in large part attributable to the work that’s 

done by the NYPD, along with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, 

which has been ongoing for many years in New York, as has the 

Joint Terrorism Task Forces in New Jersey and elsewhere. 

Often there are issues in how you go about doing your work that 

arise over a period of time that are considered bumps in the road 

in terms of your cooperation. My expectation is that whatever 

bumps in the road there have been in the past in terms of alerting 

people to actions that are taken will not take place in the future. 

But it should not interfere with the work that is being done, and 

done exceptionally well, with the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in 

New Jersey, as well as in New York. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, and I agree with that, Director. But 

the fact of the matter is that there ought to at least be some privilege given to the law enforcement structure in our State, and for 

them to be alerted. Why should there not be that information available? What about cross-currents and bumping into one another? 

And I’m not going to press you further on this. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I’ll tell you, everybody knows you often have 

jurisdictional issues between the FBI and State and local law enforcement, between sheriffs and police chiefs and the like. It is not 

unusual to have that. My belief is you sit down, you talk about it 

in private, you get it resolved, and you move on. That’s what has 

happened over a period of time, whether it be New York or Philadelphia or Washington, DC or San Francisco or Los Angeles or 

what have you. 

So, as was pointed out by the SAC in his remarks, he has a good 

relationship with NYPD in New Jersey. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That’s true. 

I want to ask you a question about people on the terror watch 

list. They’re able to legally purchase a gun or explosives. In addition, the gun show loophole allows anyone to walk into a gun show, 

purchase a gun, no questions asked. And when you look at the statistics of murders in our country compared to other advanced societies, our numbers dwarf anything that comes from other places— 

England, Germany, Australia, you name it—Canada. 

Isn’t it time to close that terror gap and the gun show loophole? 

Mr. MUELLER. As we’ve discussed before in each hearing that 

we’ve had, I defer to the Department of Justice in terms of particular legislation. But needless to say, anything that can keep the 

guns out of the hands of terrorists or criminals is something that 

is beneficial in terms of reducing the extent, I believe, of violence 

in our society. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, may I continue with 

one more question even though the gong may go off? 

Cruise lines are required to inform FBI about serious crimes, and 

the number of crimes is supposed to be made public. However, according to FBI data that I obtained, the number of crimes posted 

online is lower than that reported by the industry. We’re planning 

to change the law to address this discrepancy. 

In the meantime, what steps can FBI take to publicly disclose 

the actual number of serious crimes on cruise ships? And I don’t 

want to—I’m not interested in hurting the industry, but I’m also 
131 

not willing to permit crimes to be developed and not give the public 

the true facts about what’s taking place. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I think you raise two issues. One is the extent of reporting and compliance with the law, which requires reporting. Certainly, we can educate the cruise line companies in 

terms of the necessity of doing that and assuring, to the extent possible, that they comply with the statute. 

Second, in terms of making those figures public, I will have to 

get back to you. I am not certain to what extent they are publicized, and if not, why they would not be publicized. 

[The information follows:] 

WHETHER THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION MAKES PUBLIC DATA ON CRIMES

OCCURRING ON CRUISE SHIPS

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) complies with the reporting requirements of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010 (CVSSA), which is codified in chapter 35 of title 46, United States Code. Pursuant to the CVSSA, when 

certain serious criminal offenses are alleged to have been committed on board a covered vessel, the owner of the vessel must report the offense both to an Internetbased portal and to FBI. FBI does not open investigations on all of the alleged incidents reported to it. Often these are sexual offenses in which late reporting has resulted in a loss of physical evidence or a contaminated crime scene. In other cases, 

the next port of call or other country exercising jurisdiction has delayed investigation or intervened in a way that affects FBI’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Each quarter, FBI reports to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

Security the number of cases closed during the quarter that stemmed from the serious criminal offenses reported to us. This number does not include investigations 

that were never opened, investigations that remain open, or investigations of offenses other than those serious criminal offenses specified by the statute. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Before I turn to Senator Feinstein, I just 

want to comment. You have a long history on defending people on 

cruise ships. Do you remember there were some terrible incidents 

many years ago? 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And you are to be congratulated. We need to 

protect the people that sail on the seas from pirates or other despicable behavior, and we look forward to hearing more from you 

about that. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Madam Chairman, it goes without saying that the attacks of September 11, 2001, 

changed all of us. We lost more Americans that day than at Pearl Harbor or on DDay, including 746 New Jerseyans who died that day. In the years since 9–11, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been asked to do more to keep us safe, 

and the Bureau has risen to the challenge. 

But to truly ensure our safety, we need laws on the books that prevent dangerous 

criminals from accessing dangerous weapons. More Americans have died from gun 

murders here at home in the past decade than have died on the battlefields of Iraq 

and Afghanistan. In 2008, guns were used to murder around 10,000 Americans. By 

comparison, in the same year, guns killed 39 people in England and Wales, 35 in 

Australia, and 200 in Canada. 

Recently our remarkable colleague Congresswoman Gabby Giffords stepped down 

from the Congress to focus on her recovery from a horrific shooting in January 2011. 

On that tragic day in Tucson, a man emerged from a supermarket, shot Representative Giffords in the head at point blank range, and fired 31 rounds before running 

out of ammunition. His rampage ended only when he stopped to reload and brave 
132 

bystanders tackled him to the ground. Nineteen people were shot, and six were 

killed. If the shooter had been forced to reload sooner, lives might have been saved. 

That’s why I’ve introduced legislation to reinstate the Federal ban on high-capacity 

magazines like the one the shooter used. 

We must also do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terror suspects. Next month will mark 13 years since the shootings at Columbine—and as we 

know, the killers obtained their firearms at gun shows. More than a decade later, 

anyone—including known terrorists, convicted criminals, and the mentally ill—can 

walk into a gun show and purchase a gun, no questions asked. And, under current 

law, known and suspected terrorists are free to purchase any firearm—including an 

assault weapon—from a licensed gun dealer. Data from the Government Accountability Office show that from February 2004 through December 2010, firearms or 

explosives transactions involving individuals on the terrorist watch list were allowed 

to proceed 1,321 times. I have a bill that would close the gun show loophole by requiring all sellers at gun shows to do background checks, and another that would 

eliminate the terror gap by giving the Attorney General the authority to stop individuals on the terror watch list from buying firearms. Passing these common sense 

bills would reduce violent crime and protect those who are charged with protecting 

us. The FBI stopped several recent terror plots, providing public reminders of the Bureau’s constant work to keep us safe. My State of New Jersey is home to the stretch 

some in law enforcement have identified as ‘‘the most dangerous area in America’’ 

for a terrorist attack. We must make sure that the FBI has the resources it needs, 

and is doing everything it can to protect this area. I look forward to hearing from 

Director Mueller about how we can support the FBI in this critical mission and how 

we can improve our gun laws to keep Americans safe. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison, who was going to be next, 

yields to you. And so then we’ll go to Murkowski and Hutchison 

that way, okay? 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

I wanted to take up where Senator Graham left off. There has 

been an effort emanating out of the Armed Services Committee to 

change the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to essentially put this country’s detention policy under the laws of war. 

Under the laws of war, an individual can be held without charge 

or trial until the end of hostilities—the point made that America 

is a battlefield—and I think that’s the point that some have been 

trying to make. 

I’d like to ask your view of this. I’m strongly opposed to it. I also 

know what you said during the worldwide threat hearing, that the 

FBI has interrupted or arrested some 20 terrorist plots in this 

country over the past year. You have the high-value interrogation 

group, which, you testified to the House Appropriations Committee, 

has done 14 interrogations, and I gather with some success. 

I would like to ask you to comment on whether you believe that 

permanently detaining Americans without trial or charge is appropriate. 

Mr. MUELLER. I would have to start with the NDAA legislation 

that has recently been passed which addresses that particular 

issue. As I think you and others are aware, I had some concerns 

at the outset in two areas: the continuation of our authorities during detention initially in military custody here in the United 

States; and second, whether or not there could be clarity in terms 

of either the statute or the Presidential directives that would clarify the process in which a person is deemed to be not an American 

citizen, but a person who is an al Qaeda affiliate engaged in a terrorist plot, and to what extent would there be an immediate military detention. 
133 

With both the statute as well as the President’s directives, I’m 

comfortable that the capabilities of the Bureau, coupled with the 

capabilities of the Department of Defense (DOD), will be maintained in that rather unique situation where you have a foreigner, 

not a U.S. citizen, who undertakes a terrorist attack affiliated with 

al Qaeda in the United States. 

Looking at that discrete issue, I am comfortable that we have 

preserved what we needed to preserve our role in that process. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But—— 

Mr. MUELLER. The broader question that you have—— 

Senator FEINSTEIN. The broader question is that the law is very 

cloudy, and this is a problem. And the court has had some holdings 

that you cannot detain a person indefinitely regardless of whether 

they’re a citizen or not in this country without charge or trial. 

Mr. MUELLER. The Supreme Court has occasion to opine on various aspects of that. What I have wrestled with is particular pieces 

of legislation that would impact that process whereby a person is 

detained in the United States, whether they are a U.S. citizen or 

a non-U.S. citizen. Both the Department of Justice and the President determine whether or not a person is ultimately tried or you 

proceed against that person in an Article III court, in which we operate, or in a military tribunal, which has also been upheld by the 

Supreme Court. 

So with the NDAA legislation, I believe that the issues have been 

fleshed out to the extent that I’m comfortable with. But I really 

hesitate to comment on other issues which have either not been the 

subject of legislation or are unique to a particular circumstance 

where you really don’t know the facts, and not knowing the facts, 

it’s very hard to apply the law. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the 

need for executive flexibility, whether it’s military or whether it’s 

a Federal court. 

Having said that, Senator Mikulski and I both serve on the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

(FISA), is up for reauthorization and must be reauthorized by the 

end of the year. Do you view that reauthorization as important? Do 

you view it as valuable? And, if so, why? 

Mr. MUELLER. I would go beyond that and use the word ‘‘critical’’, because the world in which we live today is what Tom Friedman talks about, a ‘‘flat’’ world. With technology, criminals, terrorists and cyber terrorists cut across borders, at will, in seconds. And 

it is absolutely essential that the intelligence community, whether 

it be domestic but most particularly foreign, has the flexibility and 

capability of obtaining communications by these individuals as 

quickly as possible in order to prevent attacks, whether those attacks in the future be a terrorist attack on the infrastructure, on 

the financial structure, or attacks by al Qaeda and the like in 

cyberspace. It’s absolutely essential that we have those tools. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Would you say that FISA is a critical tool of 

counterterrorism in this country? 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Yes, and also it will be a critical tool as well 

in the cyber arena. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 
134 

Senator MIKULSKI. And, Senator Feinstein, I hope you can join 

us shortly in our classified session as well. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Director. 

Mr. MUELLER. Ma’am. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Nice to have you here. 

This morning, the investigative report that details the prosecutorial misconduct in the case against Senator Ted Stevens was released. It was, I guess, precipitated almost that the Brady violations came about, but it was not until 5 months after that trial was 

completed that we learned of these violations, and it came about 

because of the complaint that was filed by an FBI agent that alleged the prosecutorial and other law enforcement misconduct in 

that case. In my opinion, that was exceptionally good work by that 

FBI agent, and Judge Sullivan suggested that were it not for the 

complaint of that agent, that, in fact, we might not have learned 

of the misconduct. 

I’m joined this morning, or this afternoon, with many of my colleagues, including Senator Hutchison, in filing legislation that 

would address some of the laws that are in place that allowed for 

this horrid situation to move forward. But because this whole thing 

came about because of the acts of an FBI agent, I would certainly 

hope that individual has been recognized for his persistence, standing up for the Constitution. I think he did right, and I hope that 

recognition has been given by FBI. 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, I’d have to get back to you on any particular 

recognition. The case is still under review by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), both the Justice Department as well 

as our own OPR. But I will say that the agent who came forward 

and did that was doing so in the tradition of FBI. It is a legacy to 

adhere to the Constitution. When you see something wrong, you 

bring that to the attention of others. That is exactly what we teach 

in our new agents training as they come through, that there is no 

case that is more important than abiding by the Constitution, the 

applicable statutes, and the Attorney General guidelines. 

[The information follows:] 

PROVIDE DETAILS ON ANY RECOGNITION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU

OF INVESTIGATION AGENT THAT REPORTED THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT OF SENATOR

TED STEVEN’S CASE

The Special Agent who reported the alleged misconduct did not receive an incentive award in recognition of this activity. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate that. You mentioned the 

report that is still underway. I’ve asked OPR to conduct this formal 

investigation, and I am hoping that the FBI will work with OPR 

as they look into some of the issues that were behind the Stevens 

matter. 

In particular, the FBI has worked very, very closely with the Anchorage Police Department in this case that involved Bill Allen, 

who was the key witness in the case against Senator Stevens, and 

Mr. Allen was—it was alleged that he had transported a young 

Alaska Native woman across State lines in violation of the Mann 

Act. It’s been widely reported in the media that the case was rec-
135 

ommended for Federal prosecution, but DOJ higher-ups scuttled 

that. 

The question that I would have to you is, to what extent was the 

FBI involved in that investigation, and did that investigation indicate any reason that the prosecution should not go forward? This 

has just really stunned people back in Alaska. They cannot understand why DOJ has dropped this, and I’ve attempted to get answers all the way up the chain and simply have not been able to 

get any. 

Do you know any reason that, based on that investigation, the 

prosecution should not have gone forward? 

Mr. MUELLER. I do not, but that is something we’d have to get 

back to you on. I would assume that this is a part of the OPR investigation inasmuch as the allegation that came out of that series 

of events, and that particular allegation, would be addressed in 

that arena. 

I am not familiar with the court’s report that was issued earlier 

today, and I do not know whether that became or was a subject of 

that particular investigation. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, and I would ask you, because this is 

a matter that has really gone far beyond what most could have 

even have imagined, that you not only look at the report that is 

issued today but also do some follow-up in terms of the FBI investigation and where we are with OPR. 

The concern that so many of us have is that the allegations 

against Mr. Allen are, unfortunately, not isolated in Alaska. We 

have had a great deal of concern about sex trafficking within the 

State with young Native women, and I look at what has happened 

with the Bill Allen case, and the Government’s failure to prosecute 

Bill Allen sends an awful message, just an awful message to other 

predators that might be out there, that if you are a young woman, 

and particularly a young Native woman, you don’t stand a chance 

when you have been victimized by a person of political influence 

and financial means. 

We worry about the situation of sex trafficking. And again, if an 

individual doesn’t feel that there is any recourse out there, it 

makes the situation pretty tough. So this goes even beyond the Bill 

Allen investigation. I know that you’ve got good folks within FBI 

that are working these issues. I’ve met with them. I’ve talked with 

them. But again, I think this is something that needs further attention to detail, and if you can give me your assurance that you 

will look into that, I would certainly appreciate it. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. Also, I will tell you that when the issues 

came out in terms of the Brady violations, we went back to our 

workforce to make certain that everybody understands the requirements under the Brady rules, and if exculpatory, to make certain 

that one learns from this, first. 

Second, when it comes to human trafficking in Alaska, as you 

point out, we have persons that are working hard on that with 

State and local law enforcement who believe it is a priority. Any 

young woman or, for that matter, young man’s life that can be 

saved in terms of working with State and local law enforcement to 

address this, we certainly want to be a participant and driver of 

that. 
136 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate that. Thank you, Director. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Just to add one more question to Lisa’s line, and I think she has 

taken the lead on this, and properly so, but I do commend the FBI 

agent who came forward who just couldn’t sit back and let a person 

be accused, go through a trial, lose an election, all based on very 

bad misconduct on the part of the agencies that we look to for complete integrity, which would be DOJ, the prosecutors, and the FBI. 

There were others that were implicated with the FBI in some of 

the alleged misconduct. And my question to you is, what are you 

doing to deal with the allegations, which I assume will come out 

in a report or the OPR report, if the agents are found to still be 

in the FBI and have been actually, to your satisfaction, part of the 

scheme that was put together to convict Senator Stevens? 

Mr. MUELLER. Well, at the outset, the Justice Department OPR 

led the investigation. We participated and contributed to that investigation. To the extent that individuals within FBI were implicated, we, along with DOJ, investigated that. There is at least one 

individual who is still going through the OPR process. Let me just 

put it that way. I can tell you that process is monitored. 

But, it goes through a process whereby the person has an opportunity to respond to the charges and the findings. That process is 

under way. At the end, when it’s resolved, we’ll take a look at it 

and determine what lessons need to be learned, what the appropriate punishment is for whatever wrongdoing was undertaken, 

and do as we do in every case where we find that a person has not 

adhered to what we expect in FBI. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would just ask if you would share the final 

result of that investigation and your actions with this subcommittee. 

Mr. MUELLER. I’d have to look into that, but I would expect that 

we would report to you on what we have done. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would ask that you do so. 

Mr. MUELLER. Yes. 

[The information follows:] 

REPORT ON FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S INVESTIGATION OF THE ALLEGED

MISCONDUCT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS’ CASE

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s investigation of employee misconduct related to 

the investigation of Senator Ted Stevens is still pending. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I want to just go back to a couple of other 

points. Number one, on cyber security, there are different bills that 

have been put forward to deal with cyber security. I think everyone 

in both bodies, the House and the Senate, and both parties in the 

House and Senate, agree it is a critical need that we address cyber 

security. 

I think how we do it is the question and the differences in the 

bills. Many of us are concerned about an overlay by DHS, especially over the areas that have developed the expertise through the 

years, and the experience in cyber warfare, security of all kinds, 

and that would be DOD, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 
137 

FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), as well as the National 

Security Agency (NSA). 

So we’re trying to work through what the best approach is for 

cyber security, and I think my position has been that we don’t need 

a DHS overlay so much as we need the agencies that have the experience and the expertise to be able to make these decisions on 

how is the best way to assure our networks and our infrastructure 

are secure. 

In a general way, how would you—I don’t want to put you on the 

spot because I guess it’s hard for you to say in this environment 

with all of the different ideas and the different agencies involved. 

But is there a particular area that you think is essential for us to 

agree on as we move forward in trying to determine how we get 

to the goal of securing our infrastructure? 

Mr. MUELLER. Let me start by maybe indicating how I perceive 

the allocation of responsibilities in the cyber arena. On the one 

hand, you have the protection of the infrastructure, and protection 

of the .gov and .com networks. That falls to DHS. 

On the other hand you have, as was brought out, not just the 

possibility but the actuality of foreign countries seeking to extract 

information, with the possibility down the road of undertaking 

cyber attacks. That falls generally with the intelligence community 

overseas, NSA, CIA, and the like. 

In the middle comes domestic intrusions and a determination of 

whether that domestic intrusion is from a criminal, an organized 

crime group, a nation state, or a teenage hacker. We have 56 field 

offices around the country. We have 56 cyber squads. The first indication of a substantial intrusion will quite probably come to us, and 

it is our responsibility to do the investigation to determine who is 

behind that computer, and to stop them. 

Too often, the discussion is how we protect against foreign countries, but part of that has to be disrupting these individuals and 

putting them behind bars. 

The legislation that is currently pending includes three areas 

that are important to us. One is, to the extent possible, ultimately 

having a required notification to the Bureau of an intrusion. I 

think there are 47 States that have this, but it’s all over the lot 

in terms of who has to report and when they have to report. So, 

first is notification. 

Second is, to a certain extent, the fact that we are where we were 

in terms of sharing information prior to September 11 amongst the 

agencies. When it comes to counterterrorism, there’s very little 

that’s not shared. And I would say it’s also readily true in the cyber 

arena amongst the agencies, whether it be DHS, NSA, ourselves, 

DIA and the like. 

What’s so important to this is what you point out, both the experience and the expertise in the private sector. This is where it’s different from addressing terrorism, because the private sector has to 

play a substantial role. The private sector runs our critical infrastructures. How you execute that, whether through the statute or 

not, is really up to others. My concern is the sharing of information 

so that we can determine who is responsible for this and lock them 

up. 
138 

Perhaps the third area is the necessity of building up the expertise in the Federal Government amongst all of the agents, as well 

as the outreach to the private side, not only building up the expertise, but also the outreach to private businesses so that we become 

partners in ways that we have not in the other criminal arenas. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, you have really highlighted an area 

that makes this whole intelligence, security, holding accused terrorists without charges being filed—we’re not dealing with an enemy 

that is a nation state, like we have in the past. So if you picked 

up a person that was in the German army or in the intelligence 

arm of the German Government, you would know in World War II 

that you had to hold that person in the military sense. 

But when it is organizations like al Qaeda and others that have 

attacked our country, but yet they’re not under the rules of war as 

we accept it, the Geneva Conventions don’t affect them, it makes 

it very difficult to deal with any kind of intelligence areas when 

you’re dealing with an enemy of our country but not a nation state. 

So that’s something that we’re all going to have to deal with in, I 

think, I hope a realistic way, because I’m with Senator Graham on 

this. 

I think we need Guanta ́namo Bay. I think we need the ability 

to hold people that are suspected terrorists that have associations 

with al Qaeda and other networks that deal with al Qaeda, and I 

don’t want us to give up our capability to protect our country from 

another attack from one of these entities that may not even be an 

organization yet. 

So I know you’re wrestling with it. We are, too. But I’m going 

to come down on the side of protecting our people with an asymmetric war that we have. That’s what we’re given to deal with, and 

we’ve got to do it in a way that protects America. 

Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Director Mueller. 

Colleagues, as Director Mueller has said, 60 percent of FBI’s request is in the area of national security. Many of these are really 

sensitive issues that FBI is engaged in, and we need to make sure 

we get our resources right while we’re working on very complex 

policies. 

Therefore, this is why we will move to a closed session. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

If there are no further questions, the Senate may submit additional questions for the record. We request FBI’s response in the 

usual 30 days. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the FBI for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

FEDERAL PROGRAMS FACING CUTS

Question. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112– 

25), funding for virtually all Federal programs will face a possible across-the-board 

cut in January 2013 if the Congress fails to enact a plan before then to reduce the 

national debt by $1.2 trillion. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, 

this would result in a cut of roughly 8 percent to programs across the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 
139 

What impacts would these cuts have on the FBI? What is your strategic plan for 

the FBI to implement these cuts if Congress fails to enact an alternative plan? 

Please provide a list of expected workforce furloughs, consequences to public safety 

and national security programs, and other reductions at the FBI if sequestration is 

implemented. 

Answer. The administration is committed to avoiding a sequester; we urge the 

Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction legislation that avoids this type of sequestration so the vital missions of the FBI can continue. 

The effect of an across-the-board cut of 8.5 to 10 percent would mean budget cuts of approximately $650 to $800 million in fiscal year 2013 (the FBI’s fiscal year 2012 

Appropriation was $8,036,991,000). These reductions would impact the FBI mission 

and result in cuts to investigative operations and infrastructure, a Bureau-wide furlough, and a lengthy hiring freeze. While the implementation of a $650 to $800 million cut cannot yet be determined, cuts in this range would likely result in a 25- 

workday furlough, resulting in a decrease of approximately 3,500 Special Agent, Intelligence Analyst, and Professional Staff work years. In addition to the negative impact on employee morale and productivity, a hiring freeze and furlough of this 

length would likely disrupt national security and criminal investigations, intelligence collection and dissemination, and surveillance capabilities. 

The FBI would make every effort possible to minimize the negative impact to public safety; however, budget cuts of this magnitude would have a significant effect 

on FBI operations. These cuts would take agents off the streets, delay investigations, and disrupt intelligence collection. The FBI would continue to work with its 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, but at a reduced capacity. 

As a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI would participate 

in the Department-wide furlough, which will affect every program and employee. If 

these cuts are enacted, the FBI will issue furlough notices and immediately begin 

furloughing employees in order to achieve the necessary savings by the end of the 

fiscal year. The furloughs would be implemented on a rotating basis with each of 

the FBI’s 36,000 employees being required to take roughly 25 days off. In addition, 

the FBI may be forced to freeze equipment purchases, restrict investigative travel, 

and cancel service contracts. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESCISSION

Question. In fiscal year 2013, the FBI requests an appropriation of $8.2 billion, 

an increase of $114 million, or 1.4 percent. However, the request also proposes to 

rescind $162 million from the FBI’s existing funding in the Salaries and Expenses 

account, which leads to a net reduction for the FBI to fight terrorism at home and 

abroad. 

What specific FBI activities would be impacted by the proposed rescission? Will 

the rescission impact missions in which Congress has made considerable investments in recent years? If so, which missions? How would this impact national security? 

Answer. DOJ and FBI are evaluating the impacts of the rescission. We will work 

to minimize its impact and ensure that priority programs and projects are not affected. 

CYBER SECURITY CUTS

Question. The Internet is the new battleground for terrorists, and the new playground for predators. To combat these threats, cyber security cuts across all of the 

FBI’s programs. 

Why the urgency in combating cyber threats? 

Answer. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups use the Internet as a recruiting tool, 

a moneymaker, a training ground, and a means for conducting operations. Terrorists 

have not used the Internet to launch a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent. Additionally, certain foreign nations use the Internet to steal 

our intellectual property and trade secrets for military and competitive advantage. 

We have also started to see that previously isolated hackers are now joining forces 

to create criminal cyber syndicates that steal information for sale to the highest bidder. 

Question. What cyber imperatives does the FBI face on security? Policy? Funding? 

Answer. The FBI will continue to expand its capacity to lead national efforts to 

investigate cyber intrusions, identify hackers, and put them in jail. The FBI will 

continue to build on current capabilities by: 

—Ensuring all agents are able to operate in the cyber environment; 

—Creating a virtual structure that enables cyber agents from around the country 

to work together on difficult cases; 
140 

—Cultivating sources that can infiltrate cyber criminal networks; and 

—Expanding the network of cyber task forces around the country. 

Encouraging the private sector to share information with the Government about 

cyber intrusions and data breaches in a timely manner would enhance the FBI’s 

ability to conduct investigations, identify hackers, and put them in jail. Hackers will 

not stop until we hold them accountable. 

The cyber threat continues to expand in scope and complexity, which will drive 

future funding requirements. Our adversaries are becoming increasingly sophisticated with using technology as a means to exploit our vulnerabilities; consequently, 

data, information, and infrastructure remain at risk of being compromised. We must 

continue to keep pace with technological advances. 

Question. The fiscal year 2012 Appropriations Act gave the FBI more resources 

for cyber training, specifically for agents. Please provide an update on the FBI’s 

cyber training and what plans are being implemented. Will the fiscal year 2013 

budget affect this plan? 

Answer. The FBI has recently restructured its cyber training curriculum to increase the emphasis on cyber national security investigations. Special Agents working on cyber issues will be trained toward working the most sophisticated organized 

crime and national security matters and will be required to complete more technically rigorous training requirements. 

In addition, the FBI is implementing a new initiative dedicated to training a majority of the workforce on conducting investigations in an increasingly high-technology environment. This training is expected to educate more than 16,000 FBI employees. This new training initiative will provide the cyber skills needed to conduct 

complex counterterrorism, counterintelligence, criminal, and computer intrusions investigations. Using base resources, we plan to expand and deploy this training to 

all FBI investigators in fiscal year 2013. 

TRADITIONAL CRIME FIGHTING

Question. The FBI’s $8.2 billion budget is split at roughly 60 percent for national 

security and counterintelligence, and 40 percent for traditional crime fighting efforts. 

How much goes to national security, and what activities make up this category? 

How much goes to traditional crime fighting? What activities make up this category? What programs cut across the national security and counterintelligence 

budget, and into the traditional crime fighting budget? What complications does this 

create in terms of the budget? 

Answer. The FBI’s budget is broadly organized into four ‘‘decision units’’ as follows: 

—Intelligence; 

—Counterterrorism/counterintelligence; 

—Criminal enterprises/Federal crimes; and 

—Criminal justice services. 

The first two decision units are scored to national security and total nearly $5 

billion, roughly 60 percent of the FBI’s fiscal year 2013 budget. These decision units 

fund all of the FBI’s National Security Branch (Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Directorate of Intelligence) as well 

as portions of other programs, such as Cyber. Funding for these decision units also 

includes pro-rated portions of enterprise-wide services such as information technology, rent, etc. The FBI’s Cyber programs are divided between two basic categories: 

—Computer intrusions; and 

—Cyber crime. 

The Computer Intrusions section includes national security intrusions and programs such as the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, representing approximately 60 percent of the overall Cyber Division budget. 

The latter two decision units total more than $3 billion of the FBI’s budget and 

are scored to traditional criminal activities. This includes all of the Criminal Investigative Division, which operates the Violent Crime, White Collar Crime, and Public 

Corruption programs among others; our Criminal Justice Services Division; and the 

FBI laboratory. Also included is the Cyber Crime portion of the Cyber Division. 

Funding for these decision units also include pro-rated portions of enterprise-wide 

services, like information technology, rent, etc. 

There are several programs that cut across both national security and criminal 

decision units. Cyber, as mentioned above, and Surveillance, are two examples. 
141 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE OF MUSLIM AMERICAN

COMMUNITY

Question. In recent months, we have heard troubling information about the surveillance operations of the New York City Police Department (NYPD)—particularly 

targeting the Muslim American community. According to press accounts, the NYPD 

has been compiling databases of information concerning Muslim Americans residing 

throughout the northeast, and has used informants called ‘‘rakers’’ and ‘‘mosque 

crawlers’’ to infiltrate mosques and Muslim student groups. Last week, the Special 

Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Newark Division 

criticized these tactics as damaging to relations between law enforcement and the 

Muslim community, and more importantly, damaging to the counterterrorism efforts 

of the FBI. 

Was the FBI aware of the surveillance tactics being used by the NYPD to target 

the Muslim American communities in New York, New Jersey, and other places in 

the northeast prior to press reports on the matter? If so, when did it become aware 

of those tactics? 

Answer. The FBI is generally aware that the NYPD engages in physical surveillance and a wide range of other investigative techniques in connection with its efforts to protect New York City from terrorist attacks. The FBI was not specifically 

aware of the conduct described in the press reports and does not know if those reports are accurate. The FBI has and will continue to work with the NYPD, as we 

do with many state and local police departments, consistent with our rules and regulations under the Attorney General Guidelines and the Domestic Investigations 

Operations Guide. 

Question. I know that FBI agents must adhere to the Attorney General Guidelines 

and the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) when the FBI 

is conducting surveillance. But does the FBI obtain and use information collected 

by the NYPD through use of the NYPD’s surveillance tactics? If so, is this done in 

compliance with the relevant Federal guidelines? 

Answer. The FBI shares and receives information collected by its partner agencies. In particular, the FBI and NYPD work together on the Joint Terrorism Task 

Force, share investigative information, and exchange queries for operational and 

tactical de-confliction purposes. Unless circumstances suggest otherwise, the FBI assumes that our partner agencies have collected this information in accordance with 

the United States Constitution and other applicable laws and regulations. 

REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSICS LABORATORIES

Question. I have been working with a variety of stakeholders, including the law 

enforcement community, to strengthen and improve the forensic sciences used in 

criminal cases. Last year, I introduced legislation that would, among other things, 

help support forensics laboratories. 

Director Mueller, I understand that the FBI is in the process of trying to set up 

regional computer forensic laboratories and that a site has not yet been determined 

for New England. Can you tell me the current status of those plans and what the 

timeframe is for choosing a site for a regional lab in New England? 

Answer. The FBI has established 16 full-service Regional Computer Forensic Laboratories (RCFLs) devoted to the examination of digital evidence across the country. 

However, none are currently established in New England. Although there are no 

current plans to establish additional RCFLs the FBI continues to work with our law 

enforcement partners in the New England area to leverage all existing resources, 

facilities, and equipment to support its partners with the examination of digital evidence. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION CLIP

Question. When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot on 

January 8, 2011, outside of a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona, the shooter used a 

gun with a high-capacity ammunition clip to kill 6 people and wound 13 others. It 

was only when the shooter had fired all 31 rounds in his clip that people were able 

to tackle him. At last year’s hearing, Director Mueller stated that everybody in law 

enforcement supports efforts to lessen the threat of criminals getting weapons that 

do substantial damage. Would a high-capacity magazine ban lessen that threat? 
142 

Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) supports law enforcement efforts aimed at preventing prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, including 

those capable of substantial damage. 

MOST AT-RISK AREA

Question. According to the FBI, New Jersey is home to the most at-risk area for 

a terrorist attack in the United States. An attack on this area could have an impact 

on 12 million people who live nearby. Last year, you assured me that the FBI is 

doing everything it can to ensure that there is not an attack there. What specific 

items in this budget request will help the FBI protect this area? 

Answer. The FBI continues to dedicate critical investigative resources to New Jersey’s high-risk areas. As of April 2012, the FBI has more than 350 Special Agents 

in the Newark field office. Further, the FBI and DHS are working diligently through 

their task forces, including the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), to ensure the 

area remains safe by identifying and disrupting any threats. The fiscal year 2013 

budget includes resources to continue supporting the JTTFs and the Special Agents 

currently assigned to the Newark field office. 

ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF TOBACCO

Question. Reports from the Government Accountability Office have identified an 

estimated tax loss of $5 billion a year due to the illegal trafficking of tobacco. The 

tremendous profits and low criminal penalties have attracted the involvement of organized criminal and terrorist groups. The FBI has primary jurisdiction on terrorism and organized crime, while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) holds primary jurisdiction on cigarette trafficking. What are you 

doing to ensure that the FBI and ATF work together to prevent illegal tobacco proceeds from financing organized crime and terrorists? 

Answer. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) agencies have strong and effective 

working relationships with their DOJ partners as well as other Federal, State, and 

local agencies and a history of highly successful joint investigations. Supervisors in 

the field regularly review investigations on a case-by-case basis and involve other 

agencies as appropriate. For example, recently the ATF and the FBI worked together on ‘‘Operation Secondhand Smoke’’, an undercover investigation into a nationwide network of retailers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, and manufacturers who were avoiding cigarette taxes to make millions of dollars in profits. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator MIKULSKI. This subcommittee will temporarily recess 

and reconvene in a closed session in room 217 in the CVC. 

Before I close this public part, I would like the Director to know, 

as we said to the Attorney General, when the issue is related to 

public integrity, and on the issues related to the Stevens matter, 

this is a bipartisan set of requests, because we feel that both our 

Justice Department—those involved in enforcing the law, if we’re 

going to pursue public integrity issues, which we must and should, 

then those who are pursuing it have to have the highest public integrity themselves. 

We know FBI has that standard. You’ve insisted on that standard, and we thank you. But just note that it’s not just from them 

because they’re Republican and Stevens was on this subcommittee. 

It’s larger than that. 

So we look forward to working with you, and we look forward to 

meeting in the other room where we can go into the national security budget in more detail. 

The subcommittee is temporarily recessed until we reconvene. 

Next week we’ll have a hearing for the testimony of Secretary 

Bryson of Commerce. 

[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Thursday, March 15, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene in closed session.] 
(143) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Inouye, Feinstein, Pryor, Brown, 

Hutchison, Murkowski, and Cochran. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BRYSON, SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies comes together, and today we will be 

taking the testimony of the Secretary of Commerce, John Bryson. 

We expect robust attendance at this hearing, and we note that the 

ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Senator 

Cochran, is here. And we also will be having votes at 12:30 p.m., 

so we hope to be able to move this in an expeditious way. 

We’re meeting today to examine the Commerce Department’s fiscal year 2013 budget, and we welcome Secretary Bryson. This is 

his first testimony before the subcommittee since becoming Secretary in October 2011. He brings valuable skills to his position, 

strong experience in the private sector, and he’s been a strong voice 

for American manufacturers. We love the slogan, ‘‘Build it here. 

Sell it everywhere.’’ He knows firsthand what American business 

is facing in today’s challenging economy. We look forward to hearing from him about the agency’s budget and priorities. 

The Commerce Department is the major economic engine for America. The President’s request totals $11 billion for the Department. This includes $3 billion in patent and trademark fees. Today, 

I want to examine just a few areas of this robust agency. Number 

one, the protection of not only American ideals, but America’s 

ideas. It is in the area of intellectual property and the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office that we have a keen interest. 

We believe that if you invent it, we should be able to help you pro-
144 

tect it. We are concerned about the backlog, the expeditious processing of patent claims, and then as a member of both this subcommittee and the Intelligence Committee, I am obsessed with 

cyber espionage. And that will be another theme that I will ask in 

my questions, which is the role of the Commerce Department in 

not only the cyber economy, but how to make sure we’re protecting 

ourselves against the threats in this area, and the important function of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 

We also are looking at how to protect our citizens, and this goes 

to whether it’s protecting our coast from hurricanes, tornadoes, and 

others, and we’re tremendously interested in what is happening to 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

and also particularly to NOAA’s weather service. 

Then, we have to also look out for the taxpayer. The inspector 

general, over the history of this subcommittee, has identified persistent problems that need strong oversight. This isn’t a blip, but 

there is a persistent problem in NOAA satellite procurement, and 

Census; we’re not going to have another techno boondoggle like we 

had last time. And then, of course, the issue of the patent backlog. 

I believe the Department of Commerce needs to be cyber-obsessed, creating ways to protect its own .gov systems and protecting those that use our .gov, particularly, again, in the area of 

cyber espionage. 

NIST is doing a fantastic job, and I know it’s been capped by the 

President in this area, as well as playing the leading role now in 

saying manufacturing is alive in America, and we’re going to make 

sure it’s not only alive, but it thrives. So, we’re going to ask for 

more details in that area and on intellectual property. 

We are concerned about NOAA’s satellites, and ships, and 

planes, and that we need to be fit for duty. We owe it to the men 

and women who operate this equipment, and to the scientists and 

forecasters to make sure we are working with them. We’re concerned that when it comes to NOAA’s ships and NOAA’s planes, 

they’re kind of a little late at the switch to notice what the problems are, ending up in tremendous cost. 

We owe it to our people who work at NOAA that they have the 

best equipment and the best support from their government, so 

that they can be out there providing, whether it’s for mariners, people who live in coastal communities, and so on. We’re so proud of 

what they do. I know, as a Maryland Senator, we can’t live without 

NOAA and its weather warnings, but when you talk with the Senators from Missouri, and now the way the tornado warnings have 

gone, to a Senator from Hawaii, to another Senator from Alaska, 

the tsunami warnings, and others—so we do need to hear from you. 

The inspector general has identified several major issues, particularly controlling the cost of the 2020 census. Once more, we’re 

seeing that the census cost has doubled. We can’t go there again. 

And I’m just saying that. We really can’t go there again. And we’ll 

come back to what I’m going to be asking from you. 

I’ve identified some of the problems at NOAA. We’re back to the 

Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and to make sure that the satellite program is not out of control. 
145 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I’m going to ask unanimous consent that my full statement be 

included in the record. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Today, we’re meeting to examine the Department of Commerce’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request. We welcome Commerce Secretary John Bryson for joining us today 

for his first testimony before the subcommittee since becoming Commerce Secretary 

in October 2011. Secretary Bryson brings valuable skills to his position. He has been 

a strong voice for American manufacturer, saying we need to ‘‘Build it here, sell it 

everywhere.’’ He knows firsthand what American businesses are facing in today’s 

challenging economy. We look forward to hearing from him about his budget and 

his priorities. 

The Commerce Department is the major economic engine for America. The President’s request totals $11 billion for the Department, including $3 billion in patent 

and trademark fees. 

Today, I want to examine how these funds will do three things: 

—Protect American ideas by safeguarding our intellectual property with patents 

and trademarks and enforcement of our trade laws; 

—Protect our citizens by forecasting and warning about severe weather; and 

—Protect taxpayer dollars. 

By that, I mean the Secretary of Commerce is the chief spokesperson for American business, but the Secretary is also the chief manager of major management 

challenges at the Department. Persistent problems need strong oversight. Issues 

that the Inspector General has identified include: 

—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) satellite procurement; 

—the next Census; and 

—the patent backlog and the stealing of our ideas. 

When it comes to protecting our ideas, the Department of Commerce needs to be 

cyber-obsessed—creating ways to protect its own ‘‘.gov’’ systems while working with 

the private sector to better protect ‘‘.com’’. The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), Commerce’s outstanding science and research agency, is helping 

the private sector find new ways to solve today’s cyber security problems. NIST’s 

budget request of $860 million includes $60 million for cyber activities. I want to 

know how these funds will be used to protect online consumers and the private sector from cyber-attacks. 

But NIST is not the only agency standing sentry over America’s intellectual property. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) protects American 

ideas and inventions, which are the heart of economic prosperity and jobs. The 

USPTO has made progress in reducing the patent backlog, but more than 657,000 

patents are waiting for approval and it takes 21⁄2 years to grant a patent. I also 

want to make sure that USPTO’s networks are secure American inventors are filing 

applications electronically. We must make sure the filing process is secure. 

When it comes to protecting people, every member of this subcommittee is proweather and pro-science. NOAA’s satellites, ships, and planes need to be fit for duty. 

We owe it to the men and women who operate this equipment and to the scientists 

and forecasters who depend on the data to do their jobs. And most importantly, we 

owe it to our communities: to the coastal States that depend on accurate hurricane 

forecasts and to the interior States that depend on timely tornado warnings. I know 

the President’s Government reform plan calls for moving NOAA to the Department 

of the Interior, but in the meantime, I want to know what you are doing now to 

keep people and communities safe. 

The Inspector General has identified several major issues persistent management 

problems for the Department. Serious issues continue to challenge the Department, 

particularly planning and management of the next Census and NOAA weather satellite procurement. 

Controlling costs for the 2020 Census is a top oversight concern for both the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. Cost overruns become a 

major problem during the 2010 Census, and already today we see estimates for the 

2020 Census ranging from $22 to $30 billion. That’s more than double 2010 Census 

costs. I want to know what is being done to reduce costs now. 

When Secretary Bryson agreed to be the chief spokesman for America’s businesses, he also knew that 60 percent of the Department’s budget is for NOAA, 
146 

which includes fisheries management, coastal resource protection, and operations of 

the National Weather Service. An area that I remain very troubled by is NOAA’s 

acquisition of new weather satellites. The budget request for NOAA’s new polar satellites—called Joint Polar Satellite Systems (JPSS)—is nearly $1 billion. JPSS’s lifecycle cost—the costs of development and operations—have increased yet again from 

$11.9 to $12.9 billion. This new total cost estimate shows that despite strong warnings from the subcommittee, JPSS is going in the wrong direction. Cost growth is 

hurting NOAA’s core ocean and weather operations. This leads me to question if 

NOAA should remain responsible for procuring these satellites. 

In conclusion, I want to thank all the men and women of the Commerce Department. They are the trade experts, statisticians, patent and trademark examiners, 

scientists, engineers, and weather forecasters who work hard every day to promote 

American businesses, protect American ideas and resources and keep our economy 

moving forward. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And Senator Hutchison, I know Senator 

Inouye and Senator Cochran have joined us. May we defer to them, 

and then come back to you, and in turn, to our Secretary? 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’d be happy to. I’ll be here for the duration. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I know that there are several hearings going 

on. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Inouye, did you want to make a 

statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Senator INOUYE. Madam Chair, thank you very much for this opportunity to say a few words about the President’s fiscal year 2013 

budget relating to the Commerce Department. But, before I begin, 

Madam Chair, I’d like to join the multitude of admirers and colleagues in congratulating you on becoming the longest-serving 

woman in our congressional history. I can’t quite believe it, but—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. I can’t believe it either. 

Senator INOUYE. You look too young and cute. 

Senator MIKULSKI. That, I can believe. 

Senator INOUYE. But I’ve been around a little while, and I want 

to thank you for the great work you’ve done here. 

Madam Chair, I want to say a few words, but before I proceed 

I’d like to commend and thank the Secretary for the work he has 

been doing, and on behalf of my constituents, I thank you for your 

hands-on service to our people. 

I have just one concern, and that concern has been expressed by 

my chair: NOAA. So if I may, Madam Chair, I’d like to submit my 

statement and make sure that it’s part of the record. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Absolutely, Senator. With unanimous consent, 

your statement is included in the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Senator MIKULSKI. And then I know you and your staff have important questions, that they, too, will be submitted to the record, 

and we’ll ask the Secretary to respond within 30 days. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words with regard to the President’s request for the Department of Commerce’s budget for fiscal 

year 2013. Before I begin, however, let me also join my colleagues and others in congratulating you on making history as the longest-serving woman in congressional 
147 

history. I have been around for a few years myself and deeply appreciate the honor 

and dignity that you have brought to both the House and the Senate through your 

dedicated service. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for joining us. I have been reviewing the 

President’s proposed budget and want to applaud you and the President for working 

to find ways to support our small businesses and decrease our trade deficit even in 

these perilous budget times. I know this is no easy task. However, this is not why 

I wanted to come to this hearing today. Rather, I wanted to come in order to make 

a special point about the agency which comprises more than 60 percent of your Department’s discretionary budget and yet seems to merit less attention from year to 

year. I refer of course to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) which, under the President’s budget would receive a little more than $5.1 

billion in fiscal year 2013. To be sure, this is an increase, but as we all know this 

increase is dedicated almost entirely to needed satellite programs while core agency 

functions and programs are elsewhere consolidated and cut. In my view, these cuts 

appear to have been made in a somewhat haphazard fashion with what seems to 

be a highly unfortunate emphasis on programs that have previously been quite 

clearly highlighted as congressional priorities. I might suggest that explicitly targeting such programs is not a constructive way to begin a dialog over what I consider to be an agency crucial to our Government’s function, our Nation’s economic 

well being, and our safety and security. To begin the annual budget conversation 

in such a way inevitably sets up a cycle where the Congress and the administration 

focus on more parochial interests to the detriment of any serious thinking that 

might be required about refocusing agency missions and priorities in a shrinking 

budget environment. 

You note in your written testimony that the cuts to NOAA were made so that the 

agency could focus on its ‘‘most essential initiatives’’ and that reductions were made 

to programs that were found to be redundant and ‘‘of lower value’’. This then is the 

rubric by which we must judge such actions as the proposed 20 percent cut to the 

National Tsunami Warning Network and Hazard Mitigation Program. Less than a 

year after one of the most devastating tsunami’s the world has ever seen, the Department of Commerce decided that NOAA’s tsunami warning program was, according to standards outlined in your testimony, nonessential, redundant, and of low priority. Given that my State suffered significant damage, though thankfully no loss 

of life, from the Japanese tsunami, this seems like an incorrect assessment to me. 

It also gives me pause as to the other proposed cuts to NOAA and I hope that we 

may continue to have a dialog as to your reasoning. 

I would like to add one last point with regards to the administration’s proposal 

for reorganizing the business and trade functions of the executive branch. I sincerely 

congratulate you and the President on your willingness and desire to think creatively about how we may make Federal activities more efficient while at the same 

time enhancing the vital services that foster American enterprise. The proposal to 

reorganize and consolidate the business and trade functions of the Federal Government into a single Department has some value in terms of efficiency, economy, and 

effectiveness. However, there are still many issues yet to be worked out and some 

questions yet to be answered. 

I am especially concerned with the lack of details regarding the proposed fate of 

NOAA. 

I understand that there is a notional idea to move it the Department of the Interior with a promise that details will be worked out later. I also understand that the 

likelihood of any of this occurring in the near term is small. Nevertheless, I strongly 

suggest to you that, as with the budget, it is always better to start these conversations sooner. In this case there is no need to wait for the Congress to act on the 

President’s request for reorganization authority. I and my staff would enthusiastically welcome a conversation with the administration about ways that we may 

strengthen NOAA while increasing Government efficiency. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Cochran, our ranking member, also 

a coastal Senator. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thank 

you for your leadership of this subcommittee, and in the Senate, as 

a whole, we appreciate your friendship over the years. 
148 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. We’re pleased to have you here before us 

today to discuss the budget request for the administration and 

these areas under your jurisdiction. 

One of the disturbing things, and I noticed right away, is the 

lack of emphasis on the Gulf of Mexico. And I don’t know of anything that’s happened in our country in terms of water resources, 

ecological interests, and importance than the problems in the Gulf 

of Mexico, and to see NOAA sitting back and waiting for others, I 

guess, to identify the priorities—we need leadership at this time 

more than ever. And I will be curious to know what your recommendations and observations are about that issue. 

But beyond that, we’re glad to have the opportunity to review the 

budget request of the administration, and we’re hoping to work in 

a positive and constructive way to harness the resources that are 

needed to deal with the challenges we face under your jurisdiction, 

in spite of the disappointment that the budget presents to us at the 

outset. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you, Senator Cochran. And your questions, too, will be in the record. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and I 

will echo what Senator Inouye said, and say that you’ve had a fabulous week. And I’m so happy that Women’s History Month, which 

you couldn’t have predicted 30-some years ago, would happen on 

your anniversary. But it’s a wonderful thing that we are celebrating your service as the longest-serving woman in the history of 

our the Congress and our country. So, I loved being a part of all 

your festivities, and it probably won’t be matched for a long time. 

In fact, you may break your own record. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Let me say that I think you’re hearing what 

the concerns are already. NOAA is a big one. Gulf of Mexico. I 

mean just last week, we had tornadoes, and horrendous weather 

that kept our Republican Minority leader, Senator McConnell, from 

being able to be here on Tuesday, because he was not able to get 

out of DFW airport for about 8 hours. And it’s just always there. 

The Gulf of Mexico is the site of so many of our hurricanes, and 

tornadoes, and horrible weather, and yet, we see failures in NOAA. 

We see the satellite system, which doesn’t function right. It’s a big 

part of your budget. But, the people who are concerned with the 

wet side of Commerce, with fisheries and ocean monitoring, are 

also very concerned. So, I will want to know what you’re doing to 

address these issues, and what you would do with the increase in 

spending in that area. 

The reorganizing that has been announced to possibly put NOAA 

in the Department of the Interior, I would like to know your opinion about that, if it goes better there, and what can we see that 

would be an improvement if it did move, or if not, why not. And 

the computer hacking is another issue that really has come to the 

forefront, and protecting the Department’s information technology 

infrastructure certainly has to be a priority. And I guess in the 

hacking that happened this year, you’re still, I’m told, trying to sort 
149 

out if any information about the companies that are in your system 

had compromised information. 

The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation is part of 

the budget. Certainly, we are focused on manufacturing, and innovation and manufacturing should be a priority, and I want to hear 

more about that. And just the last thing I would mention is the 

International Trade Administration (ITA). The President made an 

Executive order that I think was premature, because we haven’t 

had a chance to see what a new ITA would do that the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) isn’t already doing, or should be doing, and 

do we need another reformed agency to do the work on unfair trade 

practices, when we do have a setup, I think, at the USTR office. 

So, I’d like to, you know, pursue these things, and get your answers, and I guess after we have our opening statements, we’ll get 

a chance to hear what your priorities are. 

Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary BRYSON. Well, thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you, I think. We’ve got a lot of challenges. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN BRYSON

Secretary BRYSON. Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member 

Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to offer 

a written statement for the record, and to discuss President 

Obama’s 2013 budget request for the Commerce Department. 

I feel the need and really want to join the others in saying that 

it is a special honor today to testify before the longest-serving female Member in the history of the Congress, and maybe as a father 

of four daughters, I would say I deeply admire your service to the 

people of Maryland and our Nation since being elected to the Congress in 1976. So, I join all the others in saying thank you, and 

congratulations Chairman Mikulski on making history once again. 

So, in my first 5 months as Secretary, I’ve seen many examples 

of how the Commerce Department supports American business. 

Just last Friday, I visited Pavilion Furniture. That is a very small 

manufacturer in Miami who we are helping to start exporting both 

to the Caribbean and to Asia. The owner, Mike Buzzella, said, ‘‘The 

introductions that the Commerce Department just made for us in 

Panama and the Pacific Rim are helping to find new ways to grow 

in a global economy.’’ 

This budget, the budget we have before you now, reflects the 

commitment to helping businesses like Mike’s continue to drive 

competitiveness, innovation, and job creation. It includes $8 billion 

in discretionary funding and $2.3 billion in mandatory funding. 

Throughout the budget, we have made smart and tough choices 

that cut costs, while building only on programs that truly do work. 

Key priorities are in areas where we see growth and promise, such 

as advanced manufacturing, exporting, and attracting foreign direct investment. 

For example, the budget includes $135 million for R&D in areas 

like advanced materials and advanced manufacturing processes. 

These are critical areas where the United States must stay competitive. 
150 

We will also continue to support the foundational building blocks 

of our economy, such as research and science, environmental sustainability, and the public safety. For example, NOAA’s budget includes $1.85 billion for satellites, which provide 93 percent of the 

input to our Nation’s weather prediction models. This directly impacts the daily flow of commerce and the ability of businesses and 

communities to prepare for disaster. 

Also, we have invested in stock assessments, because our fishermen and our fisheries are culturally and economically important to 

our country and to our competitiveness. 

At the same time, we are committed to serving as responsible 

stewards of taxpayer dollars. We propose eliminating 18 programs, 

reducing funding for many others, and achieving administrative 

savings. Altogether, this will save taxpayers more than $400 million. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Let me just close by saying that as a CEO for nearly 2 decades, 

I strongly believe that any organization is most effective when it 

operates with a common vision. Our 12 bureaus are committed to 

functioning as what we call ‘‘One Commerce’’. Collectively and collaboratively, we will continue to empower American businesses to 

drive our economy and to build on the nearly 4 million jobs that 

have been created over just the past 2 years. 

Thank you all for your continued support of the Commerce Department. I look forward to your comments, and I’m pleased to answer any questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BRYSON

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished members of 

the subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to talk about President Obama’s 

budget request for the Department of Commerce for fiscal year 2013. While this is 

my first testimony before you, I want to start by thanking you for the subcommittee’s members’ deep appreciation of the talented women and men who work at the 

Department of Commerce, and for your support of our relentless focus on helping 

American companies be more innovative at home and competitive around the world. 

I must say, it is humbling that my first time testifying in the Senate as the Secretary of Commerce is before the longest-serving female Member in the history of 

the United States Congress. As the father of four daughters, I thank you. As the 

newest member of the Cabinet, I humbly recognize what an impressive feat this is 

and deeply admire your many years of service. Since being elected to Congress in 

1976, you have always been an admirable representative of the great State of Maryland and our country. Thank you and congratulations on making history once again, 

Chairwoman Mikulski. 

In today’s challenging budget climate, the Commerce Department is committed to 

responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We’ve done this by making smart and 

tough choices to cut costs, while ensuring that we build only on programs that truly 

work. Thus, the fiscal year 2013 budget request for Commerce is fiscally responsible 

while promoting entrepreneurship, innovation fueled by investments in science, 

global competitiveness, and research and development. President Obama’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget for Commerce includes $8 billion in discretionary funding, which 

is a 5-percent increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The budget also requests $2.3 billion in mandatory funding for new programs. 

This budget invests in efforts to help businesses build their products here and sell 

their products and services everywhere, putting Americans back to work. To do so, 

we are requesting funding specifically to promote high-priority activities to support 

advanced manufacturing, exports and foreign direct investment. With these invest-
151 

ments, we will build a 21st century infrastructure; encourage the sustainability of 

our environment; strengthen science and information; and support national security 

and public safety. To make that possible, this budget request balances the investments and priorities outlined here with difficult choices—including eliminating 18 

programs, resulting in more than $50 million in savings; reducing other programs 

by an additional $336 million; and achieving $176 million in administrative savings. 

As a CEO for nearly two decades, I learned that a company is most effective at 

delivering services when it operates with one vision and the entire workforce, from 

the boardroom to the shop floor, are focused on a clearly defined collective goal. I 

believe the same thing at the Commerce Department. We are the strongest advocates for American businesses when we are more than the sum of our parts—when 

we are ‘‘One Commerce’’. 

The common thread through all of our work across the bureaus is helping American businesses create jobs. This is as true for National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) as it is for the International Trade Administration (ITA). 

As One Commerce, we are working relentlessly to support businesses and communities and to advance the frontiers of innovation, as I detail below. 

BUILD IT HERE—SELL IT EVERYWHERE

As you all know, the challenges and opportunities that American businesses face 

today are global in nature. Since my confirmation in October, I have focused the 

Commerce Department on becoming more nimble, responsive, and effective for 

American businesses. As my friend Fred Hochberg and I like to say, ‘‘We want government at the speed of business.’’ To reach this goal, the Department will focus 

on a simple imperative: In order to create good-paying jobs here at home, we need 

to help more businesses build their products here and sell them everywhere. To 

achieve this, we are focusing on: 

—Supporting advanced manufacturing; 

—Increasing U.S. exports; and 

—Attracting more investment in America from all over the world. 

Advanced Manufacturing 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department of Commerce 

recognizes that we must build momentum in our manufacturing sector, particularly 

advanced manufacturing. By itself, the U.S. manufacturing sector would be the 

ninth-largest economy in the world. Manufacturing employs 12 million Americans 

and is a major source of innovation in our economy, with manufacturing companies 

accounting for 72 percent of all private-sector research and development (R&D) 

spending. This is why the President’s proposed budget would invest heavily in the 

manufacturing expertise at our National Institute for Standards and Technology 

(NIST). 

In support of the President’s priority to strengthen advanced manufacturing, the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 budget for NIST contains: —$135 million for advanced manufacturing R&D to target high-potential technologies such as the manufacture of advanced materials and smart manufacturing processes, which will make U.S. manufacturers more competitive; and —$21 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia Initiative 

that will bring together industry, universities, and the Federal Government to 

invest in highly promising R&D and accelerate the transfer of innovative technologies and products into the hands of American manufacturers. 

In addition, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership within NIST is funded at $128 million to help businesses save time and money and thereby improve 

the competitiveness of small- and medium-sized firms in manufacturing. 

Partnerships can also strengthen our competitiveness in manufacturing. Gene 

Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council and Assistant to the President 

for Economic Policy, and I are co-leading the new White House Office of Manufacturing Policy. We are focused on high-impact ideas, such as the creation of a new 

National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The administration proposes to 

make a one-time $1 billion mandatory spending investment to catalyze the creation 

of a network of up to 15 regional institutes to foster innovation and accelerate technological advancements in manufacturing. These regional institutes will allow researchers, companies, and entrepreneurs to solve problems in pre-commercial technologies that will lead to U.S. leadership in tomorrow’s manufactured goods. 

Our ‘‘One Commerce’’ approach brings significant resources to bear for the benefit 

of American manufacturing companies. The Commerce Department’s bureaus—including NIST, ITA, Economic Development Administration (EDA), and U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO)—are collectively focused on supporting the commercialization of manufacturing technology, bridging the gap between the laboratory 
152 

and the market, and maximizing the unique strengths that already exist in particular regions and manufacturing hubs around the United States. This will help 

us ensure that the next generation of groundbreaking products is not just invented 

here in America, but is also built here. 

Increasing U.S. Exports 

We also want to help American companies sell their products and services to the 

95 percent of the world’s consumers who live beyond our borders. U.S. businesses 

are not exporting nearly as much as they could. Only about 1 percent of U.S. businesses export, and most only to one country. Many American companies would like 

to export but are unsure how to start. Small businesses in particular often face big 

challenges when it comes to getting export financing, building relationships with 

foreign suppliers, and dealing with unfamiliar foreign rules and regulations. President Obama’s National Export Initiative (NEI), led by our Department, is designed 

to help businesses overcome these hurdles. And, in fact, U.S. companies increased 

their exports by 17 percent in 2010 and by an additional 14 percent in 2011, putting 

us substantially on track to meet the challenging goal to double American exports 

by the end of 2014. 

We have leveraged existing resources and enhanced the way we work to help 

American companies expand their global market share. In 2010 and 2011, the Commerce Department coordinated 77 trade missions to 38 countries with more than 

1,000 U.S. companies. We have identified and prioritized work in markets and sectors where American businesses are the most competitive. In addition, we have expanded opportunities in new markets thanks to congressional implementation of the 

trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget requests a total of $517 million for our ITA. As with 

other Commerce Department bureaus, ITA is closely examining its organization to 

speed up operations in order to focus on higher productivity results for American 

businesses. This budget request proposes a consolidation of ITA’s four business units 

to three, organizing them by core function to provide more effective and efficient 

services to U.S. companies and to better focus on priority export markets, trade enforcement, and strategic partnerships while saving $8 million annually. 

ITA’s budget also requests an additional $30 million to strengthen trade promotion by placing Foreign Commercial Service Officers and the equivalent of 90 locally engaged staff in high-growth markets such as China, India, and Brazil. An expansion of these priority markets will enable identification of more export opportunities for U.S. companies, more rapid and timely business counseling, and enhanced 

commercial diplomacy and advocacy support. 

Attracting More Investment 

We also must promote investment into the United States. That includes U.S. companies expanding their operations domestically or bringing jobs back to the United 

States. It also means foreign companies investing here. This administration maintains a deep commitment to ensuring that the United States remains the most open 

economy in the world. America is already the number-one destination around the 

world for foreign direct investment, and foreign companies support more than 5 million jobs across the United States. Until the recent launch of SelectUSA, however, 

there has not been coordinated Federal effort to help either U.S. or non-U.S. businesses navigate the Federal and various State economic environments in order for 

the private sector to more rapidly and easily make these types of investments in 

America. The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget proposes $13 million for SelectUSA 

to aggressively pursue and win new business investment in the United States. 

In order to spur job creation, the United States must encourage business investment from all sources, including encouraging companies that have moved jobs offshore to come back to the United States. To support this effort, we have launched 

a task force dedicated to investment and the in-sourcing of jobs. This task force is 

leveraging our existing resources to make promoting and facilitating business investment in the United States. a natural part of what the Department does, akin 

to export promotion and facilitation. Further, we are working to create an online 

calculator that will help companies determine the hidden costs of moving business 

out of the United States. 

Additionally, EDA will play a critical role through strategic grants that build assets in communities to support investment. Moreover, EDA is updating its investment priorities to include the in-sourcing of jobs back to the United States; projects 

to facilitate in-sourcing will be prioritized for funding within all EDA grant programs. In fiscal year 2012, EDA will offer support to grant applicants who are interested in bringing jobs back to the United States through its next round of Jobs and 

Innovation Accelerator Challenges—economic development grants that will focus on 
153 

America’s rural communities and strengthening advanced manufacturing. Those interested in accelerating job creation through in-sourcing will be encouraged to apply. 

SUPPORTING U.S. BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITIES

The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of Commerce supports American 

businesses and communities—whether it’s working directly with manufacturers to 

enhance their economic competitiveness or supporting communities through economic development and the delivery of daily weather forecasts and severe storm 

warnings. 

The Department works to strengthen communities, especially in disadvantaged or 

distressed areas, through private sector job creation. The President’s budget provides $182 million for the EDA’s Economic Development Assistance programs to 

drive 21st century innovation and economic development that leverage regional assets to foster economic growth. 

The budget provides $29 million for the Minority Business Development Agency 

(MBDA), which, through a network of 39 affiliated Minority Business Centers, supports the ability of minority businesses to grow and thrive in the global economy. 

We are investing in these centers because they are on the front lines of providing 

direct services to minority-owned businesses. This approach has worked. Over the 

last 3 years, our network of MBDA Business Centers has helped minority businesses obtain $10 billion in contracts and capital while helping to create and save 

nearly 20,000 jobs. And last year, MBDA registered the best annual performance 

in its 41-year history. 

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national security, foreign policy, and economic objectives through ensuring an effective export control and 

treaty compliance system and by promoting continued U.S. strategic technology 

leadership. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget recognizes, with a request of 

$102 million, the important role of BIS to ensure sensitive technologies are not exported to regimes unable to safeguard the technologies from bad actors, weapons 

proliferators, and terrorists. Within this request, $6 million is provided to hire 24 

additional personnel at Commerce to handle the new workload under the administration’s export control reform initiative to advance national security and overall 

economic competitiveness. 

Robust monitoring and enforcement of U.S. rights under international trade 

agreements, as well as enforcement of domestic trade laws, are crucial components 

of the administration’s strategy to expand exports, ensure fair competition with our 

foreign trading partners, and grow the economy. ITA is a key partner supporting 

the new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC), which will represent a more 

aggressive ‘‘whole-of-government’’ approach to addressing unfair trade practices, and 

will serve as the primary forum within the Federal Government for executive departments and agencies to coordinate enforcement of international and domestic 

trade rules. This budget requests an increase of $24 million to the Commerce Department that will support the ITEC and will significantly enhance the administration’s capabilities to aggressively challenge unfair trade practices around the world. 

The Commerce Department also focuses on generating and providing timely data 

and analysis for public and private sector decisionmaking. The fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget requests $100 million for the Economics and Statistics Administration (including the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA]) and $970 million for the 

Census Bureau. BEA, which sits within the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA), provides the tools to identify the drivers of economic growth and fluctuation, as well as measure the long-term health and sustainability of U.S. economic 

activity. This budget will strengthen BEA’s ability to identify industry-specific 

trends within its GDP statistics. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget for Census sustains critical business and household 

data collection activities, such as the 2012 Economic Census that provides an every5-year comprehensive view of American businesses and that forms the foundation 

for all our industry and business statistics. Similarly, the American Community 

Survey (ACS) is the only source for geographically detailed socio-economic information on a yearly basis. Businesses use ACS information in many ways, such as site 

selection and market intelligence, which promotes job creation and economic recovery. State and local governments use ACS information to support decisionmaking 

for key programs and services, such as schools, transportation, and emergency services. The Census Bureau request also invests $131 million in research and testing 

for the 2020 Decennial Census. This is a critical investment that is essential to saving money in future years. By devoting sufficient resources to this early state of the 

lifecycle, the Census Bureau will be able to develop the new approaches required 

to break the trend of doubling the cost of the decennial census each decade. 
154 

This budget also supports U.S. businesses and communities by investing $5.1 billion, an increase of $153.9 million or 3.1 percent more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, for NOAA’s vital work on weather forecasting, fisheries management, 

and coastal stewardship. 

NOAA’s critical satellite operations will provide businesses and individuals with 

the data and information needed to plan for changing weather conditions. These satellites also provide advanced warning of severe storms so that actions can be taken 

to protect lives and property. The fiscal year 2013 budget invests $1.8 billion in 

NOAA satellites, including $916 million for the NOAA Joint Polar Satellite System 

(JPSS), and $802 million for the next generation geostationary satellite, GOES–R. 

Weather satellites, including JPSS and GOES–R, are critical to our Nation’s infrastructure and economy and provide 93 percent of the input to the Nation’s weather 

prediction models. Severe storms in the past year, both tornados and hurricanes, 

have demonstrated the importance of our weather satellite system to provide advance warning of these disasters. fiscal year 2013 funding will ensure that GOES– 

R remains on its current schedule to replace the GOES–N series of satellites currently in operation. Full funding is required to avoid any additional schedule slip 

to JPSS and to minimize the gap in polar satellite coverage between JPSS and the 

Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership (Suomi-NPP). NOAA and National Aeronautics and Space Administration successfully launched the Suomi-NPP in October 

2011. JPSS is scheduled to launch in the second quarter of 2017. 

NOAA’s environmental data and services support commerce throughout the country. NOAA provides weather information that allows for safe and efficient transportation; drought and water data that inform agricultural decisions; space weather 

warnings needed to protect the national energy grid and worldwide communications 

from solar storms; and climate information that supports adaptation decisions for 

business and communities. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. import and export freight is 

transported through seaports, and by 2020, the value of all freight coming through 

U.S. ports is projected to increase by more than 40 percent. The fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget requests $150 million to support navigational services nationwide, including mapping and charting and real-time observations and forecasts of 

water levels, tides, and currents. The budget also provides $972 million for weather, 

drought, and flood forecasting. 

The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget for NOAA also provides an increase of 

$29.7 million to improve our understanding of climate, with a specific focus on research that underpins our understanding of climate processes. This includes an $8 

million investment in the continued development and use of state-of-the-art Earth 

system models, which help businesses and communities address climate related 

issues, including sea level rise and Arctic climate change and $4.6 million to make 

progress in critical ocean observations and analysis. 

Healthy coastal economies rely on a healthy ocean ecosystem. NOAA’s fiscal year 

2013 budget will continue to ensure that critical information and tools are available 

to users and decisionmakers to support the management of our ocean and coastal 

resources to make certain future generations also have the ability to enjoy and benefit from these resources. Rebuilding our Nation’s fisheries is essential to preserving 

the livelihood of fishermen, the economies of our coastal communities, and a sustainable supply of healthy seafood. The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget requests 

$880 million for the National Marine Fisheries Service, funding science, management, and conservation of fisheries and protected resources. This includes a requested increase of $4.3 million to expand stock assessments and $2.3 million for 

survey and monitoring projects, which will be targeted at high-priority commercially 

and recreationally viable fish stocks. 

ADVANCING THE FRONTIERS OF INNOVATION

The fiscal year 2013 budget supports key initiatives to help advance our scientific 

and technological frontiers and build the foundations for a secure future. Innovation 

is critical to our economy; it generates American jobs today and will drive the jobs 

of the future. Along with major research universities, businesses are the primary 

source of new ideas, from concept to commercialization, and the Department of Commerce is leveraging our resources to provide the tools, policies, and technologies that 

enable U.S. businesses to gain and maintain an advantage in world markets. 

Together, NIST and NOAA will invest an additional $1.3 billion in research and 

development efforts. 

As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, a focal point for the NIST budget request 

is on investments to support advanced manufacturing. Overall, the fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget requests $857 million in discretionary spending for NIST that ad-
155 

dresses challenges to U.S. industry in a number of areas including advanced communications and cybersecurity. Specifically, we request $10 million to support research in advanced communications networks to build collaboration with the telecommunications industry to help 

lay the groundwork for an interoperable public safety communications network that 

seamlessly delivers voice, data, and video to first responders and other emergency 

personnel. In addition, cybersecurity remains a priority at NIST with the request 

of an additional $8 million for the administration’s National Strategy for Trusted 

Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) program. This program supports the development 

of an online environment—the ‘‘Identity Ecosystem’’—that improves on the use of 

passwords and usernames, and allows individuals and organizations to better trust 

one another, with minimized disclosure of personal information. This work is intended to have broad benefits for applications ranging from consumer financial 

transactions, to industrial supply chains, to health records, for which it is essential 

to have information security. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget requests $651 million for NOAA research 

and development. This includes NOAA’s atmospheric and ocean, coastal, and Great 

Lakes research and applied science which are at the forefront of discovery and a 

key component of advancing the mandates of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. NOAA research is improving the forecasts of severe weather such 

as winter storms and flash floods, developing next-generation radars with the potential to extend lead times for detecting tornadoes, and operationalizing new marine 

sensor technologies with economic benefits. 

USPTO facilitates the generation of innovative and commercially viable processes 

and products, while protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors. The 

Congress helped tremendously in this effort last year with the passage of the America Invents Act, and the fiscal year 2013 budget supports USPTO’s authority to 

spend all of the fees collected to accelerate patent processing and improve patent 

quality, as established in that law. The request supports continued reductions to 

pendency and backlogs, with goals of cutting the backlog in half to 329,500 by fiscal 

year 2015 and total pendency to 18.3 months by fiscal year 2016. This would be a 

dramatic turn-around from where we were just 3 years ago. In fiscal year 2009, the 

backlog was nearly 800,000 and pendency was 34.6 months. In fiscal year 2013, 

USPTO expects to hire an additional 1,500 examiners to support this effort. EDA will dedicate $182 million in grants to foster innovation through innovation 

hubs across the United States, particularly in distressed communities. We know this 

new model of economic development works. The Jobs Innovation and Accelerator 

Program launched by EDA last year is estimated to create approximately 4,800 jobs 

and 300 new businesses, retain 2,400 jobs and train 4,000 people for careers in highgrowth industries. 

The need to ensure our Nation has state-of-the-art digital infrastructure—to drive 

economic growth, create jobs, promote innovation, support Federal agencies’ missions, and improve public safety—cannot be overstated. This is a core value of President Obama, and one that is reflected in several major initiatives undertaken by 

the administration and enacted by the Congress. The Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has been called upon to 

make some of the most complex and consequential technology and innovation programs a reality. Most recently, under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act, NTIA will establish ‘‘FirstNet’’, an independent entity that will oversee the creation of a long-needed nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network. 

Funded through proceeds of future spectrum auctions, this broadband network represents delivery on a promise made by this administration to America’s first responders and the key challenge of network operability noted by the 9/11 Commission. 

In all, the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget provides $47 million to NTIA. These 

funds are needed for NTIA to continue its work in several areas critical to creating 

jobs, promoting innovation and growing our economy. This includes implementing 

the President’s directive to double the amount of spectrum available for commercial 

wireless broadband service. It also includes managing and overseeing nearly $4 billion in Broadband Technology Opportunities Program projects, which are helping to 

expand broadband access and adoption across the country. These projects are allowing hospitals, libraries and universities, as well as individual citizens, entrepreneurs 

and small businesses, to succeed and thrive in the digital economy. The fiscal year 

2013 President’s budget request includes $27 million for NTIA to continue to oversee these projects to protect against waste, fraud and abuse, and ensure they deliver 

on their promised benefits—including more than 70,000 miles of broadband networks by the end of fiscal year 2013—on time and on budget. Almost all projects 

are slated to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2013. 
156 

The Department of Commerce is also active on the domestic and international 

fronts to preserve an open, interconnected global Internet that supports continued 

innovation and U.S. economic growth. Privacy is a key component of consumer trust 

in the Internet and of the online retail marketplace that accounts for around $200 

billion in annual economic activity. The President’s budget requests approximately 

$1 million for NTIA’s work on promoting Internet innovation, in particular, by leading the administration’s efforts to provide consumers with stronger privacy protections while maintaining the flexibility that companies need to innovate, here and 

around the globe. 

STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS

Just as businesses across the United States. must find efficiencies and focus on 

results, the Federal Government has a responsibility to maximize results and be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, especially in difficult economic times. As I 

stated before, there were many difficult choices made in this budget, cutting programs across the Department. In fact, EDA, MBDA, and departmental management 

are decreased below their fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. In other bureaus, such as 

NOAA, sharp cuts were taken to specific programs to focus on the most essential 

initiatives. Programs were reviewed across the Department, and reductions were focused on specific programs or projects that, while performing important work and 

generating value, are lower priority because they are either similar to programs in 

other agencies or not central to the Department’s mission. 

The Commerce Department is committed to reducing our administrative costs 

through savings and efficiencies. In doing so, we are not only being financially 

sound, but we are ensuring we can invest in the important initiatives that help 

American businesses compete and win. 

The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget invests in key areas to improve administrative functions throughout the Department. These investments include an increase of $0.4 million for cybersecurity; $3.9 million to upgrade the financial management, acquisition, and other administrative systems within the Department; and 

$2.2 million to continue to automate our manual human resource processes. Making 

these investments is key to future savings. 

To fund these investments, the Commerce Department has moved aggressively in 

the past year to reduce our administrative costs. We will meet our goal of saving 

$143 million by the end of fiscal year 2012, in areas such as acquisition, fleet operations, human resources, and information technology. This builds upon our fiscal 

year 2011 savings of approximately $50 million in administrative costs. Part of 

those savings resulted from Commerce shutting down approximately 3,000 unused 

cell phone lines and optimizing rate plans, for an annual savings of $1.8 million, 

and issuing a printing policy that calls for less and smarter printing, which will 

save approximately $4.2 million annually. 

Next year we will achieve substantial additional savings. The fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget calls on the Department to achieve a total of $176 million in administrative cost savings, which is already underway by placing additional focus on 

reducing travel costs, employee IT devices, printing, fleet operations, management 

contracts, and extraneous promotional items. In addition, the Department has proposed administrative savings in NOAA by merging a small number of programs and 

reducing its footprint of facilities so that funding can be targeted at the agency’s 

highest priorities. 

The Department of Commerce also continues to support the President’s 

BusinessUSA Initiative—a comprehensive customer service plan to better meet the 

needs of businesses. Furthering the Commerce Connect initiative launched in late 

2010, BusinessUSA ensures that businesses looking for assistance from the Federal 

Government can quickly connect to the services and information relevant to them, 

regardless of which agency’s Web site, call center, or office they go to for help. 

BusinessUSA would link American businesses and entrepreneurs with Commerce 

Department and other Federal, State, and local partner resources. These services 

are provided faster and more comprehensively through a one-stop shop, beginning 

with a web portal and enhanced call center coordination. This is a key step in a 

new way for the Federal Government to be an asset to America’s businesses—applying information and customer service standards, technology, call centers, and field 

offices in a manner that provides the most useful, accurate, and timely services and 

information to businesses. 

CONCLUSION

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects the crucial role that the 

entire Department of Commerce plays in accelerating job growth, strengthening the 
157 

economic recovery, and supporting American businesses all across our country. At 

the same time, the President’s request recognizes the challenging budget climate in 

which we find ourselves and includes many difficult choices that meet the need for 

responsible reductions. 

By combining crucial investments with fiscal responsibility, the budget sets forth 

a meaningful plan to stimulate private sector job creation and promote American 

competitiveness for years to come. With each of our 12 bureaus working together 

with a focus on helping companies sell their goods and services around the globe, 

supporting businesses and communities, and advancing the frontiers of innovation, 

I am confident in our ability to deliver on that commitment. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Secretary, we’re going to go by the 5- 

minute rule, and I will then, I know, at the end, probably have a 

couple of wrap-up questions related to management and cost overruns. 

The Commerce Department’s job is to work with the President, 

the Congress, and the private sector to really create jobs. And it 

has been the tradition of the Secretary of Commerce to really be 

like the President’s ambassador to our domestic business community. We have the ambassadors to countries, but here we’re one of 

the most vital private sectors in the world. So, we know that’s a 

big job. And one thing we are concerned about on this subcommittee is certainly creating jobs. 

This is now going to take me to the whole issue of the role of 

the Commerce Department in cyber, and also with our intellectual 

property. Everybody likes to talk today about American 

exceptionalism. It really is our intellectual ideas. So, one, the whole 

idea that we don’t want a valley of death, where people do research—how do they get their ideas patented?—because that is the 

major tool for protecting their intellectual property. It puts the 

fence up and protects them. 

The second issue we hear in both this subcommittee and in the 

Intelligence Committee that Senator Feinstein chairs is about 

cyber espionage, where there are those nation states that are out 

there cruising, and even in the private sector, that are stealing our 

ideas. Why invent the cure for cancer? Why invent something new 

that will be Internet-driven, when you can just steal it? 

So, my question to you is: What is the role of the Commerce Department in protecting America’s intellectual property and making 

sure we end the backlog and deal with the cyber espionage problem? 

Secretary BRYSON. Thank you, Chairman Mikulski. The Commerce Department has a significant role, a very significant role in 

dealing with the very considerable threats and costs of not having 

complete and fully protected cybersecurity. 

Chairman Mikulski, I want to say how much our people at NIST 

have valued your support. You’ve followed this. You’ve addressed 

it for a long period of time. And you’re coming recently to the recognition—— 

PATENT APPLICATION BACKLOG

Senator MIKULSKI. I appreciate the nice words. Tell me what 

you’re doing on the backlog problem. 

Secretary BRYSON. The backlog problem—— 
158 

Senator MIKULSKI. The backlog problem at the USPTO. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. What we’re doing is, we’ve set a standard 

now. A lot of work is under way. We will reduce the backlogs by 

2015 by one-half. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And how are you going to do that, and what 

resources do you need? 

Secretary BRYSON. A series of steps, but the most important is 

in the budget before you now, and that is the funding that would 

allow us to bring immediately, in the 2013 timeframe, 1,500 new 

patent examiners to carry that backlog down, and reduce that considerable backlog. 

Senator MIKULSKI. But, we’ve heard that before. How is this 

going to be different than in the past? Oh, let’s bring in more, but 

then so what. I’ve now been with several secretaries of Commerce. 

With all due respect, Sir, they tell me the same thing. We’re going 

to hire more people and hooah, hooah, and it just doesn’t make a 

difference. Either you’re not hiring, either you’re not keeping, you 

don’t—— 

Secretary BRYSON. Dave Kappos, in my judgment, as the Director 

of the USPTO, is doing an outstanding job, extraordinary leadership. The America Invents Act gives us an additional set of tools. 

But, the hiring of 1,500 additional patent examiners has never 

taken place before. That is a big addition. They will be highly, 

highly capable people. Already, people are lining up to have those 

jobs, and it’s an attractive place to work. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, I think what the subcommittee would 

like is a detailed management plan including not only the hiring, 

but how are you going to train them, how are you going to recruit 

them, what happened to the fast-track idea? 

[The information follows:] 

PATENT EXAMINER RECRUITMENT, HIRING, TRAINING, AND PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION

PROCESS

The Department of Commerce wishes to supplement the response to the question 

by Chairperson Mikulski regarding actions taken to address United States Patent 

and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiner recruitment, hiring, and training 

as well as the prioritized examination process 

PATENT EXAMINER RECRUITMENT, HIRING, AND TRAINING

USPTO has conducted a significant amount of planning associated with bringing 

a large new cadre of patent examiners on board and the execution of this effort is 

in full swing. USPTO has undertaken a diverse approach to inform the public about 

patent examiner job opportunities, successfully attracting thousands of qualified 

candidates through extensive recruitment efforts. Recruitment strategies are being 

expanded in areas such as career fairs; aggressive outreach to veterans and 

transitioning servicemembers through networking with other Federal agencies and 

veterans groups; targeted advertising and email blasts to universities, professional 

organizations and associations; nationwide advertisements and outreach efforts via 

social media; and, internal agency-wide communications. 

USPTO expects the majority of hiring for fiscal year 2012 to occur in the latter 

half of this fiscal year. In addition, the hiring processes for patent examiners have 

been streamlined to minimize the time between application, candidate selection, and 

orientation. Accordingly, USPTO is on track to meet its hiring goal of 1,500 examiners for fiscal year 2012, and will be working aggressively to hire up to an additional 1,500 examiners for fiscal year 2013. 

While hiring efforts have been offset in some earlier years by high attrition, Director Kappos and his team have strengthened recruitment, hiring, training, and retention efforts. Patent examiners are now staying at the agency longer and are more 

productive in working down the patents backlog. Over the last 12 months, the 
159 

USPTO patent examiner attrition level was just 3.3 percent compared to more than 

8 percent during 2005 through 2007. 

Once on board, the USPTO training program emphasizes heavy up front knowledge and skills training as well as ongoing development to produce a highly effective 

workforce. Through the Patent Training Academy, comprehensive programs are in 

place for new examiners utilizing a well-established, certified curriculum that includes legal training, systems and software training, and in-depth training on examination practice and procedure. Each new examiner also creates an Individual Development Plan to address training and development needs through the first 2 years 

of employment. 

The Academy was designed to provide the agency the capacity and flexibility necessary to effectively train large numbers of new hires. For instance, entry-level examiners are typically hired into classes of approximately 128 employees. To ensure 

an individualized training approach, classes are further divided into labs comprised 

of up to 16 examiners where they are paired with a trainer and a lab assistant. 

Careful consideration and review of qualifications is given for each new examiner 

brought on board. For new examiners without Intellectual Property experience, the 

USPTO employs a phased training program covering the first 12 months of employment that includes an initial 4 months at the Academy. Examiners hired with experience in intellectual property, spend an initial 20 days at the Academy, but also 

continue training over their first 12 months of employment that includes an overview of U.S. statutes, rules, procedures, and practices as well as refresher training 

to strengthen employee-identified areas for further development. 

PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION PROCESS

With respect to implementation of process for faster processing of patent applications, the USPTO implemented a Prioritized Examination process (i.e., ‘‘Track One’’) 

in September, 2011 consistent with new authority provided under the America Invents Act. For utility and plant applications which are accorded prioritized examination after an additional fee is paid, the operational goal of the USPTO is to provide 

final disposition within 12 months, on average. Track One provides applicants with 

greater control over when their applications are examined and promotes examination process efficiency. Since inception, USPTO has received more than 3,500 Track 

One applications; the average time from acceptance to first office action has been 

43 days. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Could we also now talk about cyber espionage? 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. 

CYBER ESPIONAGE

Senator MIKULSKI. Is that a threat, and how are you dealing 

with it? 

Secretary BRYSON. Cyber espionage is a very considerable threat. 

We’re not fully prepared, as a country, to address that. 

With regard to the Commerce Department’s role, that is NIST, 

the extraordinary and extraordinarily important work of Pat Gallagher and that team. So, the role there is setting the standards that 

will apply across not just the Federal Government, not just across 

the United States, but likely around the world, and that work is 

under way with an excellent team, and you know that team, you’ve 

supported that team. We thank you for that. We believe in it deeply. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So, NIST is creating the standards to do 

what? 

Secretary BRYSON. The standards to set what would then be—the 

standards are the standards that are a level of attainment we have 

to have for protections. And one of the important things with NIST, 

as you know, is that then reaches out to the private sector, and we 

work with the private sector to reach agreement—— 
160 

Senator MIKULSKI. The standards for technology? Standards for 

management? What—— 

Secretary BRYSON. Standards for technology is the driver here. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So, in other words, we would build in standards to the technology, where it would only be self-enforcing and 

self-policing. Is that right? 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. And it would grow into performance 

standards, with the agreement of the private sector. So, that’s the 

dynamic, as you know, at NIST that is taking place—for years. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Right. 

Secretary BRYSON. And we would then have performance standards against which we and others around the world would have to 

operate. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. Senator Hutchison. 

GAPS IN WEATHER COVERAGE

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. 

There is a growing concern about the management of the NOAA 

satellites. I think everyone is concerned about this. And the fact 

that we’re having to pour so much money into them and they’re not 

working as well as they should also has hurt the funding of other 

programs in NOAA, such as the fisheries, ocean monitoring, research, and education. And I’m very concerned about the P–3 hurricane hunters that are also proposed to be eliminated. So, I want 

to ask a couple of questions. 

First of all, the gap in weather coverage that is proposed to occur 

around 2017 for 24 months, is that something that’s being addressed? And what would that kind of gap mean in our weather 

coverage and capabilities? 

Secretary BRYSON. Thank you, Senator. We are putting our highest priority in this budget in the satellites. So, the way to think 

about this budget is, we are putting all the resources we have to 

put in to be assured that we put up these satellites, the JPSS satellites, those on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES). We have put an entirely new management team in 

place. We have reports at all levels of the Commerce Department, 

including to me, on performance against goals. On the 2017 target, 

there is a gap. Our focus is on minimizing that gap. We believe we 

can succeed in doing that. 

SATELLITE PROGRAM

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Secretary, with the White House’s interest in consolidations, has there been any talk of the satellite program either being moved to the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) or some kind of collaboration required between Commerce and NASA, so that you have their capabilities to 

work on this issue? 

Secretary BRYSON. There has not been. Senator, we are confident 

the team, the experience, the preparation done by NOAA and in 

the Commerce Department puts us in a position to succeed very 

well in putting these satellites in operation and minimizing the 

2017 gap, and taking further the truly excellent GOES program 

that is in place today. 
161 

Senator HUTCHISON. Would you be open to working with NASA 

and seeing if the expertise that they have would expedite that? 

Secretary BRYSON. NASA is a good program. We are sufficiently 

confident that we are going ahead with what we have with an excellent team of people, broad experience. We know how to do this, 

and what we are not eager to do is interrupt the program and work 

we’re on now by turning to NASA now. 

[The information follows:] 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION/NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION RELATIONSHIP

The existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) partnership is successful, and has 

been successful for more than 40 years. Both NOAA and NASA have worked closely 

together and have collaborated by leveraging the strengths of each agency to develop NOAA’s polar and geostationary satellite series. NASA’s contribution resides 

in space systems acquisition and, in turn, NOAA’s contributions are in ground system development, satellite operations, and the development of weather, climate, 

oceans, and coastal products and services to meet the needs of the operational communities it serves. This positive collaboration and nonduplication of effort was confirmed in October 2009 by an in-depth Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of NASA’s Earth science projects, which found no duplication of effort between 

these climate and weather research missions and other Federal agencies (GAO–10– 

87R). 

Today, under the U.S. civil space program construct, recently reinforced by the 

National Space Policy, NOAA and NASA have developed and implemented a successful partnership that has delivered technology advances in Earth observation capabilities, whereby NASA conducts leading-edge research in Earth system science, 

including new technologies to monitor the environment while NOAA responds to demands for easily accessible and timely data and information about Earth and space 

observations. These technology advances have been transitioned for use operationally to improve weather forecasting, severe storm/hurricane prediction and climate 

observations. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’ll take that as a ‘‘No.’’ 

HURRICANE HUNTERS

Let me ask you about the hurricane hunters. That has really 

been a very valuable tool in the gulf coast, well, actually, the Atlantic as well, where they’ve been able to fly in and get good intelligence on how ferocious the center is, and how wide it is, and all 

that. 

Why are you supporting the elimination of that program, the 

three hunters? 

Secretary BRYSON. Senator, we do not support the elimination of 

that program. Well, let me take it a little further. In this budget, 

we are confident that the so-called hurricane hunters, the three of 

them, with the very important support that we provide them in 

maintenance will serve this year very, very well, the fiscal 2013 

year. 

What we’re doing also at the same time is looking, for the fiscal 

year 2014 budget, at a series of possible steps we might take, and 

that’s in the works now, looking at conceivable alternatives to the 

P–3 planes we have. We believe we’re in a good position to be well 

protected for this year, but technology improves and advances, and 

there are conceivable alternatives, and we’ll bring to this subcommittee the judgments we reach with respect to that, and the 

possibility that we will bring forth in fiscal year 2014 an alternative program. 
162 

Senator HUTCHISON. Meaning other airplanes? 

Secretary BRYSON. Conceivably, yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Because my information says that 

you’ve really only got one that’s operational right now. Is that not 

correct? 

Secretary BRYSON. That’s not correct. We have three. They have 

their periods of maintenance each year. They’ve worked very well 

in the past, as you suggested. We are confident they will work well 

through 2013. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. I really hope that we can see when 

hurricane season comes that those three are operational, because 

there’s a conflict of our information, and that’s very important 

when we get into the really bad hurricanes. 

Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I want to join with the Senator here, because 

there is confusion, and we are deeply concerned, and we know, particularly our gulf Senators, but all of us rely on those hurricane 

hunters. You have three planes. Three Orion planes. All planes 

need to be refurbished by 2016 to make them fly. Is that correct? 

Secretary BRYSON. That may be. I can’t confirm that, but it 

sounds like a reasonable estimate. 

[The information follows:] 

STATUS OF THE HURRICANE SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT (HURRICANE HUNTERS) 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) typically schedules 

maintenance to ensure aircraft are available for hurricane season, but the Service 

Life Assessment Program by Lockheed Martin, completed in June 2011, recommended new short-term maintenance and inspections for NOAA’s P–3s that required NOAA to induct one aircraft into Special Structural Inspection during the 

2012 hurricane season in order to remain airworthy. 

This means that during fiscal year 2012, only 1 of the 2 P–3s (N42 and N43) currently used for hurricane surveillance will be operational at any specific time during 

the year due to scheduled maintenance. If unscheduled maintenance is required, 

that may leave no available P–3s, which would impact hurricane research, but 

would not significantly impact the current operational hurricane forecasting capabilities of the National Hurricane Center. 

Doppler data from the P–3s support the National Weather Service/National Centers for Environmental Prediction Environmental Modeling Center’s (EMC) development of the Hurricane Weather Research and Forecast System (HWRF), the first 

operational model designed to make use of high-density inner core observations. Use 

of inner-core observations has the potential to improve the prediction of hurricane 

track and intensity forecasting. In order to utilize the airborne Doppler data for the 

HWRF model initialization, EMC requires sustained sampling of the hurricane core 

at 12-hour intervals over a period of at least 36 hours (three back-to-back-to-back 

missions, 12-hours apart) when tropical cyclones threaten the United States (e.g., 

Hurricane Irene’s extended threat to the eastern seaboard). 

Due to the availability of only one P–3 to support collection of airborne Doppler 

radar data during the fiscal year 2012 hurricane season, a mitigation strategy has 

been developed that will use two flight crews for the single P–3. This will minimize 

the impact on the research plan for at least three back-to-back-to-back 12-hour missions. While this mitigation strategy will meet the EMC’s requirement, the primary 

risk is if the single P–3 cannot fly, due to equipment failure or unscheduled maintenance or if one or more of the three back-to-back-to-back 12-hour missions is cancelled there will be a loss of the data collected. 

BACKGROUND ON NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION P–3S

NOAA hurricane hunter planes are used for both hurricane research and operational hurricane forecasting. Two of NOAA’s P–3 planes are used primarily for hurricane research. The Gulfstream jet (G–IV) is used for operational hurricane forecasting. In addition, per the National Hurricane Operations Plan, the Air Force 
163 

maintains 10 WC–130 planes to support NOAA hurricane reconnaissance requirements, providing approximately 800 flight hours per year in this capacity. 

N42 completed Special Structural Inspection in May 2012 and is currently available for day-to-day operations. 

N43 will undergo Special Structural Inspection and Phased Depot Maintenance 

from May 2012 through February 2013, after which it will be available for day-today operations. 

N44, which has not previously been used for hurricane research or operational 

forecasting, has reached End of Service Life and is currently not operational. 

The G–IV (N49) is currently operational and will be inducted into a Service Life 

Extension, engine overhaul, in October 2012 for approximately 5 months. 

The NOAA fiscal year 2012 Aircraft Allocation Plan is available here: http:// 

www.omao.noaa.gov/12lairserviceslallocation.html 

In fiscal year 2013, two P–3s (N42, N43) and the G–IV (N49) will be operational 

during hurricane season. Office of Marine and Aviation Operations will be able to 

meet current hurricane research and reconnaissance requirements at the requested 

funding level. 

Senator MIKULSKI. But, you need to know this. 

Secretary BRYSON. Well, the reason we’re focused on 2014 is to 

be in a position where we’re entirely ready to make replacements 

in advance of that 2016—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, let me keep going here. The cost to refurbish each plane is $20 million, because, essentially, it’s not like 

new carburetors, or, you know, let’s clean up the leather seats here. 

These are planes that have to fly into a hurricane. So, what they 

need is new wings. This is big, and it is serious. 

Now, as I understand it, NOAA did not tell the Congress that all 

of the planes need extensive work, and that a second P–13 plane 

is due for scheduled maintenance this spring, and that there’s concern that you’re just going to have one plane fit for duty to fly into 

a hurricane. And, you know, this subcommittee is obsessed with 

the safety of people we ask to go into harms way, and whether it’s 

our astronauts in space or our pilots into a hurricane. So, do you 

understand Senator Hutchison’s question? 

Secretary BRYSON. I do. Yes. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So, Sir, we really ask you to go back to the 

drawing board and come back to the subcommittee. We need to 

know what planes, what sequencing, and what money. Am I correct? Is that the thrust of it? Is that the trepidation that you feel, 

Senator Hutchison? 

Senator HUTCHISON. The information that I have is what you 

have, that one is completely out of commission while it is getting 

new wings, and one hasn’t had the annual maintenance, and it’s 

not reliable, leaving just one that is. And if we’ve got two hurricanes going or in different places, this could be a very necessary 

function, and maybe I think what the chairman and I are saying 

is that it doesn’t appear to be the priority in the Department of 

Commerce that we think it should be. 

Secretary BRYSON. Thank you, Senator. Let me say that we do 

not and would not take lightly the safety of people with respect to 

these planes. We are highly confident that we will come back to 

you, absolutely. We’re highly confident, for example, that these 

planes will work satisfactorily entirely through this upcoming hurricane season. 

Senator MIKULSKI. But that’s not what we’re worried about. 

What we’re concerned about is what planes need to be fixed when. 

We need a sequencing plan. We need a money plan to match what 
164 

needs to be done. We need to have the sequences, the timing, and 

we need to know what’s available when. 

Secretary BRYSON. And we will do just that. And we will bring 

to you our planning with respect to 2014. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Before the hurricane season. 

Secretary BRYSON. For example, the C30 looks like a conceivable 

candidate, but we’re doing this in a very, very disciplined way. But, 

if you would like us to have the people at NOAA that are working 

on this now come to see you, the sooner we can work this through, 

we can do that as well. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I’m going to turn now to Senator Pryor. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here. I see that you have Jim Stowers there, 

looking over your right shoulder. He’s helped me in many capacities over the years. Jim, it’s good to see you. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

Let me start with science parks and regional innovation centers. 

I know that the fiscal year 2013 budget requests money for that. 

Has the Economic Development Administration (EDA) made any 

science park planning grants, or provided any science park construction loan guarantees? 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. EDA has done that. We know that you’ve 

been a strong, strong supporter of science parks. We really believe 

in these science parks. EDA has made grants: for example, a 

$95,000 planning grant to the Missouri Innovation Park; funding 

for infrastructure improvements at the Sandia Science Park Laboratory, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. So, we’re believers in these 

science parks, and EDA, I think, is a leader in going out around 

the country to do just what you underscore here, and more should 

be done. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. I appreciate that. And I do think that 

they’re key to our economic future. But, I also noticed that the subsidy rate this year is higher than last year. In effect, it works like 

an interest rate. Do you have an explanation for that? I believe this 

year it’s 18.06 percent. Last year, it was 15.5 percent. 

Secretary BRYSON. Here’s what I understand, and that is that at 

the recommendation of the Office of Management and Budget, 

there is no pre-established subsidy rate for science park loan guarantees. So our preliminary analysis indicates a low volume of potential applications in this area, and this is because science parks 

are affiliated with research institutions that can access credit at income tax rates, and loan guarantees by the Federal Government 

are taxable. So, what the Federal Government can do, it’s somewhat affected by alternatives for the science parks. We’re eager to 

be supportive in any way we reasonably can. It’s going to be a fixed 

subsidy rate. 

Senator PRYOR. All right. I think the way the law works requires 

the science parks to put up 20 percent of the money, and it seems 

like that would be a pretty good safe investment. So, I would think 

the interest rate would be lower than that. But, we can talk about 

that in a different context. 

Senator Blunt and I have filed the Export Promotion Act of 2012. 

I don’t know if you’re familiar with it, but I would encourage you 
165 

to take a look at it, and hopefully help generate some support for 

it. What we’re trying to do, quite frankly, is what the President 

wants us to do which is continue to focus on exports and help the 

U.S. economy. We think that our approach is fairly common sense, 

and it doesn’t cost much money. 

Let me ask about something else that the President mentioned. 

In his State of the Union Address, he talked about community colleges, and connecting the training for jobs with available jobs and 

sales. We’ve had a lot of success with that in Arkansas, using our 

2-year colleges mostly, and some 4-year institutions, but mostly our 

2-year colleges, to connect very closely with economic development, 

and manufacturers, and other employers in various areas around 

the State. It’s worked very, very well. It’s a classic public-private 

partnership. And if you haven’t already, I’d hope that you would 

look at that model. 

Senator Wicker and I, as a result, introduced the Win Jobs Act 

that follows that Arkansas model. I think it’s consistent with what 

the White House is talking about in this area. Maybe a little different approach, but I think the goals are certainly the same. So, 

I’d hope you’ll take a look at that. 

SEQUESTRATION

I’m almost out of time here, but I do have a question that you 

probably don’t really want to focus on too much, but I think it’s important that the subcommittee have an answer on this. Have you 

made any contingency plans for a possible sequestration? If sequestration does, in fact, happen, how will that impact your day-to-day 

operations, how would that impact your budget, and what plans 

are you making in the event this happens? 

Secretary BRYSON. Senator, do I have time to respond to you? 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Secretary BRYSON. So, I’ll take the sequestration first, then, if we 

have time, something quickly on—let me simply say I’d like to 

learn more of your proposal, so maybe we’ll put that aside. But, I’d 

like to follow-up on that. 

With regard to sequestration, the President has taken a view 

that I share strongly, and that is sequestration would simply be a 

very bad thing for our country. And the cost of having sequestration go forward, rather than having you, as Members of Congress, 

move to a sounder way of going forward, is what we stand on. We 

believe in that, and we have invested no time at the Commerce Department trying to think through what would we do in the event 

sequestration went forward. 

We think it’s such a bad thing for the country to just have sequestration roll out that we believe that it’s probable, and we 

would, of course, do anything we can, but this is so much in your 

hands, to have a better approach to dealing with our Nation’s 

budget. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thinking that it’s a bad idea doesn’t give a 

plan for a contingency. We all think it’s a bad idea. So, we’ve 

agreed on that. But, I think the point that Senator Pryor raises at 

all of the CJS hearings, and it’s a very valuable question, is: Have 
166 

you thought about a contingency plan, and what the impact that 

would be on the agency? 

Wasn’t that your question? Do you have a contingency plan? 

Secretary BRYSON. We do not have a contingency plan. We’ve 

looked very roughly at what the numbers look like, and they would 

be severe cuts. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And do you have an idea of what the impact 

would be because of sequester? 

Secretary BRYSON. We would go to doing what we’ve done in this 

budget and try ruthlessly to keep the most important programs 

and to cut everything else we had to cut. It would be a very bad 

result. We do not have a full plan. 

Senator MIKULSKI. On behalf of Senator Pryor, and myself, and 

really Senator Hutchison, and all of us, we need to know the consequences. So, if we could have kind of a snapshot of what you 

think they would be, and what areas cuts would be most likely to 

occur, and the impact. 

Senator Cochran, as our ranking guru on the Appropriations 

Committee. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES

Mr. Secretary, I’m interested in knowing your recommendations 

for funding research to try to determine what steps needs to be 

taken by the private sector or government agencies to help restore 

good health in the Gulf of Mexico, following the disastrous weather 

challenges that we faced in the last year or two. 

Secretary BRYSON. Well, the important thing in protecting public 

safety is the work that NOAA does in identification of warning systems. So, we have warning systems. Across the board you will see 

that we have cut programs, other than satellite program, so what 

we’ve done is eliminated from the programs things that weren’t essential to preserve, for example, in this case, the key warning systems that make everyone aware of, for example, tornadoes, and 

other tsunamis, the things that would really affect people intensely. So, we go forth with that, even under circumstances of 

tough times, tough choices. We are committed to doing our part to 

reduce taxpayer dollars to the extent we possibly can in all the programs of the Commerce Department. 

Senator COCHRAN. There’s been a lot of public concern expressed 

about the effects on the Gulf of Mexico from the BP Oil spill that 

occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. To what extent has the Department 

reached any conclusions about what the threats are to the continued vitality to fisheries and to the general environment in the Gulf 

of Mexico as a result of that oil spill? 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. NOAA has been deeply engaged in that. 

I’ve been fairly meaningfully engaged in it myself , in part, because, I think to the credit of British Petroleum, they would like 

to achieve a resolution of the outstanding claims and litigations 

here, and that’s where I’ve worked with them on it. And what we 

hope to do is have a resolution that will be in agreement, that will 

encompass the impacted States there, and put these resources to 

work in moving rapidly to the protection of the ecosystem of the 

gulf there. 
167 

Senator COCHRAN. You hear a lot of things that are said in a 

negative way about earmarks. Are there any earmarks in this proposal from the administration that we need to know about? 

Secretary BRYSON. No. No. This is a matter of—— 

Senator COCHRAN. What about your salary? Isn’t that an earmark? 

Secretary BRYSON. I don’t know if I’ve thought of my salary as 

an earmark. 

Senator COCHRAN. Why not? 

Secretary BRYSON. But I will tell you the—— 

Senator COCHRAN. What’s the difference in your salary and 

grants to grantees who are conducting research on the effects of 

the oil spill and other concerns that our Nation has in the Gulf of 

Mexico? Should it not be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny and 

questioning as something that is submitted for consideration in the 

budget by a Member of Congress? 

Secretary BRYSON. So, we still do make grants in the gulf now. 

We have to have tough choices when we do that, but we’ll go forward with that. There’s no question about that. But, I’m not sure 

I’m answering your question very well, Senator. Maybe if you put 

it to me again, because I may be missing something here. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, thank you very much. We’ll revisit that 

later. I’ll let others ask questions and we will come back to that 

later in the hearing. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I think you’re defending the appropriations 

process. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We kind of liked that line of questioning, actually. 

Senator Brown. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary, welcome. 

Thank you for your candor. Folks, on that last question, I don’t 

know what the right answer was either, but I appreciate Senator 

Cochran phrasing it the way that he did. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It wasn’t personal, Mr. Secretary. 

Senator PRYOR. It certainly wasn’t. 

Secretary BRYSON. Thank you. 

Senator BROWN. We only have one time for one question. I have 

one comment and question. I have to preside at 11 o’clock. 

TRADE ENFORCEMENT

I want to talk to you about manufacturing. For 12 years, from 

1997 to 2009, we had a decline every year in my State and nationally in manufacturing jobs, and the number of manufacturing 

plants around the country. You know that we have, almost every 

month since more or less the middle of 2010, seen—earlier than 

that, actually—an increase in manufacturing jobs, not to the level 

we want to be at, not even close. Workers, especially in my State, 

have faced firsthand the problem with our trade laws that require 

enormous injury from unfairly traded foreign products before any 

response by our Government. And the slowness of that and the arduousness of the process has made fighting back on behalf of our 

manufacturers and their workers especially difficult. 
168 

For example, a coated paper case was filed. Relief was originally 

rejected, because the injury was existent, but not deep enough. 

Three years later, the industry and union re-filed. Because thousands of jobs were lost, because of unfair trade practices, relief was 

granted, but it really was too late to help this industry. And that’s 

been sort of emblematic of what we’ve seen. 

The Department has brought authority to initiate trade enforcement cases. Last week, I helped lead an effort supported by more 

than 180 House and Senate Members, calling for a full examination of China’s policies and practices in the auto parts sector that 

have flooded our Nation. At the time of permanent normal trade 

relations (PNTR), well, after PNTR, a decade ago, we had about a 

$1 billion bilateral trade deficit with China in auto parts. Today, 

it’s grown 800 percent. It’s around $10 billion. I’m glad you are 

working on the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC). 

That’s especially important. 

My question is this. In face of the reluctance, sometimes, of industries to bring trade cases, the union less reluctant, the industry 

more reluctant, because of potential and very real Chinese retaliation, from retaliation from their government, when can we expect 

an answer on whether you will and how you will take up the auto 

parts question? What other key sectors, in addition to auto parts, 

do you think we should be moving on when it comes to trade enforcement? What do we do to make our trade laws more responsive 

to the numerous issues with China’s export subsidies? 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary BRYSON. So, first, with respect to the auto parts, the 

question we have with regard to the auto parts is—the laws are 

such that we, the Commerce Department, can ourselves initiate a 

case. The problem with that is the success of those cases has been 

relatively minor, because we have to have the data from the industry that allows the case to be made. So, on the auto parts, to my 

knowledge, none of the companies have come forth, and you’re suggesting—— 

Senator BROWN. If I can interrupt, and I apologize, Madam 

Chair. Correct. But that’s why a strong encouraging statement 

from you, public or private, to them, that you’re serious, would go 

a long way. And these companies, it’s a little bit of a cat and mouse 

game. The companies don’t step forward, they’re afraid of retaliation. Their history with Commerce, especially in the Bush years, 

but even in the Obama years and the Clinton years, frankly, maybe 

equally—they’ve not been encouraged, and we need you to step up 

and let them know that yes, you want to work with them. And I 

don’t know if that message is clear yet. Perhaps it is, and I don’t 

know it. 

Secretary BRYSON. I think it is pretty clear that what has been 

done at the Commerce Department is extraordinarily different than 

what has been done in the preceding periods of time. So, take last 

year alone, 2011, with respect to China we increased by 50 percent 

the number of initiations of investigations over the prior year. So, 

over the 3 years, we’ve moved substantially ahead of what had previously been done. 

What we’ve done in the last few days, as perhaps you’ve seen, 

is a series of additional steps. This is a very, very intense, very de-
169 

manding undertaking, and we are focused, absolutely, on serving 

our Nation with enforcement of the trade laws. 

Now we have the complementary White House office called 

ITEC, with which we cooperated. In fact, our budget includes significant resources. The budget before you now, it will enable us, 

among other things, to detail a number of people to ITEC, and the 

advantage of ITEC is more effectively bringing the entire Federal 

Government behind these exercises. So, this is incredibly, acutely 

important, and we will do everything we can in that respect to 

move these enforcement cases forward and to conclusions. 

And finally, I’ll just say I want to especially thank you and the 

Congress on the GPX (GPX International Tire Corporation v. 

United States) decision, because on that we had 24 key cases that 

we had acted to final conclusions on, with countervailing duties, 

and an enormous amount at stake, 33 of the States in the country 

affected, tens of thousands of workers affected, and the court took 

that away from us. You put it back in place forever. It makes a 

great deal of difference for us. 

Senator BROWN. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I would add, 

hopefully, 20 seconds. The GPX case, I think, shows the Commerce 

Department, and the President, and the country that the Congress 

will move quickly and bipartisanally on enforcement of trade laws. 

We know that was the right way to go. There was little or no opposition here. We moved it quickly. The President signed it. We’re 

grateful for that. 

Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, 

welcome. It’s going to be no surprise to you this morning, I’m going 

to talk about fish. When we talked prior to your nomination, I told 

you that this was my priority within the Commerce Department, 

and I wanted to make it your priority. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. 

FISHERY MANAGEMENT

Senator MURKOWSKI. And I will tell you, I’m a little bit disappointed, as I’ve looked through your statement that you have 

provided the subcommittee here today, out of 12 pages, pretty 

much single-spaced, we’ve got one paragraph here on fish. So, I 

want to give you an opportunity to elaborate, if I may. 

The effort to develop new catch-share programs within NOAA is 

moving forward. There’s been some, I think, substantial amount of 

funding that is dedicated to that, and I understand that part of 

what NOAA’s attempting to do is to really do the outreach, engage 

in an educational effort. I think that that’s important. Our experience in Alaska, where we’ve been living with it, and been successful with it, is that the outreach is important. We also recognize 

that it’s important that all the fishery management decisions are 

well thought out, affected by the public process, and that the Regional Fisheries Management Councils are very critical to this education effort, to this outreach effort. 
170 

So, I’m a little bit concerned about how you will be able, successfully, to do what you’re hoping to do with the outreach efforts to 

develop a new catch-share program, when you are decreasing pretty dramatically, a 14-percent cut to the Regional Fishery Management Councils. So, I’d like you to address that aspect of the NOAA 

budget and the fisheries, and also to provide for me some understanding here. It is critical that we make sure that we’ve got adequate funding for our stock assessments. I know that the chairman 

is concerned about this as well. We need to have that science. We 

need to know that it’s science that is guiding these management 

decisions for us. And we, again, have been doing, I think, a pretty 

good job up north in making sure that we’re operating off science 

based in good solid data. 

The request within the budget does include an increase for overall stock assessment, where much of those funds, I understand, are 

going to be used to develop new fisheries assessments. And I know 

in your written statement you say that the expanded stock assessments will be targeted at high-priority commercially and recreational viable fish stocks. I’m not entirely certain what that 

means. 

What I need to convey to you is the concern that I’m hearing 

from folks up north that the surveys and the stock assessments 

that have been under way in the Bering Sea or the Gulf of Alaska 

are going to be reduced or impacted negatively as you focus your 

efforts in other areas, where perhaps you have less adequate or 

less rigorous data. If we don’t have stock assessments conducted 

frequently and with reliability, then what happens is the total allowable catch levels will necessarily need to be reduced, because 

you’ve got to adjust for increased uncertainty. That then costs millions in revenues to harvesters, processors, and communities that 

really rely on this. 

So, it’s kind of a two-pronged question here. Focus a little bit on 

the Regional Fishery Management Council and the role in the education and outreach that you’re trying to do with the catch-share 

programs. And can you give me some level of assurance that the 

current level of stock assessment surveys that is under way is not 

going to be downgraded or reduced under this proposed budget. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. I can give you that assurance. We are 

very focused on the role the Regional Fishery Management Councils play. We have cut some costs there, but in ways that we do not 

believe undermine their work at all, and with respect to the concern that there might be a reallocation of dollars away, for example, from Alaska to other regions in the country, no, under the law 

we can’t, and, of course, wouldn’t do that. So, the proportional effect of having less money in the aggregate going into fishery management councils, it’s just pro rata across the United States. 

The key emphasis beyond that is that we have, for example, in 

Alaska, a really excellent Fishery Management Council. We are 

continuing to provide the funding for the science on how to take 

this further. So, funding, and you’ve touched on this, for the national catch-share program, will support use of this key fishery 

management tool, definitely including in Alaska, and you’ve 

touched on the impacts on the reduced stock assessment surveys. 

I understand the importance of science in managing these things 
171 

in Alaska and elsewhere, and across the United States we’re investing increases of $4.3 million to increase stock assessments; $2.3 

million for surveys and monitoring; and $2.9 million for observers. 

So, again, the fundamental situation that we have here is, these 

are tough times, we’re making tough choices, we’re seeking to protect the taxpayer dollar and use it to the greatest benefit, and so 

we’re building on the science. We’re cutting back, but we’re going 

forward with what we think carries forth the work of a long period 

of time of getting to a stronger position dealing with the fisheries. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, I appreciate your statement and the 

reassurance that we’re not going to see a downgrade in these very 

important stock assessments, and the survey, and the data collection. I think you can understand my concern. 

As I look at a budget where very difficult decisions had to be 

made, I appreciate that, but where you see new programs then 

coming forward with a national ocean policy—we were successful 

last budget cycle in making sure that funding did not move forward 

for the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning Initiative. Now is not the 

time to be putting new programs onto the books, when we’re effectively shortchanging the very, very important efforts that must be 

made when it comes to understanding and managing our very important fisheries and the fish stocks. And I know that the chairman 

works with me on this to help make sure we’re doing the right 

thing. 

Thank you. 

Secretary BRYSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We face the same issues, whether it’s our 

rockfish population or crabs. We do need accurate assessments. 

And unless the regulatory environment kicks in, it always has an 

impact on your fishermen, my watermen. Nobody’s very happy at 

the answers, but we have to know that we’re on solid water. 

Thank you. 

This concludes the first round of questions. I’m going to ask Senator Cochran if he has any additional questions or would like to 

submit them for the record. 

GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chairman, thank you. I would like to 

ask another question relating to the Gulf of Mexico. 

I think we need to identify, if we can, in cooperation with the Department, the research priorities that affect the Gulf of Mexico. 

The impression that I’ve gotten in reviewing this budget request is 

that it’s a very low priority, in view of the Department, and that 

concerns me. It is a vital and important fisheries resource for not 

just the Gulf States, but for the United States, generally speaking. 

It is a very important area ecologically, just as important as any 

other body of water that is adjacent to or a part of the United 

States’ primary interest for fisheries and related activities. 

In that connection, the research programs that we have funded 

in the past are designed to help keep up with challenges to the ecological integrity of the Gulf of Mexico. And it just seems to me that 

it’s taken a backseat to a lot of other programs by the administration. That’s a concern that I’m raising, and I hope that you will be 

able to take another look at some of the priorities of the Depart-
172 

ment, and see if there can be a more equitable balance between our 

interests in the gulf and elsewhere along our ocean borders. 

Secretary BRYSON. Senator, we really are committed to distribution of our funding, our science, our capabilities across the entire 

coastal regions of the United States, and we do care deeply about 

the gulf. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, we want to see you put your money 

where your mouth is. That’s kind of the old way they’d say that at 

home. 

Secretary BRYSON. And I understand that, and we will do that. 

And I would just—we are in this situation that we believe we’re 

doing what is necessary, by reducing anything we can reduce that 

isn’t absolutely essential in our core programs, and going forth with 

our key fisheries programs. So we support fisheries and we support 

fishermen, and that’s a big priority for us. And that is very much 

in this program. 

It’s the things that don’t have those direct impacts that we’ve cut 

back some on, and that’s not in the Gulf or anywhere else in a particular way. That’s across the United States as a way to try to be 

the way businesses must be, and that is really, really effective, in 

the dollars that they have and prioritizing them. 

Senator COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Yes. I want to make a statement and then 

ask one question. 

Just to reinforce what my colleagues Senator Mikulski and Senator Cochran have just said: In NOAA’s own National Marine Fisheries Service report, on its Web site, it says that there are 121 upto-date stock assessments for the 528 stocks of fish or stock complexes under NOAA management. So 121 out of 528 is showing, I 

think, the concerns that we’re raising. 

One of those that my constituents have been hoping for is the 

Red Drum. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is 

struggling with so little data, because the Red Drum, for instance, 

hasn’t had an assessment in 20 years, and remains closed as a result of outdated science, despite the fact that they believe the fishery may be rebounding. 

So, these are some of the additional facts that I would put on the 

table to show you why I think many of our fishermen and our industries throughout just don’t have confidence in the science that’s 

being done in NOAA on fishery data and information. 

So, I do think it’s a priority that we need to address, because the 

commerce of our country can be enhanced if we can increase the 

export of marine life. So, that’s my statement to add to theirs. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RESTRUCTURING: NATIONAL OCEANIC

AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

My last question, though, is the one I mentioned in my opening 

statement about the President’s plan, or looking at putting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into the 

Department of the Interior, and I wanted your comments for the 

record before we finish this hearing. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. I’d be happy to address that. So, the 

President’s proposal for making a more efficient economic Depart-
173 

ment, creating a Department in a restructuring that would bring 

together all the entities in the Federal Government that are focused on economics, business, and data collection on how the economy works, all the things that are at the Commerce Department, 

and other places in the Federal Government, to me, that makes 

sense, but there has been no further work done on that, because 

in the President’s eye and all of our eyes, the first question will be, 

is that a proposal that the Congress acts on. If the Congress were 

to act on that, then we’d go to work putting before you what we 

think the best way to manage these resources will be under that 

priority, and the President has thrown out the idea of NOAA transferring to the Department of the Interior. There’s no further details 

on that, and there’s no further work that’s been done on it, but that 

is a possibility. 

But, the first question really will be, is the Congress ready to 

and will the Congress want to offer the President the opportunity 

to bring forth a plan that would, under this proposal, be an up or 

down vote in the Congress, as is true through the Depression, as 

you know, and all the way to President Reagan, but not since. 

Senator HUTCHISON. So, you’re not saying you’re against looking 

at it, if that makes sense for efficiencies. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. I think that it—and again, I analogize almost everything. We’re now speaking in the Commerce Department 

as an arm of the Federal Government that is seeking to operate at 

the speed of business, and we are trying to make decisions, and 

we’re trying to preserve taxpayer dollars, and use them to the 

greatest result possible. And I regard that restructuring of the Department in this respect could enhance productivity. Yes. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We’ll see what the authorizers do. It’s a complicated topic. 

Secretary BRYSON. It is. 

Senator MIKULSKI. You know, NOAA headquarters is in the 

State of Maryland, and some of its most significant assets are 

there—the NOAA satellite office, which does so much for the 

weather. And I invite colleagues to come with me to see this incredible operation. And then the NOAA weather office. 

We wonder where the NOAA agency will go, and will it stay in 

Commerce. Now, there’s a whole rumor that it could become an 

independent agency, and people think, oh, gee, this will be swell. 

It’s not going to be an independent agency. It’s either going to stay 

here or it’s going to go, through due diligence of the Congress working with the President’s suggestion, or recommendation, to Interior, 

but it will not be an independent agency. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. And if I could just make one comment. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, we don’t want NOAA cut loose. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We think NOAA really needs a lot of management, which is now going to go to my question. 

Secretary BRYSON. Makes complete sense. Yes. 
174 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

MANAGEMENT

Senator MIKULSKI. Because, first of all, we know that the Commerce Department has—for the members of this subcommittee and 

the Congress, it is a major jobs agency. 

First of all, what you see here, we’re coastal Senators, so we are 

NOAA focused, and within NOAA, it’s everything from weather 

warnings, that you’ve heard, from Hawaii, to Alaska, to the Gulf, 

to the Bay, and the fisheries issues. So, many people come under 

the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, because of NOAA and the coastal significance. 

The coast is part of our heritage, part of our identity, but it’s also 

a big part of our economy. What happens on a coast drives our 

economy. And for the great States that are surrounded by or so 

hard hit by water, like Alaska, it’s important. So, we are looking 

at NOAA. 

What we’re concerned about is the persistent problems at NOAA, 

and there are persistent management problems. Senator Hutchison 

raised the satellite issue and the other issues related to the weather department. She articulated, essentially, my questions, so I’m 

not going to duplicate them. But, we are concerned that satellites 

make up 37 percent of the overall NOAA budget. We are concerned 

that the satellite costs are starting to erode other activities at 

NOAA. 

Now, in the fiscal year 2012 bill, I directed NOAA to update the 

life-cycle cost for satellite programs. But, Mr. Secretary, you’re a 

business man. You said you’re operating at the speed of business. 

Well, we don’t think that reform is operating at the speed of business. We need you, at the Secretary’s level, to really use whoever 

you will designate to be a hands-on manager of these costs that are 

exploding at NOAA, because of the satellites. We need our satellites. 

This subcommittee went big time on-line to fund the JPSS. And 

we knew it was important. We were concerned about our colleagues 

in the most driven part of our Nation, that they need the JPSS for 

weather. It’s part of our treaty obligation for weather. But, my God, 

when we’re now at 37 percent, and every day we turn around, it’s 

a new satellite cost, and gee, we hadn’t thought of it. 

So, can I ask you, really, to make this one of your top management priorities? You are absolutely promoting our exports, working 

in international markets. We’re glad you’re going to India. It’s a 

great democracy and a great sense of working together. But, we 

also need you to be looking at NOAA. So, what can I get from you 

to make sure that this doesn’t continue, that NOAA doesn’t seem 

to take this in the spirit that we do, and that then also goes to 

these airplanes that Senator Hutchison raised. I’m sure you are 

concerned about safety. We’re concerned about safety and 

functionality as well. So, we need a hands-on sense of reform at the 

top management level at NOAA here in its satellites, in its planes, 

and its ships. 

Secretary BRYSON. I commit to you that I will give it that priority. Yes. 
175 

CENSUS MANAGEMENT

Senator MIKULSKI. Do I kind of represent the sentiments of the 

subcommittee here on this? So, know that we really respect the 

people who are working there at NOAA to be able to do this. 

This then also does go to the issues related at the Census Bureau. You know, the census happened, but barely. Now, I’m not 

faulting the people who work for the Census Bureau, but, again, 

I worked with Secretary Guttierez, then Secretary Locke, and now 

you, Sir, and once again, now, we’re hearing, ‘‘Oh. The census [cost] 

might double.’’ Well, in the day of new technology, new ways of 

communicating with people, at the speed of business, we should be 

reducing costs on the census. And we need you, again, to assign a 

management person, because our problems with the census is everything comes in at the last minute, and if you don’t fund it, we 

won’t be able to do the census. It’s 2012. We’re working on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations. We’ve got to really bring the Census 

Bureau into a discipline here. 

Secretary BRYSON. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And I strongly commit to you that I will give that very high priority, and I do give 

it very high priority. And the key thing in this budget is they have 

the resources to do this work right now for 2013 that will make it 

possible so that we can assuredly tell you that it will be lower cost 

per household and a complete census in 2020 than there has been 

in the 2010 census. 

Senator MIKULSKI. That’s very good to hear, and we’re really 

going to count on you. 

One of the areas where we know that there would be bipartisan 

consensus is we don’t want a sequester either. Now, we might disagree on a line item or an agency here or there, but we know a 

sequester is not in the interest of the country over the long haul. 

The way that we’re going be able to deal with that, and again, 

there’s bipartisan consensuses, is how can we be more frugal now? 

And that means getting value for our dollar. So, where there are 

these persistent problems year after year, Secretary after Secretary, President after President, we need to really begin, we need 

to really now take a real steadfast attempt to bring these things 

that are always out of control, always coming over budget, under 

really a far greater fiscal discipline, so that we can approach this 

in a more frugal way, get value for our dollar. We need those satellites. We need our weather. We need our NOAA. We need our 

Census Bureau. But, we need them to take these issues very seriously, or we could end up into a situation where the Nation suffers 

and we suffer as well. 

So, let me conclude this hearing. Sorry, Senator. Did you have 

another question? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. One very brief one, if I may. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I will be very quick, but it is a very important issue. 

ARCTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

Mr. Secretary, I don’t know whether you were briefed by Dr. 

Lubchenco last week. I had an opportunity to meet with her about 
176 

1 Under the MMPA, take means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or to attempt to harass, hunt, 

capture or kill any marine mammal. 

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that has come out 

of her agency, and this relates to the Arctic Outer Continental 

Shelf (OCS). And as you probably know, there is a great deal of 

interagency coordination—you’ve got the National Ocean Policy, 

you’ve got Regional Ocean Partnerships, you’ve got David Hayes’ 

interagency taskforce—and yet, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) produced a DEIS this year that is in direct conflict with 

Department of the Interior’s National Environmental Protection 

Act work. And this DEIS could significantly alter the framework of 

what is, hopefully, anticipated there in the Arctic, in terms of the 

numbers of operators that may be able to be in place, some of the 

geographic and time restraints. It is significant. And this was not 

the product of any interagency coordination. 

The team that produced it essentially said that it was done because the Department of the Interior didn’t look the way that 

NMFS thought that it should look, even though it’s Interior that 

has the authority over the OCS and the leases that have been sold 

with the expectation that their owners are going to be able to get 

some use out of them. So, I asked why this disconnect, and unfortunately, I did not receive an answer on that, certainly not a clear 

answer. 

But, this DEIS is simply too big a deal for your Department to 

not be able to answer some basic and pretty fundamental questions 

about its very existence. And until there’s an understanding as to 

who is the lead here, and what the interagency process is supposed 

to be, I would ask you, Mr. Secretary, to pull that DEIS and go 

back to the drawing board. And if this is something that you can 

tell me that you have not been involved in, I would ask that you 

look into it and be engaged on that. 

Again, this could significantly impact the operation of this expansion that we are hoping to embark on this summer. 

Secretary BRYSON. Senator, I have not been engaged in that. I 

will get back to you with respect to it. I will look into it promptly. 

[The information follows:] 

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE ARCTIC—OUTER CONTINENTAL

SHELF

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is responsible for 

implementing the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Under 

the MMPA, it is illegal to ‘‘take’’ 1 a marine mammal without a permit or exception. 

One such exemption can be obtained by U.S. citizens conducting activities (other 

than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region that may incidentally 

take marine mammals pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. Those exemptions are known as Incidental Take Authorizations. 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) has jurisdiction over authorizing offshore 

oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). If an oil and gas industry operator determines that their activity may ‘‘take’’ marine mammals, they need 

an MMPA Incidental Take Authorization from NOAA. Section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA directs the Secretary of Commerce (with authority delegated to NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service) to issue such authorizations if certain findings are 

made. 

Prior to issuance of an Incidental Take Authorization, NOAA must evaluate the 

potential impacts to the environment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although DOI has recently completed large-scale NEPA analyses 

regarding oil and gas activities on the Alaskan OCS, those documents did not fully 
177 

address NOAA’s action of issuing MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations for the 

take of marine mammals incidental to conducting oil and gas exploration activities 

in the Alaskan OCS. Therefore, in order to meet our statutory and regulatory requirements, NOAA determined it was appropriate to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating issuance of MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations. 

NOAA has coordinated throughout this process with DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). NOAA and BOEM signed a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2010 regarding the level of involvement and coordination that 

would occur throughout the development of the Environmental Impact Statement. 

The Federal Register Notice of Intent initiating this EIS process noted that BOEM 

would be a cooperating agency, as defined by NEPA. The two agencies have worked 

collaboratively throughout the development of the document, and BOEM staff prepared sections of the document where they had subject-matter expertise. The two 

agencies worked together to develop the numbers of anticipated activities that may 

reasonably occur over a 5-year period. The activity levels analyzed in the Draft EIS 

do not serve as a ‘‘cap’’ on industry activity. Rather, they were based on what the 

agencies predicted is reasonably likely to occur versus an outer bound of what one 

anticipates might occur. 

Since the March 22 hearing, Dr. Lubchenco has met with Deputy Secretary Hayes 

to discuss this EIS and the role of the Alaska Interagency Working Group in its development. Leadership from NOAA and BOEM met in early May to discuss the path 

forward, and BOEM agreed to re-evaluate the level of activity assessed in the EIS. 

The two agencies will continue to work collaboratively on this effort to ensure an 

accurate assessment of reasonably likely oil and gas exploration activity in the Alaskan OCS. Once finalized, this document will assist NOAA in making timely decisions regarding the issuance of MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations to the oil and 

gas industry in the U.S. Arctic Ocean. 

NOAA has also worked collaboratively with the Environmental Protection Agency 

regarding issues related to air and water quality and the potential impacts to those 

resources from the proposed actions of oil and gas exploration and the issuance of 

MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations when developing this EIS. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator MURKOWSKI. Okay. I would appreciate a very prompt response and would look forward to that. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the additional couple minutes. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

SEQUESTRATION

Question. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, funding for virtually all Federal 

programs will face a possible across-the-board cut in January 2013 if the Congress 

doesn’t enact a plan before then to reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion. According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates, this would result in a cut of 

7.8 percent to all nonsecurity programs. 

What impacts would an across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent have on the Commerce 

Department? What are the consequences, both in terms of dollars and people 

served? Can you give us specific examples? Is there anything else that the Commerce Department can cut beyond what is proposed in the fiscal year 2013 request? 

How would public safety be impacted by a cut to National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), particularly the agency’s ability to accurately forecast 

weather? Do you have a plan for the Commerce Department to implement these 

cuts if the Congress doesn’t enact an alternative plan? 

Answer. The administration believes that a sequestration can and should be 

avoided. According to the CBO, the sequester could cut overall domestic spending 

by about 8 percent. The Department anticipates a negative impact on our mission 

to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship informed by world-class 

scientific research and information. The Department would have to reduce its efforts 

to support regional innovation strategies that foster job creation. Fewer small- and 

medium-sized businesses, and minority enterprises would be assisted in their efforts 

to export products and services. Some investments in research and advanced manu-
178 

facturing technologies would be eliminated. Research efforts to bring the 2020 Census in at a lower cost per household would be hindered. Also, the cut would curtail 

the Department’s ability to address foreign trade barriers and ensure market access 

cases are resolved successfully. 

A cut of this magnitude would likely require furloughs or the elimination of positions and reduce NOAA’s ability to fully meet its mission. This type of reduction 

would also diminish the Department’s ability to make necessary information technology (IT) modernizations and improvements in our IT security posture to appropriately address the current cyber environment. The Department would have to 

eliminate some key statistical series and surveys that provide important information in the decisionmaking processes of businesses and Federal, State, and local governments. In addition, it would reduce funding to develop next-generation weather 

satellites which are critical to maintaining the Nation’s weather forecasting capabilities. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites 

Question. Satellites acquisitions make up 37 percent of NOAA’s budget in fiscal 

year 2013 and have started to erode funding for other operations at NOAA. That 

is why I directed NOAA in 2012 to provide updated life-cycle costs for all satellite 

programs. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for Joint Polar Satellite Systems (JPSS) is $916 million and includes an updated life-cycle cost for the program. The total cost 

increased by $1 billion from $11.9 billion to $12.9 billion. NOAA is also cutting more 

weather sensors to keep costs down, going from 13 total sensors for both satellites 

to just 7. This new total cost estimate shows JPSS going in the wrong direction. 

Please explain the current gap in the weather coverage and how NOAA will keep 

it from growing? 

Answer. The methodology that NOAA has used to calculate the gap is based on 

a probabilistic methodology that is used for operational satellites. As such, the basis 

of the gap is focused on the ability to continue to provide data, without interruption, 

to support weather forecast models. It is difficult to say with absolute certainty 

when the projected gap may occur, and any estimates on the duration of the gap 

are based on probability analysis using assumptions about the lifespan of current 

satellites. Assuming that Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership (NPP) ceases 

to operate at the end of its projected life in 2016 and JPSS–1 becomes fully operational in 2018 (after undergoing calibration and validation activities) following 

launch in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, NOAA estimates that the potential 

data gap in the afternoon orbit could be up to 18 to 24 months. 

In reality, Suomi NPP could last longer or shorter than what the current probability analysis suggests, which would impact the duration of the gap. 

Ultimately, NOAA’s best chance to minimize any gap is to maintain the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2017 launch date of the JPSS–1 satellite. Loss of data in the 

afternoon orbit will degrade NOAA’s weather forecast skill at day 3 and beyond, 

providing the Nation less-accurate information about significant weather events 

than would otherwise be available. 

Question. Funding for NOAA’s core ocean and weather operations is suffering 

while procurement budgets balloon and satellite capabilities decrease. Why should 

NOAA remain the lead acquisition agency for these satellites? 

Answer. The administration is still developing a response to the Senate’s proposal 

to move weather satellite acquisition from NOAA to National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. As you know, this is a complicated issue which the Congress has 

been addressing for years. We are analyzing the possible impacts the organizational 

change could have on the satellite missions, as well as on satellite budgets and 

schedules. 

CUTS TO NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WORKFORCE

NOAA’s budget request reduces the National Weather Service’s (NWS) IT staff by 

80 percent, affecting 122 employees: 

—cuts 98 computer technician positions in local field offices; and 

—consolidates remaining 24 positions into six regional offices 

IT staff have proven to be valuable parts of the local weather forecast teams. 

Every local weather field office across America will be affected by these cuts. 

We experienced the most devastating weather on record in 2011. 2012 is already 

shaping up to be just as bad. According to NWS, the recent February 28 to March 

2 severe storm outbreak spawned 230 tornadoes across 14 States killing 54 people. 

Without NOAA’s warnings, more lives would have been lost. 
179 

Question. Dr. Lubchenco has stated that reducing computer tech staffing will not 

affect the quality of services, warnings, and forecasts. What does she mean by this? 

Answer. As a result of technological advances and efficiencies to remote communications, centralized Regional Information Technology Collaboration Units 

(RITCUs) would work in partnership with Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) and the 

established Network Control Facility in Silver Spring to provide the same or an improved level of support as provided today to each WFO. WFOs would continue the 

same service delivery in the future as they do now, with no impact to mission or 

performance. RITCUs will be fully capable of addressing any software issue within 

their area of responsibility. The Advanced Weather Interactive Processing System 

(AWIPS) Network Control Facility (NCF) will continue as a secondary source of support capable of diagnosing and resolving most problems. Between the RITCU and 

AWIPS NCF, most problems will be resolved within an average of 5–10 minutes. 

In addition, robust, long-standing service backup capabilities allow an adjacent office to assume warning and forecast responsibility almost immediately. If the system 

goes down during severe weather and cannot be remedied remotely in short order, 

service backup would be implemented. To provide for continuity of operations in the 

field, long-standing and extensively tested service backup capabilities allow an adjacent WFO to assume the warning and forecast responsibility of a pre-determined, 

neighboring WFO almost immediately to ensure no service degradation to the public. Testing of backup plans is conducted at least annually in accordance with the 

NWS operations policy. 

Question. NOAA ramped up its weather computer workforce in 2000 to help with 

a new computer network. NOAA is currently updating that system and has requested $12 million in 2013 to prepare for more weather data from newer satellites. 

Why are these IT techs no longer valuable now? 

Answer. AWIPS is the backbone of forecast capabilities at WFOs. When AWIPS 

was first deployed, this technology was not well defined, nor was there technical expertise within local forecast offices to manage the additional IT requirements. To 

meet these challenges, the—Information Technology Officer (ITO) position was created in 2001 to provide onsite configuration and upgrade support for AWIPS. Over 

the past decade, advances in NWS IT have allowed NWS to make significant technological advances and efficiencies into its remote support capabilities making these 

positions unnecessary. Currently, each WFO has one ITO, typically working day 

shifts on weekdays. 

CENSUS

2020 Census 

Question. Controlling costs for the 2020 Decennial Census remains a top oversight 

concern. Both the Commerce Inspector General and Government Accountability Office track the 2020 Census as a high-risk challenge for the Department. 

Cost overruns were a problem for the 2010 Decennial Census, totaling more than 

$12 billion. That is 20 percent more expensive than original estimate of $11 billion, 

and double the cost of 2000 Census of $6.5 billion. This subcommittee had to make 

tough choices each year to continue funding the 2010 Census. 

Last year, the projected cost of the 2020 Census ranged between $22 billion and 

$30 billion—more than double the cost of the 2010 Decennial Census. The fiscal 

year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies bill included language 

calling for curbed costs. 

How is the Census Bureau changing the way the agency is planning for the 2020 

Decennial Census—particularly with driving down ‘‘nonresponse followup’’ costs 

which is the most expensive part of the Census process? How is the Census Bureau 

avoiding techno-boondoggles such as the 2010 Census hand-held computer debacle? 

Why do you anticipate the 2020 Census costing twice as much as the 2010 Census? 

Answer. The Census Bureau recognizes that the rising cost of the decennial census in recent decades cannot be sustained, and we must make changes to the design 

of the decennial census to increase efficiency and control costs while maintaining 

the quality of the data. Accordingly, we have embarked on a research and testing 

program focused on major innovations to the design of the census oriented around 

three major cost drivers of the 2010 Census: 

—substantial investments in major, national updating of the address frame just 

prior to enumeration; 

—the lack of full public participation in the self-response phase of the census, requiring the hiring of a large field staff for nonresponse followup; and 

—the failure or challenges with linking major acquisitions, the schedule, and the 

budget. Major innovations in three key areas of the design of the 2020 Census 

can control costs relative to the 2010 Census design. 
180 

The first key area is conducting a Targeted Address Canvassing operation as a 

result of improving address coverage and map feature updates as part of the fiscal 

year 2011 Geographic Support System (GSS) Initiative. The possibilities for maintaining our address list and maps range from a full address canvassing operation 

(similar to what we did for the 2010 Census, where we walked almost every street 

in America to verify and capture information about every housing unit with the correct geography), to targeted address canvassing, to not having to do address canvassing at all. The 2020 Census research and test work in conjunction with the GSS 

Initiative will be critical to understanding the extent to which we can reduce the 

amount of address canvassing. 

The second key area is Multiple Mode Response Options, which allows for the 

public to respond to the census via multiple modes, such as mail, telephone, Internet, face-to-face interview, and other electronic response options that may emerge 

to ensure that diverse subgroups of the population, including those that speak languages other than English, have every opportunity to submit their information. This 

also includes redesigning the most expensive component of the census, the nonresponse followup operation, where we enumerate households that do not initially 

provide their information to us. The Census Bureau will explore using existing data 

sources like the American Community Survey and administrative records to obtain 

data about those households that do not otherwise respond to the census. Using administrative records for a substantial number of nonrespondents could result in substantially smaller field and labor infrastructure, thereby saving billions of dollars. 

We can also save money by modernizing the IT and field support infrastructure. 

The third key area is investment program management and systems engineering 

efforts early in the decade. Based on lessons learned, there were areas of program 

management that have potential for improvement. To achieve the goals of the 2020 

Census, sufficient investments in planning and research are being made early. In 

addition, the program’s budget, schedule, and scope are being integrated, and an 

iterative process is being put in place that will allow flexibility in planning and design. To the extent possible, we will make decisions based on the evidence from our 

research. The goal of this extensive up-front effort is to hold down costs later in the 

decade without compromising quality. 

The bottom line is that the more we can innovate, the more we can contain costs 

without sacrificing the high-quality census that the country requires. The Census 

Bureau is tasked with producing the most accurate data possible in every census, 

including the 2020 Census. However, obtaining a complete and accurate census 

every 10 years becomes more complex and difficult with each successive cycle. For 

the 2020 Census, a larger, more diverse population will be more difficult and expensive to count. While we can reduce costs per household considerably by utilizing advances in technology and innovations in the design of the decennial census as described in these documents, there is a point at which reducing costs could lead to 

a significant reduction in the quality of census data. The 2020 research and testing 

program will help us gain a better understanding of the extent to which we can contain costs without sacrificing coverage and data quality. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION’S HURRICANE HUNTER PLANES

This year, NOAA’s ability to fly into hurricanes for storm forecasts has been severely cut as one of the agency’s three P–3 Orion planes used for hurricane reconnaissance will be grounded indefinitely: 

—NOAA has three P–3 Orion planes. 

—All planes need to be refurbished before 2016 to make them safe to fly. 

—The cost to refurbish each plane is $20 million. 

—NOAA did not request funding to refurbish the grounded plane. 

—NOAA did not tell the Congress that all of the planes need extensive work. 

—A second P–3 plane is due for scheduled maintenance this spring. 

—NOAA with just have one plane and no back-up. 

It is common for one plane to be grounded for maintenance, but to permanently 

lose a capability without any budget path forward is unacceptable. 

Question. Why is NOAA not requesting proper maintenance funds for NOAA’s 

Hurricane Hunters and what is their plan forward? 

Answer. NOAA would like to clarify that the two P–3s (N42, N43) are hurricane 

reconnaissance and research platforms. One P–3 (N44) has reached its End of Service Life (EOSL) and will be grounded. However, this aircraft was not used for hurricane reconnaissance or research. In that regard, NOAA is not losing capability. 

NOAA’s P–3 planes have adequate funding for routine maintenance. All standard 

maintenance for NOAA aircraft is included within the Aviation Operation’s budget. 

One of the three planes, the N44, which has not previously been used for hurricane 
181 

research or operational forecasting, has reached its EOSL due to existing conditions 

of the wings and NOAA will make no further investments in the aircraft. The Service Life Assessment Program (SLAPs) showed that the remaining P–3s, the N42 and 

N43, will reach EOSL in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2019 with Special Structural Inspections. Investment in new wing sets for the N42 and N43 is not covered 

under the standard maintenance program, and has not yet been decided, as this is 

related to NOAA’s current effort to systematically look at all observing systems and 

NOAA’s requirements. 

NOAA typically schedules maintenance to ensure aircraft are available for hurricane season, but the SLAP by Lockheed Martin, completed in June 2011, recommended new short-term maintenance and inspections for NOAA’s P–3s that required NOAA to induct one aircraft into Special Structural Inspection during the 

2012 hurricane season in order to remain airworthy. 

This means that during fiscal year 2012, only one of the two P–3s (N42, N43) currently used for hurricane reconnaissance and research will be operational at any 

specific time during the year due to scheduled maintenance. If unscheduled maintenance is required, that may leave no available P–3s, which would impact hurricane 

research, but would not significantly impact the current operational hurricane reconnaissance and forecasting capabilities of the National Hurricane Center. 

Question. NOAA partners with a U.S. Air Force reserve unit who also fly into hurricanes using more modern C–130 planes. NOAA’s and USAF’s important flight missions are different, but complementary. Has NOAA looked at procuring more modern planes like C–130 rather than re-winging its older planes? 

Answer. NOAA’s Observing System Council (NOSC) is systematically looking at 

all observing systems and NOAA’s requirements. The NOSC is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Observations and Predictions, with the Assistant Administrator of NWS and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) as the vice-chairs. Each Line Office is represented by a 

Senior Executive. Under the NOSC, an observing system committee will propose the 

optimum observing systems configuration necessary to meet NOAA’s missions. 

NOAA has also begun to evaluate individual systems against these observing requirements and determine the effective observing suite across NOAA’s diverse missions. NOAA is now comparing the results of this initial effort with other information we have gathered on observing system priorities to come up with a robust, 

interactive, responsive decision support tool for observing system integrated portfolio management. 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Protecting Intellectual Property 

Question. The backlog of unreviewed patents has decreased 7 percent since last 

year, but more than 657,000 patents are still waiting approval. The average waiting 

time to for a patent has decreased too, but it still takes more than 30 months for 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to make a decision. USPTO’s 

goal is 18 months by 2016. 

USPTO’s budget is based on the amount of fees collected each year. 

USPTO’s fiscal year 2013 estimated fees will be $3 billion, $273 million more revenue than fiscal year 2012. 

I understand that USPTO plans to use this increased revenue to tackle the backlog by hiring 1,500 new examiners and opening three new satellite offices. 

But USPTO will also spend $521 million on its IT portfolio, including: 

—Creating an end-to-end electronic patent process where applications are submitted, handled, and processed all electronically; and 

—Adding ‘‘cloud’’ computing to create a virtual patent system. 

Question. How will USPTO’s new IT infrastructure decrease the backlog so that 

more American ideas are patent-protected quicker? 

Answer. The new IT infrastructure will improve the network, data center, and 

communication tools both for the patent applicant and patent examiners. This improved infrastructure will increase reliability, speed, and accuracy in communication 

and automation solutions, which will in turn increase efficiency and quality. The 

end-to-end electronic patent processing will be text-based, which will allow for computer automation and increased quality. The system will analyze data from documents received or prepared, and validate that information against rules or existing 

data. Cloud implementation of the data center will allow the USPTO to scale and 

meet seasonal demands on the systems in a cost-effective manner. This will increase 

our capacity to meet patent applicant and patent examiner expectations of a highly 

available system. 
182 

Question. USPTO is a repository of American ingenuity. What is USPTO doing 

to protect America’s intellectual property? How confident are you in USPTO’s cybersecurity plan, especially will cloud computing coming online? 

Answer. USPTO is in compliance with the e-Government Act of 2002, which included the Federal Information Security Management Act. Currently, all USPTO IT 

systems that are in production have been authorized to operate in accordance with 

all Federal and NIST guidelines (i.e., FIPS 199, FIPS 200, NIST 800–37, Rev 1, 

NIST 800–53, Rev 3, and NIST 800–53a, Rev 1). As part of the continuous monitoring process, all USPTO information systems are assessed and reviewed each year 

to ensure that security controls implemented in each are: 

—working as intended; 

—have been implemented correctly; and 

—are producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the confidentiality, 

integrity, and availability requirements for the information system in its operational environment. 

Changes to information systems are monitored closely and assessed for their security impact to ensure that proposed changes do not adversely affect the security posture of the information system. 

The CIO Command Center (C3)-combined with both the Network Operations Center and the Security Operations Center-continuously monitors all USPTO systems. 

Compliance and vulnerability scans, including penetration tests, are performed to 

ensure that IT devices have been configured in accordance with secure baselines, 

and that systems patching is current. After the scans are analyzed, plans of action 

and milestones are created to manage any findings. USPTO conducts quarterly 

scans and maintenance scans on server and network infrastructure devices. Security 

scanning tools are utilized to scan databases and web URLs. Real time monitoring 

tools are put in place to monitor and collect security events and application logs of 

systems. 

USPTO has improved the security of its webmail by enhancing access requirements to a two-factor authentication to minimize the risk of identity theft. These 

factors are: 

—Something the user knows (e.g., password); 

—Something the user has (e.g., a security token); and 

—By providing this enhanced level of security, user authentication will positively 

identify customers before they interact with mission-critical data and applications. 

USPTO generally supports the use of commercially available cloud technology 

when appropriate. For instance, the USPTO leveraged a commercial cloud to host 

a copy of the publicly available trademark data and documents (http:// 

tsdr.uspto.gov/). However, since commercial cloud providers cannot ensure security 

standards comparable to those maintained at USPTO, certain USPTO data, such as 

pre-publication patent applications, would present an unacceptable risk of compromise if hosted in a public cloud. In addition, USPTO must remain the authoritative source of agency data to ensure the accuracy and integrity of that data. Only 

the USPTO can provide those assurances at this time. 

USPTO supports the leveraging of cloud technologies and is implementing inhouse cloud-based solutions to take advantage of the capabilities while ensuring the 

security of our data. USPTO has started implementing its Next Generation applications (Fee Processing Next Generation, Trademark Next Generation) using web 

services instead of traditional three-tier web technologies in an effort to make its 

core applications cloud ready. Additionally, USPTO physical infrastructure is currently being refreshed and replaced with devices with virtual technologies to ensure 

that these applications can be moved into a cloud environment when they are ready 

to be deployed. Before applications can move to cloud, they must undergo resiliency 

testing to ensure that they can fully utilize the benefits of cloud computing (i.e., 

throughput, reliability, and elasticity). 

To help make the USPTO more efficient and meet daily challenges in this area, 

the USPTO has aligned its organization into a streamlined cybersecurity division 

by combining security operations, C3, and security audit and compliance groups 

under one umbrella office. 

Question. As the patent review backlog decreases, the amount of patent appeal 

cases will likely grow. How does USPTO anticipate dealing with this potentially new 

backlog? 

Answer. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) backlog of ex 

parte appeals currently stands at greater than 26,000 appeals and continues to 

grow. In order to address the backlog, while at the same time addressing new proceedings that come to the Board under the America Invents Act, the Board is working to hire 100 new Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) in fiscal year 2012, and 
183 

is planning to hire another 61 APJs using fiscal year 2013 resources. The USPTO 

will continue to monitor BPAI’s workload to determine if additional hiring is necessary in the out-years. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Government Reorganization 

Question. Why do you wish to move National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the Department of the Interior? What specific programmatic gain 

would be accomplished? What does the administration view as the risks associated 

with such a move? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior and NOAA manage most of the Federal 

Government’s natural resources; a consolidation would strengthen the Federal Government’s stewardship and conservation efforts. Merging the two would improve coordination of complementary programs for the conservation of natural resources, 

strengthen ecosystem-based management and science, enhance services to coastal 

communities, improve utilization of assets and facilities, and eliminate unnecessary 

administrative costs. NOAA would continue to provide critical weather, climate, marine, and coastal services to the Federal Government, States, businesses, and coastal communities within the Department of the Interior. There could be risks associated with the consolidation, for example, if programs are not well-integrated (leading to fewer efficiencies than expected) or there is uncertainty on the part of staff 

and other stakeholders who are not accustomed to the new organizational arrangement. However, because we view an effective transition as essential to the success 

of the reorganization, we would work hard to minimize these risks with careful 

transition planning, communications, and management. Exactly how they would be 

integrated will be the subject of considerable consultations with the Congress, agency staff and other stakeholders to ensure that the result is a stronger, more effective 

department that protects and enhances NOAA’s core functions. 

Question. Why has the possibility of NOAA as an independent agency not been 

considered? 

Answer. The possibility of NOAA as an independent agency was one of the options 

that received serious consideration in the reorganization effort. However, the review 

concluded that merging NOAA with the Department of the Interior would be a better option as it would create the possibility for more synergies and efficiencies, 

thereby enhancing conservation and stewardship programs. 

Question. Does the administration believe that a NOAA organic act would be beneficial? If so why has there been no administration proposal in this regard? 

Answer. A NOAA organic act would provide a foundation of authorities to conduct 

the activities needed to meet the agency’s missions. There are dozens of single laws 

authorizing NOAA’s activities, but no central authority defines the mission and general functions of the agency. Having this authority in a single primary statute would 

codify NOAA’s programs and activities in a consolidated manner which could be useful. 

TSUNAMI HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM

Question. Can you provide a specific description of the capacity that will be lost 

due to the cuts proposed to NOAA’s Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program 

(NTHMP)? 

Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American public on the 

threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the NTHMP. Tsunami Warning 

Centers’ operations in Hawaii and Alaska are not compromised or degraded with the 

proposed reductions. 

The proposed reductions will eliminate grants to the NTHMP. The NTHMP is a 

consortium of State partners that use NOAA tsunami program funding to support 

local community education and mitigation activities. These activities include inundation mapping to develop evacuation plans, routes, and signage; education and 

awareness campaigns; provision of education materials; and training for the public 

and local officials. 

Despite the reduction in grants funding, NOAA would continue to support the 

NTHMP by: 

—setting standards of accuracy for NTHMP-developed inundation models; 

—promoting community outreach and education networks to ensure community 

tsunami readiness through funding from the TsunamiReadyTM program; 
184 

—promoting the adoption of tsunami warning and mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal and local governments, and nongovernment entities; 

—conducting tsunami research; and 

—operating the U.S. Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program. 

Question. I understand that the proposed cuts are to be taken mostly from activities designed to support education and community capacity building. How does 

NOAA propose to replace these efforts, and if not, why is this considered to be a 

low-priority activity? 

Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American public on the 

threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the NTHMP. Tsunami Warning 

Center operations in Hawaii and Alaska are not compromised or degraded with the 

proposed reductions. 

Education and outreach activities continue to be a priority for NOAA. NOAA is 

committed to continuing support and funding for the TsunamiReadyTM program. 

The TsunamiReadyTM program promotes tsunami hazard preparedness as an active 

collaboration among Federal, State, and local emergency management agencies, the 

public, and the NOAA tsunami warning system. Warning Coordination Meteorologists in each NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) coastal office are dedicated to 

working closely with local emergency management to develop capabilities and assist 

in planning infrastructure that will allow communities to become TsunamiReadyTM. 

NWS will prioritize efforts to concentrate on those coastal communities at highestrisk for destructive or life-threatening tsunamis. 

MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM

Question. I understand that the Congress has previously provided a directive to 

NOAA regarding the consolidation of its various habitat programs but I do not believe that we ever considered NOAA’s Marine Debris Program (MDP) to fall under 

this category. Can you explain why you have chosen to move it and include it with 

restoration programs when its primary mission is hazard response? 

Answer. NOAA is proposing to move the MDP to the NOAA Restoration Center 

to streamline grants programs. Since 2007, approximately $1 million of the MDP’s 

annual budget has been administered by the NOAA Restoration Center through the 

Community-based Restoration Marine Debris Removal Grants. The NOAA Restoration Center implements on-the-ground habitat restoration projects for many different programs within NOAA. 

The Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006 established 

the NOAA MDP to focus on mapping, identification, impact assessment, prevention, 

and removal efforts, with a focus on marine debris posing a threat to living marine 

resources and navigation safety. Since the establishment of the program, NOAA has 

funded research as well as removal activities that threaten living marine resources 

or are in response to hazards. 

It is not expected that the consolidation of the MDP into NOAA fisheries would 

change the core functions, mission, or results of the program, as stated in the mandate referenced above. The program would still advance the act’s goals, and NOAA 

would capitalize on this shared priority to create efficiencies through the streamlining of grants operations resulting in improved services for our stakeholders and 

greater impact on the ground. 

Question. Can you provide me with a comparison of the efficiencies provided by 

the MDP’s current location in the Office of Response and Restoration as to those 

that might be gained with its proposed move to the Office of Habitat Management 

and Restoration? 

Answer. Since 2007, approximately $1 million of the MDP’s annual budget has 

been administered by the NOAA Restoration Center through the Community-based 

Restoration Marine Debris Removal Grants. NOAA anticipates savings by streamlining grants administration and technical services provided with the goal of maximizing extramural funding provided. With this proposed move, the MDP will still 

be able to leverage the scientific expertise and capacity of the Office of Response 

and Restoration from within the Office of Habitat Management and Restoration, 

while achieving administrative cost savings as described above. 

Question. How does NOAA plan to spend the additional $1 million which the Congress appropriated to the MDP in fiscal year 2012? Will the funds be available for 

grants to State and local entities? 

Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 congressionally approved spend plan, the NOAA 

MDP was funded at $4,618,000, an increase of $718,000 more than fiscal year 2011. 

NOAA is undertaking the following actions using these additional funds, as well as 

a portion of its base funds: 
185 

Debris Survey and Removal at Midway Island.—The NOAA MDP provided 

funding for survey and removal teams of NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) Coral Reef Ecosystem Division to conduct marine debris surveys and debris removal at Midway Island. There have been no confirmed reports of debris from the 2011 tsunami arriving at Midway to date, but initial 

ocean modeling indicated that the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, particularly 

at Midway Island and Kure Atoll, were one of the first United States locations 

where a significant amount of marine debris from the Japan tsunami may have 

made landfall. Even though debris linked directly to the tsunami was not detected at Midway, the effort removed 26 tons of accumulated debris in this ecologically important and fragile area. Debris removal, whether from the tsunami 

or other sources, reduces risk of entanglement, ingestion, and other impacts to 

endangered and other species of concern. 

Drifter Buoys.—NOAA is working with partners transiting the North Pacific 

to deploy drifter buoys either in concentrations of marine debris or other strategic areas of interest to help NOAA better understand how the debris is moving. 

At-Sea Detection.—NOAA is conducting field trials and surveys using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to help detect Japan tsunami marine debris atsea in open North Pacific waters in areas of potential marine debris concentrations that have been identified through modeling. Data from the UAS surveys 

will improve marine debris modeling efforts and will be part of a larger NOAA 

UAS program. 

Shoreline Monitoring in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington.—NOAA, working with State and local partners from government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and academia are acquiring baseline 

shoreline debris information at more than 101 sites in the five affected States. 

Most of the marine debris generated by the Japan tsunami is indistinguishable 

from the normal marine debris that washes ashore every day in Hawaii, Alaska, 

and on the west coast. Results of the monitoring will help indicate when and 

where Japan tsunami marine debris is making landfall. NOAA will also use 

part of the additional funds to enter information on tsunami debris into an online database that will both store the data and disseminate them to response 

agencies at all levels of government and to the public. 

Alaska Monitoring.—Prior to the March 2011 Japan tsunami, NOAA’s NMFS 

established shoreline monitoring sites within the Gulf of Alaska to collect data 

on marine debris that poses entanglement risks. These data have been providing a baseline to help detect the landfall of Japan tsunami marine debris in 

Alaska. The additional funds extend the existing time-series of monitoring data 

and help gather vital information from more than 60 sites in the Gulf of Alaska 

using the existing methodology and spot application of NOAA MDP shoreline 

monitoring protocols. 

Contingency Planning.—Contingency planning to ensure there are rapid response protocols in place requires significant coordination at local, State, and 

Federal levels. NOAA has been conducting workshops on the Japan tsunami 

marine debris issue with partner agencies and organizations to provide a common foundation of understanding about the debris and to facilitate development 

of response contingency plans. Plans developed will be particularly valuable for 

response to any large or hazardous items that might make landfall on U.S. 

coastlines. The workshops facilitated further engagement of State and local resource management and response agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations concerned about marine debris issues. 

Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Data Visualization.—NOAA’s MDP expects a 

significant increase of tsunami marine debris sighting data to be reported and 

collected over the next several months as a result of increased monitoring efforts. This project makes these data available to our response agency partners 

and the public through maps, graphics, and other visualizations of debris in the 

water and on shorelines. NOAA is cataloguing all debris sightings on NOAA’s 

Environmental Response Management Application (ERMA) and is sharing 

ERMA-derived products with the public and response agency partners. ERMA 

was a successful vehicle for making data available to the public during the 

Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. 

In July 2012, NOAA initiated action, using its authorities under the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, to provide $50,000 to each of the five 

Pacific States to aid in their marine debris removal activities. NOAA expects to 

award the funds in mid-August. 
186 

HABITAT PROGRAMS

Question. Can you explain what the funding in the new ‘‘Habitat Management 

and Restoration’’ line will go toward? 

Answer. Funding in the new Habitat Management and Restoration line will support: 

Sustainable Habitat Management.—Habitat management and protection activities for sustaining and enhancing commercial and recreational fisheries to: 

—Conduct consultations with Federal agencies and constituents nationwide to 

protect essential fish habitat in order to support commercial and recreational fisheries and vibrant coastal communities. 

—Ensure fish passage at federally licensed hydroelectric dams that block access to valuable spawning habitat. 

—Advance research on the role of different habitats in supporting sustainable 

fisheries and recovering listed species, with benefits to the communities and 

economies that depend on them. 

—Implement the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program to identify and map locations of deep sea coral, analyze new scientific information, 

and apply that knowledge in fishery management plans. 

Fisheries Habitat Restoration.—Habitat restoration activities to: 

—Plan and construct habitat restoration projects for restoring coastal and 

marine resources injured by oil spills, releases of hazardous substances, or 

vessel groundings. 

—Implement and support targeted restoration projects for sustaining managed fisheries and recovering listed species through technical expertise 

(planning, engineering, design, monitoring, etc.) with limited financial resources for project construction. 

—Implement the Marine Debris and Estuary Restoration Programs, including 

activities to research, prevent, and reduce the impacts of marine debris. 

Question. Given that habitat restoration creates jobs and supports fisheries, why 

have you proposed to severely cut the Community-based Restoration Program in fiscal year 2013? 

Answer. Within the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget, NOAA has prioritized the 

support of restoration activities for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process, as mandated by the Oil Pollution Act and the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act, over grants. Restoration activities compensate the public for lost trust resources that result from oil and other hazardous 

waste spills. Under these statutes, NOAA is responsible for addressing injury to 

natural resources, and acts on behalf of the public to protect and restore coastal and 

marine resources and their services. Jobs are also supported with this type of restoration work. This effort will take place in addition to consultative work and efforts 

to work with communities. 

Question. Why was the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

(CELCP) eliminated? 

Answer. Funding for the CELCP was eliminated due to the fact that the base 

level of funding severely limits the size and number of conservation projects that 

could be approved and the existence of other Federal agencies with existing land 

conservation programs. 

NAVIGATION RESPONSE TEAMS

Question. How will the proposed elimination of NOAA’s Navigation Response 

Teams (NRT) affect NOAA’s ability to fulfill its legal nautical charting mandate and 

respond to man-made and natural disasters? 

Answer. NOAA will pursue an agreement with Federal Emergency Management 

Agency to ensure that technical assistance to assess navigational hazards is available during Presidentially declared disasters. In 2011, the six NRTs spent a total 

of 25 days responding to emergencies. However, NRTs also currently work to identify local survey requirements, and as these efforts benefit the ports and surrounding communities, they can be conducted using non-Federal funding. Finally, 

NOAA would need to perform inshore validation of its nautical charting products 

and other navigation tools through contracted surveys and user feedback. 

Question. How will the absence of these NRTs extend response times and increase 

economic losses of the closed ports? 

Answer. Because the response to this question requires a comparison of unknowns 

to an existing program, NOAA cannot speak to whether this proposal would lead 

to extended response times and increased economic losses of closed ports. 
187 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SHIP KA’IMIMOANA

The fiscal year 2012 President’s budget included a request for $11.6 million for 

major repair periods (MRPs) for the NOAA ships Ka’imimoana and Miller Freeman. 

Recognizing the valuable nature of the missions served by these two vessels, the 

Congress acceded to this request and provided $11.1 million in the fiscal year 2012 

appropriation for these purposes under the Fleet Capital Improvements budget line. 

Subsequently, however, the Department of Commerce cut all but $1 million of these 

funds in the fiscal year 2012 NOAA spend plan to provide savings for undistributed 

cuts made elsewhere in the budget. NOAA has since indicated that the lack of available MRP funds in fiscal year 2012 will require that both the Ka’imimoana and the 

Miller Freeman be decommissioned for safety’s sake. 

Question. Why did the Department decide that the Ka’imimoana refit, and thus 

the Ka’imimoana itself, was not needed? 

Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 President’s budget, NOAA requested a one-time 

$11.6 million increase to support the highest-priority repairs aboard the NOAA 

ships Ka’imimoana and Miller Freeman. The final negotiated fiscal year 2012 Spend 

Plan resulted in $1 million for fleet repairs, due to competing mission needs within 

the total appropriation. As a result, the Miller Freeman will be decommissioned. On 

June 18, the NOAA Fleet Council met and voted to place the NOAA ship 

Ka’imimoana in warm layup status at the conclusion of the current field season 

(which just ended), as the vessel can no longer operate without required extensive 

repairs to ensure safe operations and extend the service life of the vessel. The MRP 

funding for fiscal year 2012 was not included in the final, approved spend plan, and 

instead of decommissioning the vessel at this time, the Council’s directive to place 

it in warm layup status will allow us to maintain the vessel until the MRP funds 

may be allocated, or other actions taken. 

Question. Was there a change in the physical status of the Ka’imimoana between 

the time of the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget submission to the Congress and 

the submission of the fiscal year 2012 spend plan that led to the elimination of the 

MRP? 

Answer. No, there was not a change in the physical status of Ka’imimoana during 

that time. The Ka’imimoana will continue to operate during fiscal year 2012 as outline in the Fleet Allocation Plan. The ship would not have entered the MRP until 

early fiscal year 2013 as outlined in the President’s fiscal year 2012 budget submission. 

Question. The Ka’imimoana’s primary mission is to service the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) buoy array which provides the Nation invaluable information regarding the status of the El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation and its potential for impacts 

on our weather. How does NOAA plan to conduct fulfill the service needs of the TAO 

Array without the Ka’imimoana? 

Answer. The NOAA Fleet Council is examining the best means to ensure continuity of the TAO Array and will develop a fiscal year 2013 Fleet Allocation Plan 

by September 2012 that meets TAO mission requirements. Currently, 12 of the 67 

TAO/TRITON buoys are maintained by Japan and NOAA is evaluating the feasibility of conducting the Ka’imimoana mission supporting the TAO project with either in house support (potentially the NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown), the use of outside charter in collaborations with our partners in South Korea, or a combination 

of both. 

Question. If contract services are proposed, were necessary funds requested in the 

fiscal year 2013 budget? Please provide a detailed explanation of the short- and 

long-term budget effects, and any change in operational capacity, which may accrue 

from using contract services as opposed to a NOAA vessel as part of your answer. 

Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2013 Operations, Research, and Facilities budget includes funding to support TAO continuity operations, through either NOAA vessel 

or charter. The Fleet Council is examining the best means to ensure continuity of 

the TAO Array and will develop a fiscal year 2013 Fleet Allocation Plan that meets 

TAO mission requirements. Long-term budget effects will be determined by the 

Fleet Plan and NOAA Observing System Council (NOSC) observing systems review. 

NOAA is currently identifying and prioritizing existing requirements and observing 

systems capabilities for the Fleet for a Fleet Plan that will determine the optimum 

configurations for meeting priority mission requirements and utilization of all observing platforms. 

Question. If savings were needed in fiscal year 2012 but no net long-term benefit 

would accrue from decommissioning the Ka’imimoana, why not defer its MRP to fiscal year 2013 and move the proposed MRP for the Thomas Jefferson to fiscal year 

2014? 
188 

Answer. NOAA will place the Ka’imimoana in an inactive status beginning in 

July 2012 due to concerns over the material condition of critical mission and ship 

board systems including deck machinery, tanks, and piping. Deferring the MRP to 

fiscal year 2013 would have required NOAA to idle the ship for more than 12 

months until early fiscal year 2014 during which time further deterioration would 

occur increasing medium-term risks. 

Question. What other missions were served by the Ka’imimoana and how will 

their needs be met? 

Answer. The Ka’imimoana’s primary mission is support of TAO. Other ocean observation and research missions are completed concurrently. Like TAO mission support, these requirements would need to be chartered. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness 

Question. On January 19, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13597, 

which is meant to, ‘‘. . . to improve visa and foreign visitor processing and travel 

promotion in order to create jobs and spur economic growth in the United States.’’ 

Among other things, the Executive order calls for the establishment of the Task 

Force on Travel and Competitiveness, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce 

and the Interior, and including heads of the Departments of State, the Treasury, 

Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, and Homeland Security; Army Corps of Engineers; Office of the United States Trade Representative; Export-Import Bank; and 

other agencies invited to participate by the Task Force Co-Chairs. The Task Force 

is supposed to work on developing a National Travel and Tourism Strategy with recommendations for new policies and initiatives to promote domestic and international 

travel opportunities throughout the United States with the goal of increasing the 

United States market share of worldwide travel. 

Question. Can you please give an update on what the Task Force has done, and 

is working on? 

Answer. The Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness has been actively working 

to implement the Executive order. To date, the Task Force has met with the Tourism Policy Council to discuss the development of the National Travel and Tourism 

Strategy called for in the Executive order. Subsequent to that discussion, the Task 

Force has met three times to hone the Strategy in light of inputs from numerous 

Federal agencies and substantial public comments received from the travel and 

tourism industry and other stakeholders in response to a Federal Register notice. 

In addition, the Secretary of Commerce requested, and received, input from the U.S. 

Travel and Tourism Advisory Board that has also been considered in the development of the Strategy. The Task Force is on schedule to deliver its recommendations 

to the President within the 90-day timeframe called for in the Executive order. 

In March 2010, the Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, the 

Travel Promotion Act (Public Law 111–145), creating a nonprofit corporation, Brand 

USA, to market the United States as an international travel destination. 

Question. In March 2010, the Congress passed, and President Obama signed into 

law, the Travel Promotion Act (Public Law 111–145), creating a nonprofit corporation, BrandUSA, to market the United States as an international travel destination. 

Does the Task Force work with BrandUSA, if so, how? Also, how do you ensure that 

the efforts of the Task Force and BrandUSA are not duplicative? 

Answer. Under the Executive order, the Task Force shall coordinate with the Corporation for Travel Promotion (dba Brand USA) through the Secretary of Commerce. 

The Department of Commerce works closely with Brand USA and has taken Brand 

USA’s plans into account in the development of the National Travel and Tourism 

Strategy. In addition, representatives of Brand USA met with Secretary Bryson and 

Secretary Salazar, the Chairs of the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness. 

The Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness and Brand USA perform separate 

functions that are not duplicative. The Task Force was formed for the sole purpose 

of developing a National Travel and Tourism Strategy. The strategy is focused on 

what the government can and should do to increase travel and tourism to and within the United States. Brand USA is a private sector organization charged with marketing the United States as a travel destination to international audiences. These 

efforts are complementary and avoid duplication. It is the intention of the Task 

Force that the National Travel and Tourism Strategy provide for the effective coordination of Federal agencies with Brand USA to support Brand USA’s mission to 

increase international travel to the United States and communicate relevant U.S. 

policy. 
189 

REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS

Question. How will the proposed cuts to funding for Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) and Commissions affect these organizations? 

Answer. NOAA greatly values the work of the RFMCs and Commissions. These 

bodies—which include commercial and recreational industry, Federal agencies, the 

conservation community, and State fishery managers—are critical for making sound 

fishery management decisions. Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2010, the 

Councils received a significant increase to ensure Annual Catch Limits were implemented in accordance with the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Now that Annual Catch Limits have been 

implemented, NMFS does not expect that the Councils will require the same 

amount of resources. 

NOAA’s focus for fiscal year 2013 is maintaining and improving our science programs as the basis for sound, science-based management actions taken by these 

bodies. The Councils and Commissions will distribute funds to ensure the implementation of adaptive management measures in the highest-priority fisheries, building 

on the 2011 milestone of implementing Annual Catch Limits in federally managed 

fisheries. 

A reduction in funding for the Councils in fiscal year 2013 will not reduce the 

transparency of the fishery management process nor limit public involvement. Further, Council activity will still be open to the public. While there may be changes 

in the frequency of the meetings held, there will be no change to the transparency 

of Council decisions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Question. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made 

great progress in the last few years to reduce the backlog of patent applications and 

issue higher-quality patents. While USPTO is working through this backlog, it is 

also in the process of implementing the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public 

Law 112–29, which was signed by President Obama on September 16, 2011. USPTO 

needs full access to the fees it collects to continue its progress and reward inventors 

of true inventions with high-quality patents. 

Do you agree that ensuring the USPTO has full access to its fees is essential to 

the effective functioning of the USPTO? 

Answer. Yes, full access to fees is critical to help the USPTO achieve strategic 

goals and performance objectives, and to manage resources effectively. USPTO is 

committed to effective resource and performance planning linked carefully to operations. Planning and operations can be undermined significantly without full access 

to the revenue the USPTO collects. 

Question. How does an effective functioning USPTO, and patent and trademark 

system in general, benefit the United States economy? 

Answer. Innovation continues to be a principal driver of economic growth and job 

creation in the United States, and a strong patent and trademark system helps deliver that innovation to the marketplace. USPTO plays a critical role in serving 

America’s innovators, and granting the patents and registering the trademarks they 

need to secure investment capital, build companies, and bring new products and 

services to the marketplace. Adequate funding allows the USPTO to ensure that 

innovators are getting high-quality examination in a timely manner. Economic evidence shows that patent applications that take too long to be examined and patents 

that are issued with overly broad claims, introduce unnecessary uncertainty into the 

marketplace. USPTO’s patent grants and registration of trademarks directly contribute to strengthening our economy, create jobs, and help move us toward the 

President’s goal of winning the future by out-innovating our competitors. 

Question. Will the proposed appropriations language for the USPTO ensure that 

USPTO can access its fees through the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund 

if the USPTO collects more than what the budget currently anticipates? 

Answer. Existing and proposed appropriations language is beneficial in enabling 

USPTO to access all fees through the Patent and Trademark Reserve Fund. USPTO 

would be required to submit a spend plan the Senate and House appropriation committees prior to accessing resources from the Fund. 
190 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Salmon Biological Opinion 

Question. The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a biological opinion on the salmon in 2009 which required the State of California to restrict water flows in California’s Sacramento 

River Delta in order to protect the salmon. Since then, the biological opinion has 

been criticized by the National Academy of Sciences, and U.S. District Court Judge 

Wanger issued a ruling that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had not 

provided adequate justifications to support the biological opinion. 

Protecting endangered and threatened species is important, but so too are the 

farms and the communities in California’s Central Valley that depend upon reliable 

water deliveries to produce the billions of dollars of crops that feed the Nation. It 

is my understanding that the revised biological opinion will not be completed until 

February 2016. The uncertainty this creates for agricultural and urban communities 

south of the Delta is a real concern. 

It has been 6 months since Judge Wanger issued his decision on the biological 

opinion. What has NOAA done since then to meet the Court’s mandates? 

Answer. After Judge Wanger issued his decision on NOAA’s 2009 biological opinion, NMFS worked with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the California Department of Water Resources, public water agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to develop a timeline toward the completion of a new biological opinion. All 

involved parties agreed that NMFS will deliver the final biological opinion by February 2016, and the schedule was submitted and accepted by the Court. The Court 

rendered its final decision on the schedule in December 2011, agreeing with the submitted timeline, giving NOAA until October 2014 to complete a draft opinion and 

until February 2016 to complete a final opinion. 

NMFS has made the completion of the biological opinion project a high priority 

and has already begun analyzing the remand issues and integrating new science 

into the new biological opinion. We are gathering and analyzing new data and information that has become available since the issuance of the 2009 biological opinion. 

We have coordinated with BOR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, and University 

of California at Davis on data collection. 

Question. Can you explain why it will take NOAA 4 years to complete a new biological opinion and what is entailed in the process? 

Answer. This is one of the most complex and challenging Endangered Species Act 

consultations that NMFS has ever conducted. The geographic scope is very broad, 

the number of species affected is large, and the planning horizon is long (21 years). 

The judge recognized this complexity and ordered the new biological opinion to be 

completed by early 2016, with a draft issued by October 2014. NMFS has begun 

work on the new opinion and continues to await completion of the salmon life-cycle 

analyses and will analyze 4 years of new data on salmon and the operating system 

to incorporate into the new biological opinion. 

The various tasks that must be completed by 2016 include effects analysis, integration and synthesis of effects, development of new or revised reasonable and prudent alternative actions, four-factor analysis, the NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center’s (SWFSC) life-cycle model, development of an incidental take 

statement, issuance of a draft biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternative, external and peer review, incorporation of review comments, and issuance 

of final biological opinion by February 2016. 

Question. What, if anything, can be done to reduce the amount of time it will take 

to complete the new biological opinions? 

Answer. NMFS is working diligently to complete the new biological opinion. We 

continue to adapt the existing opinion in the interim, where possible by looking for 

ways to maximize both water reliability and species protections. For example, in 

January 2012, the Department of Justice filed with the court a stipulated agreement 

among NOAA, the Department of the Interior (DOI), the State of California, and 

several water contractors for spring 2012 water operations to enable increased water 

supply reliability, while upholding species protections. Furthermore, there are numerous tasks that must be completed by other agencies for NMFS to complete the 

biological opinion. 

Question. What new scientific research does NOAA intend to conduct or rely upon 

to develop the new biological opinion and does the President’s budget fully fund 

these efforts? 
191 

Answer. A salmon life-cycle model will be a central scientific component underlying the new biological opinion. This relies on completing new acoustic tag studies 

in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. NMFS intends to apply the model to 

evaluate how water operations or proposed reasonable and prudent alternatives 

might affect listed species and/or water supply under various scenarios. NMFS continues to use and incorporate the best available science in the development of the 

biological opinion. 

Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the fiscal year 2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on this complex endeavor, we need 

to leverage both internal and external expertise and resources. We are currently in 

discussions with BOR about potential avenues for funding aspects of the life-cycle 

model. NMFS has already begun work on this key component of the new opinion. 

I understand that NOAA has recently begun implementing an adaptive management strategy that sets pumping permissions and restrictions based off of real-time 

data on salmon movements at the confluence of the San Joaquin and Old Rivers 

correlated with Old & Middle River flows. 

Question. In terms of water deliveries to south of Delta farmers, what benefits do 

you anticipate this strategy may provide? 

Answer. In January 2012, NMFS worked with the State of California, several 

water contractors, and DOI to develop a joint stipulation for spring 2012 water operations in the Central Valley, available at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap/ 

2012lstipulation.htm. The agreement allowed us to refine some of the more controversial aspects of the biological opinion for spring 2012 that we believe will benefit both recovering salmon and water users, and enable us to keep working on the 

new opinion. The agreement will provide greater flexibility and predictability to 

management of Central Valley water operations by enabling us to exercise real-time 

management where possible, thereby potentially having less of an impact to water 

supply. 

Question. Does the fiscal year 2013 budget request allow you to continue funding 

this project and other adaptive management strategies elsewhere on the system? 

Answer. Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the fiscal year 

2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on this complex endeavor, 

we need to leverage both internal and external expertise and resources. We are currently in discussions with BOR about potential avenues for funding aspects of the 

life-cycle model. NMFS has already begun work on this key component of the new 

opinion. 

While we will continue to operate within limited resources, we will prioritize implementation of this agreement. We will continue to explore new science that would 

enable greater reliability with respect to water supply, while ensuring the risk of 

extinction does not increase, and the potential for recovery is not impeded. 

Question. While the new biological opinion is being developed, are there any other 

additional projects or administrative steps NOAA believes could be taken that could 

provide salmon and water supply benefits? 

Answer. NOAA’s opinion includes an annual adaptive management mechanism 

devoted to exploring new science and analyzing lessons learned from the previous 

year’s implementation of the opinion. We are always exploring new data and alternative strategies to increase water supply reliability while ensuring the risk of extinction does not increase and the potential for recovery is not impeded. 

PACIFIC SALMON PROTECTED SPECIES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT FUNDING

Question. It is my understanding that one project that is critical to developing a 

new salmon biological opinion is a new life-cycle modeling research program. This 

research is expected to take 3 years to complete at an annual cost of $2 million 

which would need to be funded by NOAA’s Pacific Salmon Endangered Species Act 

account. However, the President’s budget for this account is essentially the same as 

last year (approximately $58 million, with a $300,000 decrease). 

Does the President’s budget proposal provide sufficient funding for NOAA’s proposed salmon life-cycle modeling project and any other research necessary to complete the new biological opinion? 

Answer. Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the fiscal year 

2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on this complex endeavor, 

we need to leverage both internal and external expertise and resources. NOAA has 

already begun work on this key component of the new opinion. 

NMFS is working on a pilot life-cycle model leveraging our Pacific Salmon funding 

with a grant from BOR. We continue to work with them to identify the required 

funds in the BOR budget for full implementation. 
192 

The pilot life-cycle model work has made clear that additional field studies would 

be useful. NMFS, in collaboration with the University of California at Davis, has 

done some pilot work on this issue, and has obtained extramural support for additional studies over the next 3 years. Additional areas of research for the longer term 

include telemetry studies that can quantify patterns of salmon movement and survival in relation to operation of the water project facilities, studies of predators 

(their distribution, abundance, and activity) and the movement and survival of very 

young salmon that are too small to tag with existing technology. 

NOAA has prepared a research plan that would fully address the questions surrounding management of water and salmon in the Central Valley. 

PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND

Question. Funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund continues to decline. In fiscal year 2011 it was funded at $80 million. In fiscal year 2012 it received 

$65 million. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 is $50 million. 

Given that salmon populations along the Pacific coast are still recovering from the 

2006–2008 fisheries collapse, do you think that continued decreases in funding for 

the Salmon Recovery Fund is justified? 

Answer. The long-term stability of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

since fiscal year 2000 has been a huge asset to NOAA’s State and tribal salmon recovery efforts. The average annual appropriation level since the program’s inception 

has been approximately $78 million. While the fiscal year 2012 funding level and 

the fiscal year 2013 President’s budget do represent a relative decline, the Pacific 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund will continue to be an indispensable resource in support of salmon recovery and sustainable fisheries. The declining funding levels reflect the current fiscal climate rather than program performance. In response to declining funding levels, NOAA is increasing the program’s focus on those projects 

identified in Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plans that are most likely to 

provide the greatest biological benefit to the species and their habitat. 

Question. Is there any concrete data you can offer in terms of recovery of the 

salmon fishing industry along the Pacific coast that can give us assurance that the 

Salmon Recovery Fund is working as intended to help restore the health of that industry? 

Answer. The abundance of Sacramento and Klamath Rivers Chinook salmon 

stocks has increased dramatically in 2012, providing much improved harvest opportunities over recent years. These stock improvements and the resulting benefits to 

the Pacific coast fishing industry are most likely attributable to favorable ocean conditions. Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund investments are focused on the protection and restoration of the freshwater habitats that are necessary to sustain 

salmon populations through future downturns in marine survival conditions. A significant portion of the Fund is directed at recovery of ESA-listed salmon and 

steelhead which are not the direct target of commercial fisheries. Since the inception 

of the Fund in fiscal year 2000, more than 10,200 projects have been completed, protecting and restoring nearly 880,000 acres of habitat and restoring access to more 

than 5,300 miles of habitat program-wide. 

The management of coastal Chinook salmon fisheries off southern Oregon and 

California is currently constrained by the availability of stock-specific monitoring information. For example, data on the nonlisted Klamath River Chinook salmon population is used as a surrogate for the California Coastal Chinook salmon stock (which 

is listed as threatened under ESA) to inform limitations on ocean fisheries. Focused 

resources, such as the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund, are critical to improving the monitoring information available to guide fisheries management and to 

allow for increased utilization of nonlisted salmon runs when sufficiently abundant. 

CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES

Question. On January 13 of this year, the White House proposed a plan to shrink 

the size of the Federal Government by, in part, merging existing agencies. For the 

Department of Commerce, the administration proposed, among other things, to consolidate NOAA into DOI. 

How do you think this proposed merger would affect the retention of qualified personnel and their expertise? 

Answer. The President’s first priority is first to obtain reorganization authority. 

If the Congress grants him that authority, the administration would consult with 

Members of Congress, the relevant congressional committees, agencies, and stakeholders as it prepares a detailed reorganization proposal to submit to the Congress. 

Retaining qualified personnel with expertise will be a priority in the development 
193 

and implementation of that proposal. Given that the core missions of NOAA would 

continue in any event, we believe we would retain our highly qualified staff. 

Question. Do you think that this proposed merger would result in the loss of senior management and create confusion and delays in making decisions? 

Answer. The goal of the proposed reorganization is to streamline and enhance decisionmaking and operations. We would plan carefully for the transitions associated 

with organizational changes in order to ensure that there be no delays in making 

decisions. Among other things, we would establish a senior team with strong leadership and agency representation that would establish a detailed action plan for integrating the agencies and programs to ensure a thoughtful process and no loss of 

functionality. No decisions have been made about organizational details, as we intend to seek the views of the Congress, agency staff, and other stakeholders on how 

a merger of NOAA and DOI could best improve communication and coordination of 

natural resource management programs. 

Question. How do you think NOAA’s operational and research focus—climate, 

oceans, fisheries, and weather—will be affected if they are folded into DOI, which 

has been traditionally focused on land management, nonmarine species, and oil and 

gas? 

Answer. DOI and NOAA manage most of the Federal Government’s natural resources; a consolidation would strengthen the Federal Government’s stewardship 

and conservation efforts. Merging the two would improve coordination of complementary programs for the conservation of natural resources, strengthen ecosystem-based management and science, enhance services to coastal communities, 

improve utilization of assets and facilities, and eliminate unnecessary administrative costs. NOAA would continue to provide critical weather, climate, marine, and 

coastal services to the Federal Government, States, businesses, and coastal communities within DOI. Exactly how they would be integrated will be the subject of considerable discussion with the Congress, agency staff, and other stakeholders to ensure that the result is a stronger, more effective department that protects and enhances NOAA’s core functions. 

It is my understanding that in addition to the proposed consolidation of NOAA 

into DOI, the administration is also proposing to consolidate NMFS’ southwest and 

northwest offices into a single west coast regional office. While I understand the 

need to reduce spending, I am concerned that these changes may impact NOAA’s 

ability to address fishery issues critical to the delivery of water supplies in California and our fishing industry. 

Question. What assurances can you provide me that the proposed regional office 

consolidation will not result in a reduction in senior program staff that would diminish services or the timely execution of regulatory reviews or scientific support? 

Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a reduction of $3.109 million and 20 full-time equivalents (FTE) for the reconfiguration of NMFS’ southwest 

and northwest regional offices into a single west coast regional office. The regional 

offices are being proposed for reconfiguration because of the narrow range of functions between the two, the higher degree of overlap in the work conducted, and the 

fact that the both support one Fishery Management Council. This reconfiguration 

would prioritize mission-critical work to protect the west coast’s living marine resources, and core work on protected species consultations would be maintained; 

however, NMFS’s ability to work in a proactive fashion with constituents could be 

constrained. 

Additional action being taken within the west coast consolidation include, closing 

the Pacific Grove Laboratory; that staff would be co-located with the main science 

divisions in Santa Cruz and La Jolla, California, resulting in a $0.641 million reduction and three FTE. This closure reduces facility operating costs of the SWFSC reducing the facilities footprint. This relocation would allow for greater integration of 

SWFSC’s oceanographic expertise with its biological missions in fisheries, marine 

mammal, and turtle science. As an organizational unit, the Environmental Research 

Division that is leaving the Pacific Grove Lab would remain intact after the closure. 

COASTAL PROTECTIONS

Question. Coastal protection and restoration programs are vital for coastal communities and States. These programs help protect natural coastal resources, sustain 

commercial and recreational fishing activities, support habitat protection and restoration, augment tourism, and sustain and create jobs. Local communities depend 

on these activities for their personal, educational, and economic well-being. They are 

also cost-effective because they leverage cooperative agreements with non-Federal 

partners to complete projects. However, a number of coastal protection programs are 

facing cuts in the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget. For example, community-based 
194 

restoration will decrease by $10 million; marine debris and estuary restoration programs will decrease by $1.2 million. 

With decreased funding, how do you propose to sustain protections for our coastal 

communities and economies? 

Answer. Although NOAA has made difficult choices in fiscal year 2013 in the face 

of top line budgetary pressures, NOAA continues to make targeted investments in 

key coastal programs. NOAA is requesting a program increase of $1.2 million for 

the Tides and Current Data program, which will allow the program to fully maintain and inspect its network of National Water Level Observation Network 

(NWLON) stations. Data from these stations are critical to safe navigation and maritime commerce activities which are essential to coastal communities and economies. 

NOAA is also requesting an additional $500,000 for Regional Ocean Partnership 

Grants, which supports a targeted competitive grant program to advance regional 

approaches to addressing changes to ocean and coastal natural resources. In addition NOAA is requesting a program increase of $2 million to enhance its forecasts 

of harmful algal blooms, which can have profound effects on public health, fisheries, 

tourism, and other coastal economic activity. 

In areas where NOAA is requesting program decreases, NOAA is seeking new 

ways to prioritize essential programs, increase efficiency, and leverage partnerships 

with other Federal agencies, State and local governments, the private sector, and 

the nonprofit community. The fiscal year 2013 request includes a $10.1 million decrease for the Community-based Restoration Program. At the reduced level of funding, the Restoration Center will maintain its core operations and restoration capabilities to support mandated restoration activities related to Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Oil Pollution Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act. Under these statutes, NOAA is responsible for addressing injury to natural resources, and acts on behalf of the public to protect and 

restore coastal and marine resources and their services. 

Funding for Community-based restoration partnership grants will be used for targeted projects, and NOAA will continue to provide technical expertise and leadership to States, tribes, and local communities implementing fishery and coastal habitat restoration projects, within the guiding principles of NOAA’s Habitat Blueprint. 

For example, NOAA experts will provide support for cooperative programs including 

NOAA’s Gulf Coast Recovery, Coral Reef Conservation, and Protected Species Programs; EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other large ecosystem partnerships; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ interagency coordination of coastal 

wetland protection, restoration, and research in Louisiana. 

Question. NOAA’s modeling shows that marine debris from Japan’s devastating 

2011 tsunami may reach the Pacific coast in 2013. With decreased funding, will 

NOAA be able to properly mitigate the effects of that debris on coastal communities? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2012, NOAA is leading efforts to respond to debris from 

the Japan tsunami. Working with international, Federal, State, and local partners, 

the NOAA Marine Debris Program is collecting data on debris quantity, modeling 

debris movement, assessing potential impacts, and planning for efforts to mitigate 

potential harm to coastal communities and natural resources. NOAA has been able 

to leverage its emergency response expertise to coordinate interagency monitoring 

efforts, enhance modeling, develop decision-support tools, and conduct response 

planning. 

In fiscal year 2012 NOAA is directly supporting specially trained and highly 

skilled debris survey teams in their efforts to conduct marine debris monitoring surveys. These operations serve as an early assessment of the nature and quantity of 

debris making landfall from the Japan tsunami. These activities are also critical to 

establishing baselines for debris observations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, 

and Washington so that specific effects attributable the tsunami can be documented. 

NOAA is also developing a marine debris response contingency plan and providing 

support for developing graphical representations of scientific forecasts of debris 

movement to better inform responders and improve public understanding of the 

problem. NOAA is not requesting dedicated funding for these activities related to 

the Japan tsunami in 2013. NOAA will continue to evaluate whether additional 

funds are required in the outyears. 

Question. What is NOAA doing to prepare the Pacific coast for the possibility of 

a damaging tsunami? What is still needed to be done in order to protect our coastal 

communities, industries, and infrastructures? 

Answer. Since 2005, in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami that took 240,000 

lives, NOAA has continuously implemented a multi-year effort to strengthen the Nation’s capacity to provide early warnings of tsunamis and to enhance coastal commu-
195 

nities’ preparedness. Both types of activities are necessary to mitigate the risks to 

coastal communities and economies from tsunami events. 

The first step toward tsunami preparedness is the ability to provide early warning 

upon a tsunamigenic event. In fiscal year 2006, NOAA expanded staffing at the Pacific Tsunami Warning and West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Centers to ensure 

24-hour operations. Warnings are delivered to communities at potential risk within 

5 minutes of detection of a seismic event with potential to generate a tsunami. To 

monitor tsunamic events and further refine its advisories and warnings, NOAA has 

deployed and operates a network of 39 Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of 

Tsunamis (DART®) stations, 32 of which are stations in the Pacific, 4 of which are 

stations in the Caribbean, and 3 of which are in other areas of the Atlantic Ocean. 

To further enhance warning guidance, NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers receive 

real-time, high-frequency water data from NOAA’s network of 210 long-term coastal 

tide gauges on all U.S. coasts. With this information, Warning Centers are able to 

confirm the nearshore contact of a tsunami, quantify its impact, and validate models 

used for improving future warnings. The real-time data are also used by other emergency responders to validate the accuracy of the tsunami warnings arrival time and 

to make subsequent safety of life and property decisions. Real-time water level data 

from all NOAA National Ocean Service tide stations, known as NWLON, are made 

accessible for users by request. 

NOAA supports many training, education, and public awareness activities for tsunami preparedness. Through an ongoing partnership with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) National Disaster Preparedness Training Center, 

NOAA is engaged in delivering FEMA-certified training on Tsunami Awareness. In 

addition, NOAA has developed an education and outreach program in conjunction 

with the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP). This education 

and outreach program includes NOAA’s TsunamiReadyTM program, which thus far 

has recognized 71 of 272 at-risk communities on the Pacific (west) coast. NOAA continues tsunami inundation mapping, modeling, and forecast efforts for communities 

at risk, advancing next-generation models for currents, and transition these research efforts into operations. 

In addition, NOAA supports development of decision support tools related to tsunami preparedness. For example, through the Coastal Geospatial Services Contract, 

NOAA works with the private sector to acquire and process high-resolution elevation data for coastlines. These data provide the foundation for accurate estimates 

of tsunami inundation and are the basis for local evacuation zones and tsunami response and mitigation activities. NOAA distributes this data, along with other technical resources, through the NOAA Coastal Service Center’s Digital Coast Web site 

(www.csc.noaa.gov/DigitalCoast). NOAA also partners with state and local jurisdictions to assist in the distribution of tsunami evacuation maps through the Internet 

and mobile devices. For example, the online Hawaii Tsunami Information Service 

and its companion application for mobile phones reached more than 100,000 residents and visitors in Hawaii during the hours following the March 11, 2011 Japan 

earthquake and tsunami. 

TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS

Question. Secretary Bryson, on March 14, 2012 NOAA posted a page to its Web 

site entitled, ‘‘Japan’s ‘harbor wave’: The tsunami 1 year later’’. The page makes an 

unequivocal statement: ‘‘NOAA predictions saved U.S. lives and property’’. I share 

this belief because on March 11, 2011, NOAA’s DART® program transmitted timely 

information to California and the rest of the Pacific coast. And local emergency responders used this information and their NOAA-funded training to quickly and efficiently evacuate low-lying coastal areas. 

The system worked well, but next time we may only have minutes, not hours, to 

respond to a tsunami threat. That’s why I question the proposed cut of more than 

$4.5 million to the NOAA tsunami preparedness and early warning system. The reduction to the buoy network is particularly concerning—it will mean decreased data 

availability a system that only operates at 72-percent efficiency. 

Secretary Bryson, if the proposed cut for the DART® program is approved, how 

will it impact NOAA’s ability to pinpoint the location of approaching tidal surges? 

What impact would the cut have on determining the precise time a surge would 

come ashore? 

Answer. Initial tsunami warnings are based on seismic data alone, which determines the magnitude and location of an earthquake. Therefore, data availability 

from a DART® station will not impact the issuance of tsunami warnings. 

After seismic data is used to issue a warning, data is then received from DART® 

stations as a tsunami affects the buoys. Data from affected stations are used to con-
196 

firm the existence or absence of a tsunami in a specific area, determine the potential 

size of the tsunami, and further refine the area and temporal extent of any warnings. The redundancy built into the DART® network and alternative sources of data 

(such as foreign buoys and sea-level gauge data) mitigate the impacts of reduced 

availability of DART® data. In addition, National Weather Service (NWS) has recently signed an agreement in principle with Australia in which they will share operations and maintenance responsibility for some NOAA-operated DART®. While 

the details of the agreement are still being worked out, we anticipate this sharing 

will mitigate the impact of lower funding levels for DART® operations and maintenance. 

Question. The budget also proposes reducing funding for NTHMP. Will this result 

in fewer cities receiving mitigation grants? Or will the program simply provide less 

funding to each eligible entity? 

Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American public on the 

threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the NTHMP. The Tsunami Warning Centers’ operations in Hawaii and Alaska are not compromised or degraded with 

the proposed reductions. 

The proposed reductions will eliminate grants to the NTHMP. The NTHMP is a 

consortium of State partners that use NOAA tsunami program funding to support 

local community education and mitigation activities. These activities include inundation mapping to develop evacuation plans, routes, and signage; education and 

awareness campaigns; provision of education materials; and training for the public 

and local officials. 

Despite the reduction in grants funding, NOAA would continue to support the 

NTHMP by: setting standards of accuracy for NTHMP-developed inundation models; 

promoting community outreach and education networks to ensure community tsunami readiness through funding from the TsunamiReadyTM program; promoting the 

adoption of tsunami warning and mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal, and 

local governments and non-Government entities; conducting tsunami research; and 

operating the U.S. Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program. 

Question. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there is a 99.7-percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will strike in California in 

the next 30 years. What is the likelihood that this event would trigger a tsunami 

on the west coast? 

Answer. Most California earthquakes are onshore, and therefore unlikely to generate a tsunami. However, without knowing the earthquake type, location and magnitude, NOAA is not able to estimate the probability of a tsunami. 

Question. If a seismic event occurs near-shore and it triggers a tidal surge, will 

your data be more or less reliable than tidal events that are triggered across the 

pacific ocean (such as the March 11, 2011 tidal wave)? 

Answer. Regardless of location of the tsunamigenic earthquake, the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers assess the threat and issue a tsunami warning within 5 minutes. The reliability of data from any seismic event is dependent upon the density 

of the seismic sensors in the area of the earthquake. For example, if an earthquake 

occurred in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it would take longer to assess the characteristics of that event due to the low density of seismic sensors. The west coast, 

on the other hand, has a very dense system of seismic networks that would allow 

for a more rapid assessment of any earthquake. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

Solar Panel Trade Dispute With China 

Question. The Department of Commerce just released a preliminary determination 

that the Chinese Government is illegally subsidizing Chinese solar manufacturers, 

and recommended tariffs ranging from 2.9 to 4.7 percent. Soon, the Department will 

release another preliminary determination about alleged dumping of those solar 

panels on U.S. shores, which may raise tariffs further. Unfair and illegal trade practices are clearly harmful to the U.S. solar industry, but I have also heard concerns 

from some solar companies that retaliatory tariffs could start a trade war, drive up 

prices, discourage customer demand, and stifle a growing industry here at home. 

What are you going to do to ensure that in the process of enforcing fair trade 

practices, the domestic U.S. solar industry would not be adversely affected by the 

Commerce Department’s decisions? 

Answer. The U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws, as enacted by the 

Congress, provide very detailed rules and procedures for the investigation of these 

unfair trade complaints. In administering the laws, the Department follows these 

rules and procedures to the letter. The laws do not permit the Department to take 
197 

into account the impact on other industries in determining whether and the extent 

to which the imports under investigation may be dumped or subsidized. 

The Obama administration is fully committed to enforcing our trade laws and to 

addressing unfair trade practices in accordance with our statutes, regulations, and 

obligations in order to help ensure that U.S. firms and workers have the opportunity 

to compete on a level playing field. 

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

Question. Secretary Bryson, as we have discussed before, there is great concern 

about Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number’s (ICANN) proposal to 

open wide top-level domain names, expanding them from the present well-known 

.com, .org, and the others, to virtually anything. I was pleased that Commerce wrote 

to ICANN raising a number of specific concerns and suggestions about this proposal. 

I was also pleased with ICANN’s response to this letter, where they showed a commitment to addressing these concerns. However, the rubber has not yet hit the road 

on this. ICANN is in the middle of accepting applications for new top-level domain 

names, so it has yet to put many of its commitments into practice. 

It is important, therefore, that the Commerce Department maintain strong oversight over ICANN. The principal leverage that Commerce has with ICANN is the 

‘‘IANA’’, or Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, agreement which Commerce has 

with ICANN to run the system for associating domain names with Internet Protocol 

numbers, and which expires at the end of this month. Therefore, I was very pleased 

to see that Commerce last week did not renew this contract, but instead granted 

a temporary 6-month extension of the existing contract, while ICANN addresses certain issues. 

Can you elaborate on the reasons why Commerce only granted a short-term, temporary extension? 

Answer. In anticipation of the impending expiration of the IANA functions contract, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), via two 

public notices in February and June 2011, consulted on how best to enhance the 

performance of the IANA functions. Based on the input received from stakeholders 

around the world, NTIA added new requirements to the IANA functions’ statement 

of work, including the need for structural separation of policymaking from implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy, provisions reflecting 

heightened respect for local country laws, and a series of consultation and reporting 

requirements to increase transparency and accountability to the international community. 

On November 10, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new IANA functions contract. The Department received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global community, and, therefore, it cancelled the RFP. The Department intends to reissue the RFP in the coming weeks so that the requirements of the global Internet community can be served. 

To ensure the continued stability and security of the domain name system (DNS) 

during this period, NTIA issued a short-term extension of the contract. 

Question. I would suggest to you that continuing to limit the duration of this contract is an excellent way to ensure that ICANN follows through on its commitments 

to address the concerns of law enforcement, trademark holders, and others with the 

new ‘‘generic Top Level Domain’’ program and other ICANN operations. 

Answer. Thank you very much for your input. I share your interest in ensuring 

that ICANN follows through on its commitments. 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INPUT

Question. Along these lines, I understand that the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) made a number of recommendations to Commerce for provisions to include in 

the IANA agreement to help them in their efforts to combat child pornography, 

fraud, and other types of cybercrime—but Commerce did not include most or all of 

these recommendations. 

Why didn’t you include the FBI’s recommendations? 

Answer. The statement of work for the IANA functions contract was developed 

through a deliberative and iterative interagency process informed by two public notices in February and June 2011 about how best to enhance the performance of the 

IANA functions. 

Question. Can I have your commitment that you will work with the FBI to include 

as many of their recommendations as possible? 

Answer. NTIA has a long history of collaborating with all U.S. law enforcement 

agencies and continues to actively work with all Federal Government agencies 
198 

through an interagency DNS Issues working group, which includes the FBI, to ensure that law enforcement concerns are being addressed. NTIA continues to take 

steps to address law enforcement concerns by working to strengthen the Registry 

and Registrar Accreditation Agreements, supporting enhancing ICANN’s contract 

compliance, and encouraging implementation of the recommendations of the WHOIS 

Review team. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR JACK REED

HENRY B. BIGELOW HOMEPORT

Question. At a time of tight funding and rising fuel costs, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fleet faces major funding challenges. Amid 

these challenges, NOAA is attempting to determine the permanent homeport for 

Fisheries Survey Vessel Henry B. Bigelow, which has been located at Naval Station 

Newport in Rhode Island on a ‘‘temporary’’ basis since it was commissioned in 2006. 

For more than 6 years, NOAA has been wrestling with the decision on the Henry 

B. Bigelow’s permanent homeport because of the costs of relocating to Woods Hole, 

which would require major dredging and infrastructure work to accommodate the 

Henry B. Bigelow. Those costs would be in excess of $20 million, according to 

NOAA’s 2008 Facility Modernization Plan. 

More than a year ago, I wrote to Under Secretary Jane Lubchenco to suggest potential cost-saving options for permanently homeporting the Henry B. Bigelow in 

Rhode Island. Indeed, an independent evaluation conducted for NOAA by SRI International in 2006 evaluated Naval Station Newport and the Port of Davisville 

(Quonset). That analysis rated Newport higher than Woods Hole, and it was completed before improvements were made at the Port of Davisville to accommodate the 

Okeanos Explorer. Those improvements would have improved the Port of Davisville’s 

already competitive score. 

Although I have discussed this issue with Dr. Lubchenco on several occasions, my 

letter has not been answered, and I fear less-costly alternatives to Woods Hole are 

being overlooked. While I understand that NOAA and the Department are still evaluating options, I would like to know when I can expect a reply to my letter. Given 

the impacts on the NOAA fleet, I would also appreciate an explanation of the potential costs. 

Answer. We appreciate the Senator’s interest in this issue and the letter to Dr. 

Lubchenco expressing his views about the Henry B. Bigelow homeport. NOAA’s response to the Senator’s letter is in the final stages of clearance within the agency 

and we expect to transmit it to the Senator’s office as soon as possible. Furthermore, 

we have completed an analysis of the options for the Henry B. Bigelow’s homeport. 

Our analysis has been transmitted to the Department for further review. We will 

share the content of the analysis as soon as we are able. 

NOAA’s fleet plays an essential role in supporting NOAA mission accomplishment. The stationing of NOAA’s vessels is based on mission and operational requirements to support the science mission. In the past, when a vessel is replaced, NOAA 

has stationed the new vessel at the same station as the one being replaced. In the 

case of Henry B. Bigelow, the previous vessel was stationed at the Woods Hole 

Northeast Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. In this instance, 

the Henry B. Bigelow is larger than the vessel it replaced, which would require additional investment in improvements to the Woods Hole pier and harbor. Since the 

Henry B. Bigelow was commissioned, it has been stationed at the Naval Station 

Newport, with the option of tying up at the commercial Port of Davisville when necessary for loading. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

Question. As part of this year’s budget, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has proposed closing its laboratory at Sandy Hook, New Jersey. 

This lab is unique—it is located near major urban areas, helping scientists develop 

approaches to managing fisheries in impaired water bodies. It has lasting partnerships with local universities and fishermen. And it has a 50-year record of scientific 

achievement. 

Can any other single NOAA location provide this combination of qualities? 

Answer. The NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook is an excellent research facility 

with unique capabilities. The laboratory’s flow-through seawater system, large-capacity experimental tanks, and ocean acidification research facility provide an ex-
199 

ceptional environment for behavioral ecology, habitat, and early life history research. 

However, it has one of the highest costs per square foot for high-density occupied 

spaces within the continental United States—at $36.30/sq ft. Additionally, the 20- 

year lease for the Sandy Hook Facility expires in December 2013. While NOAA recognizes and understands that the Sandy Hook lab conducts important research on 

recreational fish species and serves as an outreach lab to recreational fishermen it 

must balance this with the need to reduce costs. 

Question. Regulators help keep our food safe, and ensure we have clean air to 

breathe. They also make sure that businesses that break the rules don’t get an unfair advantage. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports that regulations over the last decade produced as much as $700 billion in benefits at a cost 

of less than $70 billion. 

Do you agree with OMB finding that regulations yield benefits well in excess of 

their costs? 

Answer. Although NOAA has not done comprehensive analysis such as that done 

by the OMB, our experience is that the benefits to coastal communities and the environment resulting from collaborative work through the regional fishery management councils and the dedication of resources to managing and sustaining fisheries, 

for instance, exceed the costs to the Government. 

Question. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is evaluating 

locations for at least two new satellite offices. U.S. patent activity is an important 

factor in the USPTO’s selection process. In 2010, the New Jersey/New York region 

was second in patent applications. New Jersey by itself was sixth, and New Jersey 

excels in many other categories the USPTO is considering. 

How does New Jersey compare to other locations as a candidate for a satellite office? 

Answer. In assessing potential satellite office locations, USPTO assessed more 

than 50 metropolitan areas against a variety of criteria. As mandated by the LeahySmith America Invents Act (AIA), cities were evaluated according to the ability of 

the USPTO to perform applicant outreach in the area; the ability to both recruit 

and retain qualified employees within the regional labor market; and, the potential 

economic impact of establishing a USPTO satellite office in the region. The AIA also 

required that the USPTO consider geographic diversity among its satellite office locations when selecting future sites. In addition, each location was evaluated on the 

basis of operating cost and other factors. 

Given the considered factors, data for the New Jersey/New York region did not 

at this time present the best comparative case as a whole despite high performance 

within some factor categories. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

New England Groundfish Monitoring 

Question. Maine’s groundfish industry is facing a great deal of uncertainty as it 

continues to move to a new management system and in the face of new reports 

showing that the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod stocks may not be as healthy 

as previously thought, a position at odds with the assessments of many working 

fishermen. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announcement late 

last year that it would fund the full cost of observers in fishing year 2012 for the 

New England groundfish fishery was welcome news. Looking ahead to next year, 

I am concerned that the industry will still not be in the financial position to pay 

for the high cost of monitoring on the east coast. I understand that these monitoring 

programs not only provide assurance that catch limits are not exceeded, but also 

provide accurate catch data that is essential to good stock assessments. The budget 

requests $28 million for the National Catch Share Program. How much does NOAA 

estimate the total cost of monitoring coverage will be for the New England groundfish fishery in fiscal year 2013? How much has NOAA budgeted for in fiscal year 

2013 to cover those costs? Given all of the uncertainty facing the New England 

groundfish industry, has NOAA looked at whether the fleet will be in an economic 

position to begin shouldering the costs of monitoring in 2013 and 2014? And given 

that NOAA uses this monitoring data to feed into its stock assessments, which is 

appropriately a Federal function, is it fair to ask the fleet to cover the entire cost 

of at-sea monitoring in future years? 
200 

Answer. NOAA agrees that at-sea monitoring data is critical to accurate stock assessments and the effective functioning of the Sector program. NOAA will continue 

to work with the New England groundfish fishery on the appropriate mix of industry and Federal funds to support this function. NOAA works similarly with other 

federally managed fisheries where industry is or will be paying all of the at-sea 

monitoring costs, including several Alaska fisheries, Pacific Groundfish, and Atlantic scallops. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collects two types of data on the New 

England groundfish fishery through at-sea monitors and observers. At-sea monitors 

count fish and collect less detailed data on catch and bycatch (discards) and are utilized to monitor the fishery to track quota. Observers collect more detailed data related to catch such as age and length of targeted and discarded species, bycatch, 

and additional data such as, biological samples. All information collected is used in 

stock assessments and to understand the fisheries interaction with protected resources. 

At-sea monitors are funded primarily through the National Catch Share Program 

budget line, with additional funds from the Observer/Training budget line. Observers are solely supported through the Observer/Training budget line. 

NOAA estimates that the total 2013 cost of observer/at-sea monitor coverage in 

the Northeast to be $17.9 million. The fiscal year 2013 President’s request for 

NOAA includes approximately 50 percent of the costs for at-sea monitors, or $2.2 

million, and the total cost for observers, $13.9 million, which provides a total of 

$16.1 million of the estimated $17.9 million for observer and at-sea monitor coverage required (Table 1). This request takes into consideration recent developments, 

in particular the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment. The remaining costs of at-sea 

monitors, approximately $2.2 million, are expected to be paid by the industry beginning in May 2013. 

NOAA recognizes the potential economic implications, in particular for small operators, of transitioning the costs of at-sea monitors to industry. Therefore, we continue to analyze the fishery, including economic information, and if circumstances 

warrant we will adjust as needed. NOAA continues to work with the New England 

Fishery Management Council and industry to consider alternative effective monitoring techniques, such as electronic monitoring (including an ongoing electronic 

monitoring pilot project) that could also be more cost-effective. 

TABLE 1. FISCAL YEAR 2013 FUNDING REQUEST FOR OBSERVER/AT-SEA MONITOR COVERAGE IN 

NORTHEAST FISHERIES 

[In millions of dollars] 

Region/fishery Fiscal year 

2013 PPA 

Fiscal year 

2013 request 

NE Multi-species fishery (at-sea monitors and observers) ......................... National Catch Share Program 

(at-sea monitors).

2.2 

Observers/training ................... 13.9 

TOTAL ............................................................................................... .................................................. 16.1 

POTENTIAL LISTING OF RIVER HERRING AS THREATENED UNDER THE ENDANGERED

SPECIES ACT

Question. Late last year, NOAA fisheries announced that it had determined that 

a petition to list alewife and blueback herring, collectively known as river herring, 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) merited further review and the agency 

would consider whether listing these species would be appropriate. Given the potential impacts that even a threatened listing could have on our nation’s fishing communities, I hope you will urge NOAA fisheries to carefully consider effective management plans already in place, such as the programs in my home State of Maine. 

River herring are an important source of bait for Maine fishermen who already 

adhere to restrictions mandated by the Maine Department of Marine Resources 

(DMR). The Maine DMR’s river herring management plan has proven effective in 

increasing river herring populations through habitat restoration and improvements, 

fish passage construction, stocking and transfer programs, and catch limits. 

My question is twofold: in your status review of the species, how are you working 

with State agencies that have a greater familiarity with the species than the Federal Government? And, what can be done by working proactively with States, par-
201 

ticularly States that already have successful management programs in place, to 

avoid a listing under the ESA? 

Answer. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has been working with 

representatives from each of the east coast States on a stock assessment for river 

herring for approximately the last 3 years. This stock assessment is a thorough compilation of the best available data on river herring and therefore, will be extremely 

useful in making a listing decision. In order to identify any gaps between the information contained within the stock assessment report and information that is needed 

to make a listing determination under the ESA, NMFS staff attended the stock assessment committee meeting in January 2012, at which the group finalized the data 

inputs for the report. The following are topics that must be addressed in an ESA 

listing decision that were not fully addressed in the stock assessment: 

—stock structure/identification of distinct population segments; 

—impacts of climate change on the continued existence of both species; 

—status of Canadian stocks; and 

—extinction risk. 

Based on these existing gaps, NMFS has been working with Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to plan individual workshops to address three of these 

data gaps (we are working with the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans 

to obtain data on the status of these species in Canada). With the Atlantic States 

Marine Fisheries Commission’s input and assistance, NMFS has identified experts 

for each of these topic areas, and we will be convening these workshops during this 

summer to help inform the status review and subsequent listing determination. Announcements of these workshops will be posted on our Web site. Reports from the 

stock structure and extinction risk analysis workshops will be peer reviewed by experts from the Center for Independent Experts and we will be seeking nominations 

for qualified peer reviewers for the climate change workshop report later this 

spring. 

NMFS has solicited information from the State agencies and the public that is relevant to the listing decision and the status review team is considering this information in the ongoing status review. We are also seeking input from State-recognized 

experts on the species and the management issues surrounding their status and recovery and will be inviting the States to send representatives to each of the workshops. The information from the workshops will be posted on our Web site providing 

the States and the general public with an additional opportunity to see the materials that are in the record, which will form the basis of a listing or no listing decision. The States and the public will also be provided with the opportunity to supplement the record with data and materials from people whom they recognize as experts during the peer review process of the workshop reports. 

NMFS has also been working with representatives from the State of Maine on restoring access to important spawning areas for both species in the State as part of 

our efforts to restore and recover Atlantic salmon and other members of the anadromous species complex. This includes focusing on restoration of access to important 

alewife spawning habitats in the St. Croix River. NMFS has also been working on 

restoring access in many other rivers in other States along the east coast, and has 

provided input and guidance for fish passage in many river systems under the Fish 

and Wildlife Coordination Act. All of these proactive measures to restore and recover these species will be considered in the Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts analysis in the listing determination. 

STATE-FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS

Question. NOAA’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to cut or eliminate some key 

programs that support important State and Federal partnerships. In particular, the 

proposals to eliminate funding for Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants and reduce 

by 14 percent funding for the Atlantic Coastal Act are particularly worrisome to 

States. This funding helps support State efforts to restore and sustainably manage 

their marine fisheries, and reducing this funding could have severe ramifications for 

monitoring of the Nation’s fisheries by the States. In Maine, we are particularly concerned about the potential impacts to monitoring of our lobster, Atlantic herring, 

and Northern shrimp stocks. How does NOAA propose to maintain and improve the 

basic scientific data collection programs needed for stock assessments of these stocks 

while at the same time cutting funding for these programs? 

Answer. NMFS agrees that the role of the Interstate Commissions in fostering 

partnerships and incorporating the needs of fishing communities and industry, recreational, Federal, and State interests into fishery management decisions is critical. 

Appropriated funding for the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act grants has declined 

over the past 2 years. As a result, the benefits of the program relative to the admin-
202 

1FY 2012 figure from ITA FY2013 Budget in Brief, Objective 12. 

istrative costs on both NOAA and the States to apply for, manage and report on 

the awards are no longer effective. The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act grant funding is specified by statutory formula and would require a legislative fix. In applying 

the statutory formula to the amount of appropriations supporting Interjurisdictional 

Fisheries Act grants under the fiscal year 2012 conference mark, 18 of the 38 grants 

would have been for less than $6,000. NMFS determined that this funding was insufficient to justify the grant program, and therefore decided to zero out the grant 

program as part of the undistributed reduction included in the conference agreement. This reduction was included in the fiscal year 2012 spend plan approved by 

the Congress in January 2012. The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget maintained 

this decision. NMFS does not expect its fiscal year 2013 appropriation to increase 

to a level at which this program could be effectively managed. 

NOAA continues to work with its partners to find efficiencies to maintain the 

quality and effectiveness of our data quality and monitoring. NMFS will continue 

its current level of effort to collect data from its surveys, sampling, and dealer data 

collection that support the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s technical 

committees. NMFS’ scientists serve on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s committees that develop and apply population modeling for the assessment. As an example, for the NMFS Northeast bottom trawl, survey data, at-sea 

and in-port biological sampling data, and landings from federally permitted dealers 

are routinely used by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Also, in 2012–2013, NMFS is piloting a project to collect more samples from observed commercial lobster trips in Statistical Areas 515 and 513, in the Gulf of 

Maine. The focus is on characterizing groundfish discards and reasons for lobster 

discard. There are about 10 vessels that operate in this component of the fishery. 

This is intended to augment data on offshore lobsters for both lobster and groundfish management and assessment purposes. NOAA will continue to work with our 

partners to find other efficiencies to maintain the high level of quality data and 

analysis despite reductions in Federal and State budgets. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

Softwood Lumber Agreement—Monitoring 

Question. Recently, the United States and Canada agreed to extend the softwood 

lumber agreement to October 2015. The agreement has generally benefited Maine’s 

forestry industry, but it has not been an easy path due to Canada’s numerous violations under the trade agreement. The delicate balance of realizing adequate value 

of the agreement for U.S. industry has only been achieved due to the monitoring 

and enforcement work of the last two administrations. The Commerce Department 

plays an important role in the U.S. Government’s efforts to monitor Canada’s compliance with the agreement. This work must continue. Failure to adequately monitor and enforce this trade agreement places at risk jobs in communities that can 

least afford to lose them. Do you believe that you have the adequate resources to 

continue the Department’s critical role in monitoring the Softwood Lumber Agreement? Will you commit to continue to make this monitoring a priority for the Department? 

Answer. The U.S. trade relationship with our neighbors is an absolute priority 

and Canada is our number one trading partner. 

The Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) is evidence of the United States and Canada’s commitment to working together to resolve long-standing trade disputes. As 

you know, the SLA was recently extended for 2 more years and is now effective 

until October 12, 2015. 

The administration is committed to strong enforcement of its rights under these 

agreements. To date, in concert with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), we have been involved in 

three arbitrations under the SLA. The arbitration panel found in favor of the United 

States on many of the issues raised in the first two disputes, and just recently completed the third arbitration hearing. 

Commerce’s International Trade Administration has targeted $99.6 million to enforcement in the fiscal year 2012 budget, and the Administration has requested a 

significant increase in the fiscal year 2013 budget for trade enforcement activities, 

including the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC).1 Commerce will continue to work closely with USTR to ensure that U.S. rights under the SLA are vigorously enforced and defended. 
203 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

Question. I wrote to your Department earlier this year regarding the International 

Trade Administration’s (ITA) U.S. Commercial Service (CS). While I look forward 

to your response, I understand the Department of Commerce intends to eliminate 

CS staff in developing economies. While I fully understand the budgetary constraints all U.S. Government agencies currently face, I worry such action is premature and would weaken opportunities for U.S. companies. 

Under the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget, which commercial service professionals would be eliminated? How much would it cost to ensure no current CS professionals are eliminated? How much would it cost for the CS to operate at full capacity? 

Answer. Over the last decade ITA U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service 

(US&FCS) has been reshaped by tight budgets, which have resulted in hiring 

freezes and other ad hoc measures to reduce costs. US&FCS responded by undertaking a strategic review of its resources using expected budget levels and looking 

at where and how those resources were deployed. These calculations were based on 

deploying approximately 169 officers and 742 locally engaged staff (LES) in 70 countries worldwide, representing 94 percent of the worldwide market for U.S. exports. 

Based on this information and coupled with administration priorities such as the 

National Export Initiative, US&FCS placed each country in Tier I, II, or III categories. Tier I represents countries such as China, India, and Brazil with the greatest current opportunity to maximize United States exports and the greatest demand 

for our services. 

In order to reposition resources to top tier countries US&FCS sought and received 

approval from the Office of Management and Budget and our Congressional Appropriations Committees to close 17 offices internationally in fiscal year 2012. The list 

included closing the sole US&FCS offices in seven countries (Algeria, Ecuador, 

Kazakhstan, Libya, Senegal, Switzerland, and Venezuela); nine constituent posts 

(Melbourne, Australia; Vancouver, Canada; Wuhan, China; Alexandria, Egypt; Florence, Italy; Sapporo, Japan; Nagoya, Japan; Tijuana, Mexico; and Vladivostok, Russia), and the African Development Bank (ADB) office. We are also reducing staff in 

some markets where we are not closing offices, mostly in mature, developed markets. Essentially, we are under-resourced in priority markets and must therefore address those needs before we can consider resourcing third tier markets. 

It is important to recall two elements of our history. First, US&FCS was created 

in 1980 to service U.S. business needs in our most commercially important export 

markets. This represented slightly more than 60 markets at that time. The intent 

was for US&FCS to focus on those markets judged to be the most important for expanding exports and advancing U.S. commercial interests. However, over time the 

US&FCS grew to have offices in 80 countries. A continuous review of our footprint 

and a common understanding and agreement on the identification of these priority 

markets for U.S. business remains fundamental to offering a successful US&FCS 

program. Given that we cannot be in every market, our partnership with the trade 

promotion program that the State Department offers in foreign markets in which 

US&FCS does not have a physical presence is of vital importance if we are to remain at the center of a whole-of-government effort to deliver a seamless global program. At present, we have partnership post arrangements with 57 State Department posts. 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposes an increase of $30.3 million to 

place additional Foreign Commercial Service Officers and LES in high-growth, priority markets, including those developing economies that offer the greatest opportunity. US&FCS is working to determine the best placement of additional staff 

should increased funding materialize, and will evaluate its overseas presence and 

make appropriate adjustments to its footprint as markets and the demand for services require. On the contrary, should funding remain flat, US&FCS will look to further reposition resources from third and possibly second tier countries into the top 

tier. Absent the closing of additional posts due to market conditions or budget constraints, any decrease in staff would be accomplished through attrition. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING—GULF OF MEXICO

Question. When marine mammals strand themselves in the northern Gulf of Mexico and cannot be returned to the ocean, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
204 

(NMFS) decides where to place these animals for their long-term care. Despite the 

fact that several dolphins have stranded themselves in the northern gulf, NMFS has 

chosen to send these animals to facilities that are not involved or participate in the 

stranding response in the area. Organizations such as Institute for Marine Mammal 

Studies (IMMS) assisting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) in the stranding response should be preferred in the allocation of these nonreleasable stranded animals as these facilities spend a lot of time, effort, and resources in assisting NOAA. Why is that the case? 

Answer. One of the primary goals of NMFS is the successful rehabilitation of 

stranded marine mammals and their release back to the wild. On occasion, we 

(along with the attending veterinarian) determine that rehabilitated animals should 

not be released for medical or behavioral reasons and they must be placed in permanent captivity. We place nonreleasable dolphins in public display facilities through 

an equitable and transparent consideration of the capabilities of interested facilities 

in meeting the specific animal’s needs. 

Participation in the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program is 

not a criterion considered in the placement of animals. Nonreleasable animals are 

often placed with entities that do not participate in the rescue and rehabilitation 

of that species. For example, IMMS is on the national placement list to receive nonreleasable California sea lions, which is not a species found in the Gulf of Mexico. 

We have routinely alerted IMMS about each nonreleasable dolphin since it received its public display license in December 2009. In 2011, four young bottlenose 

dolphins were determined to be nonreleasable to the wild. One of these animals was 

placed at the facility where it was being rehabilitated because they could provide 

for the social and developmental needs of this animal. The IMMS expressed an interest in possessing each of the three remaining animals. We determined that they 

did not have the appropriate number and social composition of dolphins in its custody to integrate these young individuals, compared to other facilities where they 

were ultimately placed. 

We strive to ensure that nonreleasable dolphins are placed in appropriate social 

groups based on the animal’s age and sex, and its social, health, and behavioral condition. This is especially critical for young animals in need of foster care from adult 

females with maternal experience. A copy of our detailed policy for placing nonreleasable marine mammals into permanent captivity is available through the following web link: https://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/publicsite/documents/procedures/02–308–02.pdf. 

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Secretary, this concludes our hearing. We 

thank you for your testimony. We look forward to your ongoing cooperation. We, too, want to do business in the subcommittee at the 

speed of business. 

We also, while we’ve been insistent about certain performance 

standards and expectations, we really do want to let the people 

who work at Commerce know, whether they’re doing trade agreements, enforcing trade, working on those incredible standards that 

take ideas into products that we need to thank the 40,000-plus people who work hard every day to create jobs, and sustain jobs, and 

keep our country safe. So, let’s all work together, so that we can 

be a more frugal Government, and have some smart funding initiatives. 

This subcommittee stands in recess until next Wednesday, at 2 

p.m., when we’re going to take the hearing of the NASA administrator. 

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Thursday, March 22, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. 

on Wednesday, March 28.] 
(205) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Mikulski, Brown, Hutchison, Shelby, and 

Cochran. 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Senator MIKULSKI. The subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) will come together, and we 

will be taking the testimony of the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Charles F. Bolden. 

But before we do, I want to say that this is the last public hearing of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This is not her last appearance before the subcommittee, but it’s our last public hearing on 

CJS appropriations. 

And as her good friend and colleague, I have a present for you. 

This is not a goodbye gift. This is a commemorative gift. But we 

couldn’t let this gathering of people, particularly from America’s 

space program, its leadership, those who are interested in the 

space community, without taking this opportunity to just thank 

you for being a really great senator from Texas, a really great Senator for America and America’s future, science, technology, a real 

advocate for the space program, keeping an eye on the bottom line. 

We just wanted to let you know this subcommittee, its members 

and all of us just think the world of you. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I thank you very much. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So let me present that to you. Take a peek. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Senator MIKULSKI. No, it didn’t come from him. 

Senator HUTCHISON. No, I know. I never get gifts from him. 

Senator MIKULSKI. He’s going to give you one in a minute. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Oh, gosh, this is great. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Wait until you see this. This is—— 
206 

Senator HUTCHISON. I would rather have one from him. 

Senator MIKULSKI. This is so cool. 

Senator HUTCHISON. This is cool. That is really cool. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It is a crystal rocket. 

Senator HUTCHISON. It is. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It’s the space shuttle, made here in the 

United States of America, on time. 

Senator HUTCHISON. And the time is right. 

Senator MIKULSKI. It’s on time, it’s on time. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I love it. Isn’t that neat? Yes, I love it. 

Thank you. 

Senator COCHRAN. If you put it up here, it might launch. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, I love it, and thank you for the commemoration. I did not realize this would be our last official hearing, but we do have a lot of work to do, and I can’t tell you how 

much I appreciate the relationship and the support that we have 

from our chairman and the members of this subcommittee. I think 

we’ve done great things for NASA, and we’ve been creative, and I 

can’t tell you how much I appreciate the ability for us to be on the 

same wavelength and really accomplish something for our pre-eminence in space. So, thank you very much. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison, it is our last scheduled 

hearing on the fiscal year 2013 CJS appropriations. The chair reserves the right to conduct other hearings as might be necessary 

as our process continues onward, or if there is a special event that 

would require special attention. So that’s our last scheduled hearing, but we know you’re going to be in the thick of it on this bill, 

all the way up to the President signing it. 

Senator HUTCHISON. For sure. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We’re going to get underway pretty quickly, 

and we want to thank Administrator Bolden for being so flexible. 

This hearing was originally scheduled for Thursday, and because 

of other hearings at this time, we asked to rearrange this. So we 

thank you for your courtesy. 

What we’re going to do today is have open statements from Senator Hutchison and myself, then go to questions. We’ll follow the 

5-minute rule, and look forward to hearing from the Administrator. 

So today we want to welcome Administrator Bolden, testifying on 

behalf of the fiscal year 2013 NASA appropriations. 

As chairwoman, I have three priorities for NASA: make sure we 

have a balanced space program that will make NASA move forward 

with the programs that the Congress has authorized and funded; 

we want NASA to be an economic engine, out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building what we need to do to keep America preeminent in space; also, as a duty to the taxpayer, we continue our 

rigorous oversight and accountability to make sure taxpayers’ dollars are spent wisely and to acknowledge the fact that we need to 

focus on a more frugal Government. I want to make sure that 

NASA has what it takes to carry out its mission, explore the universe, understand and protect our planet, and create new knowledge and new technologies that lead to breakthroughs. 

The President’s budget for NASA is $17.7 billion. I want the subcommittee to note this is $89 million less than the fiscal year 2012 
207 

level, and in the last 3 years NASA has already been cut by $1 billion. Within the request, NASA outlines three top priorities: 

—the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion capsule, 

I know of great interest to the members; 

—supporting the International Space Station (ISS) with commercial flights for cargo and hopefully one day, astronauts; and 

—building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), but also 

continuing our focus on science. 

NASA will be asked to accomplish these priorities with far less 

than in the last NASA Authorization Act. In supporting these three 

priorities, NASA has made some tough choices. Science is cut by 

$179 million less than the fiscal year 2012 level. The funding for 

the SLS and Orion is $291 million below fiscal year 2012. And 

NASA education funding, something I know is very important to 

the Administrator, is cut by $28 million. 

Additionally, if we don’t avoid a sequester, NASA will be cut by 

another 8 percent across the board. We will want to hear from Administrator Bolden on how a cut like that will impact the NASA 

ability to carry out its mission. 

Oh, man, that pollen is—I hope the space capsules are cleaner 

than the Dirksen Building here. 

This subcommittee has always worked to make sure we have a 

balanced space program in science aeronautics, a reliable transportation system, and human space flight. For science, this budget will 

keep NASA’s near-term launches on track. This is good news—important side missions to look at our solar system, understand the 

Sun, and protect our planet. 

I’m troubled that the budget does not invest adequately in future 

missions, the highest science priorities that are identified by the 

National Academies in their decadal surveys. We’re concerned 

about the cuts in Planetary Science, Mission to Planet Earth, dark 

energy, and Heliophysics. We’ll explore that more in the questions. 

We know that NASA is an economic engine, and we hope to hear 

more about what SpaceX and Orbital are doing and whether we’re 

going to be on time and online. 

I just want to close by commenting on accountability and oversight. First of all, we need to compliment NASA for achieving for 

the first time since 2002 a clean financial audit, and I know that 

was due to your stewardship and insistence, Mr. Administrator, 

and we’re counting on you and your team to continue vigilant oversight and accountability. 

I appreciate NASA’s effort to also re-evaluate the JWST. We’ve 

got to make sure we stay online and to keep the project underway. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The Government Accountability Office’s most recent assessment 

of NASA’s large projects found that NASA’s large programs are 

often over-budget and behind schedule. They can do better, and 

we’ll be able to talk about it. 

I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be in the record. 

[The statement follows:] 
208 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

Today the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee welcomes National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator 

Charles F. Bolden, Jr. who will be testifying about NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget 

request. 

As chairwoman, I have three priorities for NASA. First, is to implement a balanced space program. How will NASA move forward with the program the Congress 

authorized and funded? 

Second, is to be an economic engine. How is NASA putting America to work outinnovating, out-educating, and out-building? Third, is oversight and accountability. 

How is NASA ensuring our tax dollars are spent wisely? 

I want to make sure that NASA has what it needs to carry out its mission, explore the universe, understand and protect our planet, and create new technologies 

that lead to new breakthroughs creating jobs of the future. 

The President’s budget request for NASA is $17.7 billion, which is $89 million less 

than the fiscal year 2012 level. In the last 3 years, NASA’s appropriation has been 

cut by $1 billion. Within the request, NASA outlines three top priorities: 

—Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule; 

—supporting the International Space Station (ISS), including commercial flights 

for cargo and astronauts; and 

—building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). 

NASA will be asked to accomplish those priorities with less, far less, than envisioned in the last NASA authorization act. In supporting those three priorities, 

NASA has made some tough choices. Science is cut $179 million below the fiscal 

year 2012 level; funding for SLS and Orion is reduced below the fiscal year 2012 

level; and NASA education funding is cut $38 million or 28 percent. 

Additionally, if we do not avoid a sequester NASA will be cut by another 8 percent 

across the board. We want to hear from Administrator Bolden on how a cut like that 

will impact NASA’s ability to carry out its mission. 

This subcommittee has always worked to preserve a balanced space program with 

science, aeronautics, and sustainable human flight. For science, this budget will 

keep NASA’s near-term launches on track. This is good news. This supports important science missions to explore our solar system and the universe, understand the 

Sun, and observe and protect our planet. 

But I am troubled that the budget does not invest adequately in future missions— 

the next highest science priorities identified by the National Academies’ decadal surveys. We must keep making progress on the Academies’ recommendations, now and 

in the future. 

This year, we hope to see both SpaceX and Orbital launch cargo to ISS, results 

of a partnership between NASA and the private sector. Once Orbital starts launching out of Wallops there will be 400 new high-tech jobs on the Eastern Shore. 

SpaceX has created 1,500 jobs since it became part of the commercial cargo program 

in 2006. 

Nationwide, aerospace industries create a $50 billion trade surplus for the United 

States, and NASA should be a partner with them. Our new commercial space rockets can launch a new industry in places like Wallops Island. NASA-developed capabilities, like the satellite servicing group at Goddard, have the potential to create 

jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow—innovation jobs that can’t be outsourced. 

That’s why we have a strong coalition of space Senators, because we believe in 

NASA’s ability to bring out the best of America. 

But to keep that support, NASA has got to be more frugal. Last year, NASA 

achieved a clean financial audit for the first time since 2002. We are counting on 

NASA to remain vigilant on oversight and accountability. 

I appreciate NASA’s efforts to re-evaluate JWST. Now NASA must keep to the 

plan. The General Accounting Office’s most recent assessment of NASA’s large 

projects found NASA’s large programs—other than JWST—average $79 million or 

15 percent more than the budget and 8 months behind schedule. 

NASA has to do better. More than 80 percent of NASA’s funding is awarded by 

contract. That’s more than $14 billion of NASA’s fiscal year 2013 request. NASA’s 

Inspector General has identified project and contract management as top challenges 

for the agency. This subcommittee will be a watchdog and we expect NASA to implement the Inspector General’s recommendations. 

Frugal times demand a frugal space agency. Our space programs must be affordable, balanced, and wisely managed to gain support in frugal times. But make no 

mistake, NASA’s mission is worth our passion. 
209 

Senator MIKULSKI. We have many members here, and I know we 

will want to proceed. 

Senator Hutchison, do you have a statement? 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, I am concerned about the budget that the Administrator is putting forward today, and I want to go over just 

some of the agreements that we have made in the past and what 

the result of those agreements is in your budget, Mr. Administrator. 

Your testimony for the subcommittee lays out what NASA claims 

are its priorities, but what is said and what is being proposed don’t 

really match. NASA’s priorities, as we all agreed to in a meeting 

in my office just a few months ago, were, number one, the JWST, 

and it has been thoroughly reviewed and appropriately funded. It 

is a priority which is funded as anticipated. 

The second priority is the SLS and the Orion Capsule, which 

were studied inside and outside of NASA, and again independently 

before finally being allowed to move forward. The resulting independent analysis said the budget assumed in that analysis for the 

first 3 to 5 years, which was what we had agreed would be the 

amount, was accurate and provided what was needed to maintain 

schedule. 

So, of course, I was surprised when I got the call that NASA was 

going to cut this part of the budget by $170 million. This is a case 

where NASA has chosen to say it’s a priority but has deliberately 

cut the funding that was assumed to assure that it could maintain 

its schedule. 

So this is, of course, a great concern to me and to the Members 

of Congress who agreed with these priorities and thought we had 

the agreement from NASA. 

Number three, the final priority is Commercial Crew, which receives a proposed increase of 104 percent more than last year. This 

is being asked for without any type of independent cost verification 

for the program and, at $830 million, exceeds the authorized 

amount for Commercial Crew by $330 million. 

Now, many in the space community say that a lot is riding on 

the upcoming cargo demonstration flight next month, and the fate 

of Commercial Crew is tied to its success. I think they’re wrong. 

I think they should be saying it’s about time, that we have been 

waiting for years longer than we have been promised by NASA and 

its commercial partners for this launch, and we hope the delay will 

produce success. 

But even though Commercial Crew continues to struggle to attain its goals, I recognize its importance. I do support Commercial 

Crew. However, I think NASA is continuing to throw money at too 

many companies with a hope of flying astronauts and not doing 

what it has done with the SLS and the launch vehicle, which is to 

undertake a study for the Commercial Crew, similar to what you 

have done in Orion and SLS, including an independent analysis of 

options, and then funding the programs that NASA believes have 

the most hope of gaining what we all want, which is the quickest 

American-provided commercial crew vehicle to ISS as possible. 
210 

Members of Congress are already coalescing around NASA choosing no more than two companies, providing competition as well as 

funding realities that we see in our budget, and not stealing from 

the long-term future, which is Orion and the launch vehicle. 

If we provided the authorized level for this year for Commercial 

Crew and add the funds from last year that have yet to be spent, 

NASA would have more than $900 million available for Commercial Crew selections. That amount of funding fits within NASA’s 

stated estimated cost of $300 to $500 million per Commercial Crew 

entrant, if two are selected. If you adhere to the three or four, 

you’re going to go over the budget, you’re going to continue to cut 

back on Orion and the launch vehicle, and it’s going to mean that 

our long-term future is jeopardized. 

So I hope, Mr. Administrator, that you and the NASA personnel 

who have done such a great job for our country through all of these 

years of space exploration will go back to the drawing board and 

support Commercial Crew in a fiscally responsible way so that we 

can all, once again, be on the same page for our goals, which is a 

Commercial Crew vehicle that will go to ISS within a couple of 

years, at the same time that we are using the expertise from that 

and moving forward expeditiously for the longer-term lower-Earth 

orbit (LEO) ventures that will spell the real long-term future for 

the science and technology that we hope to gain. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I liked it. 

We’re going to turn to Administrator Bolden for his testimony, 

and then after the conclusion of his testimony, Senator Cochran, 

noting you are the vice chairman of the full Appropriations Committee and the many demands on your time, we’ll turn to you for 

the first set of questions. Will that help you out? 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Madam Chair, Senator Hutchison and members of 

the subcommittee, today it’s my pleasure and my privilege to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for NASA. All 

of us at NASA are very grateful to the Congress and to this subcommittee for the strong level of support we continue to receive. 

And before I press on any more, I have to join the chair in recognizing Senator Hutchison for your long-term commitment to NASA, 

as well as to this Congress. Although this may be the last official 

public meeting of this subcommittee, I’m certain that this will not 

be the last time that you and I spend time together. I really look 

forward to it. 

But we have benefited from your guidance and your commitment 

since your election in 1993, and you have always been a strong advocate for human space flight and for the Johnson Space Center, 

a place that I called home at one time. You have been one of the 

Congress’ strongest proponents for a space station, and you have 

insisted that we enhance its utilization, and you were the one that 

forced us or supported us in making it a national laboratory. You 

were a key champion for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and for 

SLS and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and for full utilization of ISS, and I really want to thank you personally. 
211 

Your leadership in the appropriations action brought all of us together in your office, as you said, on a bipartisan basis with then 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew, to get 

the three priorities for NASA that we have, at your insistence, that 

we prioritize. Otherwise, we were going nowhere. 

So I sincerely thank you on behalf of all of the NASA family, and 

I look forward to continuing to work with you until the last day 

you’re in office, and then even after that, because I know you will 

continue to make your mark on the space program. But, thank you 

very much personally. 

Our requested budget, as has already been mentioned, was $17.7 

billion, and this will enable NASA to continue to execute bipartisan 

space exploration as planned and agreed to by the President and 

the Congress in 2010. Despite the constrained fiscal environment 

facing the nation, this request supports an ambitious civil space 

program that puts us on a path to achieving a truly exciting set 

of goals, to send humans to an asteroid, and ultimately to Mars, 

and to broaden human activity in LEO. 

The fiscal year 2013 request supports all of the key priorities 

agreed upon by the President and congressional leadership. First, 

American astronauts continue to live and work in space onboard 

the now-completed ISS, conducting research to benefit life here on 

Earth and prepare us for deep space human exploration. NASA is 

committed to making this national resource available to broader research communities. 

We are also committed to ensuring that American companies 

launching from U.S. soil transport our astronauts and their cargo 

to the ISS. This year we will see the first commercial cargo flights 

to ISS, and with the approval of the funding request, we’re on 

track to have an American company or companies transporting our 

astronauts to the ISS by 2017. 

Second, NASA is on track to develop a flexible deep space launch 

system that will be the most capable in history. We are making remarkable progress on contracts and design for the SLS heavy-lift 

rocket and the MPCV, Orion, which will carry American astronauts 

beyond LEO and into deep space within the next decade. Our fiscal 

year 2013 budget request supports our plan for an un-crewed test 

flight in 2017, and a crew test mission by 2021. 

Third, we continue progress toward a launch of the world’s most 

advanced telescope, the JWST, in 2018. NASA’s budget request 

supports a portfolio of innovative science missions resulting in a 

stream of data from orbits around the Sun, Mercury, the Moon, the 

asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now have missions on the 

way to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Sixteen Earth science missions 

currently study the Earth. 

As this subcommittee knows, tough choices had to be made, so 

we will not be moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 exo-Mars 

missions we had been planning with the European Space Agency 

(ESA). Instead, NASA is developing a new integrated strategy for 

sequence of strategically selected missions that increase scientific 

knowledge, advance key technologies, and inform and enable 

human exploration goals. Our plan, including the framework for 

our mission to take advantage of the 2018 to 2020 launch oppor-
212 

tunity, is targeted for completion hopefully in time to support the 

fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

As we finalize that, we will coordinate extensively with the 

science community, our international partners and, of course, the 

Congress. The fiscal year 2013 budget request continues to support 

ambitious Mars exploration, including two spacecraft currently orbiting Mars, the Opportunity rover on the surface, the Mars 

Science Laboratory, Curiosity, and the planned 2013 Mars Atmosphere and Volitle EvolutioN (MAVEN) mission to explore Mars’s 

upper atmosphere. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The fiscal year 2013 budget request also supports continued advances in new aviation, science, and space technologies, absolutely 

essential to enable NASA to achieve its ambitious goals. With the 

2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics research to enable 

the realization of NASA’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, and use NASA’s education programs to inspire 

the next generation of scientists and explorers. 

NASA is grateful to the American people and to you on this subcommittee for your continued support in these challenging times. 

I thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR. 

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, today it is my privilege to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). Our requested budget of $17.7 billion will enable 

NASA to execute the balanced program of science, space exploration, technology, 

and aeronautics agreed to by the President and a bipartisan majority of the Congress. 

Despite the constrained fiscal environment facing the Nation, this request supports a robust civil space program that puts us on a path to achieving a truly exciting set of goals. We are working to send humans to an asteroid and ultimately to 

Mars, to peer deep into space to observe the first galaxies form, and to broaden 

human activity in low-Earth orbit (LEO). We have completed assembling and outfitting of the U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to 

focus on full utilization of the station’s research capabilities. NASA is making air 

travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and work in space, and operating 

a fleet of spacecraft to investigate the Earth, the solar system, and the universe. 

The fiscal year 2013 request supports the implementation of key priorities for 

NASA. 

First, since the historic construction of the ISS was completed in 2011, and now 

that all the international partners have agreed to its extension to at least 2020, we 

must enhance its utilization to ensure the success of this national laboratory. For 

more than 11 years, international crews of space explorers have been living in orbit, 

both building the ISS and conducting a diverse research program continuously. 

NASA is committed to making this national resource available to the broader scientific and commercial research community. Key to its sustainment is the availability of a U.S. commercial crew and cargo delivery capability as soon as possible. 

NASA is working with American companies to establish the next generation of safe 

and efficient vehicles for access to LEO and the ISS. In calendar year 2012, we will 

see the first commercial cargo flights to the ISS, demonstrating the innovation and 

capabilities of our industry partners and providing a path forward to ease our sole 

reliance on Russian transport of astronauts. We will continue to work with our industry partners to develop end-to-end systems for transporting crew and cargo to 

orbit. I am committed to ensuring that American companies, launching from U.S. 

soil, are providing the cargo and crew transportation services that we need to keep 

the ISS functioning. We are making steady progress on these launch services. Later 

this spring and summer, we expect that both of our private company partners, 

SpaceX and Orbital Sciences, will complete demonstration flights of their cargo vehi-
213 

cles to station and actually berth with the ISS, marking a major milestone in our 

goal to establish commercial space capabilities for LEO travel. Some modification 

of the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-proliferation Act (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation of ISS and other space programs after 

2016. The administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward 

to working with the Congress on their enactment. 

Second, with the fiscal year 2013 budget request, NASA is moving out on plans 

to develop a flexible launch system that will ultimately be the most capable in history. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion MPCV) will carry American astronauts beyond LEO and into deep 

space within the next decade. Following a thorough analysis of alternatives, NASA 

has established architecture for SLS and the Orion MPCV. In recent months we 

have continued to push forward with contracting and design efforts to make this 

system a reality. At the same time, we are moving forward on a critical effort to 

develop the technologies and capabilities required to support our ambitious exploration goals. Our fiscal year 2013 budget request supports our plans for an 

uncrewed SLS test flight in 2017 and a crewed test mission by 2021. 

Third, we plan to continue progress toward the launch of the world’s most advanced telescope in 2018. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will operate 

deep in space to orbit the Sun nearly 1 million miles from Earth. From that vantage 

point, JWST will look out into space and back in time almost as far as it is possible 

to look. Over the past year, NASA has engaged in a thorough review of JWST, made 

important adjustments to management, and put the project on a sound financial 

footing. Since we completed this new plan, the project has met 19 of 20 fiscal year 

2011 milestones (with one deferred without impact), and has met all fiscal year 2012 

milestones to date on or ahead of schedule. NASA is confident that the fiscal year 

2013 request supports a 2018 launch of JWST. 

Fourth, the fiscal year 2013 budget request supports continued advances in new 

technologies. The National Research Council (NRC) has determined that future U.S. 

leadership in space requires a foundation of sustained technology advances, but that 

the U.S. space program is now living on the innovation funded in the past. Our 

focus on new space technologies is absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve 

its ambitious goals. At the same time, NASA technology research seeds innovation, 

supports economic vitality and helps to create new jobs and expanded opportunities 

for a skilled workforce. Space technology investments address long-term agency 

technology priorities and technology gaps identified by NASA Mission Directorates 

and within the agency’s draft space technology roadmaps. On February 1, 2012, 

NRC released its final review of NASA’s Draft Space Technology Roadmaps. The report, which notes that NASA’s technology base is largely depleted and identifies 16 

top-priority technologies necessary for NASA’s future missions, which also could 

benefit American aerospace industries and the Nation. This NRC assessment will 

help guide NASA’s technology priorities in the years to come. 

NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request supports a portfolio of innovative science 

missions that will explore the diverse planetary bodies of our solar system, unravel 

the mysteries of our universe and provide critical data about our home planet. Currently operating missions continue to return a stream of data from orbits around 

the Sun, Mercury, the Moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now have 

missions on the way to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Sixteen Earth Science missions 

in orbit study the Earth as an integrated system. The Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, 

and Fermi space telescopes continue to make groundbreaking discoveries on an almost daily basis. In calendar year 2011, the MESSENGER spacecraft entered orbit 

around Mercury, Ebb and Flow began mapping the gravity field of the Moon, and 

Juno launched on its way to Jupiter. Also in 2011, Aquarius produced the first global view of ocean surface salinity and the Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership 

(SNPP) satellite began making observations of Earth’s weather and climate. In 

2012, we will launch the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array to study massive 

black holes, supernovae and other high-energy sources in the universe, and will 

launch the Radiation Belt Storm Probes into Earth’s Van Allen belts. In 2013, we 

will launch the next land observing mission (the Landsat Data Continuity Mission) 

and complete environmental testing of the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) and the 

Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) mission. 

In view of these key priorities for NASA and of our constrained fiscal environment, we will not be moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 ExoMars missions 

that we had been studying with the European Space Agency (ESA). Instead, NASA 

is developing a new, integrated strategy for Mars missions to ensure that the next 

steps for Mars exploration will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration goals, and take advantage of advanced space technology developments. NASA 
214 

will complete this integrated plan, including the framework for a mission to take 

advantage of the 2018 or 2020 launch opportunities, no later than this summer and, 

hopefully, in time to support the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. The fiscal 

year 2013 request supports this approach, and this process will be informed by coordination with the science community and our international partners. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget request continues to support robust Mars exploration, including 

two spacecraft orbiting Mars, the Opportunity rover on the surface, a multi-year exploration of Mars by the Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory, and the MAVEN mission to explore the Mars upper atmosphere. The August landing of Curiosity will 

be among the most difficult technical challenges that NASA has ever attempted and 

Curiosity’s mission of exploration will far eclipse anything humanity has attempted 

on the surface of Mars in the past. We look forward to receiving a treasure trove 

of data from the surface of Mars to help answer questions about its past and present 

habitability. 

With the fiscal year 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics research to enable the realization of the Nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate within NextGen. Through the aeronautics research 

we conduct and sponsor with universities and industry, NASA helps to develop the 

technology that enables continuous innovation in aviation. As a result, U.S. companies are well-positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA 

research, turning them into commercial products that benefit the quality of life for 

our citizens, provide new high-quality engineering and manufacturing job opportunities, and enables the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. 

The request also continues NASA’s dedicated efforts to inspire the next generation 

of explorers. NASA can provide hands-on experience and inspiration as few other 

agencies can. To foster the development of the U.S. workforce, NASA’s education 

programs will focus on demonstrable results and capitalize on the agency’s ability 

to inspire students and educators through unique missions and the big challenges 

that help today’s young people envision their future in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). NASA education is one of many Federal Government 

programs that support STEM education. NASA education is working with other 

agencies through the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on 

STEM Education to fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. NASA will focus its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique 

role in STEM education, freeing resources for other agency priorities. NASA brings 

many assets, beyond funding, to support the administration’s emphasis on STEM 

education. Our people, platforms like the ISS, and our facilities across the Nation 

all contribute to strengthening STEM education. 

NASA is grateful to the American people, and their representatives here on the 

subcommittee for the continued support for NASA despite the difficult resource challenges facing our Nation. A more detailed description of NASA’s balanced program 

of science, space exploration, technology development, and aeronautics is provided 

below. 

SCIENCE

NASA’s Science Mission Directorate develops and operates innovative spacecraft 

missions and instruments that help researchers deliver new discoveries of the 

Earth, the Sun, the planetary bodies in our solar system, and the universe beyond. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for science is $4,911.2 million. 

NASA’s Earth Science Program advances knowledge of the integrated Earth system—the global atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces, ice sheets, ecosystems, and 

interactions among them. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for science includes 

$1,784.8 million for Earth science. In 2011, NASA successfully launched Aquarius/ 

SAC–D, a cooperative ocean surface salinity mission conducted with the Argentine 

Space Agency, and with our partner the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the SNPP. SNPP is the first step in developing the Nation’s 

next-generation climate and weather monitoring missions. During calendar year 

2012, NASA will select the first small satellite mission under the Earth Venture 

(EV) program as recommended in NRC’s decadal survey for Earth science. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget will fund all three components of the EV program: 

—this new small mission; 

—the on-going EV–1 airborne science campaigns; and 

—the first EV–I instrument of opportunity. 

Fiscal year 2013 will see the launch of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission and 

the completion of environmental testing for the Global Precipitation Measurement 

mission. The fiscal year 2013 budget will also fund continued development of the 
215 

first two Tier 1 decadal survey missions, Soil Moisture Active Passive mission and 

ICESat-2. Finally, the fiscal year 2013 budget will fund continued development of 

three key missions to assure delivery of sustained Earth observations (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment-Follow on, OCO–2, and the SAGE–III instrument 

that will fly on the ISS) and fund the continued operation of 16 missions currently 

in orbit as well as research using the resultant data. The fiscal year 2013 budget 

request for Earth science sustains support for focused research, applications, and 

technology development activities that redeem the investment in our ongoing missions, while positioning us to accomplish essential new missions in the future. 

NASA’s Earth science program leads to improved prediction services by other agencies, providing direct tangible benefits to communities, businesses, and citizens. 

NASA’s Planetary Science Program explores the content origin and evolution of 

the solar system and the potential for life beyond Earth. The fiscal year 2013 budget 

request for science includes $1,192.3 million for planetary science. In the second half 

of 2011, NASA launched Juno on its way to Jupiter, Gravity Recovery And Interior 

Laboratory (GRAIL) to the Moon, and the Mars Science Laboratory to the Red Planet. GRAIL’s ‘‘Ebb’’ and ‘‘Flow’’ spacecraft will conduct their mission to map the 

Moon’s gravity field and interior structure during the first half of 2012. The Mars 

Science Laboratory rover Curiosity will land in Gale Crater on Mars on August 6, 

2012. The fiscal year 2013 budget request funds the operation of Curiosity on Mars. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget will also fund the beginning of development of the next 

Discovery mission that will be selected from among three candidates completing 

their studies in 2012. In fiscal year 2013, NASA will be completing development of 

the LADEE mission to the Moon and the MAVEN mission to Mars for launch in 

late calendar year 2013/early fiscal year 2014. Also in fiscal year 2013, NASA will 

continue the development of the OSIRIS–REx mission to return samples from an 

asteroid, and will continue operation of the Dawn (the asteroid Vesta), Juno (Jupiter), Cassini (Saturn), New Horizon (Pluto), and MESSENGER (Mercury) missions. 

However, the resources available over the budget horizon are insufficient to enable 

either a future Mars or Outer Planets flagship mission as identified by last year’s 

planetary science decadal survey. 

NASA remains committed to a vigorous program of Mars exploration and continuing America’s leadership role in Mars exploration within the available budget. 

As stated above, NASA is discontinuing its effort on instruments for the joint 

(NASA/ESA) 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission and the 2018 mission that 

NASA had been exploring with ESA. Instead, NASA will develop an integrated 

strategy to ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration will support science as 

well as long-term human exploration goals. This process will be informed by coordination with the science community and international community. NASA is developing a plan for a reformulated medium-class robotic science Mars mission, within 

available resources, to take advantage of the favorable location of Mars and Earth 

in 2018 or 2020. NASA’s plan is to work with potential international partners including ESA and the science community to lay out an initial framework for this mission over the next several months and produce a mission architecture by this summer. The budget request includes $62 million in fiscal year 2013 for this mission. 

NASA’s Astrophysics Program seeks to discover how the universe works, explore 

how the universe began and evolved and search for Earth-like planets. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget request for science includes $659.4 million for Astrophysics. NASA 

will continue to conduct science operations flights of the SOFIA aircraft in 2012 and 

2013 as we upgrade its science instruments, and will continue parallel development 

of efforts leading to achievement of a full operational capability in 2014. The fiscal 

year 2013 budget will fund the early stages of development of the next Astrophysics 

small Explorer mission to be selected early in calendar year 2013. Also in 2013, 

NASA will complete development of its instrument contributions to Japan’s AstroH mission for launch in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2013 budget enables NASA 

to continue development of the GEMS Explorer mission toward a launch in 2015. 

Finally, the fiscal year 2013 budget will fund the operation of eleven Astrophysics 

missions currently in operation, including the Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi 

space telescopes. 

The JWST is an infrared telescope designed to study and answer fundamental astrophysical questions ranging from the formation and structure of the universe to 

the origin of planetary systems and the origins of life. The fiscal year 2013 budget 

request for science includes $627.6 million for JWST. A scientific successor to the 

Hubble Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope, JWST will be used by 

international teams of astronomers to conduct imaging and spectroscopic observations. The Observatory will be located in an orbit near the second Sun-Earth Lagrange point, approximately 1.5 million km from Earth. The telescope and instruments will be operated at a temperature of 40 degrees above absolute zero (40 Kel-
216 

vin) shielded from the heat of the Sun by a large sunshield, to enable the Observatory to achieve unprecedented sensitivity over its entire wavelength range. NASA 

completed a new baseline cost and schedule for JWST at the end of calendar year 

2011, and is now implementing that new baseline. All 18 JWST primary mirror segments have been completed. NASA expects to take delivery of all four JWST instruments in fiscal year 2012–2013. In fiscal year 2013, NASA will begin sunshield fabrication and continue development of the Integrated Science Instrument Module and 

the ground segment. 

NASA’s Heliophysics Program seeks an understanding of the Sun, and the complex interaction of the coupled system comprising the Sun, Earth, other planetary 

systems, the vast space within the solar system, and the interface with interstellar 

space. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for Science includes $647 million for 

Heliophysics. Later this year, NASA will launch the Radiation Belt Storm Probes 

mission, and the fiscal year 2013 budget will fund completion of its checkout and 

its early operations. The fiscal year 2013 budget will fund completion and launch 

of the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) small Explorer mission as well 

as beginning of the development of the next small Explorer to be selected in early 

in calendar year 2013. Fiscal year 2013 will be a peak year in the development of 

the Magnetospheric Multiscale mission to be launched in 2015. The fiscal year 2013 

budget will also fund the continued formulation of the Solar Probe Plus mission and 

development of the Solar Orbiter Collaboration with ESA. NASA expects to receive 

the new NRC Heliophysics decadal survey this spring, and will use it to shape the 

fiscal year 2014 budget request in this area. 

Also during fiscal year 2013, NASA will continue development of environmental 

operational satellites for NOAA on a reimbursable basis. These include the Joint 

Polar Satellite System, Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES– 

R series), Jason 3, and the Deep Space Climate Observatory. Funding for these programs is in the Department of Commerce budget request for NOAA. 

In addition to the space missions emphasized above, the fiscal year 2013 budget 

funds NASA’s Science Mission Directorate to continue to sponsor competitively selected research by universities, industry, and government laboratories across the 

Nation. Using data from these missions, the Nation’s scientific community pursues 

answers to profound scientific questions of interest to all humanity as well as questions that enhance our national capability to predict environmental change including severe storms, droughts, and space weather events, and thereby enhance our 

economic and environmental security. 

AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

NASA aeronautics research will enable the realization of the Nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient, 

quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate within NextGen. 

Through the research we conduct and research we sponsor with universities and industry, we help to develop the technology that enables continuous innovation in 

aviation. American companies are well-positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA research, turning them into commercial products, benefiting the quality of life for our citizens, providing new high-quality engineering and 

manufacturing job opportunities, and enabling the United States to remain competitive in the global economy. NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for aeronautics 

is $551.5 million to continue our tradition of developing new concepts for aeronautics applications. 

The fiscal year 2013 request for aeronautics research includes $168.7 million for 

the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, which seeks to continually improve technology that can be infused into today’s state-of-the-art aircraft, while enabling 

game-changing new concepts such as Hybrid Wing Body airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft, low-boom supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In fiscal year 

2010 and 2011, we conducted emissions measurements for alternative nonpetroleum 

fuels derived from coal and biomass that showed dramatic reductions in particulate 

emissions in the vicinity of airports. In fiscal year 2013, the program will perform 

emissions measurements behind aircraft operating at relevant altitudes and cruise 

speeds to provide the first-ever data on the impact of alternative fuels on contrail 

formation, an important factor in aviation climate impact. In fiscal year 2013, the 

program will also increase its research on composite materials to enable airframe 

weight reductions beyond those achieved with current materials and structural design concepts. 

NASA is combining hypersonic and supersonic research into a single project to 

focus on fundamental research for high-speed flight. Research into hypersonic flight 

is also relevant to the Department of Defense (DOD) and NASA will retain critical 
217 

core competencies and national asset testing capabilities to continue productive collaborations with DOD. Responsibility for fundamental research on entry, decent, 

and landing technologies will be transferred to space technology to increase synergy 

with the agency’s exploration and science missions. NASA will continue to work 

with DOD to maximize the efficiencies of current assets and investments and increase partnership to accomplish common goals. These realignments will enable 

NASA to focus on higher-priority research to improve the safety and minimize the 

environmental impacts of current and future aircraft and air traffic management 

systems. The fiscal year 2013 request for aeronautics research includes $104 million 

for the Integrated Systems Research Program. This program evaluates and selects 

the most promising environmentally friendly engine and airframe concepts emerging 

from the fundamental research programs for further development, integration, and 

evaluation in relevant environments. Last year, the program completed a major 

study by three aircraft manufactures to identify the critical technologies needed to 

simultaneously reduce emissions, fuel burn, and noise in aircraft entering service 

in 2025. In fiscal year 2013, the program will start a 3-year focused research effort 

on these technologies to advance their technology readiness. The program is also addressing the emerging desire to integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) into 

the National Airspace System. Current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations are built upon the condition of a pilot being on-board the aircraft. The Program will therefore generate data for FAA use in rule-making through development, 

testing, and evaluation of UAS technologies in operationally relevant scenarios. 

Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through improved air traffic management procedures, which is the focus of the Airspace Systems Program with $93.3 million requested for fiscal year 2013. Last year the program advised the FAA on new air 

traffic management concepts for more efficient routing of flights during their cruise 

phase. We also completed evaluations of concepts for new fuel-efficient arrival procedures and will deliver requirements for those concepts to the FAA this year. In fiscal year 2013, the program will begin demonstrations to verify that several new procedures for air traffic management during arrival and taxiing to the gate that are 

enabled by NextGen Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS–B) technology can work together seamlessly. This effort will demonstrate near-term and 

mid-term ADS–B application benefits and provide airlines with data to support their 

strategic decisions related to the significant investments they need to make to equip 

their aircraft with ADS–B capability. The Aviation Safety Program, with $81.1 million requested for fiscal year 2013, 

conducts research to ensure that current and new aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high level of safety which the American public has come to expect. In fiscal year 2011, the program advanced data mining methods that permit 

the discovery of flight operations and aircraft maintenance issues through automated analysis of the vast amounts of data generated during flight operations and 

by sensors onboard aircraft. These methods have enabled the development of new 

software for aircraft central maintenance computers on both business jet and large 

commercial aircraft that can identify the early stages of hardware faults 30 to 50 

flights earlier than previously possible. This allows airline maintenance personnel 

to address equipment issues before they cause a disruptive maintenance delay at 

the airport gate. The program also focuses on mitigating environmental hazards to 

aviation and in fiscal year 2013 will conduct a flight campaign to characterize ice 

water content at high altitudes in tropical regions as a first step to understanding 

the causes of severe loss of power due to engine icing that has occurred on a number 

of occasions. 

U.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to technologically advanced, 

efficient, and affordable aeronautics test capabilities. NASA’s Aeronautics Test Program, with $78.1 million requested for fiscal year 2013, makes strategic investments 

to ensure the availability of these ground test facilities and flight test assets to researchers in Government, industry, and academia. In addition to this strategic management activity, the program will continue developing new test instrumentation 

and test technologies. Last year the program completed nearly $50 million worth of 

upgrades to major facilities funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These upgrades provide improved research capabilities at Glenn and 

Ames Research Centers for aircraft and engine icing research, and tilt-rotor designs 

for a new generation of rotorcraft. New capabilities were also added to the Langley 

14x22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel that will enable researchers to measure noise signatures from novel aircraft designs at a fraction of the cost of noise measurement acquired by flying real aircraft over airport microphone arrays. NASA’s Aeronautics 

Test program enables and sustains U.S. leadership in aerospace yielding high-quality jobs and ultimately a productive aerospace sector. 
218 

The Aeronautics Strategy and Management Program provides for research and 

programmatic support that benefits each of the other five programs, and has a requested budget of $26.4 million for fiscal year 2013. The program manages Directorate functions including innovative concepts for aviation, education and outreach, 

and cross program operations. 

NASA is making meaningful contributions to the aerospace community, but we 

cannot do all these good things alone. Therefore, our partnerships with industry, 

academia, and other Federal agencies are critical to our ability to expand the boundaries of aeronautical knowledge for the benefit of the Nation. These partnerships 

foster a collaborative research environment in which ideas and knowledge are exchanged across all communities and help ensure the future competitiveness of the 

Nation’s aviation industry. They also directly connect students with NASA researchers and our industrial partners and help to inspire students to choose a career in 

the aerospace industry. 

HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS

In 2011, NASA combined the Exploration Systems and Space Operations Mission 

Directorates to create the Human Exploration and Operations (HEO) Mission Directorate. HEO encompasses everything from the ISS and the commercial cargo and 

crew vehicles that will support it, to NASA’s new exploration vehicles, which will 

take astronauts beyond LEO. HEO also includes research and technology development efforts that will enable deep space exploration, as well as critical infrastructure and operational capabilities that ensure NASA’s ability to conduct testing, 

launch science missions, and communicate with its spacecraft across the solar system. As NASA reformulates its Mars exploration plans, we will ensure that the next 

steps for Mars exploration will take into account long-term human exploration as 

well as science goals. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,769.4 million for human exploration capabilities, which the agency proposes to rename Exploration Systems Development. This program includes development of the Orion MPCV, SLS heavy-lift 

launch vehicle, and the supporting ground infrastructure required for NASA’s future 

crewed missions of exploration beyond LEO and into deep space. The amounts requested align with the plan developed and supported by an independent cost analysis performed last summer. 

NASA’s Orion MPCV will carry astronauts to, and support operations at, a variety 

of destinations in our solar system for periods of up to 21 days. NASA has recently 

completed a number of tests on Orion MPCV, including a test of the main parachute, and a series of water drop tests on the 18,000-pound Orion MPCV Boiler 

Plate Test Article. The Orion ground test article will undergo and complete acoustic, 

modal, and vibration environment compatibility testing at Lockheed Martin Denver 

during fiscal year 2012. The results of these tests will help improve the design for 

the actual flight vehicle. In May, the Orion Crew Module primary structure will be 

moved to Kennedy Space Center in Florida for the start of Assembly, Integration, 

and Production. NASA plans to conduct an uncrewed high-energy-atmospheric entry 

test mission of the Orion MPCV in fiscal year 2014. Designated Exploration Flight 

Test-1 (EFT–1), this flight test will provide critical data to influence key design decisions. EFT–1 will also validate innovative new approaches to space systems development and operations to reduce the cost of exploration missions. For EFT–1, an early 

production variant of the Orion MPCV spacecraft will be integrated on a Lockheed 

Martin-procured, heavy-class launch vehicle. The flight test will provide an opportunity to significantly inform critical design elements by operating the integrated 

spacecraft hardware and software in flight environments that cannot be duplicated 

by ground testing. 

On September 14, 2011, NASA announced the design of the SLS, which will initially be capable of lifting 70–100 metric tons before evolving to a lift capacity of 

130 metric tons for more demanding missions. NASA has worked diligently to accomplish the contracting and design work necessary to support a 2017 initial flight 

mission for the SLS. In fiscal year 2013, SLS will continue detailed preliminary design and development and undergo a preliminary design review to evaluate the completeness/consistency of the program’s preliminary design in meeting all requirements with appropriate margins, with acceptable risk, and within cost and schedule 

constraints. This comprehensive review will determine the program’s readiness to 

proceed with the detailed critical design phase of the project. 

The SLS will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, building 

upon the investment made by the Nation over the last 40 years. The vehicle’s core 

stage will utilize existing Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME RS–25D) for the initial capability. NASA’s use of the SSME inventory will reduce initial design costs 
219 

and take advantage of an existing human-rated system. NASA plans to modify and 

use the existing SSME contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to acquire RS– 

25D engine servicing and testing for the initial launch system. 

The upper stage of the SLS needed for the full-up SLS capability will also use 

a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system that includes the J–2X, a 

new upper stage engine previously planned for use in the Ares-I vehicle. NASA is 

negotiating a modification to the Ares I Upper Stage contract with Boeing to develop 

the SLS core stage and upper stage, including avionics. SLS will also utilize the existing J–2X contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to continue developing the 

upper stage engine. 

NASA has been running J–2X components through a series of tests. In November 

and December 2011, the agency conducted three J–2X engine tests, firing the motor 

for a total of 680 seconds. These were the last of 10 engine test firings completed 

in 2011. In January and February 2012, NASA also conducted a series of J–2X 

Power Pack Assembly tests. These tests are part of a series of more than 100 powerpack and integrated engine tests that NASA has planned to complete the engine design and certify the J–2X for use in the SLS Upper Stage. 

NASA plans to use five-segment solid rocket boosters for the initial capability test 

flights of the SLS. We will conduct a competition to develop the follow-on boosters 

based on performance requirements. In support of this effort, on February 9, 2012, 

the agency released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for Advanced Booster 

Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction. Proposals are due in April and contract awards are expected in October 2012. 

On February 1, 2012, NASA also released a draft for an NRA for advanced development of key technologies in propulsion, avionics, structures and materials, and 

other areas. The final release is planned for March, with proposals due in May and 

contract award in October 2012. 

Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) will develop the necessary ground systems infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center and operational plans and procedures to 

prepare, assemble, test, launch, and recover the Exploration architecture elements 

for long-term beyond-Earth orbit exploration. EGS will focus on the lifecycle of a 

launch complex as an integrated system (from development, activation, operations, 

maintenance of capabilities to manufacture, assemble, test, checkout, launch, and 

recover flight hardware) to enable more efficient and cost-effective ground processing, launch and recovery operations. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $829.7 million for the Commercial 

Spaceflight theme. This effort will support commercial providers to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable commercial systems to transport crew and cargo 

to and from the ISS and LEO. 

As part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program— 

NASA’s commercial cargo effort—NASA has partnerships with Space Exploration 

Technologies, Inc. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) using funded 

Space Act Agreements. These agreements include a schedule of fixed-payment performance milestones culminating in a demonstration mission to the ISS that includes vehicle launch, spacecraft rendezvous, ISS berthing, and re-entry for disposal 

or return to Earth. Both COTS partners continue to make progress in developing 

and demonstrating their systems. Based on the success of their first COTS demo 

flight in December 2010, SpaceX plans to fully develop and assemble their next vehicle with the capabilities and equipment necessary to complete rendezvous and 

berthing demonstration to the ISS, thus potentially combining milestones that had 

been planned for separate flights. If successful, this will accelerate the completion 

of the COTS Space Act Agreement and enable delivery of cargo under the Commercial Resupply Services contract. This mission is tentatively planned for April 2012. 

Orbital Sciences is currently mating the main engines for its Antares vehicle to the 

core stage in preparation for an integrated static fire later this year. The maiden 

flight of the Antares is planned for launch no earlier than the second quarter of 

2012, and it will include a Cygnus spacecraft mass simulator. Orbital Sciences’ 

COTS demonstration flight to the ISS is slated for no earlier than the third quarter 

of 2012. The pad complex at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia is being readied and 

space flight hardware, including the first Pressurized Cargo Module, two Antares 

core sections, and a Castor-30 upper stage, has already been delivered to Wallops 

Flight Facility. 

The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) aims to facilitate the development of a U.S. 

commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, and cost effective access to and from LEO and ISS. Since 2009, NASA has conducted two CCDev competitions, soliciting proposals from U.S. industry to further 

advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of elements of the system. During the second CCDev competi-
220 

tion, known as CCDev2, NASA awarded four funded Space Act Agreements that are 

currently being executed with Blue Origin, The Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada 

Corporation, and SpaceX, all of which are making good progress in achieving their 

milestones. NASA has also signed Space Act Agreements without funding with three 

additional companies: 

—Alliant Techsystems, Inc.; 

—United Launch Alliance; and 

—Excalibur Almaz, Inc. 

Under the CCP, NASA plans to partner with U.S. industry, providing technical 

and financial assistance to facilitate industry’s development of an integrated crew 

transportation system. In the longer term, once those entities are certified, NASA 

plans to buy transportation services from commercial entities for U.S. and U.S.-designated astronauts to the ISS. The Congress appropriated $406 million for CCP in fiscal year 2012 which reflected a substantial reduction from NASA’s request for this program. The fiscal 

year 2012 appropriation enables the agency to move forward with its plans to support the development of commercial services that may eventually support crew 

transportation and rescue capabilities in support of ISS. However, the constrained 

budget environment necessitated a reassessment of NASA’s overall strategy for this 

Program. On December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified competitive acquisition strategy designed to make the best use of available resources and to pursue 

the most effective path to the achievement of a commercial crew capability. Instead 

of using firm-fixed price contracts for the next phase of the program, the agency 

plans to continue using multiple, competitively awarded and funded Space Act 

Agreements for another round of CCP. NASA will use procurement contracts to certify these capabilities before they are used to support ISS. Using competitive Space 

Act Agreements instead of contracts at this juncture will allow NASA to maintain 

multiple partners during this phase of the program, and provide NASA with the 

flexibility to more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new acquisition strategy will allow NASA to preserve greater competition and maintain momentum to 

provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch capability at the earliest possible time. 

NASA is pleased with the steady progress of U.S. commercial providers in developing domestic cargo and crew transportation services. NASA currently has contracts for cargo services and intends to purchase crew services from U.S. providers 

once they are certified to our crew requirements. Obtaining needed cargo and crew 

transportation services from U.S. providers is NASA’s preferred method for sustaining and fully utilizing the ISS. Nevertheless, given current funding levels for the 

development of U.S. crew transportation systems, we anticipate the need to purchase Soyuz crew transportation and rescue capabilities into 2017. As NASA has 

previously testified, modification of INKSNA provisions will likely be required for 

the continued operation of ISS and other space programs after 2016. The administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with 

the Congress on their enactment. NASA is evaluating how this issue impacts the 

development of U.S. crew transportation systems and NASA’s acquisition of services 

for the ISS and goods and services for other NASA human spaceflight activities, 

given the possibility that some U.S. domestic providers will need to use Russian 

goods and services. In addition to the need driven by the ISS transportation requirements, NASA will require Russia-unique critical capabilities for the life of the ISS, 

such as sustaining engineering for the Russian-built, United States-owned Functional Cargo Block, that are not available elsewhere. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $333.7 million for Exploration Research and Development (ERD). The ERD theme will expand fundamental knowledge that is key to human space exploration, and will develop advanced exploration 

systems and capabilities that will enable humans to explore space in a more sustainable and affordable way. ERD is comprised of the Human Research Program 

(HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program, which will provide 

knowledge and advanced human spaceflight capabilities. NASA’s Office of the Chief 

Technologist (see below) coordinates closely with ERD to ensure that NASA’s long 

range, crosscutting Space Technology research is complementary to ERD’s human 

exploration focused work. 

HRP and its associated projects will continue to develop technologies, countermeasures, diagnostics, and design tools to keep crews safe and productive on longduration space missions. ISS crews are conducting relevant human medical research 

to develop knowledge in the areas of clinical medicine, human physiology, cardiovascular research, bone and muscle health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic instruments and sensors, advanced ultrasound, exercise and pharmacological countermeasures, food and nutrition, immunology and infection, exercise systems, and 

human behavior and performance. While this research is aimed at enabling astro-
221 

nauts to push the boundaries of exploration beyond LEO, NASA anticipates that investigations conducted aboard ISS may have broad application to terrestrial medicine, as well. For example, the growing senior population may benefit from experiments in the areas of bone and muscle health, immunology, and from the development of advanced diagnostic systems. 

The AES program is pioneering new approaches for rapidly developing prototype 

systems, demonstrating key capabilities, and validating operational concepts for future human missions beyond-Earth orbit. AES activities are uniquely related to 

crew safety and mission operations in deep space, and are strongly coupled to future 

vehicle and exploration capability development. Early integration and testing of prototype systems will reduce risk and improve affordability of exploration mission elements. The prototype systems developed in the AES Program will be demonstrated 

in ground-based test beds, field tests, underwater tests, and flight experiments on 

the ground and then on the ISS. Many AES projects will evolve into larger integrated systems and mission elements that will be tested on ISS before we venture 

beyond-Earth orbit, thus leveraging the value of ISS as a vital exploration test-bed. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $70.6 million for the Space Shuttle 

Transition and Retirement. In 2011, the shuttle flew out its remaining missions 

safely. On February 24, Discovery launched on mission STS–133, carrying supplies 

to ISS, as well as the permanent a Multi-purpose Module—a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module transformed to remain on orbit, expanding the Station’s storage volume. 

On May 16, Endeavour, STS–134, carried the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and attached it to the Station’s truss structure. The final shuttle mission, STS–135, 

launched on July 8, delivered critical supplies to the ISS. With the landing of 

Atlantis on July 21, 2011, the 30-year shuttle program was brought to a close. The 

space shuttle program is now focused on the transition of key assets and infrastructure to future programs, and the retirement, and disposition of program assets. 

In fiscal year 2012, NASA is funding United Space Alliance’s (USA) Space Program Operations Contract Pension Liability. During the shuttle program, USA consistently incorporated and billed the maximum allowable costs into their indirect 

rates, but the deterioration of the equities and credit markets caused their plan to 

be underfunded by a currently estimated $522 million. The estimate will fluctuate 

until payout in the summer of 2012. The variance is protected in the transition and 

retirement budget line item. The Space Program Operations Contract, which accounts for almost all of USA’s business base, is a cost-type contract covered by the 

Cost Accounting Standards. These standards stipulate that any costs of terminating 

plans are a contractual obligation of the Government (if deemed allowable, allocable, 

and reasonable). NASA and USA entered into an agreement under which USA froze 

their pension plans as of December 31, 2010, and deferred any decision about terminating their plan until after NASA received its fiscal year 2012 appropriation, allowing NASA to address this issue with fiscal year 2012 funds. If funding remains after 

the pension plan termination, it will be used to defray space shuttle closeout costs 

that would otherwise require fiscal year 2013 funding. If there is a shortfall, it will 

reduce available space shuttle funds for closeout and some activity could move later 

than planned. NASA will keep the Congress informed as this issue evolves. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $3,007.6 million for the ISS program. 

This funding will support ISS Operations and Maintenance, ISS Research, and ISS 

Crew and Cargo Transportation. The ISS has transitioned from the construction era 

to that of operations and research, with a six-person permanent crew, three major 

science labs, an operational lifetime through at least 2020, and a growing complement of cargo vehicles, including the European Automated Transfer Vehicle and 

the Japanese H–II Transfer Vehicle (HTV). The fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects the importance of this unparalleled research asset to America’s human 

spaceflight program. 

In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155), the Congress designated the U.S. segment of the ISS as a National Laboratory, and directed the 

agency to seek to increase the utilization of the ISS by other Federal entities and 

the private sector. NASA has made great strides in its effort to engage other organizations in the ISS program, and the agency now has Memoranda of Understanding 

with five Federal agencies and Space Act Agreements with nine companies and universities. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–267), the Congress directed that the agency enter into a cooperative agreement with a not-forprofit organization to manage the activities of the ISS National Laboratory. To this 

end, on August 31, 2011, NASA finalized a cooperative agreement with the Center 

for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS) to manage the portion of the ISS 

that operates as a U.S. National Laboratory. CASIS will be located in the Space Life 

Sciences Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The independent, nonprofit research management organization will help ensure the Station’s unique capa-
222 

bilities are available to the broadest possible cross-section of U.S. scientific, technological and industrial communities. CASIS will develop and manage a varied Research and Development portfolio based on U.S. national needs for basic and applied 

research; seek to establish a marketplace to facilitate matching research pathways 

with qualified funding sources; and stimulate interest in using the national lab for 

research and technology demonstrations and as a platform for STEM education. The 

goal is to support, promote and accelerate innovations and new discoveries in 

science, engineering and technology that will improve life on Earth. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $935 million for Space and Flight 

Support (SFS). The budget request provides for critical infrastructure indispensable 

to the Nation’s access to and use of space, including Space Communications and 

Navigation (SCaN), Launch Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT), 

and Human Space Flight Operations. The SFS budget also includes investment in 

the 21st Century Space Launch Complex, whose primary objective is to modernize 

and transform the Florida launch and range complex at the Kennedy Space Center 

to benefit current and future NASA programs, along with other emerging users. Fiscal year 2013 is an important period for NASA’s SCaN program. The program is 

responsible for NASA’s Tracking and Data Rely Satellites (TDRS) that provide a 

critical backbone for space communications. Fiscal year 2013 will include the scheduled launch TDRS–K, an additional satellite in the system; completion of TDRS– 

L integration; and the development of TDRS–M, which will be ready for launch in 

2015. These spacecraft will refurbish this important network as aging TDRS are retired after 20 years of service to the Nation. Also under construction is a 34-meter 

antenna at the Deep Space Network’s Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, with plans to build a second, to replace the aging 70-meter antenna. These antennae in the Southern Hemisphere will be particularly important as the Earth’s 

rotation brings this site into the best range for tracking NASA’s deep space missions 

in the coming decade. In preparation for supporting NASA’s space science program, 

SCaN is developing space communications technology, including the Lunar Laser 

Communications Demonstration and the Laser Communication Relay Demonstration, which will lead to the capability of handling the huge increase in scientific 

data expected from NASA’s planned spacecraft. Additionally, this capability could 

enable greater bandwidth and capabilities to support expanded education, 

participatory engagement, and interactive exploration opportunities. SCaN also anticipates the launch of its SCaN Test-bed in June on the Japanese Space Agency’s 

HTV cargo vehicle. The test-bed, composed of three Software-Defined Radios, will 

provide the bridge to advance technological innovation by actual testing in the real 

space environment. As a pathfinder it will be made available to industry, academia, 

and other Government agencies. 

LSP has several planned NASA launches in fiscal year 2013, including the, 

Landsat Data Continuity Mission, TDRS–K, and IRIS, and will continue to provide 

support for the development and certification of emerging launch services. In fiscal 

year 2013, the RPT program will continue to conduct test facility management, 

maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and facility modernization projects 

required to keep the test-related facilities in the appropriate state of operational 

readiness. The RPT program will continue to assist in rocket propulsion testing requirements definition for LEO and in-space propulsion systems and related technologies 

SPACE TECHNOLOGY

The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) coordinates the agency’s overall technology portfolio. OCT ensures that NASA’s investments are cost-effective and that 

they are aligned with the agency’s near- and far-term goals. Over the last year, OCT 

has engaged thousands of technologists and innovators to develop and test cuttingedge technologies distributed across the country. While NRC conducted its review 

of NASA’s technology roadmaps, OCT worked with mission architecture teams to 

identify key technology areas requiring immediate investment. Using these internal, 

cross-agency working groups, NASA selected nine technologies to receive priority 

funding based on their criticality in extending human presence beyond LEO and 

their ability to dramatically further scientific exploration of the solar system. These 

‘‘Big 9’’ projects are: 

—Laser communications relay demonstration; 

—Cryogenic propellant storage and transfer; 

—Low-density supersonic decelerators; 

—Composite cryogenic propellant tanks; 

—Robotic satellite servicing; 

—Hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators; 
223 

—Deep space atomic clock; 

—Large-scale solar sail; and 

—Human-robotic systems. 

On February 1, 2012, NRC released its final review of NASA’s Draft Space Technology Roadmaps. NRC identified 16 top-priority technologies necessary for future 

missions, and which could also benefit American aerospace industries and the Nation. The 16 were chosen by the NRC from its own ranking of 83 high-priority technologies out of approximately 300 identified in the draft roadmaps. In the coming 

months, OCT will lead an agency-wide analysis and coordination effort to inform future technology investments on the basis of the NRC report. The fiscal year 2013 request for space technology is $699 million and funds ongoing high-priority space technology projects that will increase the Nation’s capability to operate in space and enable long-term human exploration and develop efficiencies for deep space science missions. In fiscal year 2013, NASA will begin to see 

major milestones achieved within Space Technology’s ‘‘Big 9’’ efforts. Designed to deliver data rates that will enable new class of deep-space exploration missions, the 

Laser Communications Relay Demonstration project will begin ground validation activities of advanced laser communication systems. Enabling precise landing of higher-mass payloads to the surface of planets, the Low Density Supersonic Decelerators 

effort will complete three critical full-scale tests to demonstrate parachute and inflatable decelerator performance required prior to supersonic-speed flight demonstration. The Composite Cryogenic (low-temperature) Propellant Tank project will 

design and build a 5-meter-diameter composite cryogenic propellant tank that will 

yield lower-mass and lower-cost rocket propellant tanks. The Cryogenic Propellant 

Storage and Transfer demonstration mission will conduct ground tests of the critical 

technologies required to enable long-term storage and handling of cryogenic fluids 

in space in preparation for a flight demonstration. While these projects will make 

visible individual steps in fiscal year 2013, they are part of a broader portfolio of 

activities that space technology will pursue in order to generate new technologies 

for use by NASA, other government agencies, and U.S. industry. 

Within space technology, NASA funds Crosscutting Space Technology Develop- ment at $293.8 million to enable NASA to develop transformational, broadly applicable technologies and capabilities that are necessary for NASA’s future science and 

exploration missions, and also collaborates on the aerospace needs of other government agencies and the U.S. space enterprise. NASA’s CSTD activities are funded 

through a mix of competitive and strategically guided projects to attract a broad 

array of participants. Investments support research fellowships, NASA Innovative 

Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Centennial Challenges, suborbital flight opportunities, 

and advancements in small satellite technologies and systems. NASA also funds Exploration Technology Development at $202 million to invest 

in the long-range technologies required for humans to explore beyond LEO. ETD 

technologies are higher-risk investments that complement architecture and systems 

development efforts within exploration by maturing breakthrough technology prior 

to integration with operational capabilities. As projects are matured, new projects 

are selected competitively to provide the opportunity to develop the best ideas, innovations, approaches, and processes for the future human space exploration efforts. 

Funded based on a percentage of the agency’s total extramural R&D, the Small 

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer 

(STTR) programs continue to support research and development performed by small 

businesses through competitively awarded contracts. Estimated at approximately 

$173.7 million in fiscal year 2013, these programs produce innovations for both Government and commercial applications. SBIR and STTR provide the high-technology 

small business sector with the opportunity to develop technology for NASA, and 

commercialize that technology to provide goods and services that address other national needs based on the products of NASA innovation. 

Partnership Development and Strategic Integration, funded at $29.5 million, comprises key agency responsibilities managed by OCT: 

—technology partnerships; 

—technology transfer and commercialization; and 

—the coordination of NASA’s technology investments across the agency through 

technology portfolio tracking and technology road-mapping. 

By providing coordination between Mission Directorates and Centers, and identifying collaboration opportunities with other government agencies and performing 

technology transfer, NASA can deliver forward-reaching technology solutions for future science and exploration missions, and help address significant national needs. 

Within this portfolio, OCT engages in national technology development initiatives 

such as the National Robotics Initiative, the National Nanotechnology Initiative and 

the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership, and seeks partnerships with external en-
224 

tities for collaborative technology development. OCT engages the larger aerospace 

community including other Government agencies, and where there are mutual interests, develops partnerships to efficiently develop breakthrough capabilities. 

EDUCATION

The fiscal year 2013 request includes $100 million for NASA’s Office of Education 

to develop STEM education activities that only NASA can provide. The funding request would allow undergraduate and graduate students to work alongside NASA 

scientists and engineers through internships and fellowships at NASA centers. It includes educator professional development, helping our country’s educators become 

proficient in STEM topics, and providing them opportunities to practice hands-on 

investigations. NASA will also continue to support the institutions where learning 

takes place. Through the Space Grant and Minority University Research and Education projects, NASA will work with hundreds of universities and community colleges, strengthening their capacity to train the next generation of scientists and engineers, encouraging student design challenges, and connecting faculty with NASA 

research. And, because we know inspiration doesn’t just happen in a classroom, we 

will engage learners in NASA content at our visitor centers and in partnership with 

museums, science centers, planetariums and other informal education venues. 

NASA is one of many Federal Government programs that support STEM education. NASA is working with other agencies through the National Science and 

Technology Council’s Committee on STEM education to effect optimal revisions to 

fund coordinated and effective student and teacher opportunities. NASA will focus 

its resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique role in STEM education. NASA brings many assets to support the administration’s emphasis on 

STEM education beyond funding. Our people, platforms like the ISS and our facilities across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education. 

Recognizing that the nature of our work is inspirational to learners and educators, 

NASA will leverage the talents of our workforce to support the critical STEM education needs of our Nation. In collaboration with other Federal agencies, NASA will 

leverage unique assets ISS, to provide meaningful experiences. In March, educator 

Astronaut Joe Acaba, a former middle and high school teacher, will begin a 6-month 

mission onboard the ISS. During his time in space, he will work closely with our 

education team on the ground to share his experience with classrooms across America. 

CROSS-AGENCY SUPPORT

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,847.5 million for cross-agency 

support, which provides critical mission support activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and administration of the agency. These 

important functions align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing 

agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances. Within 

this budget request, NASA has taken steps to reduce its administrative expenses, 

including a hiring slowdown and reduced travel. 

NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,093.3 million for Center Management and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing management, operations, 

and maintenance of nine NASA Centers, as well as associated major component facilities. NASA Centers continue to provide high-quality support and the technical 

engineering and scientific talent for the execution of programs and projects. This 

technical expertise represents a true national resource. Center Management and 

Operations provides the basic support required to meet internal and external legal 

and administrative requirements; effectively manage human capital, information 

technology, and facility assets; responsibly execute financial management and all 

NASA acquisitions; ensure independent engineering and scientific technical oversight of NASA’s programs and projects in support of mission success and safety considerations; and, provide a safe, secure, and sustainable workplace that meets local, 

State, and Federal requirements. 

NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $754.2 million for agency management and operations, which funds the critical management and oversight of 

agency missions, programs and functions, and performance of a broad spectrum of 

NASA-wide activities. These programs include Safety and Mission Success activities, 

essential to reducing the likelihood of loss of life and likelihood of mission success 

in our human and robotic programs. Safety and Mission Success funding supports 

the maintenance of independent safety, health, medical and engineering assessments of systems and processes, as well as the performance of the broad risk assessments, mitigations, and acceptance related to critical agency decisions. Agency In-
225 

formation Technology Services encompasses agency-level cross-cutting services and 

initiatives in Information Technology (IT) innovation, business and management applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA mission. The Strategic 

Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) ensures that vital agency test capabilities and 

assets, such as flight simulators and thermal vacuum chambers are sustained in 

order to serve agency and national needs. The agency management and operations 

account funds salary and benefits for civil service employees at NASA headquarters, 

as well as other headquarters personnel costs, such as mandated training. It also 

contains labor funding for agency-wide personnel costs, such as agency training, and 

workforce located at multiple NASA Centers that provide the critical skills and capabilities required to execute mission-support programs agency-wide. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $619.2 million for construction and 

environmental compliance and restoration. NASA construction and environmental 

compliance and restoration provides for the design and execution of all facilities construction projects, including discrete and minor revitalization projects, demolition of 

closed facilities, and environmental compliance and restoration. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $552.8 million for the Construction 

of Facilities (CoF) program, which funds capital repairs and improvements to ensure 

that facilities critical to achieving NASA’s space and aeronautics programs are safe, 

secure, sustainable, and operate efficiently. The agency continues to place emphasis 

on achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure by replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated buildings and infrastructure with new, efficient, and high-performance buildings and infrastructure that will meet NASA’s mission needs while 

reducing the agency’s overall footprint and future operating costs. In August 2011, 

NASA opened the agency’s first building designed for ‘‘Net-Zero’’ energy operations, 

the Propellants North Administration and Maintenance Facility at the Kennedy 

Space Center in Florida. Two active programs that result in NASA achieving greater efficiencies and reduced operating costs are NASA’s demolition program and recapitalization program, in which old inefficient facilities are replaced with new, efficient, consolidated facilities. Twelve horizontal infrastructure projects that sustain 

our major utility systems are included in this request; completion of these projects 

will reduce our usage of potable and process water, electricity, and steam. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $66.4 million for the Environmental 

Compliance and Restoration (ECR) program, which supports the ongoing clean-up 

of sites where NASA operations have contributed to environmental problems. The 

ECR program prioritizes these efforts to ensure that human health and the environment are protected. This program also supports strategic investments in sustainable 

environmental methods and practices aimed at reducing NASA’s environmental footprint and lowering the risk of future cleanups. 

CONCLUSION

NASA’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $17.7 billion represents a substantial 

investment in a balanced program of science, exploration, technology, and aeronautics research. Despite the constrained budget environment facing the Nation, 

this request supports a robust space program that keeps us on a path to achieving 

a truly audacious set of goals. NASA is working to send humans to an asteroid and 

ultimately to Mars, to observe the first galaxies form, and to expand the productivity of humanity’s only permanently crewed space station. We are making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and work in space, and developing the 

critical technologies to achieve these goals. The coming year will include the first 

commercial cargo flights to the ISS, a nuclear-powered robot the size of a small car 

landing on the surface of Mars, and the launch of the Nation’s next land-observing 

satellite. We have spacecraft studying the Sun, circling Mercury, cruising to Pluto 

and investigating almost everything in-between. In the face of very difficult times, 

the American people continue to support the most active, diverse, and productive 

space program in the world. We at NASA are honored by our fellow citizens’ continued support and we are committed to accomplishing the goals that the Congress and 

the President have laid out for us. The program described and supported by our fiscal year 2013 budget request represents our plan to accomplish those goals. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Cochran. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

Senator COCHRAN. Madam Chair, thank you very much. 
226 

Mr. Administrator, welcome to our subcommittee. We congratulate you on your continued leadership for NASA, and we are really 

proud that Mississippi has had a very conspicuous role to play in 

our space flight efforts, specifically being the home of the SLS and 

the testing that has been consistent with the mission of NASA up 

to this point. 

ENGINE TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT

We hope that NASA is considering what it’s going to do and how 

it’s going to proceed with testing, what funds will be needed so that 

we can respond in the Congress with the support from those others 

who support NASA, and we’d like to see the programs that we 

think are in the national interest continue. At the Stennis Space 

Center, we play a big role in that, in my view. 

Is that something that you could agree with? Or if there are 

other plans that NASA has that we’re not aware of, could you let 

us know what they are? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, as you and I have discussed before, Stennis plays a key role in the future of NASA, whether it’s with NASA 

engine testing and development or whether it’s commercial engine 

testing and development. And the other thing that you know very 

well—I refer to Stennis as the Federal city. We host a number of 

other Federal agencies at Stennis, and we’re very proud to do that, 

everything from the Coast Guard and Special Operations Forces, 

the Navy. All the buoys are re-done onboard the Stennis facility, 

so we’re very proud of that, and we see Stennis continuing its role 

as a Federal city. 

MAIN PROPULSION TEST CENTER

Senator COCHRAN. Well, I’m hopeful that we will have enough 

advanced notice and advice so that we can be supportive and helpful, if that’s the will of this subcommittee and of the Senate. 

I wonder if you could say at this point what the costs would be 

if we reactivated the testing for space flight or for launches that 

would occur under NASA’s jurisdiction. What specific plans do you 

anticipate having to implement? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I think what you’re addressing is the total 

test of the main propulsion test center the way that we used to do 

it, which is the cluster of all five engines for the SLS. We’re evaluating right now whether we really need to do that. We think we 

will, and we will come back to this subcommittee and to the Congress to say what we think we need to do in terms of shifting funds 

from something else that we were going to do to be able to conduct 

that test. I’m not prepared to give you an estimate right now, but 

I will take it for the record and get back to the subcommittee on 

it. 

[The information follows:] 

MAIN PROPULSION TEST CENTER

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to conduct an 

integrated test of the Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage prior to the launch 

of the first flight, Exploration Mission-1 (EM–1), which is scheduled for launch at 

the end of 2017. The current plan is to conduct this integrated test (including a 

tanking test and two full-duration 550-second firings) on the SLS core stage that 

will be used for EM–1. After a review by the Rocket Propulsion Test Program, the 
227 

agency has decided to conduct this test on the B–2 test stand at the Stennis Space 

Center. The agency estimates that the total construction costs associated with preparing B–2 to support this integrated test are approximately $168 million. The 

agency will provide the Congress with the construction of facilities plan as part of 

the fiscal year 2012 operating plan update. 

Senator COCHRAN. That would be helpful for us to know just for 

our information, and also planning, to be sure we have room within 

our budget resolutions to provide the funding that would be needed. 

I understand that rocket test facilities would get the same kind 

of systems-level testing of the SLS and that an evaluation could be 

done by NASA at this time of the potential commercial uses of such 

facilities and the resources that may be needed in the next fiscal 

year. Do you have any specific requests in this budget year that’s 

coming up of the specific amounts that would be needed for any of 

those activities? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, as was requested by the Congress, we are 

just about finished with the report on the utilization and rehabilitation of the rocket test facilities, and that will give us definitive 

answers to the question you just posed. So we’re pretty close. I 

have a draft of that report. It should be ready soon, and if we need 

additional funds, we will be coming to the Congress for that. 

Senator COCHRAN. Well, we thank you for that. 

Madam Chair, I’ll yield the floor after making an observation 

that we continue to be complimented that the Stennis Space Center 

is known as the Federal city, and we are hopeful that we will continue to be good hosts and supportive of the efforts that are made 

there to help make sure that we carry out the programs that were 

designed there at Stennis and continue to be cherished in the memory of those of us who live in Mississippi. 

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

Senator MIKULSKI. Administrator Bolden, we’ll probably go to a 

second round, but in my first round I want to focus on the JWST. 

I think as you’ve heard from the members here, we’re each interested in where NASA, through our appropriations process and authorizing, is making a significant investment in some really big 

projects with really big bucks behind it, for which there is no margin for error or cost overruns and so on. 

Last year, this subcommittee took a major step with the bipartisan concurrence of everyone to make sure we put the JWST on 

track. This is after we had asked for a significant management review because we were concerned 2 years ago that the JWST was 

off track, off budget, and we were concerned that it was going to 

be cancelled not because of technology dysfunction but because of 

management dysfunction. 

So last year we put in a significant amount of money, and this 

year the budget request is for $628 million to keep it on track for 

launch by 2018. My question to you is, is the JWST on track, and 

how do we know it to be so? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, no one was as concerned as I was when 

I found out the condition of JWST, and I can tell you now that 

after the management changes we made at the Goddard Space 
228 

Flight Center, at headquarters, and also in the prime contractor of 

Northrup Grumman, I’m very confident that JWST is on track. 

I get a status report on milestones and costs every month, and 

for almost a year-and-a-half now we have met or exceeded the time 

on every—when I say exceeded, it has been quicker than forecast. 

So we have met or bettered every milestone, and we are on cost. 

There were 27 milestones that we laid out. To this date, 26 of them 

have been met. The only one we didn’t, we delayed because of the 

results that we wanted to get from one of the other milestones 

there. 

So, two things. The management in place, the diligence and discipline with which we are approaching the project, the constant 

oversight that’s given from my office by me and my associate administrator makes me confident that the JWST is going to make 

a 2018 launch with the funding that we have requested in this 

budget. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Do you believe that it will make 2018? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am, I do. 

SEQUESTER CONSEQUENCES

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, what will happen if there’s a sequester? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I think I’ve talked to everybody about this. 

While I am a realist, I’m probably the world’s greatest optimist, 

and I am confident that this Congress will avoid that and that we 

will have a budget, and that we will be able to meet our 2018 deadline. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, you couldn’t be an astronaut without 

being an optimist. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. I heard that this morning, as a matter 

of fact, that you don’t want people who fly things making budgets—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. You have to have one of the most optimistic 

views. 

But I am asking you, what would be the consequences of a sequester, and have you looked at it, both for the JWST and also the 

consequences of a sequester on the NASA budget? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I think anyone would say—and we have 

not taken a hard look at the results, what would be the result of 

a sequester, but we all know that it would be a significant cut to 

the NASA budget, which is already strained. We would have to 

come back to the Congress and talk about how we meet our priorities and whether we decided that we were going to put all of our 

funds on the priorities and forsake everything else. That would be 

the only way that we would be able to see those three priorities 

stick to the dates that we have right now. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So has the administration directed you as the 

NASA Administrator to have contingency plans in the event of 

that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, ma’am, we have not. The administration’s position is as I—while they’re not as optimistic as I am all the time, 

I think we all are optimistic that between the administration and 

the Congress, we’ll find a way to work this out and we won’t get 

to sequester. So we are not making contingency plans or anything. 
229 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, I think I’m optimistic, too. I would have 

never done the things I have in my life if I wasn’t optimistic. But 

I think I’m also the kind of person that—I believe in a double cord 

if I needed a parachute, and I like having brakes on a car, and I 

like having airbags. 

So I really would recommend to both the administration and to 

you, again, complying with their directions, to really be ready for 

some real challenges. We hope not. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We hope not, but I think there is a big flashing yellow light on our screen. 

But, having said that, I’ve got a flashing yellow light on my time. 

Let me turn to Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’m happy to let Senator Shelby and Senator Brown go next. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Shelby. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. 

Mr. Administrator, I believe that the core mission of NASA is to 

build cutting-edge systems that will allow us to expand our knowledge of the universe. This administration, I believe, seems to think 

that NASA’s job is to use taxpayer money as venture capital to 

support speculative commercial companies, the future Solyndras of 

the space industry. 

THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION’S CORE

MISSION

Despite identifying SLS as a priority program, you requested 

$150 million less in the fiscal 2013 budget year than the Congress 

provided in 2012 for the SLS vehicle development. At the same 

time, you doubled funding for commercial programs. When is this 

administration going to get the message that the Congress, I believe, is not willing to subsidize so-called commercial vendors at the 

expense of NASA’s core mission of engineering and exploration? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I could not agree more with your position 

that our job is technology development and exploration and cuttingedge science and technology, and that’s what we asked for in the 

budget. We put forth a budget that requests $675 million for space 

technology, which covers the gamut of what we do. It contributes 

to the heavy-lift launch vehicle. It contributes to a next-generation 

MPCV. It contributes to our science program. It will enable us to 

better go to Mars, both robotically and in human space flight. 

So we did not have a space technology line until the fiscal year 

2012 budget. The President asked for $1.5 billion for space technology in the first budget that I brought to this Congress my first 

year as the NASA Administrator. So we agree with you that we do 

need to be about cutting-edge technology, and we’re trying to do 

that. 

COMMERCIAL PROVIDERS PROGRESS

Senator SHELBY. In your statement, you said that you’re pleased, 

and I’ll quote you, ‘‘pleased with the steady progress of U.S. com-
230 

mercial providers in developing domestic cargo and crew transportation services.’’ I would note that one of your commercial cargo 

providers was originally scheduled to complete three demonstration 

flights by September 2009. They have only completed one, and 

many expect the date of that second launch to slip again soon, as 

it just did in February. 

Your other cargo vendor was expected to complete a single demonstration flight by December 2010. That flight has not even been 

scheduled yet. 

I guess the question posed here is how much longer will their 

flights have to be delayed before you, as the Administrators are no 

longer ‘‘pleased’’ with these providers? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I’m confident that one of the—— 

Senator SHELBY. Are you still pleased with them? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I’m pleased with their progress. One of our 

providers, SpaceX, is scheduled to launch on the 30th of April, and 

I think—— 

Senator SHELBY. Do you think they will keep that date? 

Mr. BOLDEN. I think they will make that. The other one, Orbital 

Sciences, has a lot of things that are out of their control in terms 

of a launch facility, but I think they will be ready to launch sometime this summer. The big thing for us and them is to get the 

launch pad ready at Wallops so that they can run a main propulsion test, and then they’ll be ready to fly their first demonstration. 

I would caution everyone to be somewhat resistant to talk about 

delays. I came to NASA in 1980 to join the astronaut program, and 

that was 2 years after the shuttle was supposed to have flown. I 

am personally thankful that we did not fly in 1978 because we 

weren’t ready. I worked as a member of the tile repair tiger team, 

because when we flew Columbia from its manufacturing facility in 

Palmdale, California to the Kennedy Space Center, it got there and 

a large majority of the tiles were missing. 

We weren’t ready, and we learned a lot of things that caused us 

to delay. But when we flew STS–1, it was an incredible achievement. 

So I think the commercial providers are doing very well. They’re 

meeting challenges that have come their way. We advise. We can’t 

tell them what to do, but we have relatively good insight into what 

they’re doing, and we’re confident that the decisions they’re making 

are prudent. We would much rather see them delay than to fly and 

fail, because we cannot use a failed system. 

GOVERNMENT BUYING PRACTICES

Senator SHELBY. I’m very concerned that NASA seems to be 

abandoning its plan to abide by the Federal acquisition regulations 

(FAR) in the commercial crew program and instead continue to use 

Space Act agreements. Space Act agreements will provide you more 

flexibility, but they do so at the expense, some of us believe, of 

transparency and accountability on the part of the contractor. I 

think such agreements in this case are dangerous to both astronauts who might fly in commercial rockets and the American taxpayers who, to date, have had to fund them. 

You claim, Mr. Administrator, that the budget cuts made by this 

subcommittee have, quote, ‘‘necessitated’’ is your word, you to 
231 

abandon traditional Government buying practices. I would note 

that you are currently funding four separate vendors in the commercial crew program, some of whom have never built a single 

piece of space hardware, and only one of whom has ever built hardware that carried humans. 

My question is this. Is it not possible that the answer to your 

budget issues is to fund fewer vendors? Wouldn’t you rather have 

more effective Government oversight over one or two providers 

rather than less oversight over four or more? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, there are a couple of answers to your question. One is, when we purchase services from the private companies, they will be operating under contracts that comply with FAR. 

So we won’t purchase services under a Space Act agreement. We’ll 

purchase services under FAR. We have chosen to extend our utilization of Space Act Agreements because it does allow us to carry 

hopefully more than one potential provider for as long as we can 

so that we get competition and we get the best product. 

In the commercial crew development program, we funded as 

many providers as we could, and it’s important to understand the 

difference between the commercial crew development program 

(CCDEV), which is what we are about to end, and the acquisition 

program that we’re about to enter where we buy a launch provider 

for commercial crew. CCDEV—some were looking at capsules, some 

were looking at launch vehicles. United Launch Alliance (ULA) was 

not looking at either. They were looking at a self-monitoring maintenance system on a vehicle. So we had different providers. We utilized their expertise to give us information and technology that we 

needed to put into the ultimate system. 

So hopefully the result from the effort and the money that we 

put into CCDEV will be, as all of you say, a final product from or 

to providers that takes advantage of all of the benefits that we got 

from the individual providers with individual components of the 

total system. 

Senator SHELBY. But isn’t some of the program, it seems to a lot 

of people, to be a march away from NASA—in other words, into the 

private sector and vendors—rather than what NASA has proven 

over many years to have? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, quite the contrary. It is a march to—— 

Senator SHELBY. Explain. 

Mr. BOLDEN. It is a march toward the exact way that we did 

Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, except the acquisition method. With those, we bought a vehicle, and then we owned it and we 

managed it, and that’s what cost us money. The infrastructure, the 

underlying cost for the space shuttle was $2 billion a year whether 

I used it or not. That’s because I had to maintain the facilities, I 

had to keep the people to run it, I had to do everything. 

Under the commercial program, we will purchase a service. And 

I will remind everyone, Senator Hutchison mentioned, why couldn’t 

we do like we did with SLS and MPCV? Because we previously had 

a robust competition in the old Constellation program, we got a 

product like Orion, and when we started looking at what we wanted to use for a MPCV, it made it not easy because we still had to 

go through a process of evaluation, independent assessment, but 
232 

we were able to accept the Orion vehicle lock, stock, and barrel 

from what was in the Constellation program. 

But that does not say it was not chosen under competition. It 

had rigorous competition. Same thing for the SLS. It underwent 

rigorous competition, and we used that, and we were able to go 

back to the procurement people and say, look, we’re not trying to 

just take something unproven. This is the result of rigorous competition. The way I described it, we tried to take the nuggets from 

Constellation and transition them into SLS/MPCV, and I think 

that’s what we got. 

We won’t know until we fly, but I think we are well on our way 

to demonstrating that the process we used there, which I will remind everybody was severely questioned by many—why are you 

doing it this way? Why don’t you just go get another vehicle? We 

didn’t think that would be prudent because we wanted to take advantage of the competition that had brought us those vehicles. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Brown. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

Senator BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

A HEALTHY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

RELYING ON TEN CENTERS

The previous administration declared 10 healthy centers and laid 

out responsibilities for each. When we sat down before your confirmation more than a year ago, you assured me this policy was no 

longer needed because NASA had 10 healthy centers. But without 

a 10 healthy centers policy, you’re asking us now to give you the 

ability to shift funds around with no guarantee that the research 

centers or flight centers or specific programs will be funded at adequate levels. 

How do all of us know you have a serious commitment to making 

sure there are 10 healthy centers? Are you laying out a detailed 

plan for us so that we know that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Sir, I think when you and I talked numerous times, 

I said I don’t like the term ‘‘10 healthy centers’’, because that term 

implies that you’ve got to force a workplace where it may not belong. What I like is a very healthy NASA that relies on 10 centers 

with diverse skills and capabilities that support a healthy agency, 

and not individual centers. 

I think what hopefully all of you are seeing is that we are trying 

our best to make sure that every center that is presently a member 

of the NASA family gets an adequate share of the work that we 

are doing in the three principal mission areas of aeronautics, 

human space flight, and science. 

If you look at Glenn, for example, Ray Lugo probably would 

admit he has a significant share, if not the lion’s share, of the technology development funds. Even though the program may not be 

run out of Glenn, the money is being spent through Glenn, and 

there’s a big difference between where a program is housed and 

where the money is being spent. 

Glenn is a vital center for us not only for human space flight, but 

they are the heart and soul, along with Dryden and Langley, for 

aeronautics research. What we’re doing right now to support DOD 
233 

and even commercial aviation, a lot of that is being done out of 

Glenn, whether it’s icing tests, or they’re the major center for rotary research. So it’s very helpful. 

Senator BROWN. I don’t think any of us think that the issue is 

forcing work at any one of these centers. 

I have a couple of comments about aeronautics. Aeronautics, the 

first ‘‘A’’ in NASA is aeronautics, before the ‘‘S’’ for space. NASA 

is requesting $551 million for aeronautics, less than last year, onehalf of what’s authorized. Put that aside for a minute. 

But sort of along the lines of Senator Cochran’s comments about 

the Stennis Center, from your comments I’m concerned that NASA 

is out-sourcing hundreds of millions of dollars for research and development at the Space Flight Center when the research centers 

can do this work. Why does this business model no longer seem so 

workable to do this at the centers, especially a research center like 

NASA Glenn? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I’m not sure that we’re not following the 

model that utilizes the skills at the individual centers. I may misunderstand your question. I think we are utilizing the skills at the 

centers, and we redistribute work such that it goes to the strongest 

center. We sometimes use people from one center to do work at another, and we either detail them there or we let them do the work 

that belongs to another center in their home center. So maybe I 

don’t understand your question. 

PLUM BROOK TEST CENTER

Senator BROWN. I’m not sure I agree with that, but let me shift, 

though, because I just have a couple more minutes. 

About Plum Brook, I appreciate, first of all, your correcting some 

of our House counterparts when they refer to Plum Brook as a test 

stand. As you know, it’s not a test stand. It’s a one-of-a-kind test 

center. I’m looking for what you can tell us NASA can do to better 

utilize those facilities. For instance, one example, the Europeans 

want to use Plum Brook. I understand NASA headquarters seems 

to be holding this up. Why wouldn’t we jump at this opportunity 

for the ESA to want to use Plum Brook and its terrific facilities? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator Brown, I’ll have to get back to you. I am 

not aware of us holding this up—if, in fact, ESA is asking to test 

a vehicle at Plum Brook, I’m not aware of what we’re doing to disallow that. So I will take that question for the record and get back 

to you. 

[The information follows:] 

PLUM BROOK TEST FACILITY

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) headquarters issues 

with the European Space Agency (ESA) test agreement have been worked fairly 

quickly and involved the use of the facility by a foreign entity and a question regarding whether the funding for the modifications to the test facility represented an 

augmentation of the NASA budget. Both of those issues were worked early in the 

year, and at this point we are awaiting a decision from ESA. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Our understanding is there has been a 

delay. We don’t know why. It’s a significant proposal, and we will 

follow up with you, then. 
234 

Mr. BOLDEN. Okay. Senator, that would be in opposition to my 

stated direction to everybody that we should find people to put in 

our facilities. 

Senator BROWN. Okay. Good, good. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I don’t care where they come from. 

Senator BROWN. Good to hear. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison. 

PRIORITY GOALS

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Administrator, as I mentioned, I’m just 

waiting for the—I’m going to ask you a question, you’re not going 

to answer it, and we’re going to be where we are and we’re going 

to settle this one-on-one, I know. But I’ll just ask—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator. 

Senator HUTCHISON. I’ll try my best. I talked about and you acknowledged that we set three priority goals, and you fully funded 

one. You have now gone 100 percent over on one and cut the other, 

the third priority, by virtually the same amount that you went over 

on the second priority. So you can imagine why we would think 

that you are cutting the Orion and the SLS in favor of commercial 

crew. 

What I would hope is that we could come to the joint goals and 

all work together for commercial crew, but not at the expense of 

Orion and SLS. 

One thing that you mentioned you’re funding at a 21-percent increase this year is technology. Why is it that you feel so compelled 

to cut the future, which is SLS and Orion, in favor of the immediate, which is commercial crew, as we acknowledge? Why not keep 

the three priorities, keep the faith with the Congress, and help us 

feel like we’re all going in the same direction? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I do believe that we are doing our best to 

keep faith with the Congress. When we agreed upon the three priorities, we said we were going to fund SLS and MPCV and we were 

going to comply with the schedule that we had laid out for everyone. I provided a list to the subcommittee of achievements with 

both SLS and MPCV to date. Some of them are well ahead of 

where we expected to be. 

[The information follows:] 

SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM/ORION MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE

The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System (SLS) 

Programs continue to meet milestones on schedule. 

Recent accomplishments of note for Orion MPCV include: 

—Key Decision Point-A Authorization Memo was signed by the Agency Project 

Management Council on February 28, 2012. This provided official approval for 

the Orion Program to proceed from the pre-formulation phase into the design, 

development, test, and evaluation (DDT&E) phase. 

—The Orion Formulation Authorization Document was approved by Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate on April 2, 2012. 

—Arrival of first Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT–1) flight hardware at the Kennedy Space Center’s Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility (2 SM longeron). 

This milestone signifies confidence that the EFT–1 vehicle will soon begin its 

ground test campaign. 

—Transfer of Crew Module (CM) Assembly Structure from Denver (post-Ground 

Test Article [GTA] use) to O&C. 
235 

—Transfer of the CM used for the Pad Abort-1 (PA–1) test from O&C to Vehicle 

Assembly Building (VAB) for public display (opens space in O&C for EFT–1 production and GTA arrival). 

—CM barrel delivered to NASA Manufacturing Assembly Facility (MAF). CM2 

(Barrel-to-Aft Bulkhead) and CM1 (Aft Bulkhead-to-Cap) welding completed. 

—Orion has also successfully completed 22 major hardware tests from June 2011 

through May 2012, including 4 parachute drops, 9 hydro impact splash downs, 

6 vibro-acoustic tests, and 3 avionics simulations. 

SLS has made substantial progress since the program entered formulation in November 2011, with the following notable accomplishments: 

—Systems Requirements Review/Systems Definition Review now underway to establish baseline vehicle requirements before entering detailed preliminary design. 

—Integrated acquisition teams in place and negotiations underway to definitize 

contracts with stages, engines, and boosters contractors. 

—Design loads analysis and wind tunnel tests incorporating Orion MPCV in 

work. 

—Ten tests as of May 2012 (for a total of more than 1,000 seconds of total run 

time) of the J–2X engine on the A–2 test stand at the Stennis Space Center. 

Engine 10001 has since been fitted with a clamshell for further engine characterization starting in May. 

—As of May 2012, 13 powerpack tests had been completed, and J–2X powerpack 

series #2 were underway on the A–1 test stand at the Stennis Space Center. 

—All RS–25 Space Shuttle main engines and associated ground support equipment transferred from the Kennedy Space Center to the Stennis Space Center 

for future testing and integration into Core Stage. 

—As of May 2012, there had been three demonstration firings of the five segment 

solid rocket motor design to be used for the EM–1 and EM–2 flights in 2017 

and 2021. 

—Completed 24-inch motor firing test on March 14, 2012. 

Accomplishments for Orion MPCV and SLS are updated monthly at: http:// 

www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orionlreportslarchive.html and http:// 

www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/slslhighlights.html 

Mr. BOLDEN. So while I know you’re talking about dollars, I’m 

actually talking about accomplishments, getting us to a 2014 

launch date for Orion that Lockheed Martin wants to do, an exploration test flight. They’re going to make that. So 2 years from now, 

we’re going to fly Orion. That was not even in our program before. 

I think at the rate we’re going right now, the funding profile that 

we have, while not optimal, will get us to a 2017 first un-crewed 

flight of SLS and MPCV combination. That will be a first-generation SLS/MPCV, and then no later than 2021 we will see a crewed 

mission on SLS/MPCV. 

Additional funds would help the 2021 date because we could pull 

some things forward, we could reduce some risk, but it won’t affect 

the 2017 launch date, the first un-crewed mission. So I think we 

have put funds against SLS and MPCV to get to the objective, to 

meet the objectives that we agreed to with the Congress. 

While commercial crew and cargo is not a priority, so to speak— 

it is not one of the priorities agreed upon by the Congress and the 

administration because there are only three—but commercial crew 

and cargo are vital for me to be able to live up to my promise to 

you on ISS. Without an American capability to supply both cargo 

and crew to ISS, the gap is going to continue to increase. I am 

going to continue to rely on the Russians to provide transportation 

for both cargo and crew, and I’m not sure that I can adequately enhance ISS the way I want to do it. 
236 

ORION AND SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AUDIT STUDY

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Bolden, when you thoroughly studied 

Orion and SLS, you studied it in NASA, and then you studied it 

outside of NASA. You had an outside group that you were adamant 

had to make the final decision, and you paid a lot of money for that 

further independent study. And, probably what I would consider to 

be 1 year late, you finally got the report back that said if the assumptions are correct for the next 3 to 5 years, the budget will be 

sufficient to make the goals for Orion and SLS a reality. 

And yet the very next year, we have you coming forward cutting 

that budget that was the basis of your very sought after and required outside audit study before you would move forward. So here 

we are in what looks like the stepping back from what your outside 

study showed was necessary so that you’re going to be able to come 

in next year and say, ‘‘Gee, you know, we didn’t get that funding 

that was the basis of that study, and so we probably can’t do Orion 

and SLS’’, which is the kind of rhetoric we have heard in the past. 

So I just wonder why you would be so obvious in cutting the 

Orion and SLS budget when you staked the whole credibility of 

going forward on the study that said we had to keep these assumed 

levels of spending. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, it is my hope that before you leave the 

Congress, NASA will be able to show you where it’s not going to 

cost us as much as is presently budgeted right now to complete 

SLS and MPCV because the technologies that we’re developing will 

reduce the cost, that we will move to lighter-weight tanks, we will 

move to composite tanks. The original estimates we gave everybody 

were based on current state-of-the-art technology of the day. If we 

stay with that, then I’m not being responsible. 

So my hope is—and we have to live within the budget that you 

gave us, and that budget also has to provide funds for a wedge for 

additional things that will go with SLS and MPCV to make it a 

true exploration system. So that money has to come from within. 

So we are trying our best, as Senator Shelby and Senator Cochran 

mentioned, and as all of you have, we’re trying to call upon our 

best technologists both in the agency and academia and in industry 

to help us get to the point where we are much more efficient in the 

development of our vehicles, that they are much better than the 

currently envisioned, and that we can get the job done that you set. 

We will not change the date—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Mr. Bolden, you are so insistent that you’re 

living within the budget that we gave you for Orion and SLS. But 

oddly, you’re going $300 million more than the authorized level for 

commercial, and you’re saying on Orion and the SLS you’re going 

to have new technology that’s going to bring the cost down, so everything is going to be fine. 

But on the other hand, you now are looking at three or four companies that you’re subsidizing on the commercial crew side, so 

there doesn’t appear to be any kind of future advantage for technology like you’re proposing that you’re going to have for the Orion 

and SLS. It doesn’t seem to make any sense that there’s a way forward that you can meet all of our goals with integrity by subsidizing competitive commercial crew enterprises. 
237 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I have to re-emphasize the fact that we 

are making progress, tangible progress on SLS and MPCV. We’ve 

completed, I don’t want to read through the list, but we’ve completed water drop tests on Orion. We have actually completed risk 

reduction. We’ve had an industry day on the SLS. We have taken 

steps that will reduce the risks on the vehicle itself as we do it. 

We have transferred main engines over to the Stennis Space Center for testing after modifications. 

So we are doing everything that we can. And I will take—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Is this going to be $170 million in savings? 

Is that what you’re saying? 

Mr. BOLDEN. No, ma’am. But I will—— 

Senator HUTCHISON. Well, that’s what you’re cutting out of this 

year’s budget. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I will take one thing for the record. I think that you 

and I are disagreeing on what the fiscal year 2012 appropriation 

amount really was, and I will take it for the record. But I think 

a check of the budget will show that the fiscal year 2012 appropriation is actually in excess of what we submitted as needed based on 

the independent cost assessment, but I will take that for the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM/ORION MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE

For fiscal year 2012, the Congress appropriated $1.943 billion for Space Launch System and associated ground systems, $15 million more than the Independent Cost 

Assessment (ICA) profile when adjusted to include civil service labor. Also for fiscal 

year 2012, the Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew 

Vehicle, $181 million more than the ICA profile when adjusted to include civil service labor. 

Mr. BOLDEN. I think the fiscal year 2012 funding for SLS/MPCV 

exceeded what we said we would need in the independent—substantiated by the independent cost assessment. I know that the fiscal year 2012 budget was greatly reduced from what we said we 

would need in order to be able to close the gap with commercial 

crew. And so we’re trying to get to the balance that you insist upon 

so that we have a commercial capability to supply ISS and keep the 

gap from growing there. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you. 

Mr. BOLDEN. We have not changed the delivery dates on SLS and 

MPCV. In fact, we have improved them somewhat by buying down 

risk with the test, the demonstrated activities that we’ve done to 

date. 

Senator HUTCHISON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Administrator, as you can see, there are 

a lot of yellow flashing lights, and even skepticism about the 

amounts that are in the priorities. 

I’m going to go to another round, just very quickly, but let me 

say this. 

First of all, this $17 billion-plus budget request is pretty much 

the same as what it was when President Clinton and Vice President Gore were in the White House. So though we ask for greater 

responsibility, though we’ve had some severe challenges, even an 

accident, we are still pretty much in the same money that we were 

15 years ago. I know of no other Federal agency that has a major 
238 

international presence that has been kept at that level. So I think 

we all have to be realistic here about expectations of what we want 

NASA to do. 

If we had followed the Norm Augustine recommendations for a 

balanced space program and a steady percentage of increase, and 

Mr. Augustine did that during the administration of President 

Bush, the elder, who we worked with very closely on many of these 

matters, you would be somewhere between $22 and $24 billion. But 

we’re doing things in a different way, and lessons learned. 

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

So let me just say a concluding remark about JWST. I appreciate 

the fact that the NASA administration, and also Northrop Grumman, is taking very seriously our insistence on keeping the project 

on time, on line, and meeting its objectives, and we’re going to 

count on you to continue to do that. I know you’ve dispatched some 

of your most trusted NASA leaders to be able to oversee it from the 

NASA area. 

I just want to say this, and I’ve said this to the others involved 

in JWST that don’t think this is like the Hubble. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW

Senator MIKULSKI. If anything gets screwed up, I can’t pull a 

rabbit out of the hat. I don’t have a rabbit, and I don’t have a hat. 

So we need to do that. 

Now, let’s go to commercial crew. The questions have been extensively asked, but here is my question. I happen to support the commercial endeavor for both cargo and crew. I think it’s bold, I think 

it’s promising, but I’m concerned that it’s behind schedule. 

My concern is that now the best-case scenarios about the launch 

for these is 2017. We’ve extended the life of ISS to 2020. Isn’t this 

a hell of a lot of money for a 3-year effort? Could you comment on 

that? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I will comment, and I am not making a 

promise to anyone because I’m not in a position to make this commitment, but in anticipating what we can do with ISS, the international partners—and that’s the 19 member nations of the ESA, 

Japan, Canada, the United States, and Roscosmos and Russia— 

have all been engaged in engineering estimates of how long can we 

fly ISS, and we have all agreed that ISS can be flown to at least 

2028. 

So when I talk about the life of ISS, I don’t limit it to 2020. To 

fly it beyond that, as we all learned after President Obama said he 

wanted to fly it until at least 2020, beyond the 2016 original date 

for termination, requires approval of all the international partners. 

But all of them are on the record saying that we know we can fly 

ISS until 2028, and most of them are on the record saying they 

would like to utilize it beyond that. 

So what NASA wants to do is get a commercial capability, get 

a U.S. capability in place as soon as possible so that we can enhance its utilization, can make it a true national laboratory, as 

Senator Hutchison has insisted, and fly it as long as we can, support it as long as we can. I don’t foresee us, just because 2020 ar-
239 

rives, saying that’s the end of ISS. To me, that would make no 

sense. We should fly it as long as the nations feel there is a need. 

I think all of us believe that if we’re really going to do a robust 

exploration program, there will be a long-term need for a micro—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. As you can understand. First of all, it cost us 

$50 billion. 

Mr. BOLDEN. So beyond 3 years—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. It cost us $50 billion to build ISS. 

Mr. BOLDEN. $100 billion. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. As you 

know, we had some melancholy events along the way. Now we have 

ISS, and we have great international partners who signed up to go 

with the United States. They were kind of a coalition of the willing 

in space. We need to use that ISS. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. We need to justify it to the taxpayer, and we 

need to show it in the scientific community. So we’ve got to get up 

there. 

So let’s start with cargo. I understand that SpaceX expects to— 

we need rockets in the air. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Again, it’s cargo, it’s not people. When do you 

think SpaceX will launch? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Weather and everything else considered, I think 

they will be able to hold to their April 30 launch date. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So it will be April or the first week in May, 

depending on weather. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And when is Orbital going to launch at Wallops? 

Mr. BOLDEN. Orbital’s best estimate right now—and I promised 

you, I need to give you concrete numbers. Orbital’s best estimate 

right now is, if the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) can 

finish the launch pad—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. MARS, for my colleagues and the record—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. I’m sorry. MARS is the controlling entity. They own 

the launch pad at Wallops. They are building it for the State of 

Virginia. It’s sort of like Space Florida and Florida. They contracted with a company to actually do the building. When you and 

I were out for the inauguration of the horizontal processing facility, 

we took a walk up on the launch pad and we both felt good because 

the physical structure is—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. But I want to feel good now. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So where are we? 

Mr. BOLDEN. It is not ready. But we have brought people up from 

the Kennedy Space Center, from Langley, from Marshall, from 

Stennis to help them with technical expertise to try to make sure 

that they can complete it on a date certain, and that date certain 

I have to provide to you, and that I’ll have to take for the record. 

[The information follows:] 
240 

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL SPACEPORT

The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0A at Wallops Flight Facility 

is scheduled for completion and turnover to Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC) in 

June-July 2012. OSC’s Antares launch vehicle maiden test flight is scheduled for 

late summer, with the demonstration mission to the International Space Station 

scheduled by end of 2012. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, I’m very frustrated by this. 

Mr. BOLDEN. As am I. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Because there was much promised, and the 

launch pad, it was going to be a new day for Spaceport Wallops. 

This offer was promised for not only a return to ISS, but other 

launch capabilities that would serve our national interest, which 

we don’t have to elaborate on here. And I am puzzled and perplexed that for the last 8 weeks I keep hearing that there’s a problem with the launch pad, but I don’t hear solutions. What I hear 

is that you’ve dispatched people, but I don’t hear a solution, and 

we need to hear a solution. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. And I will bring that to you. I have 

had discussions with Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, who heads our human 

exploration operations at Mission—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. But I’m directing these comments also to 

MARS and to the people in charge of that, that they’ve got to get 

it going. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Because I think there is growing frustration 

and skepticism about this, and yet we hear that the rockets are 

ready, everything is ready. And so we’ve got to start saying, is this 

endeavor a go? The clock is ticking. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

SCIENCE MISSIONS IN THE FUTURE

Senator MIKULSKI. This, then, goes to my last question with 

science. We feel that with the JWST, we are continuing to secure 

America’s pre-eminence in astronomy and astrophysics, that it is 

the next generation of Hubble, and we, who have the Space Telescope Institute in Maryland, are so proud of not only the Hubble 

but the fact that Dr. Reese of the Space Telescope Institute and the 

Hopkins faculty has won a Nobel Prize. 

Much is being said about American exceptionalism, and we believe that it is in these endeavors that we have really demonstrated 

that. So we need that, but we need to look ahead also to what is 

the science today and what is the science of the future, and what 

can we afford. So the people have to make decisions. We make decisions about budgets, but people make decisions about careers. 

So right now, the scientific community is concerned about where 

are we heading with small-, medium-, and large-size science missions in the future. Based on the National Academy of Sciences— 

not only Senator Barr or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison or any of 

us here, but the National Academy—what is in this appropriations 

request that lays the groundwork for future recommendations in 

things like dark energy, astrophysics, heliophysics, and Earth 

science? Or are we in such an age of frugality that we aren’t going 

to make those investments? 
241 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, we are going to continue to make those investments. People talk about flagship missions. Flagships are 

something that are of such importance to science, they answer the 

most challenging questions, and NASA has not given up on flagship missions. We don’t have a new flagship in place, but I have 

to remind everyone that JWST is a flagship mission that we are 

going to launch in 2018. The Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity, 

which is on its way to Mars right now, is a flagship mission which 

we launched in November and will land on Mars in August of this 

year. SLS/MPCV in the area of human exploration is a flagship 

mission. 

Senator MIKULSKI. You see, that’s my whole point. There we are 

with flagship. We spend a lot of our time keeping it focused and 

on line because it continually comes to us with underestimates. So 

then we have the flagship. So there we are, and I’m not minimizing 

their significance, but they’re the Santa Marias. But there’s a 

whole group out there that wonders about the Nin ̃ as and the 

Pintas, and are we so busy bailing out the Santa Marias, we don’t 

get to the Nin ̃ as and Pintas. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, we have Nin ̃ as and Pintas on the way, as 

a matter of fact, and what we have been able to do with the Nin ̃as 

and Pintas, something like Juno, Gravity Recovery and Interior 

Laboratory (GRAIL), now Ebb and Flow, and some of the other medium-class or small-class science missions that are underway or in 

work, MAVEN for example, going to Mars to measure its upper atmosphere, these missions which have come about post-2009-ish or 

so, where we started utilizing a policy of joint confidence-level assessments where we looked at cost and schedule, and we are now 

holding programs to cost and schedule in a way that we were not 

able to do before. 

Juno is on its way to Jupiter, on cost, on schedule. GRAIL, Ebb 

and Flow, are at the Moon doing science, on cost, on schedule. 

Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership, which we produced—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. Those are underway. So that—— 

Mr. BOLDEN. MAVEN is in work. MAVEN is scheduled to launch 

in 2013. It is currently on cost, on schedule. 

I would even go so far as to say, while JWST is a flagship and 

it started out in bad shape, I am very proud to say that since we 

restructured JWST and re-planned it and we are now under new 

management, we hung a new shingle, JWST is on cost and on 

schedule. 

Now, that is absurd to say that for a mission that is billions of 

dollars over what the original assessment was. But since we 

worked with your staff and you and we made a promise to you that 

we were going to deliver, we have done so. We are on cost and on 

schedule, in some cases ahead of schedule with JWST. We are 

doing things differently than the way we used to do it. 

We have to deliver. We know that. Or otherwise we perish. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, and so do the contractors. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. Anyone who thinks that NASA can 

make all this happen without our incredibly valuable contractors 

just doesn’t know how we do business. We spend 85 percent of the 

taxpayers’ money going out to the contractors, and so we have to 
242 

hold their feet to the fire. I can point to missions now where I 

think we are holding their feet to the fire. They understand, because of people like you who have brought them in and said, okay, 

I don’t have another hat, and I don’t have a rabbit, I think they 

understand what you’ve told them, and they are performing. 

We’re on the way to launching a replacement for the Orbiting 

Carbon Observatory, OCO–2. Right now, that’s on cost. And OSIRIS (Origins–Spectral Interpretation–Resource Identification–Security–Regolith Explorer—OSIRIS-REx)—— 

Senator MIKULSKI. I think we understand that. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, thank you for that answer. 

Mr. BOLDEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Hutchison. 

Senator HUTCHISON. No further questions. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So, Mr. Administrator, we thank you for your 

testimony. I think Senator Hutchison and I, in thanking you, we 

want to thank really all the men and women who work at the 

NASA centers, the contractors who support them, and also very important allies that participate with us in these very important 

projects. We view Canada, Japan, who itself is facing some challenges with their own budget because of the natural disaster—we 

treasure the relationship with Japan both in space, science, and in 

national security. 

So we all need to work together and keep those Santa Marias 

afloat and make sure we have the Nin ̃ as and the Pintas, all of 

which we can afford. And we wouldn’t mind the Navy’s budget either. 

So, having said that—— 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Mr. BOLDEN. Senator, I appreciate that. I do want to take an opportunity to congratulate you on the milestone that you yourself 

achieved this past weekend. That is something worthy of all of our 

applause for you. 

And, Senator Hutchison, I do want to thank you again. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

SEQUESTRATION

Question. At each of our hearings this year each department has been asked about 

the impact of the budget sequestration might be. As National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) budget already has a cut as part of the fiscal year 2013 

budget request, and several programs are being reduced to the bare minimum needed to maintain schedule, the impact of sequestration could cause mission schedules 

to slip and when that happens, increased costs inevitably follow. 

What will the overall impact be to the agency? 

Answer. NASA has not initiated planning for sequestration and fully expects that 

the Congress and the administration will enact balanced deficit reduction legislation 

and thereby avoid the need for a sequestration. If necessary, the administration will 

be addressing important technical questions concerning a sequestration and NASA 

cannot speculate at this time the size or effect of sequestration. 

Question. If sequestration requires reductions to programs at NASA, what will 

NASA’s rationale be for applying funding reductions to its programs? Will NASA re-
243 

duce every program, project and activity by the percentage, and if not, justify the 

agency’s decision to spare some programs over others from the effects of a funding 

reduction? 

Answer. NASA has not initiated planning for sequestration and cannot speculate 

at this time the size or effect of sequestration. 

ORION AS BACKUP

Question. The NASA authorization specifically identifies space launch system 

(SLS) and Orion to be used as a backup to commercial crew. This was done in case 

the primary providers are unable to fulfill the need for International Space Station 

(ISS) support. You have previously stated that commercial crew is plan A for reaching the ISS, and it is also plan B because NASA would like to subsidize more than 

one company for their development and then pay them again to ride to the space 

station. At the same time, if they cannot deliver, NASA will have to scramble to 

determine a rocket configuration for Orion to do the job, or continue paying the Russians for seats. 

Does NASA have a plan, if the need arises, to exercise the Orion backup capability? 

Answer. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) will have the capability 

to provide an alternate means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS. Although 

funds are not currently being spent to enable this capability, this capability will not 

be precluded. This would be a highly inefficient use of the SLS and MPCV designs, 

so NASA would only develop the capability ‘‘in the event other vehicles are unable 

to perform that function’’ per the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

267). 

Question. If a plan exists, or even if one does not, please provide an estimate for 

the cost and timeline that would be needed for Orion to take crews to the ISS in 

case of commercial crew being unable to deliver crews to the ISS as defined in section 302(c)(1)(D) of Public Law 111–267. 

Answer. SLS and Orion MPCV are expected to execute the system’s first launch 

in 2017 and be crew capable in 2021. SLS is a heavy lift launch vehicle and has 

payload capability far and above that which is necessary to support ISS crew rotation and resupply activities; therefore, launching an SLS for ISS-related activities 

would be a highly inefficient use of the system that is simply not cost-effective. 

However, in an emergency, the SLS could be used for low-earth orbit (LEO) operations. In addition, the Orion MPCV is a crew vehicle that is primarily designed 

for deep space exploration and, if needed for an emergency, could function as a 

backup vehicle for the ISS crew. The current Orion design is specifically designed 

and tailored for deep space exploration and a high-speed re-entry to Earth, which 

includes systems that are not necessary for LEO missions. Launching the Orion 

MPCV capsule for use in LEO would also be an inefficient use of a robust system 

intended for other purposes. 

NASA has assessed the content changes needed to perform ISS missions as a 

backup, including required technical changes and the associated cost and schedule. 

The additional Orion MPCV costs for the ISS mission would be at minimum $300 

million. Additional cost would be incurred if schedule is critical. 

SHUTTLE RETIREMENT PAYMENT

Question. As part of the close out of the shuttle program, NASA has a one-time 

payment to the contractor for their employee retirement plan. This payment was 

agreed to by NASA when the United Space Alliance (USA) was created to service 

the orbiters for NASA. Last year, the subcommittee was assured that the amount 

funded in last year’s appropriations bill was the amount necessary to make this payment. However, since that time the amount has changed and the payment will likely be higher than NASA anticipated when funds were appropriated for this payment. 

Can you tell us what the current payment is anticipated to be and which programs NASA intends to look to in order to make up the difference if necessary? 

Answer. Our latest estimate is that termination of USA employee retirement 

plans will cost between $535 to $555 million. This estimate could change once the 

formal termination is approved; however, we do not anticipate that it will greatly 

change. The difference between what was appropriated, $470 million, and the final 

cost will be covered within the Space Shuttle Retirement and Transition line of the 

Space Operation account. 
244 

SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY

Question. I understand that NASA is involved in the cleanup of a former rocket 

engine test facility in Ventura County, California—called the Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory (SSFL). In December 2010, NASA and Department of Energy signed administrative orders on consent (AOC(s)) with the State of California that obligated 

the Federal parties to cleanup portions of the site. 

What level of cleanup did NASA commit to in the AOC, and is that cleanup level 

required by Federal or state law? 

Answer. The AOC calls for a cleanup to ‘‘background’’. Per AOC section 2.1, 

‘‘[t]hat is, at the completion of the cleanup, no contaminants shall remain in the soil 

above local background levels, with [certain specific exemptions].’’ 

Federal law required cleanup of sites contaminated any hazardous materials. 

NASA entered into the AOC as part of an out of court settlement with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Under the terms of the AOC, compliance 

with the AOC ‘‘shall constitute NASA’s full and complete compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapters 6.5 and 6.8 of Division 20 of the California Health and 

Safety Code (the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, sections 25100 et seq. 

of that Code, and the California Hazardous Substances Account Act, sections 25300 

et seq. of that Code), including specifically, but not limited to, California Senate Bill 

990 (Stats. 2007, c. 729), which has been codified as section 25359.20 of the California Health and Safety Code, but only with respect to the application of these provisions to radiologic or chemical contamination of soil at the Site or any contiguous 

radiologic or chemical contamination of soil emanating from within Area II and the 

portion of Area I owned by NASA, within or without the SSFL boundaries, identified by DTSC as part of the investigation of chemical contaminants.’’ 

The AOC also requires NASA in section 4.2.3 that ‘‘NASA shall conduct all activities under this Order in a way that will promptly comply with the requirements of 

NEPA.’’ 

Question. How does this level of cleanup compare to cleanup levels at other sites 

that NASA is involved in? 

Answer. The final cleanup levels (what is meant by background for the proposed 

action) have not been specifically established by the State. In order to conduct the 

required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation of the proposed 

AOC cleanup and reasonable alternatives, NASA has developed estimates based on 

the background levels determined in 2005 along with the latest laboratory reporting 

limits used by the State. The chart below summarizes the proposed AOC cleanup 

and three other standard land-use scenarios under other cleanup programs. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

AOC cleanup Alternative 1 

(Residential) 

Alternative 2 

(Industrial) 

Alternative 3 

(Recreational) 

Removal volume (cy) .................................................... 502,000 182,000 92,000 58,000 

Estimated cost .............................................................. $210 million $80 million $40 million $25 million 

Truckloads required ...................................................... 26,421 9,579 4,842 3,052 

Duration (months) assuming 12 trucks per day ......... 100 36 18 12 

Question. If the cleanup is not required by law, and it differs from cleanups at 

other sites, why is NASA making this commitment? 

Answer. NASA entered into the AOC as part of an out-of-court settlement with 

DTSC. Cleanup of contaminated sites with hazardous materials is required under 

Federal law, specifically the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act 

(CERCLA). NASA’s cleanup actions are completed under these authorities or under 

State authorized RCRA or CERCLA programs. 

Question. Under the AOC how many cubic yards of soil will need to be removed? 

Answer. The final cleanup levels have not been specifically established by the 

State. However, based on engineering estimates to meet levels required by section 

2.1 of the AOC limits and assuming excavation and offsite disposal, the current estimate would be approximately 502,000 cubic yards. This estimate is based on background levels determined in 2005 and current laboratory reporting limits. 

Question. What is NASA’s cost estimate for complying with the AOC? How much 

more will the SSFL AOC cleanup cost compared to what it costs NASA to do the 

cleanup it does at other sites? 

Answer. The final cleanup levels (what is meant by background for the proposed 

action) have not been specifically established by the State. In order to conduct the 
245 

required NEPA evaluation of the proposed AOC cleanup and reasonable alternatives, NASA has developed estimates based on the background levels determined 

in 2005 along with the latest laboratory reporting limits used by the State. The 

chart below summarizes the proposed AOC cleanup and three other standard land 

use scenarios under other cleanup programs. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

AOC cleanup Alternative 1 

(Residential) 

Alternative 2 

(Industrial) 

Alternative 3 

(Recreational) 

Removal volume (cy) .................................................... 502,000 182,000 92,000 58,000 

Estimated cost .............................................................. $210 million $80 million $40 million $25 million 

Truckloads required ...................................................... 26,421 9,579 4,842 3,052 

Duration (months) assuming 12 trucks per day ......... 100 36 18 12 

Question. Does cleanup under the AOC need to comply with NEPA? 

Answer. NEPA is a statutory requirement (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and, as such, 

is reflected as a requirement of the AOC. Under the terms of the AOC: ‘‘4.2.3. NASA 

shall conduct all activities under this Order in a way that will promptly comply with 

the requirements of NEPA’’. 

Question. Will compliance with NEPA require consideration of all land-use and 

cleanup alternatives? 

Answer. Section 4.2.3 of the AOC requires that ‘‘NASA shall conduct all activities 

under this Order in a way that will promptly comply with the requirements of 

NEPA.’’ NASA is obligated to evaluate all reasonable alternatives or a range of reasonable alternatives in enough detail so that the public can compare and contrast 

the environmental effects of the various alternatives. NASA is currently conducting 

an environmental review of the impacts of the AOC and will consider land use and 

cleanup alternatives consistent with NEPA’s statutory and regulatory obligations. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. 

If there are no further questions, Senators may submit additional 

questions for the official record. We’ll request NASA’s response 

within 30 days. 

This is the subcommittee’s final regularly scheduled budget hearing. However, the subcommittee reserves the right to hold others 

should the need arise. 

And the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call of the 

chair, with an anticipated mark-up of our bill sometime in mid-tolate April. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Wednesday, March 28, the hearings 

were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(247) 

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOSCIENCES INSTITUTE

The American Geosciences Institute (AGI) supports Earth science research sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Frontier 

research on the Earth, energy, and the environment has fueled economic growth, 

mitigated losses and sustained our quality of life. The subcommittee’s leadership in 

supporting geoscience-based research is even more critical as our Nation competes 

with rapidly developing countries, such as China and India, for energy, mineral, air, 

and water resources. Our Nation needs skilled geoscientists to help explore, assess 

and develop Earth’s resources in a strategic, sustainable and environmentally sound 

manner and to help understand, evaluate, and reduce our risks to hazards. AGI 

supports the President’s budget request of $7.373 billion for NSF, $859.75 million 

for NIST, and $1.785 billion for Earth science at NASA plus $5.3 billion for NOAA. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific and professional societies representing more than 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other Earth scientists. 

Founded in 1948, AGI provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a 

voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society’s use of resources, resilience to hazards, and the health of 

the environment. 

National Science Foundation.—AGI supports an overall budget of $7.373 billion 

for NSF. AGI greatly appreciates the Congress’ support for science and technology 

in recent appropriations and through the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act 

of 2010. The forward-looking investments in NSF are fiscally responsible and will 

pay important dividends in future development that drives economic growth, especially in critical areas of sustainable and economic natural resources and reduced 

risks from natural hazards. Support for science will save jobs, create new jobs, support students, and provide training for a 21st century workforce. 

National Science Foundation Geosciences Directorate.—The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is the principal source of Federal support for academic Earth scientists 

and their students who are seeking to understand the processes that sustain and 

transform life on this planet. About 63 percent of support for university-based geosciences research comes from this directorate and more than 14,600 people will be 

directly supported through GEO in fiscal year 2013 with thousands of others deriving support indirectly. 

The President’s request for fiscal year 2013 asks for $264 million for Atmospheric 

and Geospace Sciences; $189 million for Earth sciences; $362 million for Ocean 

sciences; and $91 million for Integrative and Collaborative Education and Research 

within GEO. Much of the geosciences research budget is for understanding that is 
248 

critical for current national needs, such as water and mineral resources, energy resources, environmental issues, climate change, and mitigation of natural hazards. 

AGI asks the subcommittee to strongly support these funding levels. 

GEO supports infrastructure and operation and maintenance costs for cuttingedge facilities that are essential for basic and applied research. Ultimately the observations and data provide knowledge that is used by researchers and professionals 

in the public, Government and private sector. GEO research and infrastructure 

helps drive economic growth in a sustainable manner. Geoscience-based research 

tools and academic expertise helped to end the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, saving billions of dollars for industry and untold costs to the environment. Research 

funding continues to help the gulf coast recover environmentally and economically. 

Among the major facilities that NSF supports, the Academic Research Fleet would 

receive $73 million; EarthScope Operations would receive $26 million; Incorporated 

Research Institutions for Seismology would receive $11 million; Ocean Drilling Activities would receive $39 million; the Ocean Observatories Initiative would receive 

$40 million; and the National Center for Atmospheric Research would receive $92 

million. AGI strongly supports robust and steady funding for infrastructure and operation and maintenance of these major facilities. 

NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (OPP) funds basic research in the Arctic and Antarctica that helps the United States maintain strategic plans, international efforts, 

security goals, natural resource assessments, cutting-edge polar technology developments, and environmental stewardship of extreme environs. OPP’s funding helps 

support researchers and students, the U.S. military, and the private sector. OPP is 

estimated to directly support almost 3,325 people in fiscal year 2013 and thousands 

of others indirectly. AGI supports the President’s request of $449.7 million for this 

important program. 

National Science Foundation Support for Earth Science Education.—The Congress 

can grow the depleted geosciences workforce; stimulate economic growth in the energy, natural resources, and environmental sectors; and improve natural resource 

literacy by supporting the full integration of Earth science information into mainstream science education at the K–12 and higher education levels. AGI strongly supports the Math and Science Partnerships (MSP), the Graduate Research Fellowships 

(GRF) and the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) within NSF’s Education and Human Resources Division. These programs are effective in building a 

science and engineering workforce for the 21st century. 

Improving geoscience education, one of the goals of NSF–EHR, to levels of recognition similar to other scientific disciplines is important in the following ways: 

—Geoscience offers students subject matter that has direct application to their 

lives and the world around them, including energy, minerals, water, and environmental stewardship. All students should be required to take a geoscience 

course in primary and secondary school. 

—Geoscience exposes students to a range of interrelated scientific disciplines. It 

is an excellent vehicle for integrating the theories and methods of chemistry, 

physics, biology, and mathematics. A robust geoscience course would make an 

excellent capstone for applying lessons learned from earlier class work. 

—Geoscience awareness is a key element in reducing the impact of natural hazards on citizens—hazards that include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Informal geoscience education that leads to reducing risks and preparing for natural events should be a life-long goal. 

—Geoscience provides the foundation for tomorrow’s leaders in research, education, utilization and policymaking for Earth’s resources and our Nation’s strategic, economic, sustainable, and environmentally sound natural resources development. There are not enough U.S.-trained geoscientists to meet current demand and the gap is growing. Support for geoscience research and education 

is necessary to stay competitive and to wisely manage our natural resources. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.—AGI supports a budget of 

$5.3 billion for NOAA, which is consistent with the request of other stakeholders 

and more than the President’s request of $5.061 billion. We hope the subcommittee 

will continue to support the National Weather Service (NWS); Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); National Ocean Service (NOS); and the National Environment Satellite, Data and Information Service (NESDIS). These programs are critical 

for understanding and mitigating natural and human-induced hazards in the Earth 

system while sustaining our natural resources. These programs prevent billions of 

dollars of losses, keep the private and public sectors growing, and save lives. For 

example, drought forecasts are worth up to $8 billion to the agriculture, transportation, tourism, and energy sectors while NexRad radar has prevented more than 

330 fatalities and 7,800 injuries from tornadoes since the early 1990s. The addi-
249 

tional request of AGI and stakeholders would bring NWS, OAR, and NOS back to 

fiscal year 2010 levels, while supporting nonprocurement needs in NESDIS. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology.—We support the President’s re- quest of $860 million for NIST in fiscal year 2013. Basic research at NIST, conducted by Earth scientists and geotechnical engineers, is used by the public and private sector on a daily basis. The research conducted and the information gained is 

essential for understanding climate change and natural hazards in order to build 

resilient communities and stimulate economic growth with reduced impact from 

risk. In particular, we support Measurements and Standards to Support Increased 

Energy Efficiency and Reduced Environmental Impact and Measurements and 

Standards to Support Advanced Infrastructure Delivery and Resilience. Energy efficiency and reduced environmental impact research will improve the health of our 

planet and reduce energy costs. The advanced infrastructure research will help to 

reduce the estimated average of $52 billion in annual losses caused by floods, fires, 

and earthquakes. 

NIST is the lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program 

(NEHRP), but has received only a small portion of authorized and essential funding 

in the past. AGI strongly supports the reauthorization of the National Earthquake 

Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) in 2012. We hope the appropriations subcommittee will continue to support this effective and cohesive program, even if the 

authorizing legislation takes more time to complete. NEHRP is an excellent example 

of how to coordinate different entities for the safety and security of all. NEHRP develops effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerates 

their implementation; improves techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities 

of facilities and systems; improves earthquake hazards identification and risk assessment methods and their use; and improves the understanding of earthquakes 

and their effects. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.—AGI supports the vital Earth observing programs within NASA. AGI supports the President’s request of $1.785 

billion for Earth science programs within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA. 

The investments are needed to implement the priorities of the National Academies 

Earth Science and Applications from Space Decadal Survey. NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-observing satellites, launch the next tier and accelerate development of the subsequent tier of missions. The observations and understanding about our dynamic Earth gained from these missions is critical and needed 

as soon as possible. Earth observations are used every day, not just for research, 

but for critical information to aid society in mundane tasks, like weather forecasting 

and emergency services, such as tracking volcanic ash plumes or oil spills that disrupt the economy and the environment. The requested increase for fiscal year 2013 

and proposed increases for future years are wise and well-planned investments that 

benefit everyone. 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee and 

would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide additional information for 

the record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

This statement focuses on the National Science Foundation (NSF). 

On behalf of this Nation’s 37 tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for the 

opportunity to express our views and recommendations regarding the National 

Science Foundation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (NSF–TCUP) for fiscal year 2013. 

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

National Science Foundation—Education and Human Resources Directorate 

Since fiscal year 2001, a TCU initiative has been funded and administered under 

the NSF–Education and Human Resources (EHR). This competitive grants program 

enables TCUs to enhance the quality of their science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) instructional and outreach programs. TCUs that have been 

awarded an NSF–TCUP grant have completed comprehensive institutional needs 

analysis and developed a plan for how to address both their institutional and NSF 

goals, with a primary institutional goal being significant and sustainable expansion 

and improvements to STEM programs. Through NSF–TCUP, tribal colleges have 

been able to establish and maintain programs that represent a key component of 

the pipeline for the American Indian STEM workforce. We urge the subcommittee 

to fund the NSF–TCU competitive grants program at a minimum of $13,350,000. 
250 

TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SHOESTRING BUDGETS: ‘‘DOING SO MUCH WITH SO

LITTLE’’ 

Tribal colleges and universities are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of higher education, must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their accreditation status. TCUs fulfill additional roles within their respective reservation communities functioning as 

community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic 

development centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care centers. Each 

TCU is committed to improving the lives of its students through higher education 

and to moving American Indians toward self-sufficiency. 

TCUs have advanced American Indian higher education significantly since we 

first began four decades ago, but many challenges remain. Tribal colleges and universities are perennially underfunded. In fact, TCUs are the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in the country. 

The tribal governments that have chartered TCUs are not among the handful of 

wealthy gaming tribes located near major urban areas. Rather, they are some of the 

poorest governments in the Nation. Tribal colleges are home to some of the poorest 

counties in America. 

The Federal Government, despite its trust responsibility and treaty obligations, 

has never fully funded the principal institutional operating budgets, authorized 

under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. The 

Tribal College Act authorizes basic institutional operations funding on a per Indian 

student basis; yet the funds are not appropriated in the same manner. In fiscal year 

2011, the Congress proposed level funding for TCU institutional operating grants 

and appropriated the communal pot of funds at the same level as fiscal year 2010. 

However, due to a spike in enrollments at the TCUs of more than 1,660 Indian students in a single year, the TCUs are receiving funds at $549 less per Indian student 

toward their institutional operating budgets. Fully funding TCUs’ operating budgets 

would require $8,000 per Indian student. The tribal colleges are currently operating 

at $5,235 per Indian student. By contrast, Howard University located in the District 

of Columbia, the only other minority-serving institution to receive institutional operations funding from the Federal Government, is funded at approximately $19,000 

per student. We are by no means suggesting that Howard University does not need 

this funding, only that the TCUs’ operating budgets are clearly grossly underfunded. 

While TCUs do seek funding from their respective State legislatures for the nonIndian State-resident students (sometimes referred to as ‘‘nonbeneficiary’’ students) 

that account for 20 percent of their enrollments, successes have been at best inconsistent. TCUs are accredited by the same regional agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet they have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-Indian State students within their respective State legislatures. 

If these nonbeneficiary students attended any other public institution in the State, 

the State would provide that institution with ongoing funding toward its operations. 

TCUs effectively blend traditional teachings with conventional postsecondary curricula. They have developed innovative ways to address the needs of tribal populations and are overcoming longstanding barriers to success in higher education for 

American Indians. Since the first TCU was established on the Navajo Nation in 

1968, these vital institutions have come to represent the most significant development in the history of American Indian higher education, providing access to, and 

promoting achievement among, students who might otherwise never have known 

postsecondary education success. 

JUSTIFICATIONS

National Science Foundation–Education and Human Resources 

American Indian students have the highest high school drop-out rates in the country. On average, more than 75 percent of all TCU students must take at least one 

developmental course, most often precollege mathematics. Of these students, our 

data indicate that many do not successfully complete the course in 1 year. Without 

question, a large proportion of the TCUs already limited resources is dedicated to 

addressing the failings of K–12 education systems. 

To help rectify this, TCUs have developed strong partnerships with their K–12 

feeder schools and are actively working, often with support from NSF–TCU grant 

programs, to engage young students in community and culturally relevant science 

and math programs. These efforts include weekend academies and summer STEM 

camps that reinforce and supplement the instructional programs area K–12s are 

able to provide. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2001, NSF–TCUP has provided essential capacity building assistance and resources to TCUs. In the approximately 10 years since the pro-
251 

gram began, NSF–TCUP has become the primary Federal program for building 

STEM capacity at the TCUs. NSF–TCUP has served as a catalyst for capacity building and positive change at TCUs and the program can be credited with many success stories. Today, American Indians are more aware of the importance of STEM 

to their long-term survival, particularly in areas such as renewable energy and technology-driven economic development. 

The NSF–TCU program, administered by the Education and Human Resources 

Directorate, is a competitive grants program that enables TCUs to develop and expand critically needed science and math education and research programs relevant 

to their respective communities. Through this program, TCUs that have been 

awarded an NSF–TCUP grant have been able to enhance their STEM instructional 

offerings, workforce development, and outreach programs. 

For example, College of Menominee Nation (CMN) in Keshena, Wisconsin has established strong programs in pre-engineering, computer science, natural resources, 

the biological and physical sciences, and sustainable development, mainly through 

support from NSF–TCUP. CMN’s Sustainable Development Institute now hosts regional and sometimes international conferences on sustainable practices and in 2011 

hosted an important conference for tribes located in the Great Lakes region to review current research on, and discuss strategies for responding to emerging challenges attributed to, climate change. CMN is an example of how TCUs are using 

their STEM programs as a springboard for taking critical leadership roles within 

their communities. Additionally, faculty and students at Haskell Indian Nations 

University in Lawrence, Kansas are using the university’s Sequoyah Computer and 

GIS Lab to support their work with the Omaha and Winnebago Tribal Nations in 

collecting and analyzing hydrologic and botanical data necessary to support resource 

management decisionmaking by the tribal leadership. 

Unfortunately, not all of the TCUs have had an opportunity to benefit from this 

program; yet, funding for this vital program has been static, and the percentage of 

proposals funded has declined each year beginning in 2004. We strongly urge the 

subcommittee to fund the NSF–TCU grants program at a minimum of $13,350,000. 

CONCLUSION

Tribal colleges and universities provide access to quality higher education opportunities, including STEM-focused programs, for thousands of American Indians. The 

modest Federal investment that has been made in TCUs has paid great dividends 

in terms of employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this 

investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. 

We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the Nation’s tribal colleges and universities and your serious consideration of our fiscal year 2013 appropriation request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates the opportunity 

to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the National 

Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage the Congress to provide NSF with at least 

$7.373 billion in fiscal year 2013. 

The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society. AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the community of biologists have access to and use information that will guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of 

Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization in the 

1950s. Today, AIBS has nearly 160 member organizations and is headquartered in 

Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in Washington, DC. 

The NSF is an important engine that helps power our Nation’s economic growth. 

Through its competitive, peer-reviewed research grants, NSF is leading the development of new knowledge that will help to solve the most challenging problems facing 

society, and will lead to new scientific discoveries, patents, and jobs. The agency’s 

education and training programs are helping to ensure that the next generation has 

the scientific, technical, and mathematical skills employers are seeking. Investments 

in research equipment and facilities enable the country to continue to innovate and 

compete globally. These efforts, however, require a sustained and predictable Federal investment. Unpredictable swings in Federal funding can disrupt research programs, create uncertainty in the research community, and stall the development of 

the next great idea. 
252 

NSF is the primary Federal funding source for fundamental research in the nonmedical life sciences at our Nation’s universities and colleges. The NSF provides approximately 62 percent of extramural Federal support for nonmedical, fundamental 

biological, and environmental research at academic institutions. 

NSF is a sound investment that pays dividends. The use of peer-review to evaluate and select the best proposals means that NSF is funding the highest-quality research. Importantly, the fiscal year 2013 budget request would allow the agency to 

fund 300 additional research grants, thereby supporting roughly 5,000 additional researchers, teachers, and students. 

The research supported by NSF is unique from the science funded by other Federal agencies. Unlike most Federal agencies, which focus on applied research, NSF 

supports basic research that advances the frontiers of our knowledge about biodiversity, genetics, physiology, and ecosystems. Recent discoveries that stem from NSFfunded research include: 

—Creation of designer enzymes that can convert biomass into biofuels faster, 

more efficiently, and less expensively. 

—Refined understanding of the mechanism by which the flu virus infects humans. 

This insight could help to develop more effective treatments for the flu and save 

lives. 

—Identification of long-term environmental changes in U.S. ecosystems, such as 

changes in hydrology and nutrient inputs in lakes in the Midwest. 

—Knowledge of the physiological effects of human-caused marine stressors, such 

as pollution and low oxygen, on crustaceans’ ability to fend off bacterial infections. This research has ramifications for several economically important fisheries. 

—Insight into the benefits of antimicrobial plant resins used in beehives on honeybee health. This discovery could have implications for colony collapse disorder, which has devastated bee populations in North America. 

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

The Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) funds research in the foundational disciplines within biology. These fields of study further our understanding of how organisms and ecosystems function. Additionally, BIO supports innovative interdisciplinary research that improves our understanding of how human social systems influence—or are influenced by—the environment, such as the NSF-wide Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability program. In collaboration with NSF’s engineering, math, and physical science directorates, BIO is working to develop new, 

cutting-edge research fields. For example, the BioMaPS program is accelerating understanding of biological systems, and applying that knowledge to new technologies 

in clean energy. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request for NSF would enable the agency to continue 

to fund highly competitive grant proposals in BIO’s five core programmatic areas: 

—Environmental biology; 

—Integrative organismal systems; 

—Molecular and cellular biosciences; 

—Biological infrastructure; and 

—Emerging frontiers. 

Each of BIO’s program areas also contribute to the education and training of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students. 

Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation’s place-based biological research, such as field stations and natural science collections. The LongTerm Ecological Research program supports fundamental ecological research over 

long-time periods and large spatial scales, the results of which provide information 

necessary for the identification and solution of environmental problems. 

The budget request also would sustain an effort to digitize high-priority specimens 

in U.S. scientific collections. This investment will help the scientific community ensure access to and appropriate curation of irreplaceable biological specimens and associated data, and stimulate the development of new computer hardware and software, digitization technologies, and database management tools. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget would continue efforts to better understand biodiversity. Funding is included for the Dimensions of Biodiversity program, which supports cross-disciplinary research to describe and understand the scope and role of 

life on Earth. Despite centuries of discovery, most of our planet’s biodiversity remains unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly troubling given the rapid 

and permanent loss of global biodiversity. Better understanding of life on Earth will 

help us to protect valuable ecosystem services and make new bio-based discoveries 

in the realms of food, fiber, fuel, pharmaceuticals, and bio-inspired innovation. 
253 

The budget request includes funding in the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account for the continued construction of the National Ecological 

Observatory Network (NEON). Once completed, NEON will provide the infrastructure necessary to collect data across the United States on the effects of climate 

change, land use change, water use, and invasive species on natural resources and 

biodiversity. This information will be valuable to scientists, resource managers, and 

Government decisionmakers as they seek to better understand and manage natural 

systems. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

The requested budget would allow NSF to build upon its central role in science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Support for the scientific training of undergraduate and graduate students is critically important to 

our research enterprise. Students recruited into science through NSF programs and 

research experiences are our next generation of innovators and educators. In short, 

NSF grants are essential to the Nation’s goal of sustaining our global leadership in 

science, technology, engineering and mathematics and reigniting our economic engines. 

We encourage the subcommittee to provide the requested funding for the successful Graduate Research Fellowship program. The budget request would provide funding for 2,000 new fellowships, which are important to our national effort to recruit 

and retain the best and brightest STEM students. The budget would also provide 

a needed $2,000 increase to the fellowship’s stipend, which has not changed since 

2005. 

The agency budget request also would provide important research support to early 

career scientists, helping them to initiate their research programs. The Faculty 

Early Career Development program (CAREER) supports young faculty who are dedicated to integrating research with teaching and learning. The fiscal year 2013 budget would enable NSF to support approximately 40 more CAREER awards than in 

fiscal year 2012. 

CONCLUSION

Continued investments in the biological sciences are critical. The budget request 

for NSF will help spur economic growth and innovation and continue to build scientific capacity at a time when our Nation is at risk of being outpaced by our global 

competitors. Please support an investment of at least $7.373 billion for NSF for fiscal year 2013. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for your prior efforts on behalf of science and NSF. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) supports adequate funding for 

staffing antitrust enforcement and oversight at the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

For the DOJ Antitrust Division we support the President’s fiscal year 2013 request 

of $165 million. 

APPA is the national service organization representing the interests of more than 

2,000 municipal and other State and locally owned utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric 

consumers (approximately 46 million people), serving some of the Nation’s largest 

cities. However, the vast majority of APPA’s members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less. 

The DOJ Antitrust Division plays a critical role in monitoring and enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With the repeal of the Public Utility 

Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry has experienced an increase in mergers that could result in increased market power in certain regions. This development, coupled with the volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale electricity markets run by 

regional transmission organizations, makes the oversight provided by DOJ more 

critical than ever. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 

2013 funding priority within the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies 

subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 
254 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit the following 

testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for the National Science Foundation 

(NSF). ASM is the largest single-life science organization in the world with about 

38,000 members. ASM endorses the administration’s fiscal year 2013 request of 

$7.373 billion for NSF, a 4.8-percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 level. 

For more than 60 years, NSF grants have been responsible for breakthroughs in 

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), sponsoring research 

with economic benefits and providing opportunities to train new generations of 

STEM professionals. 

U.S. global competitiveness in science and technology can only be sustained by increased resources devoted to research and development (R&D). In NSF’s most recent 

biennial Science & Engineering Indicators report, U.S. investment in R&D declined 

during the 1999–2009 period relative to other nations’ investments. It is critical that 

funding be increased for the NSF because it is the primary source of Federal research funding in multiple STEM disciplines. 

Each year, NSF distributes funds to about 1,900 colleges, universities, and other 

U.S. institutions. This year NSF will support about 285,000 researchers, 

postdoctoral fellows, and other trainees, teachers, and students. In fiscal year 2013, 

it expects to make more than 12,000 new awards selected from more than 55,000 

submitted research proposals. NSF is responsible for 61 percent of the total Federal 

budget for basic academic research. 

NSF’s fiscal year 2013 budget will support the American Competitiveness Initiative and the National Bioeconomy Blueprint designed to resolve issues in health, 

food, energy, and the environment. NSF has launched several new initiatives to accelerate innovation, including the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program to build 

partnerships between NSF-funded researchers and the private sector. The Science, 

Engineering and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program will use sustainability science to generate important innovations in clean energy like microbial produced biofuels. 

NSF-funded scientists contribute new information about living organisms that 

benefits public health, our economy, and the environment. In the past year, NSFsupported researchers at academic institutions have reported the following results, 

among many others: 

—Electron microscopy and 3–D image reconstruction revealed the seahorseshaped structure of a protein complex in Escherichia coli that can adapt to defend the bacteria against viruses and other microbial threats, indicating a bacterial immune system analogous in part to the human immune system. 

—In stressful environments, Bacillus subtilis bacteria increase their survival by 

pulsing genes, like those initiating cell repair, on and off, counter to previous 

belief that once turned on, the genes remain active. 

—Some patients develop blood infections from implanted cardiac devices because 

the biofilm bacteria involved have gene mutations that make the bacteria more 

likely to adhere to device surfaces, according to research partly funded by NSF’s 

Directorate for Geosciences. 

—Viruses known to infect E. coli bacteria (M13 phages) have been tricked into 

self-assembling as thin films with 3–D features like filaments or ridges, offering 

a potential nanoscale tool that might eventually lead to tissue regeneration and 

repair. 

—Genetic sequencing of the bacteria that cause speck disease in tomatoes 

(Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), comparing isolates from 1975 and 2000, revealed that the economically important plant pathogen evolves more rapidly 

than expected, increasing its resistance to the tomato immune system and becoming more virulent. 

—Novel therapeutics effective against drug-resistant influenza viruses might be 

developed using new research on the pocket-shaped surface cavities of avian influenza viruses that are targeted by flu drugs, based on computer simulations 

of how these cavities move and change. 

—Scientists have sequenced the genomes of two fungal pathogens responsible for 

plant diseases that severely impact global food supplies, wheat stem rust and 

poplar leaf rust, in a 6-year collaborative program involving several universities, NSF, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
255 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FUNDING SUPPORTS DIVERSE RESEARCH IN

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $733.86 million for NSF’s Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), a 3-percent increase more than the enacted fiscal year 2012 

level. We are concerned that funding for the BIO divisions has remained essentially 

flat since fiscal year 2010. BIO-supported research contributes important insights 

and new knowledge across the wide spectrum of living organisms and systems, with 

obvious applications to public health. Fiscal year 2013 funding will further current 

BIO strategies that emphasize cross-cutting research combining several scientific 

disciplines or leveraging the interfaces between the physical and biological worlds. 

Within its research portfolio, the Directorate invests in the five so-called Grand 

Challenges in Biology: 

—synthesizing life-like systems; 

—understanding the brain; 

—predicting organisms’ characteristics from their DNA sequences; 

—elucidating interactions between the Earth, its climate and its biosphere; and 

—understanding biological diversity. 

BIO grant recipients and training programs seek answers to major problems like 

climate change, energy shortages, animal and plant diseases, and threats to our environment. In fiscal year 2013, BIO funding will be distributed among more than 

18,000 scientists, students, and K–12 teachers to promote relevant research and 

education. 

This year, the first test sites in the NSF-funded National Ecological Observatory 

Network (NEON) will be operational. NEON is a unique research infrastructure 

that will study all biological entities identified in large geographic areas over extended periods. Included in NEON research will be numerous studies of microbial 

communities, their responses to environmental change, and how they can be utilized 

in useful ways. Another large-scale NSF project with microbe-based components is 

the agency wide SEES program, distributing grants in bioremediation and microbial 

genetics. 

BIO provides about 62 percent of Federal funding for nonmedical basic research 

in the life sciences at academic institutions and supports important microbial research. Over the past 2 years, BIO has awarded more than 580 grants worth about 

$111 million to microbiology-related projects, which have advanced basic and applied microbiology, such as new ways to produce drugs against infectious diseases 

and potential remediation methods to clean polluted environments. 

The Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease (EEID) program is a joint BIO 

effort in partnership with USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture and 

National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of General Medical 

Sciences. The principal focus is the dynamics of disease transmission, and the program supports academic research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological processes that determine the spread of diseases. Through this program, NSF 

multidisciplinary research is creating inventive approaches to controlling infectious 

diseases. Potential grantees are encouraged to utilize investigative teams of physicians, veterinarians, food scientists, virologists, and multiple other specialists in 

their proposals. 

Last year, EEID-funded researchers identified the mosquito and bird species most 

responsible for West Nile virus transmission and linked bacteria in human sewage 

to white pox disease that is killing elkhorn coral in the Caribbean. Recently funded 

EEID projects include studies of the transmission of brucellosis among bison in Yellowstone Park, the spread of the fungal disease white-nose syndrome among hibernating bats, and how wildfires and extreme droughts affect the spread of the infectious plant disease called sudden oak death that has attacked millions of trees in 

California and Oregon. EEID’s mission encompasses the varied factors that determine transmission of diseases to humans, nonhuman animals, and plants, enabling 

research in infectious disease not replicated elsewhere. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FUNDING SUPPORTS BASIC RESEARCH IN

ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES

NSF supports interdisciplinary studies in all STEM fields as the boundaries have 

become increasingly blurred among biological, physical, and computing sciences. The 

Directorate for Engineering would receive $873.33 million, an increase of 6.1 percent; the Directorate for Geosciences (GEO), $906.44 million (2.4 percent); and the 

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), $1,345.18 million (2.8 

percent). 

GEO—which provides about 55 percent of Federal funding for basic geosciences 

research—supports diverse academic studies of the global environment. GEO-funded 
256 

research, scientist training, and education contribute new knowledge about the 

oceans, our atmosphere, water quality, and other environmental systems. GEO 

funds help underwrite observatories, ocean drilling projects, and other large-scale 

programs that would be unlikely without NSF support. The resulting research also 

has added to our understanding of natural disasters like earthquakes and tornadoes. Geochemists’ identified microbes in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that ingest natural gases like methane and ethane at cold 

temperatures, which should inform future contaminant remediation. 

The Directorate of MPS provides one-half of the Federal funding for basic research at academic institutions. Its contributions to the SEES program include 

grant awards for sustainable chemistry research. MPS recently appointed a committee of external experts, called NSF Materials 2022, to develop future research 

strategies in materials science that will undoubtedly utilize biological systems 

among others. In fiscal year 2013, MPS also will continue its partnership with the 

BIO and ENG directorates in the Research at the Interface of the Biological, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) program, which integrates biological, engineering, mathematical, and physical sciences to study naturally occurring networks. 

BioMaPS-funded projects generate bio-based materials, through new approaches to 

manufacturing devices and platforms. MPS funding for this creative program would 

increase 50 percent in fiscal year 2013, recognition of the potential contributions 

from mathematical and physical sciences to technologies like bioimaging, renewable 

fuels, and biosensors. 

The Directorate for Engineering contributes about 35 percent of Federal funding 

for basic engineering research at academic institutions. Bioengineering research offers exciting new solutions to challenges faced in healthcare, environmental stewardship, and the U.S. economy. The Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems (CBET) underwrites SEES-related research and 

education aimed toward sustainability in water, climate, and energy. The CBET research portfolio includes emerging specialties like biosensing and investigations that 

involve engineers, life scientists, and bioinformatics experts. 

CONCLUSION

ASM recommends that the Congress approve the administration’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request for the NSF, the Nation’s principal sponsor of basic research in crucial technical areas. It is important that the Congress sustain NSF’s proven successes in STEM-related research and education. By funding academic research, NSF 

serves the public as a partner in achieving our national imperative to enhance discovery and innovation across STEM disciplines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY

The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America 

(CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) represent more than 18,000 

members in academia, industry, and Government, and 13,000 Certified Crop Advisers. The largest coalition of professionals dedicated to the agronomic, crop, and soil 

science disciplines in the United States, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are dedicated to utilizing science in order to meet our growing food, feed, fiber, and fuel needs. With 

an ever-expanding global population and increasing food demands, investment in 

food and agriculture research is essential to maintaining our Nation’s food, economic 

and national security. We are pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2013. 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the budgetary challenges facing the Senate 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee. We 

also recognize that the Commerce, Justice, and Science, and related agencies appropriations spending bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the past efforts of the subcommittee to fund critical research through the National Science Foundation (NSF). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to 

support an increase in fiscal year 2013 funding for NSF of 5 percent more than the 

fiscal year 2012 enacted level, bringing total funding to $7.4 billion, the same funding level recommended in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. This 

strong level of funding will enable NSF to continue valuable projects that promote 

transformational and multidisciplinary research, provide needed scientific infrastructure, and contribute to preparing the next generation science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce. 

Within NSF we support the following programs that help advance our understanding of the basic crop and soil sciences. These sciences underpin future solutions to many of the most pressing challenges including food security, sustainable 
257 

renewable energy production, and environmental protection that confront both our 

country and the world. 

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

Molecular and Cellular Biosciences 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) 

at $132.68 million for fiscal year 2013 (an $6.89 million or 5.5-percent increase more 

than fiscal year 2012). MCB supports fundamental research and related activities 

designed to promote understanding of complex living systems at the molecular, subcellular, and cellular levels. The division supports research across a broad spectrum 

of experimental systems, ranging from organisms, such as plants and microbes, to 

the use of in silico approaches. 

Integrative Organismal Systems 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) 

funding to $220.52 million (an increase of $8.19 million or 3.9 percent more than 

fiscal year 2012), which would allow 41 percent of the IOS portfolio to be available 

for new research grants. In order to meet increasing demands and develop more robust crops, additional fundamental understanding regarding the basic biology of 

these crops is needed. IOS maintains its commitment to support fundamental plant 

genome research through the Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP). In addition, 

the Developing Country Collaborations in Plant Genome Research program links 

U.S. researchers with partners from developing countries to solve problems of mutual interest in agriculture and energy and the environment. Additionally, in collaboration with the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, the 

PGRP has financed the Maize Genome Sequencing Project—a sequencing project for 

one of the most important crops grown globally. 

The PGRP’s Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development (BREAD) program supports basic research on early concept approaches and technologies for 

science-based solutions to problems of agriculture in developing countries. ASA, 

CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $6 million for the BREAD program. 

Finally, in 2005 the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project published the 

finished DNA blueprint for rice—a crop fundamental to populations worldwide. To 

continue the discovery of new innovative ways to enhance crop production for a 

growing population, sustained funding is needed for similar projects. 

GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Atmospheric and Geospace 

Sciences (AGS) funding to $264.06 million (an increase of $5.4 million or 2.1 percent 

more than fiscal year 2012). Changes in terrestrial systems will have great impacts 

on biogeochemical cycling rates, which in turn, greatly affect our agriculture, crops, 

and soil. By providing support for basic science and the acquisition, maintenance, 

and operation of observational facilities and services, AGS ensures the presence of 

modern-day atmospheric and geospace science research activities. 

Earth Sciences 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Earth Sciences (EAR) funding to $189.2 

million (an increase of $5.7 million or 3.1 percent more than fiscal year 2012). The 

Earth Sciences division supports the Surface Earth Processes section which researches geomorphology and land use, hydrologic science, geobiology, geochemistry 

(particularly the Geobiology and Low-Temperature Geochemistry Program), and sedimentary geology and paleobiology—all crucial to the areas of agronomy, soil, and 

crops. In addition, EAR supports EarthScope which focuses on studying the structure and tectonics of the North American continent and an Instrumentation and Facilities program that supports community-based, shared-use facilities, as well as an 

education program to attract and support students and young investigators to the 

field of Earth science. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA also support strong funding for the 

Critical Zone Observatories that operate at the watershed scale and significantly advance our understanding of the integration and coupling of Earth surface processes 

as mediated by the presence and flux of fresh water. 

DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

Division of Graduate Education 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Graduate Education funding 

to $184.82 million (an increase of $5 million or 3.9 percent more than fiscal year 
258 

2012). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are dedicated to the enhancement of education, and 

concerned about recent declines in enrollment for many sciences. ASA, CSSA, and 

SSSA support science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education 

efforts in order to prepare the next generation of agronomy, crop, and soil scientists. 

In light of this effort, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend strong support for the 

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships program. Graduate students are the next generation of scientists, and opportunities for study must be increased with the ever-increasing demands of science. Global problems rely on scientific discovery for their amelioration and it is critical that the United States continue to be a leader in graduate education. 

Division of Undergraduate Education 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) funding to $246.64 million (an increase of $11 million or 4.7 percent more 

than fiscal year 2012). The entire DUE portfolio (Advanced Technological Education, 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, and 

Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science) seeks to anchor a coherent body 

of knowledge on innovative and effective STEM learning environments. This core 

area addresses all levels of transition, including high school to undergraduate or 

community college to 4-year institution shifts. Investments in DUE will support the 

further implementation of STEM practices in order to bring learners to the frontiers 

of science. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION-WIDE/CROSSCUTTING PROGRAMS

Integrated National Science Foundation Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $63 million for Integrated 

NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and Education (INSPIRE). INSPIRE seeks to increase NSF’s support of bold high-risk interdisciplinary projects 

that may fall outside the scope of existing NSF programs. This is especially important as NSF seeks to encompass improvements in business practices, funding culture, training and evaluation. 

Expeditions in Education 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the establishment of the Expeditions in Education 

Initiative in order to ‘‘move the dial’’ toward achieving important national goals in 

STEM education and human capital development. We support NSF’s request of $49 

million in order to achieve the goal of infusing cutting-edge science, engineering, 

and innovation into the preparation of a world-class scientific workforce. 

Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $202.5 million for Science, 

Engineering, and Education for Sustainability . This long-term investment reflects 

an effort by NSF to coordinate and grow research and education associated with the 

environment, energy, and sustainability. More specifically, we support NSF’s efforts 

to increase our understanding of the integrated system of resource and supply 

chains, society, the natural world, and the alterations humans bring to Earth. 

Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the continued cooperation between NSF and 

USAID. Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research grants provide an important opportunity to support scientists in developing countries who work with 

NSF-funded scientists at U.S. institutions. 

Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships 

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $321.67 million for NSF’s 

graduate fellowship and traineeship programs. This funding will enable NSF to support an estimated 6,950 graduate students, including 2,000 new Graduate Research 

Fellows in 2013. 

As you consider funding levels for NSF, please consider ASA, CSSA, and SSSA 

as supportive resources. We hope you will call on our membership and scientific expertise whenever the need arises. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

The recent heightened awareness around budget deficits and our Nation’s fiscal 

health has catalyzed an important and timely discussion regarding how we begin 
259 

to make the difficult decisions that will improve our long-term fiscal outlook. However, even in the frame of this discussion, it is critical that research and development remain one of the highest priorities for domestic discretionary spending. Scientific and engineering research has long been the foundation of our Nation’s economic growth and prosperity. Our country’s economic strength comes from our ability to produce the world’s best scientists and engineers, nurture new ideas and innovation, and develop new technologies and industries. If America is to remain a global economic leader, we must continue to invest in the scientific and engineering enterprise that generates new technologies, industries and jobs. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Knowledge & Community 

Sector National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Task Force is pleased 

to have this opportunity to provide comments on the fiscal year 2013 budget request 

for NIST. The NIST Task Force and ASME Standards & Certification have a longstanding relationship with NIST and thus recognize NIST as a key Government 

agency that contributes significantly to the development and application of technology. 

In the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Task Force supports the 

proposed increases for NIST programs, which are consistent with the doubling path 

by fiscal year 2017 identified by the administration as a goal for NIST. 

Introduction to American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology Task Force 

Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a 

worldwide engineering society of more than 120,000 members focused on technical, 

educational and research issues. ASME conducts one of the world’s largest technical 

publishing operations, holds approximately 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and sets many industry and manufacturing 

standards. 

Mechanical engineers play a key role in the research, technology development, 

and innovation that influence the economic well-being of the Nation. ASME has supported the mission of NIST since it was founded in 1901, as the National Bureau 

of Standards. In fact, ASME was instrumental in establishing the Department of 

Commerce, NIST’s parent agency. The technical programs of NIST are unique in 

that they foster Government and industry cooperation through cost-sharing partnerships that create long-term investments based on engineering and technology. These 

programs are aimed at providing the technical support so vital to our Nation’s future economic health. 

Overview of National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Fiscal Year 2012 

Budget Request 

The administration’s budget request for NIST in fiscal year 2013 is $857 million. 

This represents a $106.2 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount This year, the administration has also identified $1.3 billion in mandatory spending; $300 million to support a Wireless Innovation Fund, and $1 billion 

for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. 

Although the NIST Task Force is pleased to see the administration seeking higher 

funding for NIST, we remain concerned that the cancellation of NIST programs such 

as the Technology Innovation Partnership (TIP) as well as the Baldrige Performance 

Excellence Program may obstruct the path toward a high-technology manufacturing 

economy as envisioned by President Barack Obama. The Task Force would also note 

that the budget increases proposed for fiscal year 2013 would come on the heels of 

a previous discretionary budget cycle that was flat overall for NIST. 

This budget includes $648 million for the Scientific and Technical Research and 

Services (STRS), NIST laboratory research, which is $81 million more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. The fiscal year 2013 budget would provide 

$572.7 million to support laboratory programs, a $54.7 million increase more than 

the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. This is reflective of the desire expressed 

by Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of NIST Patrick Gallagher last year 

to discontinue the Baldrige program and identify private sector funding sources for 

its continuation. There is no set timetable for this to take place. 

A large portion of the NIST budget is devoted to the Industrial Technology Services (ITS) programs, which previously consisted of the Technology Innovation Program (TIP). Now, ITS is mostly devoted to the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP), which would receive $149 million in fiscal year 2013, a $20.6 

million increase more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. In more recent years, the erosion of U.S. manufacturing jobs has become a key issue for the 

MEP to develop sustainable practices for industries in the United States. The MEP 

incorporates competitive business practices and technologies into small- to medium- 
260 

sized enterprises—companies that create a significant number of jobs. The administration’s request of $149 million reflects the importance of NIST as a part of the 

administration’s goals for innovation, as well as harkens to the bipartisan America 

COMPETES Act. The NIST Task Force has long supported MEP as a catalyst for 

technological innovation and is pleased with the administration’s support for this 

program as NIST seeks to facilitate the development of new industries that will 

catalyze manufacturing and industrial practices in the United States. The Task 

Force supports the total request to fund the ITS in fiscal year 2013. 

NIST has again proposed the creation of a new program called the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) but has asked for $21 million instead of the $12.3 million it requested in fiscal year 2012, when it did not receive 

funding from the Congress. According to NIST, the program will also be ‘‘based on 

NIST’s experience with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) partnership.’’ 

The program has been described as a vehicle for aiding private industry seeking to 

develop nanotechnology products for the manufacturing sector. AmTech will seek to 

assemble a consortium of public and private stakeholders to identify, and collectively fund, long-term technical challenges to this high-technology manufacturing 

sector. Unlike TIP, there is no cost share requirement for AmTech. This program 

effectively demonstrates the value of NIST as a convener of U.S. stakeholders to collectively work toward the establishment of groundbreaking new industries like the 

nanotechnology field. Although, difficult fiscal challenges lay ahead, the Task Force 

strongly urges the Congress to honor the request to fund AmTech in fiscal year 

2013, and the Task Force was disappointed that the Congress did not fund AmTech 

in fiscal year 2012. We believe that investment should be made into initiatives such 

as the AMTech program because of their potential for high return on investment 

and to maintain global U.S. competitiveness. 

Finally, the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF), which would receive $60 

million, a 19-percent increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount of $48.2 

million. This category includes $11.8 million for the renovation of the 60-year-old 

Building 1 of the NIST Boulder laboratories. NIST laboratories remain a critical resource that is vital to the economic health and national security of the United States 

as outlined in the President’s Innovation Agenda, inspired, in part, by the original 

America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–69). The NIST engineering laboratory ‘‘promotes the development and dissemination of advanced technologies, 

guidelines, and services to the U.S. manufacturing and construction industries 

through activities including measurement science research, performance metrics, 

tools and methodologies for engineering applications, and critical technical contributions to standards and codes development.’’ 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Standards Mission 

Part of the mission of NIST is to promote the use of American standards, conformity assessment programs and technology in countries and industries around the 

world as a means of enhancing U.S. competitiveness and opening new markets for 

U.S. products and services. Standards provide technical definitions and guidelines 

for design and manufacturing. They serve as a common global language, define 

quality and establish safety criteria. In the United States, standards are developed 

by private-sector organizations such as ASME in close collaboration with representatives from industry, government, and academia. These standards are used by industry and also frequently adopted by Government agencies as a means of establishing regulatory requirements. They are vital to the economic health of many industries, and—more importantly—they help to ensure the health and safety of the 

American people and of citizens in countless nations around the world. 

Over the years, the Department of Commerce and NIST have played an indispensable role in ensuring acceptance by other nations of U.S.-developed standards that 

continue to identify and incorporate technological advances and that also reflect 

changing needs for industry, regulation, and public safety. The Congress must be 

aware that, unlike in the United States where standards development is largely the 

province of private sector organizations, standards development in many other countries is undertaken with strong government support. The U.S. voluntary consensus 

standards process enables innovation, reduces redundancy in public and private sector research, and reduces Government costs. The governments of many of our key 

trading partners invest significant resources to promote acceptance of competing 

standards (developed by organizations in those countries) in the global marketplace. 

It is therefore essential that the U.S. Government, in partnership with private sector standards development organizations, strengthen its commitment to ensuring 

adequate representation of U.S. interests in international standards negotiations. 

Enabling U.S. manufacturers to design and build to one standard or set of standards increases their competitiveness in the world market. The ability of NIST to as-
261 

sist U.S. domiciled standards developers in their negotiations with international and 

national standards organizations is important to the U.S. business community. The 

United States must be a full participant in global standards development if our industries are to compete effectively in a world market. Decisions made in standards 

bodies outside the United States have a profound impact on the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets. We believe that NIST plays a unique and crucial role in maintaining, and growing, the competitive edge of U.S. industry in the 

emerging landscape of the high technology manufacturing sector. 

CONCLUSION

The administration’s commitment to NIST appears to be strong, as demonstrated 

by their willingness to support increases for key NIST initiatives for fiscal year 

2013. While the Task Force would prefer to see the resurrection of the TIP program, 

the Task Force remains strongly supportive of these initiatives as well as the underlying goals of NIST as it relates to advanced manufacturing and technological innovation. 

ASME is a nonprofit technical and educational organization with more than 

120,000 members globally. ASME’s members work in all sectors of the economy, including industry, academia, and government. This position statement represents the 

views of the NIST Task Force of the ASME Technical Communities of the Knowledge & Community Sector and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS

On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we submit this testimony for the official record to support the requested level of $7.373 billion for the 

National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal year 2013. ASPB and its members recognize the difficult fiscal environment our Nation faces, but believe that investments 

in scientific research will be a critical step toward economic recovery and continued 

global competitiveness. 

ASPB would like to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of this testimony 

and for its strong support for the research mission of NSF. 

Our testimony will discuss: 

—Plant biology research as a foundation for addressing food, fuel, environment, 

and health concerns; 

—The rationale for robust funding for NSF to maintain a well-proportioned 

science portfolio with support for all core science disciplines, including biology; 

and 

—The rationale for continued funding of NSF education and workforce development programs that provide support for the future scientific and technical expertise critical to America’s competitiveness. 

ASPB is an organization of approximately 5,000 professional plant biology researchers, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral scientists with members 

in all 50 States and throughout the world. A strong voice for the global plant science 

community, our mission—achieved through work in the realms of research, education, and public policy—is to promote the growth and development of plant biology, to encourage and communicate research in plant biology, and to promote the 

interests and growth of plant scientists in general. 

FOOD, FUEL, ENVIRONMENT, AND HEALTH: PLANT BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND AMERICA’S

FUTURE

Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight, converting it to 

chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon dioxide and produce oxygen; 

and they are the primary producers on which all life depends. Indeed, plant biology 

research is making many fundamental contributions in the areas of energy security 

and environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in the understanding of biological 

principles that underpin improvements in the health and nutrition of all Americans. 

In particular, plant biology is at the interface of numerous scientific breakthroughs. For example, with high throughput experimental approaches facilitating 

extraordinary syntheses of information that are supported by the NSF, plant biologists are using computer science applications to make tremendous strides in our understanding of complex biological systems, ranging from single cells to entire ecosystems. Understanding how plants work will ultimately result in better and more 

productive crops, new sources of fuel, and the development of better medicines to 

treat diseases like cancer. 
262 

Despite the fact that foundational plant biology research—the kind of research 

funded by NSF—underpins vital advances in practical applications in agriculture, 

health, energy, and the environment, the amount of money invested in understanding the basic function and mechanisms of plants is surprisingly small. This is 

especially true considering the significant positive impact plants have on the Nation’s economy and in addressing some of our most urgent challenges, including food 

and energy security. 

Understanding the importance of these areas and in order to address future challenges, ASPB organized the Plant Science Research Summit held in September 

2011. With funding from the NSF, Departments of Agriculture and Energy, and the 

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Summit brought together representatives 

from across the full spectrum of plant science research to identify critical gaps in 

our understanding of plant biology that must be filled over the next 10 years or 

more in order to address the grand challenges facing our Nation and our planet. The 

grand challenges identified at the Summit include: 

—In order to feed everyone well, now and in the future, advances in plant science 

research will be needed for higher yielding, more nutritious varieties able to 

withstand a variable climate; 

—Innovations leading to improvements in water use, nutrient use, and disease 

and pest resistance that will reduce the burden on the environment are needed 

and will allow for increases in ecosystem services, such as cleaner air, cleaner 

water, fertile soil, and biodiversity benefits like pest suppression and improved 

pollination; 

—To fuel the future with clean energy, improvements in current biofuels technologies, including breeding, crop production methods, and processing that will 

help meet our Nation’s fuel requirements for the future are needed; and 

—For all the benefits that advances in plant science bestow—in food and fiber 

production, ecosystem and landscape health, and energy subsistence—to have 

lasting, permanent benefit they must be economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable. 

In spring 2012, a report from the Plant Science Research Summit will be published. This report will further detail priorities and needs to address the grand challenges. 

ROBUST FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The fiscal year 2013 NSF budget request would fund the NSF at $7.373 billion. 

ASPB supports this request and encourages proportional funding increases across 

all scientific disciplines supported by the NSF. As scientific research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary with permeable boundaries, a diverse portfolio at the 

NSF is needed to maintain transformational research and innovation. 

NSF funding for plant biology specifically enables the scientific community to address cross-cutting research questions that could ultimately solve grand challenges 

related to a sustainable food supply, energy security, and improved health. This idea 

is reflected in the National Research Council’s report ‘‘A New Biology for the 21st 

Century’’ and will be addressed comprehensively in the Plant Science Research 

Summit’s report. 

The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) is a critical source of funding 

for scientific research, providing 62 percent of the Federal support for nonmedical 

basic life sciences research at U.S. academic institutions and beyond. BIO supports 

research ranging from the molecular and cellular levels to the organismal, ecosystem, and even biosphere levels. These investments continue to have significant 

payoffs, both in terms of the knowledge directly generated and in deepening collaborations and fostering innovation among communities of scientists. 

The Biological Sciences Directorate’s Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP) is 

an excellent example of a high-impact program that has laid a strong scientific research foundation for understanding plant genomics as they relate to energy 

(biofuels), health (nutrition and functional foods), agriculture (impact of changing 

climates on agronomic ecosystems), and the environment (plants’ roles as primary 

producers in ecosystems). ASPB asks that the PGRP be funded at the highest-possible level and have sustained funding growth over multiple years to address 21st 

century challenges. 

Without significant and increased support for BIO and NSF as a whole, promising 

fundamental research discoveries will be delayed and vital collaborations around the 

edges of scientific disciplines will be postponed, thus limiting the ability to respond 

to the pressing scientific problems that exist today and the new challenges on the 

horizon. Addressing these scientific priorities also helps improve the competitive position of the United States in a global marketplace. 
263 

CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION EDUCATION AND

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

NSF is a major source of funding for the education and training of the American 

scientific workforce and for understanding how educational innovations can be most 

effectively implemented. NSF’s education portfolio impacts students at all levels, including K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate, as well as the general 

public. 

The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program 

is just one example of NSF’s commitment to education that has been successful in 

fostering the development of novel programs that provide multidisciplinary graduate 

training. ASPB encourages expansion of the IGERT program in order to foster the 

development of a greater number of innovative science leaders for the future. 

Furthermore, ASPB urges the subcommittee to support the fiscal year 2013 request to expand NSF’s fellowship and career development programs—such as the 

Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology, the Graduate Research Fellowship 

and the Faculty Early Career Development programs—thereby providing continuity 

in funding opportunities for the country’s most promising early career scientists. 

ASPB further encourages the NSF to develop ‘‘transition’’ awards that will support 

the most promising scientists in their transition from postdoctoral research to independent, tenure-track positions in America’s universities. The NSF might model 

such awards after those offered by the National Institutes of Health. 

ASPB urges support for NSF to further develop programs aimed at increasing the 

diversity of the scientific workforce by leveraging professional scientific societies’ 

commitment to provide a professional home for scientists throughout their education 

and careers and to help promote and sustain broad participation in the sciences. 

Discreet focused training and infrastructure support programs for Hispanic Serving 

Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal Colleges and 

Universities remain vitally important, as they foster a scientific workforce that reflects the U.S. population. 

ASPB urges support for education research that enhances our understanding of 

how educational innovations can be sustainably implemented most effectively in a 

variety of settings. NSF programs such as Transforming Undergraduate Education 

in STEM, Discovery Research K–12, and Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-based Reforms provide opportunities to expand NSF’s research and 

evaluation efforts to address scale-up and sustainability. Additionally, investigating 

and supporting effective approaches toward rolling out across the K–16 continuum 

the new vision for undergraduate biology education articulated in the 2010 Vision 

and Change report are particularly valuable. ASPB encourages continued support 

for education research programs within NSF’s Education and Human Resources 

portfolio with a focus on understanding how previous investments in educational 

strategies can be made most effective. 

Grand research challenges will not be resolved in a year, an administration, or 

a generation, but will take continued attention and investment at Federal research 

agencies, such as the NSF, over decades. 

Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

We wish to thank the subcommittee for accepting our testimony as you consider 

fiscal year 2013 funding priorities under the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Our testimony addresses activities under the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ). 

We are grateful for the DOJ’s OJP Bureau of Justice Assistance’s continuing support for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys’ (APA) program of training, technical support, and other assistance for prosecutors, law enforcement, and other involved parties to enhance the prosecution of animal abuse and animal fighting 

crimes. This is a very exciting development; we are proud to partner with APA in 

this ongoing effort (I would note that Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) does not receive any Federal funding for its work with APA), and I am pleased to be able to 

share with you the work that has been done as a result of BJA’s support. 

APA is currently planning its third national training conference for October in Los 

Angeles, having already held conferences in Washington, DC and Colorado. These 

national meetings bring together participants and speakers from many disciplines— 

law enforcement, psychology, animal control, veterinary medicine, the domestic violence and juvenile justice communities, etc.—to share their experiences dealing with 

animal cruelty and animal fighting, and to encourage cross-pollination among par-
264 

1The study ‘‘I’ll only help you if you have two legs’’, or ‘‘Why human services professional 

should pay attention to cases involving cruelty to animals’’, by Loar (1999), as cited on the Web 

site of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (www.ncadv.org). 2 ‘‘Woman’s Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion Animals in the Lives of Battered Women’’, by Flynn (2000), as cited at www.ncadv.org. 

ticipants. Topics have included the basics of conducting an animal cruelty investigation; charging, prosecuting, and sentencing in animal cruelty cases; the use of 

forensics experts in court; the relationship between animal cruelty and other forms 

of interpersonal violence; and cutting edge considerations with the use of digital evidence. Participants then put theory into practice through a mock trial. 

As an example of the impact that such training can have, an assistant prosecutor 

from a large urban county attended the very first conference. He and a colleague 

were taking on animal cruelty cases on their own, in addition to their regular caseload, and were feeling very much out in the wilderness. Today, their animal protection unit boasts four prosecutors who review and handle all animal-related cases (as 

well as other cases) and over the past 3 years has achieved a 98-percent conviction 

rate. (Both of the original assistant prosecutors are now members of the APA’s Animal Cruelty Advisory Council, discussed below.) One of the unit’s cases resulted in 

significant jail time for two men who set fire to a dog in front of several witnesses, 

including children. 

Training and outreach do not stop with these large meetings, however. APA maintains a listserv and also runs a series of successful webinars addressing issues of 

practical concern to prosecutors and the many others whose work is connected with 

animal cruelty crimes. Thus far, the sessions have covered obtaining search warrants in animal cruelty cases; puppy mills; dog fighting; cockfighting; and veterinary 

forensics in cruelty cases. Three more webinars are scheduled for 2012. 

APA has responded to more than 250 requests for technical assistance, either directly or through referral to appropriate experts. The Animal Cruelty and Fighting 

Program section of its Web site makes available such valuable resources as training 

and informational manuals; State animal cruelty statutes; animal cruelty case law 

summaries (developed as part of a project with the George Washington University 

School of Law); a library of briefs, motions, search warrants, and legal memos; and 

downloadable versions of the webinars. 

APA also publishes, distributes, and posts on its Web site the newsletter Lex 

Canis, each issue of which (there have been nine so far) provides readers with program updates, an in-depth feature, and summaries of investigations, cases, changes 

in the law, and other developments. For example, recent features have focused on 

strategies for achieving success in prosecuting cases under State animal cruelty 

laws; dealing with hoarders; the innovative work of the Mayor’s Anti-Animal Abuse 

Advisory Commission in Baltimore; and, in its very first issue in 2009, the effect 

of the foreclosure crisis on rising abuse and abandonment of companion animals. 

APA and AWI have taken advantage of opportunities to address new audiences 

about the relationship between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence, and how 

those audiences can respond both to improve prosecutions of such cases and to reduce their incidence. Several presentations were made to the National Conference 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute. 

Last but not certainly not least, APA has assembled an Animal Cruelty Advisory 

Council composed of prosecutors, investigators, law enforcement, veterinarians, psychologists, members of the animal protection and domestic violence communities, 

and others, to identify issues, resource needs, and strategies. It brings these same 

professionals together to provide its multidisciplinary training, and also calls on 

them individually for topic-specific web-based training and materials. 

We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue funding the BJA’s National 

Animal Cruelty and Fighting Initiative and to encourage DOJ’s ongoing interest in 

addressing animal-related crimes because more vigorous attention to such crimes is 

a valuable tool for making communities safer overall. 

The connection between animal abuse and other forms of violence has been firmly 

established through experience and through scientific studies. Among the most welldocumented relationships is that between animal cruelty and domestic violence, 

child abuse, and elder abuse. For example, up to 71 percent of victims entering domestic violence shelters have reported that their abusers threatened, injured, or 

killed the family pet; batterers do this to control, intimidate, and retaliate against 

their victims. Batterers threaten, harm, or kill their children’s pets in order to coerce them into allowing sexual abuse or to force them into silence about abuse.1

Criminals and troubled youth have high rates of animal cruelty during their childhoods, perpetrators were often victims of child abuse themselves,2 and animal abusers often move on to other crimes. In 1997, the Massachusetts Society for the Pre-
265 

vention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) released the results of a review of animal 

cruelty cases it had prosecuted between 1975 and 1996. Seventy percent of the individuals involved in those cases had been involved in other crimes, and animal abusers were five times more likely to commit a violent offense against other people. 

More recently, an FBI special agent (who is also a member of the APA’s Animal 

Cruelty Advisory Council) is currently overseeing a research project that involves 

‘‘analyzing the criminal histories of offenders who were arrested for active animal 

cruelty, in order to further examine the potential link between animal cruelty and 

violence against persons. According to an initial analysis published in a dissertation 

(Leavitt, 2011), the majority of the 66 offenders examined so far ‘‘had prior arrests 

for other crimes’’, including interpersonal violence (59 percent); assault (39 percent); 

and assault of a spouse or intimate partner (38 percent); and 17 percent had a history of sexual offenses. 

Another connection that is all too common exists among animal fighting (which 

includes both dogfighting and cockfighting), gangs, and drugs, illegal guns, and 

other offenses. The Animal Legal and Historical Center at the Michigan State University College of Law describes dogfighting in these stark terms: 

‘‘The notion that dogfighting is simply an animal welfare issue is clearly erroneous. Until the past decade, few law enforcement officials or government agencies 

understood the scope or gravity of dogfighting. As these departments have become 

more educated about the epidemic of dogfighting and its nexus with gang activity, 

drug distribution rings, and gambling networks, many have implemented well-designed, sophisticated task forces. The magnitude of criminal activity concurrently 

taking place at the average dogfight is of such a scope as to warrant the involvement of a wide range of agencies, including local, regional, and Federal law enforcement agencies and their specialized divisions such as organized crime units, SWAT 

teams, and vice squads, as well as animal control agencies and child protective services.’’ 

Further evidence of the accuracy of the above assessment comes from a Drug Enforcement Administration report on the sentencing of a Louisiana drug trafficking 

kingpin, which described him as ‘‘an avid pit bull and cock fighter [who] utilized 

these illegal events as a networking tool in order to recruit members to transport 

and sell marijuana and cocaine for his organization.’’ 

Animal fighting is barbaric and is a violent crime in the truest sense of the term. 

It causes immense suffering to countless numbers of innocent animals and its presence threatens the safety of the entire community. It is illegal under both State and 

Federal law, so it well serves the entire community for law enforcement to have the 

most powerful tools possible to eradicate it. In fact, legislation has been introduced 

in the House and Senate that would add to these tools by closing a significant loophole in the law. Animal fighting is fueled not just by those who train and fight the 

animals and finance the fights, but also by spectators. Spectators are not innocent 

bystanders; they are active participants in and enablers of these criminal enterprises—and they also provide ‘‘cover’’ during raids by allowing the organizers, trainers, etc., to ‘‘blend into the crowd’’ to escape arrest. The Animal Fighting Spectator 

Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492 and S. 1947) makes knowingly attending an animal fight 

punishable by fines and jail time and also makes it a separate offense, with higher 

penalties, to knowingly bring a minor to such an event. Forty-nine States have already outlawed attendance at an animal fight. 

At the same time, it must be remembered that animal abuse is more than a ‘‘gateway’’ behavior. It is also a crime in its own right. It is a crime everywhere in the 

United States, and certain egregious acts are felonies in 47 States (it was 46 this 

time last year) and the District of Columbia. Some States have even enacted or are 

considering provisions that enhance the penalty for animal cruelty when it is committed in front of a child. Twenty-two States also now allow the inclusion of companion animals in domestic violence restraining orders. 

All laws are not created equal, however; activity that constitutes a felony in one 

State may still only be a misdemeanor in another. In some States, cruelty rises to 

a felony only upon a second or third offense, or only if the animal dies; if he survives, no matter how severe his injuries, it is still a misdemeanor. 

The key to offering animals the most protection possible, however weak or strong 

the statute, lies in ensuring both awareness of the law and vigorous enforcement 

of that law and prosecution of violators. While there are many in law enforcement 

and the courts who recognize animal abuse for the violent crime that it is and act 

accordingly, there are those who do not take it seriously, treating it as no more urgent than a parking infraction. Others genuinely want to act decisively but may lack 

the necessary resources, support, or expertise. Moreover, enforcement can be complicated by the laws themselves—weak laws are bad enough, but additional prob-
266 

lems may arise from confusion over jurisdiction or limitations in coverage—or by 

pressure to dispose of cases quickly. 

BJA’s National Animal Cruelty and Animal Fighting Initiative is so valuable and 

forward-thinking in recognizing that animal cruelty and animal fighting crimes not 

only victimize some of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society, but 

also create a culture of violence—and a cadre of violent offenders—affecting children, families in general, and society at large. Therefore, preventing and prosecuting these crimes will benefit not only the animals, but also the entire community by reducing the overall level of violence. 

OJP/BJA showed great vision in recognizing that by identifying precursor crimes, 

such as animal cruelty and animal fighting, and ensuring proper adjudication of 

such cases, our criminal justice system can reduce the incidence of family and community violence and change the path of potential future violent offenders. It is especially with respect to that latter goal that APA and AWI are also calling attention 

to the impact that experiencing animal cruelty has on children and their possible 

future involvement in the juvenile justice system; many youths in juvenile detention 

facilities have been exposed to community and family violence—which arguably includes animal fighting and abuse. 

There are two audiences for the message and resources the BJA initiative makes 

available: 

—those who still need to be convinced of the importance of preventing and punishing animal-related crimes, for the sake both of the animals and of the larger 

community; and 

—those who are dedicated to bringing strong and effective cases against animal 

abusers but may need assistance to do so. 

The National Animal Cruelty and Animal Fighting Initiative sends a very strong 

message to prosecutors and law enforcement that crimes involving animals are to 

be taken seriously and pursued vigorously, and offenders must be held accountable. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ASME TECHNICAL COMMUNITIES’ NASA TASK FORCE

INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AND THE NATIONAL

AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TASK FORCE

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Force of the 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Knowledge and Community 

Aerospace Division is pleased to have the opportunity to provide its views on the 

fiscal year 2013 budget request for NASA. ASME is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering society serving a membership of more than 120,000 people. It conducts one of 

the world’s largest technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical 

conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and sets many industrial and manufacturing standards. The Aerospace Division represents approximately 15,000 members from industry, academia, and government. Aerospace Division members are involved in all aspects of aeronautical and aerospace engineering 

at all levels of responsibility. They have a longstanding interest and expertise in the 

Nation’s federally funded aeronautics, exploration, space operations, and aerospace 

research and development (R&D) activities at NASA, and the agency’s efforts to create a pipeline of young engineers interested in aerospace and aeronautics. In this 

statement, the Task Force will address programs that are critical to the long-term 

health of the Nation’s aerospace workforce and the global economic competitiveness 

of the U.S. aerospace industry. 

Key recommendations for fiscal year 2013: 

—The Aerospace Division is concerned about proposed flat and reduced funding 

for key research and education accounts within NASA. Flat funding amounts 

to effective reductions in funding when adjusted for inflation and would have 

a particularly negative effect on NASA’s aeronautics research programs. NASA’s 

R&D and educational activities will require sustained increases in funding in 

order to maintain and enhance space exploration outcomes and competitiveness 

in the U.S. aeronautics industry and workforce against emerging countries entering space exploration. 

—The Task Force highly recommends that the Congress and the administration 

work to increase the aeronautics portion of NASA’s research budget to maintain 

funding and activities for aeronautics research at the fiscal year 2012 level of 

$569.4 million. Achieving this goal will help maintain the research programs 

needed to support and maintain a world-class aeronautics and aerospace industry and globally competitive research workforce. 
267 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND PLAN

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) released their ‘‘National 

Aeronautics Research and Development Policy’’ in December 2006, to establish longterm goals for U.S. aeronautics R&D endeavors. The NSTC followed this policy with 

a ‘‘National Aeronautics Research and Development Plan,’’ updated by the Obama 

administration in 2010. This plan noted the continued importance of aeronautics 

R&D to U.S. national security and global economic competitiveness. These policy 

documents recognize the necessity for Federal leadership in advanced R&D and emphasize the Federal role in advanced aircraft technologies and systems research but 

also call for private sector contributions in identifying and applying technological innovations. However, these policies alone cannot provide the necessary gains in aeronautics technology without the proper amount of funding and the sustained commitment on the part of the administration and the Congress. 

OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR

2013 BUDGET REQUEST

The Task Force recognizes the unprecedented fiscal challenges our country faces 

and supports the administration’s strategy of promoting fiscal discipline in a smart 

way—strategically cutting programs where possible and investing in programs 

which improve our long-term economic competitiveness. In accordance with the 

terms of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–267), the administration is continuing the implementation of significant changes to NASA’s programming in fiscal year 2013, including the continuation of a series of new exploration, 

R&D, and technology demonstration programs and several programs geared toward 

partnerships between NASA Centers and commercial sector aeronautics and aerospace companies. 

The administration’s overall budget request of $17.7 billion for NASA in fiscal 

year 2013, compared to $17.77 billion in fiscal year 2012, is significant considering 

the current fiscal environment, but the Task Force has severe reservations about 

the administration’s proposed budget freeze at this reduced level over the next 5 fiscal years, through fiscal year 2017. 

NASA is already struggling to support several new research and technology initiatives needed to serve the Nation’s long-term space exploration needs. Constrained 

research funding will force NASA to abandon worthy research endeavors, including 

proven and promising research programs and technology development efforts such 

as NASA’s Mars science programs. Due to recurrent under-funding of NASA’s research and development focused directorates over the last several years, NASA became an agency focused on operations and execution to the detriment of its concurrent mission to develop and research the aeronautics and aerospace platforms of tomorrow. Given the challenges faced by NASA as it transitions to new mandates 

from the Congress—mandates which assume significant out-year budget growth— 

and the current challenges faced by the broader U.S. aeronautics industry and aeronautics workforce, the Task Force urges the administration to reassert its commitment to revitalizing research and development at NASA, particularly through proposals to engage U.S. industry in a variety of new space technology development 

and demonstration programs in NASA’s new ‘‘Space Technology’’ budget portfolio. 

NASA’s ‘‘Space Technology’’ development proposal reflects one of the most important recommendations from the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also known as the ‘‘Augustine Committee’’, that is, the revitalization of 

NASA’s innovative space technology development efforts. The U.S. record on space 

exploration stands among the greatest achievements of humankind and one of our 

greatest achievements as a Nation, and maintaining this mission is critical to U.S. 

leadership in space. 

At a time when America faces unprecedented challenges to its economic leadership, NASA must continue to play a leading role in funding engineering-related research, particularly for aeronautics and aerospace programs, if we are to continue 

our leadership in activities ranging from commercial aeronautics and aerospace activities to national space exploration priorities. Therefore, the Task Force views the 

administration’s notional freeze on NASA’s budget as detrimental to encouraging 

new research and technology demonstration programs critical to placing NASA and 

the U.S. aeronautics and aerospace industries back on course to developing space 

exploration programs which are truly ‘‘worthy of a great Nation’’. 

NEED TO EXPAND AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

The Task Force has consistently noted the value of NASA’s aeronautics research 

and technology (R&T) programs contained within the Aeronautics Research Mission 
268 

Directorate (ARMD). This portion of the NASA budget offers immediate and practical benefits for the Nation, and the Task Force is concerned about the administration’s proposed $551.5 million budget for ARMD in fiscal year 2013, a ¥3.1-percent 

decrease from fiscal year 2012. In light of this reduced funding path, the administration’s out-year budget plan for ARMD will be insufficient to support the development of important aeronautics research missions if ARMD is to ramp up work on 

its Integrated Systems Research Program (ISRP), and also force NASA to abandon 

much of its hypersonic aviation research efforts. 

Aeronautic products represent our greatest single national export. These exports 

are now being threatened by foreign competition whose governments are largely 

supportive of their aeronautics enterprises. This represents not only a commercial 

threat, but a potential threat to our national security as well. Strong investment 

in fundamental engineering research in aeronautics will ensure that the United 

States will retain its long-term leadership in this field. 

NASA’s proposed investment in aeronautics research for fiscal year 2013 represents less than 1 percent of the more than $53.7 billion in net U.S. exports of aeronautics products in 2011. The Task Force recommends that the aeronautics portion 

of the NASA budget be increased to $1 billion over the next 5 years, with a longterm target of attaining a level of 10 percent of the total NASA budget. Achieving 

this target would re-establish aeronautics funding, as a percentage of the NASA 

budget at its pre-1990 level, and put U.S. aeronautics R&D funding at levels commensurate with the needs of a world-class aeronautics and aerospace industry. 

An increase in R&D funding for Aeronautics could provide immediate and strategic benefits to the U.S. economy. More funding will allow rapid improvements in 

fuel economy and noise abatement technology development through full-scale or subscale flight demonstrations that speed transition of these technologies into production aircraft, and leverage current Aeronautics investments in environmentally responsible aviation technologies. Strategically, more R&D funding could allow the 

ARMD to take a greater role in Next Gen technology development for air traffic control, and to possibly take a lead role in the National Airspace System, leading the 

way to safely flying unmanned vehicles in our national airspace and maintaining 

U.S. leadership in this critical technology. 

U.S. AERONAUTICS AND AEROSPACE WORKFORCE

Several interrelated critical challenges confront the U.S. aeronautics enterprise— 

a sharp decrease in the number of new commercial and military aircraft programs, 

a decline in the quality of the research infrastructure, and erosion in the technologically literate workforce needed to ensure pre-eminence in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Robust investment by NASA in aeronautics research and 

space technology development addresses all these problems and will help balance 

NASA’s portfolio to reflect the importance of aeronautics and aerospace to the global 

economy. 

Aeronautics faces the same pressures being felt by the space industries, where 

fewer research dollars over time has resulted in fewer companies with skilled workers capable of designing and building complex aeronautical systems. As result, the 

United States is increasingly dependent on immigration and outsourcing to meet its 

technical workforce needs. In fact, the NSF’s 2012 S&T Indicators report found that 

more than 50 percent of doctorate-level engineers working in the U.S. engineering 

fields, including aeronautical and aerospace engineering, came from foreign backgrounds, an increase from 41 percent in 2000. Investment in aeronautics is a matter 

of strategic importance, as it creates highly skilled manufacturing jobs and helps 

create a foundation for a strong national defense. Additionally, the same report 

found that both the number and percentage of science and engineering doctoral degree recipients with temporary visas reporting plans to stay in the United States 

peaked in 2007 and declined in 2009 after rising since 2002, indicating that the 

United States cannot take its scientific workforce for granted during tough economic 

times. 

While regional economies differ, the aerospace industry overall suffers from a lack 

of available young workers with advanced technology degrees who can step in to replace retiring, experienced workers. The aerospace industry looks to NASA to create 

a demand for long-term R&D to encourage students to go to graduate school and 

on to companies who are doing aeronautical R&D. There is a clear correlation between research dollars and the number of graduate students in a particular field. 

Therefore, as the funding for aeronautics has decreased by more than one-half over 

the last decade, the number of younger faculty and graduate students decreased. 

There is a lag between funding increases and student enrollment increases, and this 

decade-long erosion must begin to be reversed now. Accordingly, the Task Force reit-
269 

erates its support for a revitalization of aeronautics and aerospace research and development efforts at NASA. 

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATION- RESTRICTED RESEARCH

The Task Force again recommends that NASA receive increased funding for research programs conducted through academic partnerships, and recommends maintaining NASA’s education budget at a minimum fiscal year 2012 level of $136 million. In this context, the Congress should consider having a broad range of technologies reviewed and declared non-International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) 

restricted in order to reduce costs and barriers to performing research in academic 

laboratories. 

While basic research does not face ITAR restrictions, many applied and advanced 

categories of research on space-related technologies face significant barriers for foreign nationals at academic institutions. At present almost all space launch technologies are ITAR restricted, eliminating the possibility for many foreign students 

to participate in the research at many universities. Recognizing that many aerospace companies perform restricted work and need to hire legal residents or U.S. 

citizens, the Task Force recommends that a process be established to screen new 

foreign engineering students and start the green card process and path to citizenship as a part of their student employment through U.S. taxpayer-funded grants 

working on technology in the aerospace and astronautics fields. This would restrict 

funding to individuals that would later be eligible for employment in the United 

States after conclusion of their Ph.D., allowing for easier entry into the U.S. aeronautics workforce. This would also reduce the cost to small business hiring new nonU.S. graduates and streamline the U.S. aeronautics workforce development pipeline. 

CONCLUSION

Our Nation is facing an ongoing struggle in two areas that are interrelated, which 

are: 

—declining technical workforce; and 

—foreign competition for aeronautics and space exploration leadership. 

We believe one element of the solution to both problems is investment in aeronautics research and development. There is a strong correlation between technical 

degrees being awarded and consistent funding for research and development. NASA 

can help its own workforce problems as well as some of the same problems facing 

the rest of the country by increasing, in a persistent fashion, research in aeronautics. This in turn would have a positive effect on the U.S. economy in the long 

run by enabling our country to better compete in the future global marketplace. 

The administration’s proposed NASA budget for fiscal year 2013 indicates an 

overall philosophical commitment to revitalizing space technology R&D efforts, 

which the Task Force fully supports. However, a strong aeronautics R&D program 

is also essential for the national necessity of retaining a U.S. world-class aeronautics workforce and the administration’s 5-year (fiscal year 2013–fiscal year 2017) 

funding freeze for NASA is incongruent with the administration’s overall goal of 

spurring a revitalization of R&D at NASA and in the U.S. aeronautics industry. 

Aeronautics is a vital industry that produces tangible economic and security benefits 

for the nation. NASA’s charter for aeronautics and space means that it must address both. Therefore, the Task Force reiterates its support for an expansion in 

NASA’s overall ARMD’s budget portfolio to ensure support for existing long-term 

aviation research and infrastructure goals as well as the development of new space 

technology R&D capabilities. 

As other nations seek to expand their efforts in aeronautics and space exploration, 

there is a strong rationale for the Congress to consider real increases to the NASA 

aeronautics and space technology budgets. The Congress must help the United 

States remain competitive and innovative in this vital area by providing adequate 

funds and consistent support for NASA’s missions. Furthermore, NASA’s aeronautics budget should reflect the priorities laid out in the NSTC National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy, which supports stable and long-term 

foundational research. Only a robust aeronautics budget will meet this goal. The 

¥3.1-percent decrease in NASA’s aeronautics budget is a step in the wrong direction. The United States must maintain and expand its investments in scientific research to ensure continued U.S. leadership in space exploration and aeronautics and 

aerospace technological development. 

This testimony represents the considered judgment of the NASA Task Force of the 

Aerospace Division of ASME’s Technical Communities of the Knowledge and Communities Sector and is not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole. 
270 

1http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/coastal/coastalEcon.asp. 

2Griggs, G. (1999). The Protection of California’s Coast: Past, Present and Future. Shore and 

Beach 67(1): 18–28. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Many of our Nation’s most urgent issues—the economy, energy policy, environmental protection, and climate change—converge along our Nation’s coasts. Coastal 

areas are home to more than one-half of the Nation’s population and a diversity of 

natural resources, species, and habitats. Our coasts are also critical economic drivers; collectively coastal economies contribute almost one-half of the Nation’s GDP, 

providing jobs, recreation and tourism, coastal and ocean dependent commerce, and 

energy production. 

In California, for example, the State’s ocean-dependent economy is estimated at 

almost $36 billion per year.1 Almost 70 percent of Californians live and nearly 80 

percent of California’s jobs exist along bay or coastal areas and face hazardous conditions now and in the future.2 California’s coastal tourism and recreation economy, 

valued at $12 billion in 2009 and employs more than 300,000 people, more than any 

other ocean economy industry in California.1

The U.S. Congress recognized the importance of the Nation’s coasts by passing the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The act, administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides for management 

of the Nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balancing economic 

development with environmental conservation. CZMA also establishes a FederalState partnership by giving State’s the opportunity to manage coastal resources in 

concert with the Federal Government through federally approved State Coastal 

Management Programs (CMP). California’s CMP is designed to comprehensively 

manage coastal resources using a variety of planning, permitting, public education, 

and nonregulatory mechanisms. Successful implementation of the CMP depends on 

cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies and requires that California 

balance the demands for development with the need to conserve natural resources, 

providing for sound, responsible stewardship of one of the Nation’s most spectacular 

coastlines. 

Federal approval of a State program also provides the State CMP agencies with 

Federal funding through Coastal Zone Management State Grants. For the fiscal 

year 2013, the California Coastal Commission requests that these grants be funded 

at least $67 million, consistent with last year’s funding and the fiscal year 2013 

President’s budget. This funding is critically important to the maintaining current 

staffing and operational levels of California’s Coastal Management Program agencies: 

—the California Coastal Commission; 

—the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and 

—the State Coastal Conservancy. 

Federal funds are matched by the State dollars and are often further leveraged 

by private and local investment in our Nation’s coasts. 

Maintaining funding for these programs that provide on-the-ground services to 

our local communities and citizens is well worth the investment. The Federal funds 

that California receives will directly support processing of hundreds of coastal development permits, reviewing approximately 125 Federal consistency determinations, 

and addressing the more than 1,650 pending enforcement cases. These actions provide for environmentally sustainable development and related economic growth, 

while recognizing the protections that are needed for California’s coast to maintain 

its natural and scenic beauty, ensure healthy air and clean water for coastal communities, and support coastal tourism that is so critical to the State’s economy. In 

addition, this funding will support the work that the California Coastal Commission 

is doing to help communities prepare for and address threats from coastal hazards 

resulting from increased flooding and sea level rise. 

CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for a decade, resulting 

in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone management programs and less 

funding available to communities. An increase in funding to $91 million would mean 

level funding that accounts for inflation over the last decade and would provide an 

additional $300,000 to $800,000 for each State and territory. The California Coastal 

Commission recognizes, however, that the fiscal climate makes this type of an increase difficult if not impossible. At current funding levels, California will receive 

approximately $2 million to carry out its coastal management program based on a 

formula accounting for shoreline miles and coastal population. Any additional funding to the CZMA State grant line item would be welcome, especially to account for 
271 

the recent addition of Illinois as a State with an approved coastal program in January 2012. 

The California Coastal Commission also supports funding for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)—another Federal program authorized 

under the CZMA that establishes a partnership with States and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship, and research on estuarine habitats and provides a scientific foundation for coastal management decisions. This unique sitebased program around the Nation contributes to a systemic research, education, and 

training on the Nation’s estuaries. To that end, we request level funding in fiscal 

year 2013 for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System at $22.3 million. The 

NERRS in the State of California at San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn Slough (Monterey) 

and Tijuana River are a tremendous educational resource for the public and for 

State and local coastal management professionals who directly benefit from the 

trainings that are provided at little or no cost. Given the lack for funding at the 

State and local level, planning professionals at State agencies and local governments will likely receive little to no professional training on the addressing some 

of the Nations most pressing coastal management issues without level funding for 

the NERRS. 

The California Coastal Commission greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided to these programs in the past, thus facilitating the Federal 

and State governments working together to protect our coasts and sustain our local 

communities. We appreciate your taking our requests into consideration as you 

move forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION

The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization 

in Washington, DC, that represents the interests of the Governors of the 35 coastal 

States, territories, and commonwealths. Established in 1970, CSO focuses on legislative and policy issues relating to the sound management of coastal, Great Lakes, 

and ocean resources and is recognized as the trusted representative of the collective 

interests of the coastal States on coastal and ocean management. For fiscal year 

2013, CSO supports the following coastal programs and funding levels within the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 

—Coastal Zone Management Program (§§ 306/306A/309)—$67 million; 

—Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program—$20 million; 

—Regional Ocean Partnerships—$10 million; and 

—National Estuarine Research Reserve System—$22.3 million. 

Every American, regardless of where they live, is fundamentally connected to U.S. 

coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. These valuable resources are a critical framework 

for commerce, recreation, energy, environment, and quality of life. The U.S. economy 

is an ocean and coastal economy: though Federal investment does not reflect it, the 

oceans and coasts provide an irreplaceable contribution to our Nation’s economy and 

communities. With sectors including marine transportation, tourism, marine construction, aquaculture, ship and boat building, mineral extraction, and living marine 

resources, the U.S. ocean-based sector alone provides $138 billion to U.S. gross domestic product and more than 2.3 million jobs to our citizens. In addition, the annual contribution of coastal counties is in the trillions, from ports and fishing to 

recreation and tourism. In 2007, our Nation’s coastal counties provided $5.7 trillion 

to the economy and were home to 108.3 million people on a land area that is only 

18 percent of the total U.S. land area. If these counties were their own country, they 

would represent the world’s second-largest economy. Coasts and oceans also add to 

the quality of life to the nearly one-half of all Americans who visit the seashore each 

year; the nonmarket value of recreation alone is estimated at more than $100 billion. 

Today, our Nation’s coasts are as vital for our future as they are vulnerable. As 

a result of their increasing recreational and residential appeal and economic opportunity, we are exerting more pressure on our coastal and ocean resources. This demand, combined with an increase in natural hazards such as sea level rise, hurricanes and other flooding events, endangers the country by the potential loss of these 

invaluable assets. Despite the difficult budgetary times, adequate and sustained 

funding is needed to support the key programs that implement national priorities 

on the ground by utilizing the advances in coastal and ocean science, research, and 

technology to manage our coastal and ocean resources for future generations. 

These programs reside within NOAA and provide direct funding or services to the 

States, territories, and regions to implement national coastal and ocean priorities 

at the State, local, and regional level. Programs that are engaged in these important 
272 

efforts and working to balance the protection of coastal and ocean resources with 

the need for sustainable development include the Coastal Zone Management Program, Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Regional Ocean Partnerships and National Estuarine Research Reserves. 

Coastal Zone Management Program (§§ 306/306A/309) 

CSO requests that CZM grants be funded at $67 million, a consistent level with 

last year’s funding with a small increase to account for Illinois’ entrance into the 

program. This funding will be shared among the 34 States and territories that have 

approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), States partner with NOAA to implement coastal zone management programs designed to balance protection of coastal and ocean resources 

with the need for sustainable development of coastal communities. States have the 

flexibility to develop programs, policies and strategies that are targeted to their 

State priorities while advancing national goals. Under the CZMA program, the 

States receive grants from NOAA that are matched by the States and are used to 

leverage significantly more private and local investment in our Nation’s coastal 

areas. These grants have been used to maintain and grow coastal economies by reducing environmental impacts of coastal development, resolving conflicts between 

competing coastal uses, and providing critical assistance to local communities in 

coastal planning and resource protection. 

The CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for a decade, resulting in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone management programs and 

less funding available to communities. An increase in funding to $91 million would 

mean level funding that accounts for inflation over the last decade and would provide an additional $300,000 to $800,000 for each State and territory; however, CSO 

recognizes that the fiscal climate makes this type of an increase difficult, if not impossible. At maintained current funding levels, States and territories would receive 

between $850,000 and just more than $2 million to carry out their coastal management programs based on a formula accounting for shoreline miles and coastal population. Any additional funding over current funding levels would account for the addition of Illinois as a State with an approved coastal program (which just occurred 

January 2012). Illinois will be eligible to receive the maximum allotted funds of $2 

million. With an increase, States’ funding would not be diluted with the addition 

of Illinois into the program and could focus on activities that support coastal communities and economies such as addressing coastal water pollution, working to conserve and restore habitat, helping plan with and educate communities, providing for 

public access to the shore and preparing to adapt to changing sea and lake levels 

and the threat of increasing storms. 

Several years ago and appropriate at the time, a cap of approximately $2 million 

was instituted to allow for funding to be even across the States and territories. Now, 

more than one-half of the States have met the cap and no longer receive an increase 

in funding, despite increased overall funding for CZMA State grants since that cap 

was introduced. Therefore, CSO requests that language be included in the appropriations bill declaring that each State will receive no less than 1 percent and no 

more than 5 percent of the additional funds more than previous appropriations. As 

was provided for in fiscal year 2010, CSO requests that language be included in the 

appropriations bill that directs NOAA to refrain from charging administrative costs 

to these grants. This is to prevent any undue administrative fees from NOAA from 

being levied on grants intended for States. 

The following are a few examples of activities in Maryland and Texas recently 

funded through State grants. These types of contributions and more can be found 

around the Nation. 

Maryland 

CZMA funding assisted four communities (Anne Arundel, Queen Anne’s, and Talbot counties, and the city of Annapolis) in reducing vulnerability to future storm 

events, shoreline change and sea level rise and incorporating those considerations 

into local plans, codes, and ordinances. CZMA funding assisted 11 communities in 

designing nonpoint source reduction projects which help the State and local communities meet water-quality goals by reducing runoff in the State’s coastal waterways. 

Maryland’s CZM Program worked with land conservation partners to preserve 

1,150 acres of critical coastal habitat for storm protection, water-filtering benefits, 

fish nurseries, or recreation through acquisition and easements. Maryland completed projects that protected 4,425 linear feet of nearshore habitat from erosion 

while providing critical habitat through the implementation of shoreline management techniques such as living shorelines. 
273 

Texas 

The Texas Coastal Resources Program created an oyster shell recycling program, 

called the ‘‘Shell Bank’’, for the Texas Coastal Bend. This innovative oyster shell 

reclamation, storage, and recycling program creates a repository to collect and decontaminate shucked shells, identifies reef restoration sites, performs an economic 

analysis of the shell bank and educates the public. By putting shells back into the 

Bay, new substrate and habitat is created for larval recruitment and growth. Oyster 

reefs are vital to the health of ecosystems and economies as they provide habitat 

for other organisms and fish and help improve water quality. Oyster fisheries play 

a large part in the coastal economy of Texas with 6.1 million pounds harvested annually generating $11 million in revenue. The project is a success, collecting approximately 70 tons of oysters to date. 

The Texas General Land Office (GLO) established guidelines for the development 

of local Erosion Response Plans (ERPs) that can incorporate a building set-back line. 

The guidelines for ERPs include provisions for prohibition of building habitable 

structures seaward of the building set-back line, exemptions for certain construction 

seaward of the set-back line, stricter construction requirements for exempted construction, improvements to and protection of public beach access points and dunes 

from storm damage, and procedures for adoption of the plans. Development of ERPs 

by several local governments using CZMA funding is underway. This will contribute 

to: 

—reductions in public expenditures due to erosion and storm damages, disaster 

response and recovery costs, loss of dune area habitats, and biodiversity; 

—protection of critical dunes and dune vegetation that provide protection during 

storm events; 

—preservation and enhancement of public access and use of beach; and 

—prevention of the loss of human life. 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

CSO requests Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) not be 

terminated, as proposed in the President’s budget request. Authorized by the Congress in 2002, CELCP protects ‘‘those coastal and estuarine areas with significant 

conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational States to other uses.’’ To date, 

the Congress has appropriated nearly $255 million for CELCP. This funding has allowed for the completion of more than 150 conservation projects, with more in 

progress. CELCP projects in 27 of the Nation’s 35 coastal States have already 

helped preserve approximately 50,000 acres of the Nation’s coastal assets. All Federal funding has been leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local, and 

private investments, demonstrating the broad support for the program, the importance of coastal protection throughout the Nation, and the critical role of Federal 

funding plays in reaching the conservation goals of our coastal communities. 

The preservation of coastal and estuarine areas is critical to both humans and the 

environment. These areas shield us from storms, protect us from the effects of sealevel rise, filter pollutants to maintain water quality, provide shelter, nesting and 

nursery grounds for fish and wildlife, protect rare and endangered species and provide access to beaches and waterfront areas. CELCP is the only program entirely 

dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas. 

The demand for CELCP funding far outstrips what has been available in recent 

years. In the last 3 years, NOAA, in partnership with the States, has identified over 

$270 million of vetted and ranked projects. As demand for CELCP funding has 

grown, the funding has not kept pace. Adequate funding is needed to meet the demand of the increasingly high-quality projects developed by the States and submitted to NOAA. Unfortunately, budget constraints at NOAA have forced the agency to make a difficult choice not to fund its only land acquisition program. Efforts 

are underway to streamline NOAA’s coastal stewardship programs to create program efficiencies and lower costs. Eliminating an important and successful coastal 

conservation tool before a consolidation plan is in place does not make sense. Therefore, we request that the subcommittee restore funding for CELCP until a consolidation plan can be developed and implemented. 

Regional Ocean Partnerships 

There is an ever-growing recognition that multistate, regional approaches are one 

of the most effective and efficient ways to address many of our ocean management 

challenges. These approaches are producing on-the-ground results that are benefitting both the economy and the environment. 

Federal investment in Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROP)representing every 

coastal State in the continental United States and potentially emerging in the Pa-
274 

cific and Caribbean islands—will enhance economic development, grow employment 

in green technologies, foster sustainable use of our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, 

and leverage State and nongovernmental investments. To meet our ocean and coastal challenges, Governors have voluntarily established ROPs and are working in collaboration with Federal agencies, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders. In the 

belief that multi-sector, multistate management decisions will result in an improved 

ocean environment and ocean-related economy, ROPs are working in a variety of 

manners and approaches to address similar challenges, enhance the ecological and 

economic health of the regions, and ultimately the Nation. 

The States and territories with existing partnerships, and those under development, request $10 million in grants for ROPs as a step toward the funding level 

needed. These grants will provide essential support for the development and implementation of action plans within each region. ROPs also request appropriation language stating that 10 percent of the total funding be divided equally to existing 

ROPs for operations support and the remaining funding broadly support the development and implementation of regional priorities as determined by the ROPs 

through competitive solicitations. 

Funding for operations support will ensure that the ROPs become enduring institutions that can guide regional efforts over the long term. Remaining funds allocated through a competitive grants process will support projects that address the 

priorities identified in the regions. Grants to the Partnerships should be awarded 

and administered by NOAA. CSO and the Partnerships are in agreement that this 

funding; however, cannot be at the expense of the CZM program funding. The CZM 

grants to the States provide the infrastructure and support that is foundational to 

the work of the ROPs. Any decreases to CZM funding for the purposes of increasing 

that of the ROPs will only hamper the States’ ability to implement the National 

Ocean Policy as well as address regional priorities. As partnerships mature and new 

ones form where needed, funding should increase to $60 million as soon as possible 

in order to fully meet their needs. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

The National Estuarine Research Reserve System partners with States and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship, and research on estuarine habitats. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Caribbean, and Great Lakes reserves advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries and serve as a scientific foundation for coastal 

management decisions. This unique site-based national program contributes to systemic research, education, and training on the Nation’s estuaries. 

These types of partnership programs account for only a small portion of the total 

NOAA Federal budget, but provide dramatic results in coastal communities. The 

funding for these programs is very cost effective, as these grants are matched by 

the States and are used to leverage significantly more private and local investment 

in our Nation’s coastal zone. Maintaining funding for these programs that provide 

on-the-ground services to our local communities and citizens is well worth the investment. 

CSO greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided in the past. 

Its support has assisted these programs in working together to protect our coasts 

and sustain our local communities. We appreciate your taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID ENGELS AND LENI ENGELS, RN 

We are writing to you because we are very upset by the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) trampling on the civil rights of some severely disabled individuals. For the 

last several years the DOJ has adopted an ideological agenda that assumes ‘‘one 

size fits all’’ and that all disabled people, regardless of their physical or mental disabilities, should be living ‘‘in the community.’’ DOJ has been intimidating and suing 

State governments, causing them to accept agreements which they would otherwise 

not accept. We are referring to both the ‘‘settlements’’ recently accepted by Georgia 

and Virginia. This is a very disturbing trend. The Olmstead law does not direct 

States to close State centers, but rather it directs States to provide for the least restrictive setting—which may be, in fact, an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR) or similar care setting. Although the actions of the DOJ 

are insulting to parents and guardians who have made careful, albeit difficult decisions, looking out for the welfare of their children, this is not their only violation. 

Their actions blatantly disregard both the spirit and the letter of the Olmstead decision. The law clearly states: 
275 

‘‘Federal Medicaid policy supports an individual’s right to choose where they receive Medicaid services for which they are eligible. For example, States are required 

by Federal law to offer individuals who are eligible for Medicaid home and community based waiver services the choice between community-based care under the 

waiver program or institutional services. 

‘‘Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families are the primary 

decisionmakers regarding the services and support such individuals and their families receive. Including regarding choosing where the individuals live from available 

options, and play decisionmaking roles in policies and programs that affect the lives 

of such individuals and their families.’’——Developmental Disabilities Assistance 

and Bill of Rights Act, 423 U.S.C. 2001(c)(3) NOTE: the DD Act is the Federal authorizing statute for the Advocacy Center. 

How can the DOJ ignore this integral part of the law? 

On February 10, 2012, at a White House meeting with ARC, Attorney General 

Tom Perez stated, ‘‘Olmstead . . . is about people who want to live in the community and who can live in the community with the appropriate supports.’’ But my concern is for those who don’t want to live in the community, and those who are forced 

by DOJ actions to leave their safe homes—those who can’t live safely in the community. At the same meeting, Mr. Perez also said the recent settlement agreements 

between the DOJ and the States of Virginia and Georgia will ‘‘enable individuals 

to live, work and participate fully in community life.’’ Really? Can he explain how 

a 33-year-old individual, with the physical and cognitive function of an infant, will 

be able to ‘‘participate’’ in community life? By dismantling ICFs, and placing some 

higher-functioning individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) into the community, at the expense of those who can’t live there, Mr. Perez is effectively throwing 

the baby out with the bath water. In real life, he’s placing them in jeopardy. Isn’t 

DOJ’s Civil Rights Division charged with protecting everyone’s civil rights—not just 

those who are willing and able to ‘‘participate fully in community life’’? 

Therefore, we are writing to you with an urgent request; that you ensure that no 

Federal funds be used, to engage in any agenda, which dismantles and/or eliminates 

the option of intermediate care facilities (ICFs/MR/DD) for those individuals with 

the most severe/profound levels of disability. They are entitled to this option as outlined in the statutes listed above. I note that there is a request for an additional 

$5.1 million for 25 attorneys for the Civil Rights Division which includes Civil 

Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act enforcement. Unless DOJ is going reverse 

course and actually uphold the Olmstead decision, and abide by all the statutes 

therein—we strongly urge you to deny the request for additional funding. 

ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies—Re: Department 

of Justice/Civil Rights Division Policies 

We object to the Civil Rights Division’s ADA/Olmstead Enforcement policies, the 

effect of which is to eliminate intermediate care programs/licensed congregate care 

facilities for persons with severe/profound cognitive-developmental disabilities. 

We recommend to the subcommittee that it place restrictions on the Civil Rights 

Division’s fiscal year 2013 budget, so that funds may not be used to undermine and/ 

or eliminate licensed facilities for persons with cognitive-developmental disabilities. 

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies—Re: DHHS/Administration on Children and Families/Administration on 

Developmental Disabilities policies 

We object to the activities of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities 

(‘‘DD Act’’ programs) policies, the effect of which is to eliminate intermediate care 

programs/licensed congregate care facilities for persons with severe/profound cognitive-developmental disabilities. 

We recommend to the subcommittee that it place restrictions on the Administration on Developmental Disabilities’ fiscal year 2013 budget, so that program funds 

may not be used to undermine and/or eliminate licensed facilities for persons with 

cognitive-developmental disabilities. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EARTH INSTITUTE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to voice my appreciation for the support this subcommittee has steadfastly provided 

for basic science—particularly in the Earth and environmental sciences—at the Na-
276 

tional Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

This subcommittee is responsible for at least 75 percent of the total Federal support 

for Earth and environmental sciences and the importance of that investment is both 

lifesaving and essential from an economic point-of-view, as I will describe in my testimony. Assuming I can make that case to you and your colleagues, I hope that even 

as you are confronted with extremely severe budget challenges, you will continue 

to place a high priority on these basic research activities in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

My focus on basic sciences is not because I am a physical or natural scientist. I 

am a political scientist, a scholar of public management, and the director of two 

masters programs at Columbia University—a Masters of Public Administration in 

environmental science and policy, and a Master of Science in sustainability management. In both programs, students are required to take core courses in environmental science. Why do I require management and policy students to learn science? 

I do so because there is a fundamental need to understand basic environmental 

processes in order to effectively manage anything in an increasingly challenging 

world. Decisionmakers must have insight into the natural resources and inputs that 

sustain their organization or business—the energy, water, and raw materials needed for production. They must also understand the impact of their production on the 

natural environment. Ask BP if they think that is important knowledge for management to have. An education that includes basic science allows graduates of these 

programs to serve as managers and policymakers with the environmental and Earth 

science information that is increasingly necessary to evaluate complex information 

and make informed decisions. 

When I was growing up in the 1960s, there were 3 billion people on the planet; 

today there are more than 7 billion. With a global population that is projected to 

reach 10 billion by 2050, the crucial question emerges—how do we extract our needs 

from the planet without destroying it? In an increasingly crowded planet, the scale 

of production of everything has grown, and with it we see an increased draw on the 

Earth’s resources. If we do not develop an economic system less dependent on the 

one-time use of natural resources, then it is inevitable that energy, water, food, and 

all sorts of critical raw materials will become more and more expensive. The development of a sustainable, renewable resource-based economy has become a necessity. 

The species that really needs healthy ecosystems is not some endangered sea turtle 

or polar bear, but the one you and I belong to—the human species. Energy and climate are just some of the first places we see the strain on the global biosphere, but 

they won’t be the last. 

In order to maintain and improve our standard of living and those of the aspiring 

middle class in the developing world, we must create a high-throughput economy 

that manages our planet’s resources and maintains the quality of our air, water, 

and land. In the United States and other wealthy nations, we expect our standards 

of living to continue to rise, enjoying advanced technologies, and reaping the benefits of an advanced economy. In order to do this, to grow the global economy in the 

long term, we need to manage the planet more effectively. Without a healthy and 

productive ecosystem, wealth is impossible; environmental protection is a prerequisite to wealth. The stress on our environment has become apparent to those 

even in the wealthiest nations. The resources of the Earth are fixed and finite, and 

environmental and Earth system processes are complex and not yet completely or 

widely understood. Scientific research is required to continue to advance our knowledge of these systems so that we can ensure our ability to sustainably utilize them 

in the long run. We need to advance and invest in the science of Earth observation 

if we are to sustainably manage an economy capable of supporting the planet’s population. 

The fact is that we know far more about the functioning of our economy than 

about the environment. The Gross Domestic Product indicator has been around 

since the 1930s. There is still no such all-encompassing measure for environmental 

quality and planetary health—yet these may end up being key indicators of global 

well-being and the ability for individuals, organizations, and nations to prosper. 

Basic environmental science and Earth observations are the prerequisites for such 

an overall sustainability measure or metric. For these reasons, it is imperative that 

we expand the collective understanding of natural resources, Earth and environmental processes, and biological systems. We must continue to learn about the resources we have at our disposal, the processes that create and sustain them, and, 

perhaps most importantly, the short-term and long-term impacts we are inflicting 

on these resources and systems. 

The support provided by NOAA’s extramural competitive climate change research 

program, NSF’s research programs—especially in the geosciences and biological 
277 

1 ‘‘PlaNYC: 2030’’. The City of New York. Apr 2007. Web. 3 Mar 2012. Pg 78. 

2 ‘‘PlaNYC: 2030’’. The City of New York. Apr 2007. Web. 3 Mar 2012. Pg 81. 

sciences, and NASA’s Earth science programs are critical keys to understanding the 

impacts we are inflicting on our natural resources and our complex environmental 

systems. 

Physical constraints, resource costs, and environmental impacts have become routine inputs to decisionmaking across sectors and industries. Increasingly, environmental research is needed to drive the understanding behind critical public policy 

decisions. Basic and applied scientific research can uncover new policy options, lead 

to cost savings in unexpected ways, and can help make sense of sometimes conflicting data or information. Two examples from New York City illustrate the important role that basic science plays in fundamental policy decisions. 

New York City’s drinking water is among the best in the world, exceeding stringent Federal and State water quality standards. New Yorkers get their water from 

three upstate reservoir systems that the city owns and operates—the Catskill, Delaware, and the Croton watersheds. This extensive water system provides more than 

1 billion gallons of water daily to more than 9 million New York City residents and 

residents in the surrounding counties.1 The Catskill and Delaware watersheds, 

which together provide 90 percent of the water to the city, are so pristine that their 

water does not need to be filtered. This is a significant accomplishment; in fact, 

there are only four other major American cities that are not required to filter their 

drinking water: 

—Boston; 

—San Francisco; 

—Seattle; and 

—Portland. 

To keep the sources of water clean, the city works hard to protect the watershed 

from activities that can threaten their water quality. New York City actively engages in land acquisition when available and feasible, acquiring more than 78,000 

acres since 2002.2 City ownership guarantees that crucial natural areas remain undeveloped, while eliminating the threat from more damaging uses. The city enforces 

an array of environmental regulations designed to protect water quality while also 

encouraging reasonable and responsible development in the watershed communities. 

New York City also invests in infrastructure—such as wastewater treatment facilities and septic systems—that shield the water supply, while working with its upstate partners to ensure comprehensive land-use best practices that curb pollution 

at the water’s source. While these efforts take significant investments of time and 

money, the alternative to maintaining these watersheds is far more costly. If the 

water quality deteriorated, the city would be forced to build a filtration plant that 

could cost as much as $10 billion to construct, which would mean costs of roughly 

$1 billion a year to pay the debt service and operate the plant. This would also 

cause a water rate increase of at least 30 percent to New Yorkers.1

Most of New York City’s water supply is protected and filtered by the natural 

processes of upstate ecosystems. To environmental economists, nature’s work that 

protects our water is an ‘‘environmental service.’’ Because the price of a filtration 

plant is known, we can estimate the monetary value of the services provided to filter 

our water. This comes to $1 billion per year minus the $100 million or so we spend 

each year to protect the upstate ecosystems. This is $900 million a year of found 

money that we will lose if we don’t protect these fragile ecosystems. It’s a graphic 

illustration of the point that what is good for the environment will often be good 

for our bank account. However, this is only possible with a strong knowledge of 

these ecosystem services—we cannot assume nature is doing something and put a 

value on that service, if our fundamental understanding of the environmental processes involved is flawed or incomplete. This is where basic and applied science research is key—providing the foundation for critical public policy decisions, often involving substantial sums of public dollars. We can see that science is one of many 

critical inputs that managers and leaders need at their disposal to process complex 

problems and arrive at the best solution. 

I will use my hometown, New York City, to demonstrate once more the influence 

that informed science can have on public policy problems and the bottom line. The 

problem of combined sewer overflow remains one of the most difficult water-quality 

issues facing New York City. Combined sewer systems are typical of cities with old 

infrastructure, where the sewage from your home is combined with sewage from 

street sewers before it is piped to the local sewage treatment plant. The problem 

is that if a large amount of rain suddenly sends a high volume of water into street 

sewers, it can overwhelm treatment plants and push raw sewage into local waterways before it is treated. 
278 

The traditional approach to dealing with the combined sewer overflow problem is 

to build tanks and other facilities to hold storm water during storms and then release it into the sewers once the storm has ended. In September 2010, New York 

City released its landmark Green Infrastructure Plan, which would make use of 

vegetation, porous pavements and porous streets, green and blue roofs, and even 

rain barrels to augment traditional investment in ‘‘gray infrastructure’’. These 

‘‘green’’ low-cost techniques reduce the impact of storms on the city’s water treatment plants by absorbing or catching water before it can enter the sewer system. 

Green infrastructure can quickly reduce the flow of wastewater to treatment plants 

since it takes much less time to plant greenery or put out rain barrels than to site, 

design, build, and operate a traditional holding tank. 

The goal of New York’s innovative green infrastructure plan is to reduce sewage 

overflows into NYC waterways by 40 percent by 2030. The city’s plan estimates 

costs that are $1.5 billion less than the traditional ‘‘gray’’ strategy. Not only is green 

infrastructure cheaper than traditional infrastructure (and just as effective), but 

these types of projects provide multiple co-benefits for the city including cleaner air, 

reduced urban heat island effect, improved energy efficiency, and enhanced quality 

of life through increased access to green space. 

Recently the State and city signed a draft agreement allowing the city to begin 

implementing its green infrastructure approach. The agreement also included a provision to defer making a decision to construct two combined sewer overflow tunnels 

until 2017. The rationale behind the postponement is that in 5 years we will know 

much more about the effectiveness of the green techniques. These tunnels are estimated to cost approximately $1 billion each, and if we could demonstrate that an 

ecosystems services approach could save most of these funds, it would be an exciting 

and important demonstration of the principles of green infrastructure—and the importance of environmental science on policymaking. 

Again, we see the importance of utilizing environmental science and research in 

critical decisionmaking that impacts significant populations of people. A clear, comprehensive understanding of hydrological, biological, and geochemical processes 

fuels the decisions to opt for ‘‘green’’ projects versus ‘‘gray’’ projects. Scientific research is not made for the sake of knowledge itself. Important environmental discovery and knowledge form the necessary building blocks to important policies. Neither of these innovative cost-saving public programs would be possible without a 

solid understanding of science. If we do not make the investment in the basic scientific research needed to make these complex decisions regarding the planet’s finite 

resources and sensitive services, a reduction in the planet’s ability to produce goods 

and services is only a matter of time. We need to dramatically increase funding for 

basic and applied science and focus attention on research and development in Earth 

observation, energy, food, water, and other key areas. 

One of the great strengths of this country is our amazing research universities. 

In the post-World War II era, the United States established an effective partnership 

between Government-funded basic research and private sector application of fundamental research in applied technologies, including computers, cell phones, the Internet, and of course a host of breakthroughs in medicine and medical technology. 

Much of the economic growth of the past century and a half has been the direct result of this type of technological development. Government is especially crucial in 

funding basic science that is too far from products and profits to generate private 

research and development investment. Government is also needed to help bridge the 

sometimes wide gap between basic and applied research. 

Support for basic environmental science research should not be seen as a partisan 

or political issue. It is about the discovery of fundamental knowledge that has allowed us to improve our standard of living and holds the promise of a sustainable 

planet, free from extreme poverty. Support for basic scientific and engineering research and education—particularly the university-based research that the agencies 

under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee support—is a fundamental role of Government similar to national security, emergency response, infrastructure, and criminal justice. Reducing this funding is a threat to our long-term economic growth. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I would be 

happy to answer any questions the members of the subcommittee may have. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY RESIDENTS

Chairman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ)/Civil 

Rights Division (CRD). DOJ is requesting additional personnel of 50 positions and 

resources of $5.1 million to strengthen civil rights enforcement efforts that the At-
279 

torney General has identified as part of his Vulnerable People Priority Goal. My testimony is limited to DOJ’s activities under Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 

Act (CRIPA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which are included in 

this program area. 

I represent the Arkansas statewide parent-guardian association, Families and 

Friends of Care Facility Residents (FF/CFR), a 501(c)(3) organization. I am a volunteer advocate. My interest in the appropriations for the DOJ/CRD is that of mother 

and co-guardian of an adult son, aged 43, whose severe brain injuries occurred at 

birth. CRD’s programs called ‘‘Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Olmstead v. L.C.’’ are aggressive legal actions 

against States which operate licensed, Medicaid-certified congregate care programs 

for individuals who have been adjudicated incompetent and whose continuous care 

is beyond their families’ capacities. CRD’s mission is to eliminate the option of 

State-operated congregate care for individuals with disabilities in the misguided notion that CRD knows what is best for my son and other individuals with severe and 

profound disabilities rather than their legal guardians who have made the residential decisions for their family members. 

Our son, a middle-aged man, has a medical diagnosis of profound mental retardation and autism. John functions on the level of a toddler. He is basically nonverbal, 

with occasional echolalia (he may repeat in short words or phrases what another 

says directly to him) and exhibits pica (an intense desire to consume inedibles). He 

has a toddler’s sense of danger (without close supervision, he might walk into a busy 

street; and he would not recognize a toxic cleaning product as something harmful 

to ingest, for example). 

John can be frightening to an untrained person. A large mobile man when he is 

frustrated or experiences disappointment or discomfort, he might come too close to 

others, and in a full-blown meltdown, he might howl, slap his face, and chew on 

his right wrist. At such times, he is vulnerable to over-reaction by untrained, unsupported staff. Our son’s care is beyond our family’s capacities. All of his life, John 

and others similarly situated will rely on the humanity of others for health and 

safety. In particular, they will require residential programs with high standards 

when there are no living or active family members involved in their lives. For many 

years our son’s safe home has been a State-operated congregate-care, Medicaid-certified intermediate care facility. Through costly litigation and arbitration, DOJ/CRD 

is systematically dismantling the residential living facilities for these fragile persons, removing the most defenseless among us from their protected environment 

without respect for the wishes of guardians and with no clear underlying, peer-reviewed rationale. CRD’s actions have caused and continue to cause enormous stress 

and anxiety for families and guardians. 

Federal tax dollars should not be spent in undermining and dismantling a system 

of care that is absolutely essential to many persons with disabilities. What is often 

overlooked, particularly by those in authority who are far away from the daily responsibilities of care and who are not responsible for providing the close care required, is that the population with disabilities involved in CRD’s legal actions is extremely difficult to care for and to support, wherever they may live. It is our position (including those like my family who are parents and families of the critically 

disabled individuals at risk) that congregate care facilities, adequately funded, offer 

the most suitable settings and programs for a particular group of those suffering 

from some of the most severe forms of cognitive—developmental disabilities. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/CIVIL RIGHTS CASES IN ARKANSAS AND SIMILAR CASES IN THE

UNITED STATES

DOJ policies, under the mask of ‘‘civil rights’’, were played out in a Federal lawsuit in Arkansas (United States of America v. State of Arkansas/Conway Human 

Development Center, Eastern District of Arkansas, Case No. 4:09–cf–00033–JLH 

(2011)). DOJ began investigating the center in 2003 and spent millions of dollars 

with about 15 attorneys committed to the case (at trial) after an 8-year investigation, and a 6-week Federal trial challenging our State over one of its intermediate 

care facilities, which during the long years of investigation was at all times in compliance with its Federal Medicaid certification regulations. 

Arkansas defended its developmental center, and to our great relief, the substantive DOJ claims were denied and the case was dismissed (June 2011). 

As the parties prepared for trial, DOJ filed a second law suit against Arkansas, 

naming all of the State’s licensed facilities, including my son’s home, alleging ADA 

violations. DOJ’s ADA case against all of the centers was dismissed, and the Federal 

trial by DOJ against the Conway Human Development Center proceeded in early 

September 2010. I was a spectator and observer through most of the 6-week trial 
280 

in Little Rock, Arkansas. Not one family from the more than 400 Conway center 

residents supported DOJ’s claims that their family members’ civil rights were violated; not one medical provider or hospital representative familiar with the center’s 

residents and their complex medical needs testified to support DOJ’s claims of poor 

care. 

The Federal Court dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the Arkansas center (June 8, 2011). In an 85-page decision, the Court began its findings as 

follows: 

‘‘Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights have been violated. Not this one... All or nearly all of those residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the legal rights of their children or wards. Those 

parents and guardians, so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United 

States. Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position of asserting that certain persons’ rights have been and are being violated while those 

persons—through their parents and guardians disagree.’’ See Case decision, 1st 

para., p. 1. 

In the Arkansas case, DOJ was assessed $150,585.01 in court costs to be paid to 

the State, but DOJ was not required to pay the more than $4.3 million in attorney’s 

fees and litigation costs Arkansas spent for defending the center. These fees were 

not reimbursed and they came from several places including the sale of timber and 

mineral rights on board-owned properties and donations and bequests accumulated 

in more than 50 years to the State-operated centers for the purpose of enhancing 

services for their vulnerable residents. 

States across the Nation have been confronted with DOJ’s misguided ADA/ 

Olmstead Enforcement Policies. The latest example is in the State of Virginia. Simultaneously, with no opportunity for public review, DOJ filed both a complaint and 

a settlement agreement in January of this year. We know from hard experiences 

in other States, that DOJ objectives to close State-operated centers are usually not 

identified clearly in the documentation of an investigation of a case, but the intentions become clearer as implementation of the settlement agreements is carried out. 

A settlement in Texas, for example, requires the State’s centers to undergo additional reviews by DOJ approved court monitors. None of the Texas centers is likely 

to achieve the goals set by the monitors. In a recent editorial, a Texas newspaper 

commented that based on its first-hand knowledge of a center, the complex population it serves and the staff, ‘‘the demands are not reachable.’’ (Lufkin Daily News, 

2/26/2012). 

In a settlement agreement with the State of Georgia, which was entered contemporaneously with filing of the lawsuit and without public review, all persons with 

developmental disabilities in the developmental centers are required to move from 

their licensed facilities. The Assistant Attorney General for CRD described the Georgia Settlement Agreement as a ‘‘template for our enforcement efforts across the 

country.’’ In a teleconference, he described his role in the settlement which included 

going directly to the Governor of Georgia to press for an agreement rather than costly litigation. 

CONCLUSION

It is not in the public interest for a federally funded entity through power of its 

office and out of the public view to coerce a State to cease operating programs which 

have historically proven successful in assuring the health and safety of persons with 

lifelong, severe cognitive disabilities. It is deeply offensive to me, my family and 

many others that our Federal Government through the DOJ is empowered to intimidate State authorities into unfair settlement agreements resulting in closures of our 

children’s safe homes. It is especially egregious that this activity continues when 

DOJ’s legal claims have been found so weak in Federal court and the outcomes are 

so dangerous to the health and safety of the most vulnerable among us. 

DOJ does not reference the Arkansas case on its Web site; however, it does have 

a document entitled ‘‘Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the 

Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead 

v. L.C.’’ This document omits the Federal laws which recognize that individuals with 

developmental disabilities and their families are the primary decisionmakers in 

placement choices; it omits the Medicaid rule which provides that eligible persons 

may choose between home and community based care and institutional care. The 

DOJ statement presents an incomplete interpretation of the Olmstead decision and 

ignores critical parts, for example: In the Olmstead majority opinion, Justice 

Ginsberg wrote that ‘‘[w]e recognize, as well, the States’ need to maintain a range 

of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabil-
281 

ities,... .’’ 527 U.S. 597. The Court further held that ‘‘[w]e emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings.’’ 

527 U.S. 601. 

Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Breyer, wrote in his concurring opinion, joining 

the majority of four: ‘‘it would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, 

were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that 

States had some incentive, for fear of litigation, to drive those in need of medical 

care and treatment out of appropriate care into settings with too little assistance 

and supervision.’’ 527 U.S. 610. Justice Kennedy’s prognostic fear is a present day 

reality. 

DOJ should re-examine its programs under Olmstead, which the Department calls 

an ‘‘integration mandate,’’ and answer for the very serious consequences of its actions. Most important, how many former residents of congregate care facilities have 

died from preventable causes since being displaced from their ICF/MR (Intermediate 

Care Facilities for persons with Mental Retardation) homes? What are the actual 

facts on quality of care and comparative costs? 

REQUEST

The comprehensive and devastating reach of the Civil Rights Division agenda on 

the most vulnerable among us requires active, vigilant congressional oversight. We 

respectfully request this subcommittee’s review and action by: 

—halting the misguided mission of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice, as described above; 

—discontinuing to fund the de-institutionalization programs of the of the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and 

—placing restrictions on the Civil Rights Division’s programs, limiting its funds 

to bring actions that drive States out of their roles in providing care for our 

most severely impaired developmentally disabled citizens, all under the mask 

of ‘‘civil rights.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL

BIOLOGY

The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) respect- fully requests an appropriation of at least $7.3 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2013. This funding level matches the recommendation 

made in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. As you know, NSF funding 

in recent years has failed to reach the levels authorized in the America COMPETES 

Acts of 2007 and 2010. FASEB’s broader goal is to support sustainable growth and 

a return to a funding trajectory reflective of the COMPETES reauthorization. 

As a federation of 26 scientific societies, FASEB represents more than 100,000 life 

scientists and engineers, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. FASEB’s mission is to advance health and welfare by 

promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through 

service to its member societies and collaborative advocacy. FASEB enhances the 

ability of scientists and engineers to improve—through their research—the health, 

well-being, and productivity of all people. 

With just 4 percent of the Federal research and development (R&D) budget, NSF 

sponsors 40 percent of federally funded basic academic research in the physical 

sciences and serves as the primary Federal funding source for research in disciplines such as computer science, nonhealth-related biology, and the social sciences. 

NSF also plays a significant role in advancing biomedical research; 42 Nobel Prizes 

have been awarded to NSF-funded scientists for contributions in physiology or medicine. 

At a time when the U.S. faces many challenges, scientific and technological advances are the key to keeping our Nation globally competitive and protecting our 

standard of living. The broad portfolio of fundamental research supported by NSF 

expands the frontiers of knowledge, fuels future innovation, and creates a well-developed research infrastructure capable of supporting paradigm-shifting research 

projects. NSF grants, awarded to projects of the highest quality and greatest significance in all 50 States, are selected using a rigorous merit-review process that evaluates proposals on both scientific and societal value. For example, one recent NSF 

research project utilized mathematics and computer modeling to understand structural characteristics of stents used to treat coronary artery disease. The results of 

this research will allow manufacturers to optimize stent design and help doctors determine the best kind of stent for each patient and medical procedure. Another team 
282 

of NSF-funded scientists is studying the unique properties of sundew plants to develop new materials with potential medical applications. Adhesive fibers, like those 

secreted by the plant, could one day be incorporated into bandages that accelerate 

tissue repair or applied to artificial hip and knee replacements to stimulate compatibility with human tissue. NSF researchers are also exploring scientific questions 

that reveal the nature of our universe. Using new data collection capabilities not 

available a few years ago, astronomers recently discovered the most massive black 

holes ever observed in outer space. 

NSF is also committed to achieving excellence in science, technology, engineering, 

and math education at all levels. The agency supports a wide variety of initiatives 

aimed at preparing science teachers, developing innovative curricula, and engaging 

students in the process of scientific inquiry. One of many NSF efforts to prepare future scientists and engineers, the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) 

annually awards approximately 2,000 3-year fellowships to outstanding graduate 

students pursuing advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. NSF graduate research fellows are making important scientific contributions, and past GRFP award recipients have gone on to become leading scientists 

and Nobel Prize winners. Through its education and training initiatives, NSF ensures the development of a workforce well-prepared to advance knowledge and 

achieve new breakthroughs in science and engineering. 

NSF-funded research has produced revolutionary discoveries and innovations 

through its broad-based, long-term investment in R&D. These are the types of investments that no individual or private business could afford to undertake. If the 

public did not support it, it would not be done. The recently released National 

Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 report indicates that while 

growth of United States R&D expenditures has slowed in recent years, China’s R&D 

expenditures have risen sharply, increasing by 28 percent in 2009. Failure to build 

on prior investments in NSF would slow the pace of discovery, sacrifice our position 

as the global leader in innovation, and discourage young scientists and engineers. 

Strong and sustained NSF appropriations enable the groundbreaking research and 

training critical to the future success and prosperity of the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB’s support for NSF. 

FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members, making it 

the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences in 2012, FASEB is rededicating 

its efforts to advance health and well-being by promoting progress and education in 

biological and biomedical sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative advocacy. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE IACP/DUPONT KEVLAR SURVIVORS’ CLUB® 

Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the subcommittee, I genuinely appreciate this opportunity to submit testimony in support 

of a program key to law enforcement officer safety: the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 

Act (BVPA). I thank the subcommittee for supporting BVPA funding in the past and 

ask that the program be funded at or more than the level recommended in the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 budget, or $24 million. Program demand continues to 

be very high: the 5-year average for combined small and large agency requests for 

BVPA funds is $114 million, compared to average annual funds of $28 million allocated the BVPA (according to the Bureau of Justice Assistance [BJA]). 

By way of brief background, I served as a police officer for 35 years, 20 of which 

were as chief of police. Following that, I have documented the benefits of wearing 

body armor for thousands of officers across the country over the last decade through 

the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors’ Club® as created by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and DuPont in 1987. Key functions of the IACP/DuPont partnership are encouraging law enforcement officers to wear personal body 

armor and celebrating the lives of officers who, as the result of wearing ballistic protection, were protected from being disabled or killed. The data collected from police 

survivors is shared with the noncommercial research community for the exclusive 

purpose of improving the next generation of body armor. 

I am able to provide reported preliminary and verified saves for every State upon 

request. For the purposes of this testimony, the saves for Maryland are 10 and for 

Texas, 60. I call to your attention that we are unable to capture all saves. Agencies 

and officers for a variety of reasons often prefer not to submit information about 

an incident. 

Background and Need.—Law enforcement is a field that carries inherent risks, 

with the past 2 years being especially lethal years for law enforcement officers. 
283 

1FBI LEOKA preliminary report felonious deaths as of December 27, 2011; final 2011 Law 

Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted report will be published by the FBI in 2012; visit 

FBI LEOKA data at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010. 2FBI LEOKA data. 

3 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)/DuPont Survivors’ Club®. 4 Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site, based on Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics survey, and the Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies: http:// 

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71. 

Numbers from the Officer Down Memorial Page (www.odmp.org) note that 164 lineof-duty deaths were reported in 2011 and 162 line-of-duty deaths in 2010. Although 

we are at the beginning of 2012, line-of-duty deaths are already at 22—with the 

first being that of a female officer—United States Park Ranger Margaret Anderson. 

Considering only police line-of-duty deaths resulting from felonious attacks, the 

numbers are stunning. The table below reflects final Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (FBI LEOKA) data for the 

years 2009 and 2010. Although the data for 2011 is incomplete as reported by FBI 

LEOKA on December 27, 2011,1 the number of officers feloniously killed increased 

35.4 percent from 2009 to 2011. This begs the question, if the reports of homicide 

in the country are generally decreasing, why are police homicides up? 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED AND ASSAULTED 

REPORTS OF OFFICERS FELONIOUSLY KILLED 

Type of weapon 2009 2010 2011 

Number of victim officers ...................................................................................... 48 56 65 

Type of firearms used to kill law enforcement officers: 

Handgun ........................................................................................................ 28 38 ....................

Rifle ............................................................................................................... 15 15 ....................

Shotgun ......................................................................................................... 2 2 ....................

Type of firearm not reported ........................................................................ .................... .................... ....................

Total officers feloniously killed by firearm .............................................. 45 55 56 

Weapons other than firearm used to kill law enforcement officers: 

Knife or other cutting instrument ................................................................ .................... .................... 1 

Bomb ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ....................

Blunt instrument ........................................................................................... .................... .................... ....................

Personal weapons (hands and feet) ............................................................ .................... .................... 2 

Vehicle ........................................................................................................... 3 1 6 

Other ............................................................................................................. .................... .................... ....................

The American police community is facing incredible challenges, not the least being 

officer safety. Police officers are encountering criminals armed with high-powered 

weapons including fully automatic rifles. Criminals are routinely wearing body 

armor while engaged in violent acts. Even so, men and women of American law enforcement are the first responders charged to prevent, interrupt, mitigate, and recover from a criminal act, be it a minor crime in progress or the action of a terrorist. 

It is vital to ensure that they are provided the tools and equipment to carry out 

their duties safely. This includes adequate comfort and coverage with respect to 

body armor. 

Body armor continues to serve as an effective piece of equipment to save officers 

from disabilities and death—with FBI data showing relative risk of fatality for officers who did not wear body armor at 14 times greater than those who did.2 Documented saves include more than 3,100 officers over the past 30 years 3—a number 

that is likely far higher considering that many incidents go unreported in the regular course of law enforcement work. However, BJS estimates that only 67 percent 

of departments require the officers to wear protective armor at all times. 4

Body armor protects scores of officers from injuries—both ballistic and nonballistic—every year. However, although the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has 

worked to ensure certain levels of protection for ballistic vests, the policy insufficiently addresses issues of fit, measurement, and maintenance—which has produced 

wide variation in the treatment of these issues by manufacturers that has led to 

a decreased level of safety for officers using body armor. For example, BJA policy 

fails to set standards for those taking measurements for fit and coverage, leaving 

room for great levels of discretion and error. Ideally, fit would be verified at time 

of delivery, at a specific period of time after delivery to provide for adjustments re-
284 

5 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Women in Law Enforcement, 1987–2007: 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wle8708.pdf. 

quired after a break-in period, and annually thereafter until the armor is removed 

from service. 

The FBI reports that from 1996 to 2005, 132 officers were killed while wearing 

body armor from ballistic penetration of areas not covered by body armor. Of those 

killed, 26 percent were wounded between side vest panels, 35 percent around the 

armholes or shoulder, 25 percent more than the vest, and 14 percent less than the 

vest. The actual numbers are much greater as this information is limited to felonious deaths and does not include assaults where the officer survived. These numbers highlight the importance of ensuring good fit and measurement to provide officers with equipment that provides maximum safety. 

Special Issue Concerning Female Body Armor.—Law enforcement is no longer a 

men-only occupation. Numbers show that for the past few decades, the number of 

women in law enforcement has consistently increased—for all levels of law enforcement: 5

—By 2008, about 100,000 women served as Federal, State, or local law enforcement officers. 

—The number of women in local enforcement grew from 7.6 percent in 1987 to 

12 percent by 2007. 

—Among local law enforcement agencies, women represented more than double 

the percentage of sworn personnel in large agencies than compared to small 

agencies. 

—In 2007, women made up 18 percent of sworn officers in 12 of the 13 largest 

local police departments. 

Regrettably, when it comes to body armor for women, usage of body armor specifically designed to fit the female torso is limited. Much of the armor currently offered 

is designed for male officers and does not take into account the anatomical differences between male and female officers. In one survey, female officers complained 

that the poor fit, especially in the bust, made it ‘‘hard to breathe,’’ and another 

noted that the tight fit made her feel ‘‘squashed’’—hardly top conditions under 

which female officers should operate. A survey conducted by the Institute for 

Women in Trades, Technology, and Science found that 33 percent of female officers 

reported fit problems, compared to 6 percent of their male counterparts. Even so, 

many female officers shun the stigma surrounding perceived ‘‘special treatment’’ by 

superiors and, therefore, fail to request equipment made to suit them even though 

it may only run $100–$150 more than male armor. Many end up requesting body 

armor designed for a male body, to keep up with their male peers, but find it impractical to use. Clearly, the level of education and awareness concerning this type 

of protective equipment must be elevated. 

Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act.—Some of these issues related to fit and coverage 

were studied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which released a report (GAO12–353) on February 15, 2012, entitled, ‘‘Law Enforcement Body Armor: 

DOJ Could Enhance Grant Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in 

Grant Program Requirements’’. According to the report’s highlights, here are key 

findings and recommendations: 

‘‘The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a number of initiatives to support body 

armor use by State and local law enforcement, including funding, research, standards development, and testing programs. Two Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

grant programs provide funding to State and local law enforcement to facilitate 

their body armor purchases. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program offers 

2-year grants on a reimbursable basis . . .’’ 

‘‘DOJ designed several internal controls to manage and coordinate BJA’s and 

NIJ’s body armor activities, but could take steps to strengthen them, consistent with 

standards for internal control. For example, the BVP program has not deobligated 

about $27 million in undisbursed funds from grant awards whose terms have ended. 

To strengthen fund management, DOJ could deobligate these funds for grants that 

have closed and, for example, apply the amounts to new awards or reduce requests 

for future budgets. Also, unlike the BVP program, the JAG program does not require that the body armor purchased be NIJ compliant or that officers be mandated 

to wear the armor purchased. To promote officer safety and harmonize the BVP and 

JAG programs, DOJ could establish consistent body armor requirements . . . 

‘‘GAO recommends that among other actions, DOJ deobligate undisbursed funds 

from grants in the BVP program that have closed, establish consistent requirements 

within its body armor grant programs, and track grantees’ intended stab-resistant 

vest purchases. DOJ generally agreed with the recommendations.’’ 
285 

The recommendation by GAO to deobligate unused funds warrants judicious consideration. It is my understanding that the unused funds, referenced in the GAO 

report, were not drawn down by the requesting jurisdictions during the period of 

2004 through 2009. As I understand it, beginning with 2008 BPVA awards, BJA reduced the amount of new awards equal to unused/expired funds in a jurisdiction’s 

account and decreased the eligibility period for use of funds from 4 years to 2. 

Deobligating funds as recommended by GAO could have a detrimental effect on jurisdictions requiring more time to spend down the remainder of their grants. 

Thus, in addition to funding the BVPA at a level equal to or higher than the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 request of $24 million, I urge the subcommittee to not 

approve deobligation of BVPA funds as recommended by GAO and allow more time 

for grantees to use those monies to purchase body armor for officers. Hopefully this 

will also be body armor that fits well, covers areas adequately, and is comfortable 

enough to allow the officer to properly do his or her job. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT TRIBAL COURT REVIEW TEAM

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and address the serious funding 

needs that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I am the lead judge of the Independent Tribal Court Review 

Team. I am here today to request funding for tribal courts in the Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs for the Tribal Courts Assistance Program. 

Budget priorities, request and recommendations: 

—Increase funding for tribal courts by $10 million; 

—Maintain the set-aside for tribal courts; 

—Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (TLOA); and 

—$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, Public 

Law 103–176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000 Public Law 106– 

559 (no funds to date). 

We support the 7-percent tribal set-aside ($81,375,000) from all discretionary Office of Justice Programs to address Indian country public safety and tribal criminal 

justice needs. However, this is not sufficient to address the need in terms of equity 

for Indian country relative to funding appropriated for State, local, and other Federal justice assistance programs. On behalf of the Review Team, I ask that you give 

every consideration to increasing this program to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

for the Tribal Assistance Account and allow for greater flexibility for tribes to use 

these funds at the local level. 

We support an increase in funding for: 

Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.—Tribal courts make do with underpaid staff, underexperienced staff, and minimal training. (We have determined 

that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of staff to move away; a poor 

excuse to underpay staff.) 

Compliance With Tribal Law and Order Act.—To provide judges, prosecutors, 

public defenders, who are attorneys and who are bared to do ‘‘enhanced sentencing’’ in tribal courts. 

Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.—Salaries should 

be comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace with the nontribal judicial systems and be competitive to maintain existing personnel. 

Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology—(Software, Computers, Phone 

Systems, Tape Recording Machines).—Many tribes cannot afford to purchase or 

upgrade existing court equipment unless they get a grant. This is accompanied 

by training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after the grant ends. 

Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case 

Information.—Most tribal courts do not even have a full-time bailiff, much less 

a state-of-the-art security system that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. 

Tribal Court Code Development.—Tribes cannot afford legal consultation. A 

small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development and code development does 

not take priority. Tribes make do with underdeveloped codes. The Adam Walsh 

Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to develop codes, without 

funding, or have the State assume jurisdiction. (States have never properly 

overseen law enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.) 

Financial Code Development.—We have rarely seen tribes with developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for example, varies greatly from 

tribe to tribe. The usual process of who collects it, where it is collected, and how 

much it is, is never consistent among tribes. 
286 

Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that receive Federal funding. For the 

past 6 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been traveling throughout 

Indian country assessing how tribal courts are operating. During this time, we have 

completed some 84 court reviews. There is no one with more hands-on experience 

and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts than our Review Team. 

We have come into contact with every imaginable type of tribe; large and small; 

urban and rural; wealthy and poor. What we have not come into contact with is any 

tribe whose court system is operating with financial resources comparable to other 

local and State jurisdictions. Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical 

stage in terms of need. 

There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear that tribal courts 

and justice systems are vital and important to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud of their court systems. Tribes with even 

modest resources tend to send additional funding to courts before other costs. After 

decades of existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a 

level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases surpassing, 

local non-Indian courts. 

Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the 

wholesale removal of Indian children from their families. Indian and non-Indian 

courts have developed formal and informal agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal 

governments have recognized the benefit of having law-trained judges, without 

doing away with judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even the poorer 

tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most importantly, tribes recognize 

the benefit of an independent judiciary and have taken steps to insulate courts and 

judges from political pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically 

fired for decisions against the legislature. 

Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) only funds 

tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to operate. The remainder is funded by the tribes. Tribes who have economic development generally subsidize their 

tribal courts. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in the financial operations of the court are tasked with doing the best they can with what they have 

even at the expense of decreasing or eliminating services elsewhere. This while operating at a disadvantage with already overstrained resources and underserved 

needs of the tribal members. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts are 

both the busiest and most underfunded. 

We thank this subcommittee for the additional $10 million funding in fiscal year 

2010. These funds were a godsend to tribes. Even minimal increases were put to 

good use. The additional funding in fiscal year 2013 will be a big asset and coupled 

with tribes having flexibility on how to use these funds will greatly improve access 

to funding for tribal courts. 

The grant funding in the Department of Justice (DOJ) is intended to be temporary, but instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a drug court 

clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug court duties. When the funding 

runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed many failed drug 

courts, failed court management software projects (due to training costs), and incomplete code development projects. When DOJ funding runs out, so does the project. 

As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our Reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In the past several years, 

there were only two isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of Federal 

funds. It is speculated that because of our limited resources, we compromise one’s 

due process and invoke ‘‘speedy trials’’ violations to save tribal courts money. Everyone who is processed through the tribal judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and civil rights. 

We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about tribal courts. Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained, and increased level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications that the courts will put such funding to good use. 

There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose chief judge manages both offices and holds court in an old dormitory that can’t be used when it 

rains because water leaks into the building and the mold has consumed one wall. 

Their need exceeds 100 percent. 

There are several courts where the roofs leak when it rains and those court 

houses cannot be fixed due to lack of sufficient funds. The Team took pictures of 

those damaged ceilings for the BIA hoping to have additional funds for the tribes 

to fix the damaged ceilings. 

Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court judges are mostly 

attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees that barely cover costs for 

copying and transcription fees. Tribal courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one 
287 

sustained jury trial will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize 

expenses is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates 

are generally law trained and do a good job protecting an individual’s rights (including assuring that speedy trial limitations are not violated.) This is a large item in 

court budgets and if the defense advocate, or prosecutor should leave, the replacement process is slow. 

Now the need is greater if the tribal courts follow the TLOA, that requires barred 

attorneys to sit as judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, when using the ‘‘enhanced sentencing’’ and enhanced jail detention, options of this act. Partial funding 

for TLOA is not an option if Indian country is expected to benefit from the intent 

of the Congress. We ask that you fully fund the investment you made in tribal justice systems by authorizing both the TLOA and the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 

1993. Otherwise the continued lack of resources for tribal justice systems will continue to pose a threat to Native citizens and the future of Indian country. 

I am here today to tell the Congress these things. We feel it is our duty to come 

here on behalf of tribes to advocate for better funding. Tribes ask us to tell their 

stories. They open their files and records to us and say, ‘‘We have nothing to hide’’. 

Tell the Congress we need better facilities, more law enforcement, more detention 

facilities, more legal advice, better codes—the list goes on and on. But, as we have 

indicated, it all involves more funding. This Congress and this administration can 

do something great. Put your money where your promises have been. 

Finally, we support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress 

of American Indians. 

On behalf of the Independent Review Team, thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INNOCENCE PROJECT

On behalf of the Innocence Project, thank you for allowing me to submit testimony 

to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

Science, and Related Agencies as it considers budget requests for fiscal year 2013. 

I write to request the continued funding of the following programs at the described 

levels: 

—The Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program (the ‘‘Coverdell Program’’) at $20 million through the Department of Justice, National Institute for Justice (NIJ); 

—The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (the ‘‘Bloodsworth 

Program’’) at the fiscal year 2012 level of $4 million through the NIJ; and 

—The Wrongful Conviction Review Program, which is a part of the Capital Litigation Improvement Program, at $2.5 million, for a total Capital Litigation Improvement Program allocation of $5 million through the Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). 

Freeing innocent individuals and preventing wrongful convictions through reform 

greatly benefits public safety. Every time DNA identifies a wrongful conviction, it 

enables the identification of the real perpetrator of those crimes. True perpetrators 

have been identified in 45 percent of the DNA exoneration cases. To date, 289 individuals in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing, with these innocents serving on average 13 years in prison. However, I want to underscore the 

value of Federal innocence programs, not to just these exonerated individuals, but 

also to public safety and justice. It is important to fund these critical innocence programs because reforms and procedures that help to prevent wrongful convictions enhance the accuracy of criminal investigations, strengthen criminal prosecutions, and 

result in a stronger, fairer system of justice. 

The Coverdell Program 

Recognizing the need for independent government investigations in the wake of 

forensic scandals, the Congress created the forensic oversight provisions of the 

Coverdell Program, a crucial step toward ensuring the integrity of forensic evidence. 

Specifically, in the Justice for All Act, the Congress required that ‘‘[t]o request a 

grant under this subchapter, a State or unit of local government shall submit to the 

Attorney General . . . a certification that a government entity exists and an appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct substantially affecting the integrity of the 

forensic results committed by employees or contractors of any forensic laboratory 
288 

1 42 U.S.C. 3797k(4). 

2The Innocence Network is an affiliation of organizations dedicated to providing pro bono 

legal and investigative services to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which 

they have been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful convictions. 3 Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-federal-DNA-grant.htm (last visited March 13, 2012). 4 Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony 

of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office of Justice Programs). 

system, medical examiner’s office, coroner’s office, law enforcement storage facility, 

or medical facility in the State that will receive a portion of the grant amount.’’ 1

The Coverdell Program provides State and local crime laboratories and other forensic facilities with much needed Federal funding to carry out their work both efficiently and effectively. Now, more than ever, as forensic science budgets find themselves on the chopping block in States and localities nationwide, the very survival 

of many crime labs may depend on Coverdell funds. As the program supports both 

the capacity of crime labs to process forensic evidence and the essential function of 

ensuring the integrity of forensic investigations in the wake of serious allegations 

of negligence or misconduct, we ask that you fund the Coverdell Program at $20 

million in fiscal year 2013. 

The Bloodsworth Program 

The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to innocent inmates who might otherwise 

have none by helping States more actively pursue postconviction DNA testing in appropriate situations. These funds have had a positive impact that has led to much 

success. Many organizational members of the national Innocence Network have 

partnered with State agencies that have received Bloodsworth funding.2

It is worth noting that the Bloodsworth Program does not fund the work of Innocence Projects directly, but State applicants which seek support for a range of entities involved in settling innocence claims, including law enforcement agencies, crime 

laboratories, and a host of others—often in collaboration. Additionally, the 

Bloodsworth Program has fostered the cooperation of innocence projects and State 

agencies. For example, with the $1,386,699 that Arizona was awarded for fiscal year 

2008, the Arizona Justice Project, in conjunction with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, began the Post-Conviction DNA Testing Project. Together, they have 

canvassed the Arizona inmate population, reviewed cases, worked to locate evidence 

and filed joint requests with the court to have evidence released for DNA testing. 

In addition to identifying the innocent, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard 

has noted that the ‘‘grant enables [his] office to support local prosecutors and ensure 

that those who have committed violent crimes are identified and behind bars.’’ 3

Such joint efforts have also been pursued in Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, 

North Carolina, and Wisconsin. 

The Bloodsworth Program is a relatively small yet powerful investment for States 

seeking to do critically important work: to free innocent people who were erroneously convicted and to identify the true perpetrators of crime. The Bloodsworth 

Program has resulted in the exonerations of nine wrongfully convicted persons in 

six States, and the true perpetrator was identified in three of those cases. For instance, Virginian Thomas Haynesworth was freed thanks to Bloodsworth-funded 

testing that also revealed the real perpetrator. As such, we ask that you continue 

to fund the Bloodsworth Program at its current fiscal year 2012 funding level of $4 

million. 

Wrongful Conviction Review Program 

Particularly when DNA isn’t available, or when it alone isn’t enough to prove innocence, being able to prove one’s innocence to a level sufficient for exoneration is 

even harder than ‘‘simply’’ proving the same with DNA evidence. These innocents 

languishing behind bars require expert representation to help navigate the complex 

issues that invariably arise in their bids for postconviction relief. And the need for 

such representation is enormous when only a small fraction of cases involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. (For example, it is estimated that 

among murders, only 10 percent of cases have the kind of evidence that could be 

DNA tested.) 

Realizing the imperative presented by such cases, the BJA dedicated part of its 

Capital Litigation Improvement Program funding to create the Wrongful Conviction 

Review program.4 The program provides applicants—nonprofit organizations and 

public defender offices dedicated to exonerating the innocent—with funds directed 

toward providing high-quality and efficient representation for potentially wrongfully 

convicted defendants in postconviction claims of innocence. 
289 

The program’s goals, in addition to exonerating the innocent, are significant: to 

alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice system through costly and prolonged 

postconviction litigation and to identify, whenever possible, the actual perpetrator 

of the crime. Above all, though, this program forms a considerable piece of the comprehensive Federal package of innocence protection measures created in recent 

years; without it, a great deal of innocence claims might otherwise fall through the 

cracks. 

Numerous local innocence projects have been able to enhance their caseloads and 

representation of innocents as a result of the Wrongful Conviction Review Grant 

Program, including those in Alaska, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and at the University 

of Baltimore. During the past year, the Florida Innocence Project was able to 

achieve the exoneration of Derrick Williams through the support of this program, 

and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project helped secure the exoneration of Thomas 

Haynesworth in Virginia. Grant funds enabled the Northern California Innocence 

Project to hire staff to screen cases, thereby permitting their existing attorneys to 

commit to litigation, which resulted in the exonerations of three innocent Californians, Obie Anthony, Maurice Caldwell, and Franky Carillo. With Wrongful Conviction Review funding, the Innocence Project of Minnesota was able to prove that Michael Hansen did not kill his 3-month-old. To help continue this important work, 

we urge you to fund the Wrongful Conviction Review Program at $2.5 million, for 

a total allocation of $5 million for the Capital Litigation Improvement Program line. 

Additional Notes on the Department of Justice’s Requested Budget for Fiscal Year 

2013 

The Department of Justice’s fiscal year 2013 budget request defunds two of the 

above programs—the Coverdell and Bloodsworth programs. These programs potentially would be rolled into a much broader ‘‘DNA Initiative’’ for a requested fiscal 

year 2013 funding level of $100 million, or perhaps not supported at all. 

We are concerned about the impact that zeroing out the Bloodsworth and Coverdell programs would have on the requirements and incentives that they currently 

provide for States to prevent wrongful convictions and otherwise ensure the integrity of evidence. These incentives have proven significant for the advancement of 

State policies to prevent wrongful convictions. Indeed, the Coverdell Program forensic oversight requirements have created in States entities and processes for ensuring the integrity of forensic evidence in the wake of the forensic scandals that have 

undermined public faith in forensic evidence. The Coverdell Program oversight requirements are essential to ensuring the integrity of forensic evidence in the wake 

of identified acts of forensic negligence or misconduct. 

The Innocence Project recommends that the Congress maintain and fund these 

two programs by name, in order to preserve their important incentive and performance requirements. Doing away with these requirements would thwart the intent 

of the Congress, which was to provide funding only to States that demonstrate a 

commitment to preventing wrongful convictions in those areas. Additionally, funding 

these programs would help to achieve their unique goals of providing access to 

postconviction DNA testing for those who have been wrongfully convicted, and helping State and local crime labs process the significant amount of forensic evidence 

critical to solving active and cold cases, which helps to ensure public safety. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these important programs, 

and the opportunity to submit testimony. We look forward to working with the subcommittee this year. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

INTEREST OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

Interest of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) is a nonprofit association 

founded in 1913 to provide accurate information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the safety and security of commercial explosive materials. IME represents U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and motor carriers of commercial explosive 

materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that provide related services. 

The majority of IME members are ‘‘small businesses’’ as determined by the Small 

Business Administration. 

Millions of metric tons of high explosives, blasting agents, and oxidizers are consumed annually in the United States. These materials are essential to the U.S. 

economy. Energy production, construction, and other specialized applications begin 
290 

1Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 49. 

2Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 42. 

3 ‘‘Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, 

and Enhance Revenue’’, GAO, March 2011, pages 101–104, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ 

d11318sp.pdf. 4Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 38. 

with the use of commercial explosives. IME member companies produce 99 percent 

of these commodities. These products are used in every State and are distributed 

worldwide. The ability to manufacture, distribute, and use these products safely and 

securely is critical to this industry. 

Commercial explosives are highly regulated by a myriad of Federal and State 

agencies. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) plays a predominant role 

in assuring that explosives are identified, tracked, purchased, and stored only by authorized persons. We have carefully reviewed the administration’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request for ATF and have the following comments about its potential impact 

on the commercial explosives industry. 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES EXPLOSIVES REGULATORY PROGRAM

BUDGET REQUEST

The administration’s fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes to decrease resources devoted to ATF’s regulation and oversight of explosives industries by 24 fulltime equivalent (FTE), a 7-percent reduction, from 335 FTE to 311 FTE, for a savings of $940,000.1 This FTE reduction represents nearly one-half of the staffing reduction the Bureau’s Arson and Explosives Program is being asked to absorb. 

We understand the current urgency to address the Federal budget deficit. We understand the shared sacrifice that all segments of the Government are asked to 

make to help the economy recover by spurring job growth and investment. Yet, 

budgetary cuts to the bureaucracy should not cut essential services. By law, ATF 

must inspect explosives licensees and permittees at least once every 3 years and 

conduct background checks of so-called ‘‘employee possessors’’ of explosives and ‘‘responsible persons.’’ During the last full fiscal year, ATF conducted more than 4,000 

such compliance inspections and identified 1,392 public safety violations.2 In addition to this workload, ATF must process applications for new explosives licenses and 

permits as well as those submitted for renewal of existing licenses and permits. 

More than 2,700 such applications were processed during the last full fiscal year.2

ATF must also conduct inspections of all new applicants. More than 56,000 background checks were completed for employee possessors and more than 9,000 for responsible persons.2 These are significant workload indicators. 

ATF recognizes that its ability to perform its statutory responsibilities will be negatively impacted by these resource cuts. ATF estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, it 

met its statutory responsibilities 95.8 percent of the time. In fiscal year 2012, it estimates that this performance rate will fall to 88 percent. And, with the resource cuts 

anticipated in fiscal year 2013, this competency rate will fall to 85 percent. The Bureau’s falling productivity cannot help but have adverse impacts on our industry. 

Without approved licenses and permits from ATF, our industry cannot conduct business. Delays in servicing the needs of our industry may lead to disruptions in other 

segments of the economy that are dependent on the products and materials we provide. 

At the same time, duplication between Government programs wastes resources. 

Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) highlighted areas of duplication between the ATF and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that relate to 

explosives incidents.3 As early as 2004, duplication and overlap were identified in 

the areas of investigations, training, information sharing, and use of databases and 

laboratory forensic analysis. While ATF’s budget request provides updates of plans 

for consolidating and eliminating these redundancies, we continue to watch for other 

potential areas of overlap. In describing its role as the sole repository of data on 

explosives incidents, ATF states that ‘‘8 billion pounds of ammonium nitrate are 

produced, of which half is used for explosives.’’ 4 In fact, the percentage used by the 

explosives industry has been rising and currently stands at 70 percent. As a regulatory matter, the security of ammonium nitrate (AN), along with other explosives 

precursors, has been delegated to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We 

believe that DHS could learn from ATF’s regulation of commercial explosives as it 

finalizes rules to secure the commerce of AN. In particular, DHS should recognize 

that employees who have been vetted and cleared by ATF to possess explosives 

should not have to be vetted again in order to engage in the commerce of AN. 

As the subcommittee considers ATF’s budget request, we ask that the Bureau’s 

ability to perform its regulatory oversight of the explosives industry in a timely 
291 

5 18 U.S.C. 842(j). 

6 IMESAFR was built on the DDESB’s software model, SAFER. The DDESB currently uses 

SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities. Not only can IMESAFR determine the amount of risk presented, but it can also 

determine what factors drive the overall risk and what actions would lower risk, if necessary. 

The probability of events for the activities were based on the last 20 years experience in the 

United States and Canada and can be adjusted to account for different explosive sensitivities, 

additional security threats, and other factors that increase or decrease the base value. 7 Received in the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, January 5, 2011, PN44. 

fashion not be compromised in the push for fiscal discipline when other areas of duplication and overlap are ripe for reform. 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES REGULATORY WORKLOAD

In the last 10 years, ATF has issued eight rulemakings of importance to IME (including two interim final rules). It has finalized three and withdrawn two. Of the 

three rulemakings still pending, two are interim final rules and the oldest dates to 

2003. In the absence of a process to ensure timely rulemaking that is capable of 

keeping up with new developments and safety practices, industry must rely on interpretive guidance and variances from outdated requirements in order to conduct 

business. While we greatly appreciate the Bureau’s accommodations, these stop-gap 

measures do not afford the continuity and protections that rulemaking would provide the regulated community, nor allow the oversight necessary to ensure that all 

parties are being held to the same standard of compliance. These regulatory tasks 

are critical to the lawful conduct of the commercial enterprises that the Bureau controls. ATF should be providing the resources to make timely progress in this area. 

INDUSTRY STANDARDS

We take seriously the statutory obligation that ATF take into account industry’s 

standards of safety when issuing rules and requirements.5 We continue to fulfill this 

obligation through our development of industry best practices for safety and security, membership in relevant standard-setting organizations, and active participation in forums for training. We have offered ATF recommendations that we believe 

will enhance safety and security through participation in the rulemaking process, 

in the Bureau’s important research efforts, and in other standard-setting activities. 

In this regard, IME has spent years developing a credible alternative to strict interpretation of quantity distance tables used to determine safe setback distances 

from explosives. IME collaborated in this development with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) as well as Canadian and United States regulatory agencies, including ATF. The result is a windows-based computer model for 

assessing the risk from a variety of commercial explosives activities called Institute 

of Makers of Explosives Safety Assessment for Risk (IMESAFR).6 ATF and other 

regulatory agencies are recognizing the value of IMESAFR and are participating in 

development meetings for version 2.0. ATF is also evaluating existing licensed locations with this risk-based approach. These efforts are vital for ATF to remain on 

the forefront of public safety and we strongly encourage ATF’s continued support. 

The benefits of risk-based modeling should be officially recognized by ATF and resources should be provided to develop policies that allow the use such models to 

meet regulatory mandates. 

LEADERSHIP

The resolution of these issues may have to wait the appointment of a new ATF 

Director. The Bureau has been without a Director since August 2006. We support 

President Obama’s nomination of Andrew L. Traver for this position.7 We hope that 

the Senate will timely act on this nomination. ATF has been too long without permanent leadership. 

CONCLUSION

The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with a remarkable 

degree of safety and security. We recognize the critical role ATF plays in helping 

our industry achieve and maintain safe and secure workplaces. Industry and the 

public are dependent on ATF having adequate resources to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. It is up to the Congress and, in particular, this subcommittee to ensure that ATF has the resources it needs. We strongly recommend full funding for 

ATF’s explosives program. 
292 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

Good morning to the distinguished committee members. Thank you for this opportunity. I am honored to present the appropriations request of the Lummi Nation for 

fiscal year 2013 to the Department of Commerce. Today, I am presenting a longterm, strategic plan described in a sustainable set of coordinated proposals to address the prolonged economic and cultural disaster and the suffering of our people. 

This strategy is a comprehensive approach combining habitat restoration, environmental monitoring and assessment, with Lummi Hatchery infrastructure improvements. Our treaty rights are at risk and immediate and sustained action is needed 

to ensure our continued ability to exercise our Schelangen (‘‘way of life’’). 

Lummi Nation Specific Total Request is $11,650,000 

This funding is being requested under the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot, Secretarial 

Order No. 3206, entitled ‘‘American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act’’, and section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 

Lummi Nation 2013 budget requests: 

—∂$750,000 Monitoring and Assessment Program to include: 

—Habitat restoration program support; 

—Environmental and fisheries monitoring program; and 

—Lummi Natural Resources Department policy staff support. —∂$10.9 million—Salmon/Shellfish Hatcheries 

—$6,716,000 Lummi Bay and Skookum Hatchery Improvements; and 

—$4,184,000 Lummi Shellfish Hatchery Improvements. 

Department of Justice Lummi Nation Specific Requests 

Eliminate Expensive Granting Systems in Favor of Transfers of Funds.—Title IV 

and V of Public Law 93–638 provide a process for federally recognized tribes to negotiate and annual funding agreement with the Federal Government to receive 

transfers of funds on a continuing basis. The tribes and the Federal Government 

benefit through the reduction of the costs of the formal granting systems. In most 

cases these additional costs are sufficient to significantly increase services at the 

reservation level, without an increase in Federal expenditures. Continued reliance 

on the grant process increases administrative costs without increasing services to 

tribal members. 

Justification of Requests—Lummi Nation Specific Total Request is $11,650,000 

—∂$750,000 Monitoring and Assessment Program 

—∂$10.9 Million for Lummi Hatchery Infrastructure—Stock Re-Building Program 

The Lummi Nation requests funding to support a strategic plan to increase production of salmon from our hatcheries to offset lost fishing opportunities imposed 

by the listing of Chinook salmon and Southern Resident Orca whales under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Lummi Nation appropriation requests represent 

an investment in a sustainable strategy to maintain a future moderate living for 

fishermen as guaranteed by the treaty 1855 Point Elliot Treaty, affirmed by the 

U.S. Supreme Court (1979). Nontribal fishers will also benefit from the implementation of this strategy. 

The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries and one shellfish 

hatchery that support tribal and nontribal fisheries in the region. Lummi Nation 

hatcheries were originally constructed utilizing Department of Commerce funding 

appropriated from 1969–1971. Since that time hatchery operations and maintenance 

funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been used. At the time of construction, those hatcheries were cutting edge. However, with the passage of time and limited financial resources, the original hatchery infrastructure needs to be repaired, 

replaced or completely modernized. Lummi Nation fish biologists estimate that 

these facilities are now operating at 40 percent of their productive capacity. Through 

the operation of these hatcheries, the Lummi Nation annually produces 1 million 

fall Chinook salmon, 2 million Coho salmon, and 6.5 million shellfish seed and 

300,000 pounds of clams. These production levels simply do not provide the fishing 

opportunity and associated economic benefits necessary to offset the financial loss 

caused by the Sockeye Salmon fisheries disaster. To provide sufficient salmon stock 

resources and shellfish harvest opportunities on an annual basis to the Lummi fishing fleet (and nontribal fishers), the hatchery operations and associated infrastructure require rehabilitation. 

The hatchery infrastructure improvement plan represents an investment that increases the immediate annual return and is a long-term sustainable activity. 

Detailed hatchery line item descriptions are listed below: 
293 

—Lummi Nation Skookum Creek Hatchery—$725,000 

—$725,000 New Raceways.—Replace originally constructed infrastructure that 

is deteriorating and falling apart. 

—Lummi Bay Hatchery—$5,991,000 

—$5,536,000 Nooksack River Pump Station and Transmission Water Line.—The 

project will increase annual production by 300 percent by providing additional 

water to the hatchery. The major limiting factor to production at this facility 

is lack of freshwater. This project will ensure adequate water supply to 

achieve needed production levels. 

—$455,000 Rearing Pond Improvements.—Repair and pave juvenile rearing 

pond and restructure adult ladder and attraction complex. 

—Lummi Shellfish Hatchery—$4,184,000 

—$484,000 Improvements at Shellfish Hatchery.—Repair and expand current facility to increase seed production by improving heating and cooling systems, 

live feed production, and grow out tank space. 

—$2.4 Million to Build a Geoduck-Specific Hatchery.—A new geoduck-specific 

hatchery would allow for the current facility to be dedicated to oyster and manila clam production. Increased seed production will increase enhancement 

activities on Lummi tidelands to create jobs for tribal harvesters and support 

the west coast shellfish industry and associated businesses. 

—$1.3 Million Repair the Seapond Tidegates.—A feasibility level engineering 

study indicated that $1.3 million is needed to repair the Seapond tidegates, 

which will both improve circulation within the Lummi Bay seapond to increase production at both the shellfish and Lummi Bay salmon hatcheries and 

production of manila clams in the seapond and also help protect the facility 

in the event of an oil spill from the two petroleum oil refineries located immediately north of the reservation. 

Background Information 

The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington State, and is 

the third-largest Tribe in the State, serving a population of more than 5,200 people. 

The Lummi Nation is a fishing tribe and is the largest fishing tribe in the United 

States. We have drawn our physical and spiritual subsistence from the rivers, marine tidelands, and marine waters since time immemorial. Lummi has rights guaranteed by the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot to harvest fish, shellfish, and game in our 

Usual and Accustomed area. The Boldt decision of 1974 re-affirmed that right, and 

designated Lummi as a co-manager of a once abundant salmon fishery. Now, the 

abundance of wild salmon is gone. In 1985, the Lummi fishing fleet landed more 

than 15 million pounds of finfish and shellfish. In 2001, the combined harvest was 

approximately 3.9 million pounds. The remaining salmon stocks do not support tribal fisheries, and the Nation is suffering both spiritually and economically. Our treaty rights are at risk—we must act to preserve, promote, and protect our Schelangen 

(‘‘way of life’’) or our culture will disappear. 

In 1973, the ESA was passed. ESA should have resulted in improved salmon habitat and more resources for salmon habitat restoration, but ESA has become a ‘‘double-edged sword’’. Today, ESA has impacted tribal hatchery production and tribal 

harvests for commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial purposes. Tribal dependence 

on salmon and the timing of economic development results in tribal members and 

tribal governments bearing a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed 

species. Lummi treaty fishers are directly impacted by the listing of Puget Sound 

Chinook, Bull trout, Puget Sound steelhead, and Southern Resident Orca whales. 

Secretarial Order 3206, entitled ‘‘American Indian Tribal rights, Federal-Tribal 

Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act’’, specifically states that 

‘‘. . . the Departments will carry out their responsibilities in a manner 

that . . . strives to ensure that Indian Tribes do not bear a disproportionate burden for the conservation of listed species . . .’’. The Lummi Nation is actively engaged in recovering listed salmon species in our watershed, restoring critical habitat, and monitoring listed population to determine which factors adversely affect 

those populations and other critical but nonlisted species. The Lummi Nation cannot; however, continue to recover salmon and maintain our way of life without funding support/appropriations from the Federal Government. 

Continuous Sockeye Fisheries Disaster Declaration 

In 2008, the Department of Commerce reissued the sockeye fishery disaster declaration in a statement contained in a letter to Lummi Nation, (see letter from Secretary, Department of Commerce, November 3, 2010). The declaration conforms with 

the findings of the Congressional Research Services (CRS)—CRS Report to Con-
294 

gress, Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance, (RL–34209). For more information, 

see CRS Report RS21312, by Eugene H. Buck. 

In 2010, the Fraser River sockeye salmon run was the largest is recorded history. 

After years of sitting on the beach, the Lummi sockeye fleet was able to harvest 

sockeye salmon again. One good year, however, does not make up for the previous 

years of continuous fisheries disasters and associated loss of financial and cultural 

benefits. To account for the lack of a consistent sockeye salmon fishery and to make 

up for the lost fishing opportunity attributed to habitat degradation and subsequent 

salmon population crashes, the Lummi Nation plans to bolster both finfish and 

shellfish production from its facilities. 

Hatcheries ensure future salmon populations large enough to support our families 

and our way of life, until such time as the habitat is able to sustain harvestable 

levels of salmon. The Lummi Nation recognizes that hatcheries alone will not restore salmon stocks to historical levels. The Lummi Natural Resources Department 

allocates a substantial amount of time, effort, and funding to improve and monitor 

freshwater habitat, manage and monitor tribal harvest activities, and restoring ecosystem functions in the Nooksack River Basin. 

By increasing hatchery production of shellfish, chum salmon, coho salmon, and 

Chinook salmon, the Lummi Nation will create a reliable backup resource to salmon 

fishers and decrease Tribal dependence on the sockeye fishery. Additionally, we seek 

to raise the value of these harvests through advanced marketing, the introduction 

of a fisher’s market, and the shellfish grow out operations for shellfish products. 

Lummi Specific Requests—Bureau of Indian Affairs 

∂$2 million—Phase 1. New Water Supply System.—Increase in funding for hatchery construction, operation, and maintenance. Funding will be directed to increase 

hatchery production to make up for the shortfall of wild salmon. 

The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries that support tribal 

and nontribal fishers in the region. The tribal hatchery facilities were originally constructed utilizing Federal funding from 1969–1971. Predictably some of the original 

infrastructure needs to be repaired, replaced, and/or modernized. Lummi Nation fish 

biologists estimate that these facilities are currently operating at 40 percent of their 

productive capacity. Through the operation of these hatcheries the tribe annually 

produces 1 million fall Chinook and 2 million Coho salmon. To increase production, 

we would like to implement a ‘‘phased approach’’ that addresses our water supply 

system. The existing system only provides 850 gallons per minute to our hatchery. 

To increase production to a level that will sustain tribal and nontribal fisheries 

alike, we need to increase our water supply fourfold. A new pump station and water 

line will cost the tribe approximately $6 million. We are requesting funding for the 

first phase of this project. Our goal is to increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and hatchery production and create a reliable, sustainable resource to salmon fishers by increasing enhancement. 

Regional Requests 

The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2013 requests of the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission and the Treaty Rights and Risk Initiative. 

National Requests 

The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2013 requests of the National Congress of American Indians. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MARINE CONSERVATION INSTITUTE

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Marine Conservation Institute, based in Bellevue, Washington, is a nonprofit conservation organization that 

uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems around the world, 

and then advocates for their protection. I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2013 

appropriations and request $5.3 billion for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This level of funding would support satellite acquisition, while 

restoring funding for the ocean, coastal, and fisheries programs to the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 

America’s oceans play a vital role in our Nation’s economy. According to the National Ocean Economics Program, the U.S. ocean economy contributes more than 

$130 billion to our Nation’s Gross Domestic Product from living marine resources, 

tourism, recreation, transportation, and construction. Additionally, more than 2.4 

million jobs in the United States depend on the marine environment. NOAA’s programs are critical to fostering this activity and protecting ocean health for sustained 
295 

1McAvoy, Audrey. ‘‘Feds—Efforts to rescue monk seals helping species’’. Associated Press in 

West Hawaii Today, January 26, 2012. 2McAvoy, Audrey. ‘‘Tsunami debris spreads halfway across Pacific’’. Associated Press in Seattle Times, February 28, 2012. 

use. I would like to highlight a few programs which focus on NOAA’s conservation 

mandate. 

Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery 

NOAA has responsiblity for recovering the Hawaiian monk seal, one of the most 

critically endangered marine mammals in the world. It is also the only marine 

mammal whose entire distribution range lies within our national jurisdiction; thus 

the United States has sole responsibility for its continued survival. Over the last 

50 years, the Hawaiian monk seal population has declined to less than 1,200 individuals. The majority of the population resides in the remote Papahaˇnaumokuaˇkea 

Marine National Monument; however, a smaller (but growing) population resides in 

the Main Hawaiian Islands. 

NOAA is making progress implementing the monk seal recovery plan, and needs 

additional resources to stay on track. It has been conservatively estimated that 30 

percent of the monk seals alive today are due to direct actions by NOAA and its 

partners.1 The Congress’ decision to more than double the program funds to ap- proximately $5.6 million in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 created crucial momentum to protect the Hawaiian monk seal from extinction. NOAA conducts annual 

research field camps in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NHI), conducts outreach to fishermen and the general public concerning the seal’s ecological and cultural importance, intervenes to rescue entangled or wounded seals, investigates seal 

deaths, and conducts vital research studies on disease and mortality mitigation. However, funding levels were cut in half to about $2.7 million for fiscal year 2011 

and fiscal year 2012. Maintaining this level of reduced funding will continue to restrain the rollout of recovery actions, including the translocation of seals to areas 

where they can mature with greater likelihood of survival. Marine Conservation Institute (MCI) strongly recommends the subcommittee reinstate funding to $5.5 million in fiscal year 2013. 

Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program 

The discovery of widespread deep sea coral ecosystems within U.S. waters has 

challenged scientists to learn the extent of these important ecosystems and develop 

strategies on how to protect them. The Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology 

Program was established by NOAA under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. NOAA is charged with mapping 

and monitoring locations where deep sea corals are likely to occur, developing technologies designed to reduce interactions between fishing gear and deep sea corals, 

and working with fishery management councils to protect coral habitats. 

MCI was pleased to see increased funding for the National Marine Fisheries Serv- ice’s (NMFS) Deep Sea Coral Program to a level of $2.5 million in fiscal year 2010; 

we recommend that level be sustained in fiscal year 2013. Previous funding has allowed for coral habitat mapping and analysis along the west coast and in Southeastern U.S. waters. Sustained funding will permit the continued mapping of coral 

areas off the west coast and in Alaska, as well as the initiation of coral mapping 

in Mid-Atlantic waters. There is a great need for habitat assessments to inform fisheries management and development decisions. Reduced funding levels would hamper the compilation of this information. 

Marine Debris Program 

Marine trash has become one of the most widespread pollution problems affecting 

the world’s oceans and waterways. An estimated 8.6 million pounds of debris was 

recovered worldwide in 2010. Recently, much attention has been given by the press 

to the debris generated by the Japanese tsunami tragedy, and its impacts on ocean 

life and tourism in Hawaii and along the west coast. Research has shown that debris has serious effects on the marine environment, wildlife, the economy, and 

human health and safety. It is estimated that as much as 1,250,000 tons of tsunami 

debris could reach the United States over the next several years.2

The Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act was enacted in 2006 

to identify, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris and its effects on the marine 

environment. The Marine Debris Program received a much needed increase in fiscal 

year 2012 to a level of $5 million to address the incoming tsunami debris. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget recommends relocating the Marine Debris Program 

to NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation. While understanding the need to improve 

efficiency, MCI believes the program would be more effective if it remained under 
296 

the National Ocean Service at the current funding level of $5 million. Current placement allows the program to leverage resources available to the Office of Response 

and Restoration and work in better collaboration with fisherman since the program 

is currently housed under the National Ocean Service and not together with the regulators of NMFS. 

National Marine Sanctuaries 

Presently, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is responsible for 

managing the Nation’s 13 marine sanctuaries and Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument in the NHI. Collectively, these 14 units cover more area than the 

National Park System. MCI recommends $54.5 million in fiscal year 2013. This amount includes $49 mil- lion for the operations and research account, and $5.5 million for the construction 

account. This would allow ONMS to better fulfill its responsibilities as a leader in 

ocean management and conservation. The funding would allow ONMS to maintain 

current management capabilities and complete current construction projects. Less 

funding would likely require the termination of contractors performing full-time 

equivalents duties, eliminate most vessel days at sea, and reduce operations at 

many visitor centers, thereby reducing local community benefits. 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget recommends merging the Marine Protected Areas Center with the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. If this merger 

were to occur, I recommend funding for the ONMS be increased by $4 million to 

ensure the MPA Center mission and projects continue. 

Regional Ocean Partnerships 

Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROP) facilitate the cooperation and integration of 

ocean and coastal resources management between local, State, and Federal agencies. Coastal States Governors have already established several regional ocean partnerships to collaboratively address priority marine and coastal issues. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget requests $4 million in fiscal year 2013 to 

provide competitive grants to address issues within each U.S. region. While this 

amount is $0.5 million more than enacted fiscal year 2012 levels, it is $3.5 million 

less than the fiscal year 2011 enacted level. MCI recommends a minimum funding 

level of $7.5 million to assist these important collaborative efforts. 

Ocean Acidification 

Ocean acidification is the process by which seawater becomes corrosive to calcium 

carbonate structures found in many of the shells and skeletons of marine organisms, 

such as shellfish, corals, and fish. It is a major marine impact associated with elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Ocean acidification has already 

begun to negatively impact commercial and recreational fishing, as well as coastal 

communities and economies. 

The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act that passed in 2009 

calls upon NOAA to coordinate research, establish a monitoring program, identify 

and develop adaptation strategies and techniques, encourage interdisciplinary and 

international understanding of the impacts associated with ocean acidification, improve public outreach, and provide critical research grants to increase understanding of the ecosystem impacts and socioeconomic effects of ocean acidification. 

Ocean acidification research received $6.4 million in fiscal year 2012. MCI recommends a level of $11.6 million in fiscal year 2013 to more fully understand the 

impacts of ocean acidification on our coastal communities and economy. 

Law Enforcement 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is responsible for enforcing the laws 

that conserve and protect our Nation’s fisheries, protected species, and national marine sanctuaries and monuments. The office is also responsible for enforcing the 

United States’ international commitments to fight illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, a practice that threatens to undermine global fish stocks, such as the 

Pacific tuna fishery in which the United States participates. In addition, the Office 

of General Counsel Enforcement Section provides legal services and guidance to 

NOAA’s OLE. 

NOAA’s jurisdiction spans 3.4 square million miles of coastal and marine environments, including the Nation’s 13 marine sanctuaries and four marine national 

monuments. The Pacific region alone poses a challenge for NOAA law enforcement 

as it spans 1.5 million square miles, nearly one-half of the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone. 

MCI strongly supports the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $67.1 

million for NOAA’s OLE. This will allow OLE to maintain current capabilities, while 

potentially adding additional resources in the Pacific region. MCI also recommends 
297 

an additional $150,000 for another attorney in the Pacific Islands Office of General 

Council Enforcement Section, as there is currently only one attorney with no support staff. 

Marine Operations and Maintenance 

The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) operates NOAA’s fleet of 

specialized ships to fulfill the agency’s environmental and scientific missions. OMAO 

provides vessels for fisheries research, oceanographic and atmospheric research, and 

hydrographic surveys. Ships are also used for monitoring marine sanctuaries and 

monuments, and servicing the early warning tsunami and weather system equipment. 

Not since 2007 has OMAO operated its ships at full capacity, largely due to budget constraints. In 2011, OMAO allocated base ship time for each of its 17 vessels 

at about 135 days at sea, which is about 55 percent of the fleet’s operational capability (max = 220 days per vessel). NOAA’s program offices have had to ‘‘buy’’ additional days to fulfill some of their basic mandates. For instance, NMFS purchased 

an additional 542 days in fiscal year 2011. Unfortunately, the line offices are experiencing budget constraints as well. 

It makes no sense for NOAA’s ships to be partially idle when one of NOAA’s primary missions is to manage and restore our oceans. MCI supports the President’s 

request of $166 million for OMAO in fiscal year 2013. It is a step toward more fully 

funding NOAA’s fleet to fulfill its mandates. 

In summary, MCI respectfully requests that the subcommittee maintain or slightly augment funding for the conservation side of the NOAA budgets. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY P. PAULSEN

Today, I am writing to share my story with you; but most of all I am writing to 

you as elected officials to ask you to please stop the egregious use of taxpayer dollars allocated to Governmental agencies and used to promote an agenda to close 

Medicaid certified care programs across our country. Care is provided for people 

with significant disabilities in what are now called Intermediate Care Facilities/Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/DD) that are operated both by States and by private 

business. I am concerned with the budget request for the Civil Rights Division 

(CRD) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) for an additional $5.1 million. The request states that they need this money to strengthen civil rights enforcement efforts 

on behalf of vulnerable people (CRIPA). The most unfortunate thing about CRIPA 

is that it cannot be used to enforce proper care in private facilities where significant 

abuse/neglect issues occur but only in institutions operated by States (public). 

My son is a vulnerable adult. He is 47 years old and has severe autism, epilepsy 

and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. He is also nonverbal. I am his legal guardian. 

Our life journey has been long and difficult. As a parent, I was always hoping that 

someone, something, somewhere would make a difference for him and he would become more functional and normal. Parents live on hope and are easily convinced by 

philosophical and ideological ideas. I now realize that this can be an extremely false 

hope. When we could not provide him with the care he required due to a death in 

the family, he was placed in our State institution. Autism has a level of hyperactivity that people cannot understand who have not lived it. You must know where 

the child is and what he is doing every minute of the day. I have been a volunteer 

advocate for more than 40 years so I am aware of what is and has been going on 

with regards to services for people with disabilities. I succumbed to the ‘‘normalization’’ concept and moved my son from our State facility to a privately managed 

group home when he was in late adolescence, age 20, and had become assaultive. 

The transition was difficult and many changes and moves were involved. Nothing 

has ever been easy for us. 

The popular idea of promoting independence and self-determination for people 

with disabilities nearly resulted in my son’s death in 2006. The group home system 

lacks oversight and abuse and neglect happens. In our case the provider violated 

the agreement (contract) with regard to my son having one-on-one staffing. He was 

left alone in the kitchen of the home. His shirt caught on fire (gas stove) and he 

had second- and third-degree burns on his back from his waist to his shoulder 

blades. His care and recovery was a long and difficult road. I realized that he was 

not safe and could not be kept safe in a group home environment. After a battle 

with our State bureaucracy, I have succeeded in placing him back in our State operated developmental center (ICF/ID) with all the Medicaid regulations and oversight. 

Federal law supports my right as his legal guardian so choose where he will receive 

services (care), but I had to fight the system here in Utah to have my choice hon-
298 

ored. My son needs a restricted campus with many well-trained people around him 

in order to keep him safe—a place where everyone knows him. It is unfortunate that 

we had to learn this the hard way. 

Advocates who have pursued closure of congregate care facilities have chosen to 

ignore the cases of abuse, neglect, and even death that occur in the group homes 

and apartments. For many people with disabilities, the level of care to minimize the 

risk of injury can best be provided in adequately funded and properly monitored 

congregate care facilities (ICF/ID) where the staff is well-trained. 

I believe it is a violation of my son’s civil rights and mine as his guardian for us 

to be subjected to misinterpretations of the Olmstead decision as well as Americans 

with Disabilities Act to force the agenda of closure of public congregate care facilities in this country. There are many people with significant disabilities who need 

more care than can be provided in the Home and Community Based Waiver system. 

With the population increase, the most severely impaired are in the minority and 

often our voices are simply not heard. The number of adherents for an idea should 

not be the determining criterion for its truth or falsehood. If the closure of large 

facilities is based on majority rule, then those of us composing the minority will be 

the losers—often the losers of life itself. 

I am asking you to stop funding to the CRD of DOJ that allows them to pursue 

de-institutionalization efforts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee: I am Arturo Vargas, the Executive Director of the National Association 

of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund. I also serve 

as Co-Chair of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Census Task 

Force, which brings together leading civic and civil rights organizations to address 

pressing census issues. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on 

behalf of the NALEO Educational Fund and The Leadership Conference Census 

Taskforce to support the President’s fiscal year 2013 request to the Congress of 

$970.4 million in discretionary funding for the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The NALEO Educational Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political process, from citizenship to 

public service. Our constituency includes the more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide. Our Board members and constituency include Republicans, Democrats, and independents. The NALEO Educational Fund is one of the 

Nation’s leading organizations in the area of Census policy development and public 

education, and we are deeply committed to ensuring that the Census Bureau provides our Nation with the most accurate count of its population. Since 2000, the 

NALEO Educational Fund has served on the Secretary of Commerce’s 2010 Census 

Advisory Committee, or its predecessor, the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, 

and we actively participated in the committee’s discussions surrounding the planning for the 2010 enumeration. In October 2009, we launched the ‘‘ya es hora, 

¡HAGASE CONTAR! (Make Yourself Count!)’’ campaign, which focused on promoting the importance of the census, educating individuals about filling out their 

census forms, and encouraging households to mail back their responses. 

The Leadership Conference is ideally positioned to address many of the most 

pressing issues affecting the successful implementation of Census Bureau programs, 

surveys, and initiatives. The Leadership Conference’s coordinating role among so 

many diverse organizations allows for the sharing of different perspectives, as well 

as the development of broader strategies that occur within the purview of any individual organization. All of its work draws on the expertise of the cross-section of 

national organizations, and examines the impact of civil rights policy on a broad 

range of constituencies. 

Mrs. Chairwoman, as your committee prepares to consider the fiscal year 2013 

Commerce, Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill, we 

urge your support for the administration’s fiscal year 2013 request to the Congress 

for the Census Bureau. We believe this amount is the minimum necessary to preserve core statistical programs and ensure the continued reliability of data vital for 

public, private, and nonprofit sector decisionmaking now and in the future. In particular, reliable and accurate data about the Latino community are critical for the 

prosperity and well-being of the entire country. The results of the 2010 census demonstrated the importance of the decennial enumeration for charting the dramatic 

growth of our Nation’s Latino community and the implications of that growth for 

the future of our economy and democracy. The Latino population in the United 
299 

States was 50.5 million in 2010, and Latinos are the Nation’s second-largest and 

fastest-growing population group. Between 2000 and 2010, the Latino share of the 

population increased from 12.5 percent (1 in 8 Americans) to 16.3 percent (1 in 6 

Americans). 

For fiscal year 2013, the President proposed a total budget of $970.4 million in 

discretionary funding for the Census Bureau, a 3-percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $942 million. In this testimony, I will address how 

the administration’s request is necessary to maintain the reliability of American 

Community Survey (ACS) data, begin planning for a cost-effective 2020 decennial 

census, and effectively meet the constitutional responsibilities of the Bureau. I 

would like to start by providing detailed information about the President’s request 

regarding two critical programs: 

—the ACS; and 

—the planning for the 2020 census. 

American Community Survey.—For fiscal year 2013, the President requested $252.7 million, which represents a decrease of $10.9 million for the ACS program. 

ACS is implementing several changes in fiscal year 2013, including an Internet response option and a reduction in the scale of the Failed Edit Follow-up Operation. 

We believe the fiscal year 2013 budget request sufficiently invests in the ACS program to ensure that the sample size is large enough to produce reliable and useful 

data for less populated geographic areas, such as towns and rural counties, and especially less populous subgroups. This funding also would allow for improved telephone and field data collection; sufficient follow-up of unresponsive households in 

remote areas; and a comprehensive review of 3-year and 5-year ACS estimates. 

These activities are imperative for ensuring the ACS can continue to provide valid 

data about the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the American people on an ongoing, annual basis. 

Policymakers at all levels of government rely on ACS data to make important decisions that affect the lives of all Americans. These data help make such determinations as the number of teachers that are needed in classrooms, the best places to 

build roads and highways, and the best way to provide health and public safety 

services to our neighborhoods and communities. According to a July 2010 report by 

Andrew Reamer of the Brookings Institute which analyzed fiscal year 2008 Federal 

Government spending, 184 Federal domestic assistance programs used ACS-related 

datasets to help guide the distribution of $416 billion, 29 percent of all Federal assistance. ACS-guided grants accounted for $389.2 billion, 69 percent of all Federal 

grant funding. Most of ACS-guided Federal assistance goes to State governments 

through a few large grant programs which support highway infrastructure and aid 

low-income households. The 10 largest ACS-guided assistance programs include several that help ensure that Latino families and their children receive quality 

healthcare, and housing, including Medicaid, section 8 housing programs, and school 

education grants. 

Other Federal programs also rely on the ACS for implementation of the programs 

and priorities of the Federal Government. For example, the Department of Defense 

uses ACS data for the implementation of the procurement technical assistance it 

provides to businesses. The Department of Agriculture uses the data for water and 

waste disposal system planning in rural communities, where a significant number 

of Latino families live. In addition, sound implementation of the protections of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965 relies on ACS data, because those data are used to make 

determinations under section 203, which requires jurisdictions with a high percentage of people who are not yet English language proficient to offer language assistance to citizens during the electoral process. 

High-quality, objective, and universal ACS data are also critical for our Nation’s 

private sector. Without these data, businesses and nonprofit organizations will lose 

the ability to understand their customers and the communities they serve, and allocate their fiscal and human resources prudently. American companies rely on ACS 

data every day to make vital decisions about where to locate and expand; what 

goods and services to offer; the scope of employee training needed; and long-term 

investment opportunities. Thus, fiscal year 2013 funding to support reliable ACS 

data is critical for sound government and business profitability, and the pursuit of 

national economic prosperity. 

2020 Census.—As 2010 census activities wind down with final evaluations and 

data products, planning for the next decennial enumeration is on its cyclical upswing. The President’s fiscal year 2013 request for 2020 census activities is nearly 

double the fiscal year 2012 funding level, from $66.7 million in fiscal year 2012 to 

$131.4 million in fiscal year 2013. We strongly support this important funding increase. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently documented, reasonable investments in census planning in the early part of the decade 
300 

will help save millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars in census costs down the 

road. 

We know from experience that insufficient funding for early decennial census 

planning leads to ballooning costs later in the decade. The Census Bureau must invest resources early in the decade to ensure cost-effective, successful implementation 

of census operations in the future. The pace of technological change and rapid evolution of communication modes make ongoing research and testing essential. Similarly, keeping up with changes in the Nation’s housing stock and roads could save 

hundreds of millions of dollars during census preparations in 2018–2019, allowing 

the Bureau to confine final address checking to areas in frequent transition. As Director Groves has stated, the vision is, ‘‘An efficient and quality census that counts 

people once, only once, and in the right place.’’ The fiscal year 2013 budget also supports another critical Bureau central focus of the 2020 census planning: To design 

programs and operations for the 2020 census that have residual benefits for other 

Census Bureau data collections. 

In this spirit, we are working with the Census Bureau to continue a robust Partnership Program in preparation for the 2020 census. During the decennial enumeration, the Census Bureau used the Partnership Program to engage community-based 

organizations, religious leaders, educators, local businesses, and media outlets who 

had strong relationships with hard-to-count populations and were familiar with the 

barriers they face in census participation. The Bureau utilized the assistance of 

Partnership Program stakeholders in educating residents about the importance of 

returning their census questionnaires, and helping them surmount the barriers in 

completing and returning their forms. In short, the Partnership Program ensured 

that timely and locally relevant information from the Bureau reached community 

leaders, and that local enumeration efforts were able to use limited resources efficiently. We believe that the program, which proved to be an integral component of 

the census 2010 outreach efforts, remains critical for reaching hard-to-count populations and ensuring their participation in future surveys and censuses. However, 

the severe limitations being placed on the Bureau’s budget have proven to be an 

impediment to guaranteeing that this important initiative will continue. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request may allow for the resumption of this critical 

program. 

Support for the full amount of census funding in the President’s 2013 budget is 

particularly crucial in light of past experiences with census expenditure reductions 

in postenumeration years. Unfortunately, the Congress has often turned to the Census Bureau’s budget as a source of expendable funds after each decennial census, 

overlooking the important work the agency does year in and year out and starving 

the critical research and testing phases of the next enumeration. The fiscal year 

2012 budget was no exception. 

In fiscal year 2012, this subcommittee $88 million more than the House version 

of this bill. Fortunately, the final appropriation legislation offered just enough funding for the Bureau to proceed with its core activities. The so-called ‘‘minibus’’ appropriations bill—encompassing 3 of 12 Federal appropriations accounts, including the 

CJS appropriations bill—allocated $942 million for the Census Bureau. However, we 

strongly caution against relying on money from the Working Capital Fund to pay 

for ongoing core activities. 

As a result of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2011 budget cuts—and on its own 

accord—the Census Bureau has committed to reducing costs by taking bold steps 

to streamline operations. In fiscal year 2012, it realigned its national field office 

structure by permanently closing six regional offices. Last year, the Bureau eliminated a number of lower-priority programs. In addition, the Bureau has demonstrated its determination to make modest investments in required activities to 

help save billions of dollars. 

We understand the fiscal environment requires the Congress to make difficult decisions and curtail current spending. We recognize that there are many worthy programs funded through the CJS appropriations bill. Yet, we believe that making cuts 

in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Census Bureau will be 

counterproductive to an agency whose data are essential to running our government, informing our policies, and influencing economic productivity. 

I thank the Chairwoman, the Ranking Member, and the subcommittee once again 

for providing us with the opportunity to share our views today in support of the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Census Bureau. 
301 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARINE LABORATORIES

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is Shirley Pomponi 

and I direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration, Research and Technology at Florida Atlantic 

University. I submit this statement on behalf of more than 100 marine labs that 

make up the National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML). On behalf of all 

of my fellow marine lab directors, I thank this subcommittee for the support it is 

has provided for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and education through 

NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). 

NAML is a nonprofit organization of member institutions representing coastal, 

marine, and Great Lakes laboratories in every coastal State, from Guam to Bermuda and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Member laboratories serve as unique ‘‘windows on 

the sea,’’ connecting scientists and citizens with the rich environmental mosaic of 

coastal habitats and offshore oceanic and Great Lakes regions. NAML laboratories 

conduct research and provide academic, education, and public service programs to 

enable local and regional communities to better understand and manage their 

ocean, coastal and Great Lakes cultural and natural resources. 

NAML has two key priorities relevant to this subcommittee as part of its fiscal 

year 2013 public policy agenda: 

—to maintain strong support for extramural marine research and education programs at NOAA and the NSF; and 

—a recommendation for a cost-saving national partnership program aimed at colocating NOAA and other Federal agency marine science personnel and facilities 

at the more than 100 NAML laboratories located all over the country. 

I am here today to present the case for the restoration of funding within the 

NOAA appropriation that this subcommittee will draft in the near future. These 

funds provide vital and irreplaceable support for extramural research, education, 

and conservation programs, and are among the most well-spent and highly leveraged Federal dollars. 

The coastal population of the United States increased by nearly 51 million people 

from 1970 to 2010, with 52 percent of the Nation’s total population living in coastal 

watersheds. By 2020, the coastal population is expected to grow by another 10 percent or 15.6 million. In 2009, the coastal economy contributed $8.3 trillion to the 

Nation’s Gross Domestic Product resulting in 66 million jobs and wages worth an 

estimated $3.4 trillion. Recreational coastal fishing contributed about $73 billion in 

total economic impact supporting more than 320,000 jobs. For commercial fishing, 

the average annual value of all U.S. marine fisheries from 2008 to 2010 is estimated 

at $4 billion, providing about 1 million jobs and generating more than $32 billion 

in income. Our Nation’s ports, often located in the heart of sensitive coastal ecosystems, are an essential driver of the U.S. economy. About $1.9 trillion worth of 

imports came through U.S. ports in 2010, supporting an estimated 13 million jobs. 

More than 50 percent of the total energy produced domestically occurred in coastal 

States, including natural gas production, electricity generation, and oil and gas production. Coastal areas are providing opportunities for renewable energy development with projects that seek to extract energy from the movement of ocean water 

due to tides, currents, or waves; from the temperature differential between hot and 

cold ocean water; and from strong winds in offshore ocean environments. 

Meeting stewardship responsibilities for the oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes requires a robust science and education enterprise. Coastal areas face challenges that 

threaten fisheries resources, impact recreational and commercial resources and affect the health of ecosystems. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico 

and its continuing impact on the natural resources of the region illustrate the need 

for a robust and responsive ocean and coastal sciences enterprise. We must continue 

to invest in the Nation’s research enterprise that has been responsible for our longterm prosperity and technological pre-eminence through interdisciplinary research 

spanning a landscape of disciplines, from physics to geology, chemistry to biology, 

engineering to economics, and modeling to observation. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NAML is highly supportive of the NSF and its fiscal year 2013 budget request. 

NSF funds vital basic and translational research that enhances the understanding 

and governance of the Nation’s oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. More than 90 percent of NSF’s budget directly supports research at universities and laboratories in 

all 50 States. A robust NSF fuels the economy, boosts national competitiveness, supports a scientific and technologically literate workforce and provides new knowledge—all of which are essential for national and economic security. Science and en-
302 

gineering research, education, and related infrastructure support, such as the core 

research programs in the geosciences, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the 

Field Stations and Marine Lab infrastructure program, are especially important in 

enabling our national network of nongovernment marine laboratories to serve their 

vital, cost-effective role as community-based research enterprises. 

NAML strongly supports the Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) initiative. SEES focuses on targeted programs that promote innovative interdisciplinary research to address pressing societal issues of clean energy 

and sustainability. In fiscal year 2013, SEES includes five programs that contain 

translational themes: 

—Coastal SEES; 

—Arctic SEES; 

—Sustainable Chemistry, Engineering, and Materials; 

—Creating a More Disaster-Resilient America; and 

—a program on the Role of Information Sciences and Engineering in SEES. 

NSF’s support for ocean science education should continue to build on past successes, such as the Centers for Ocean Science Excellence in Education, and should 

also continue to integrate new approaches and themes, for example, through the 

new Expeditions in Education initiative. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NOAA’s fiscal year 2013 budget plan will eliminate funding for the National Undersea Research Program (NURP), the National Estuarine Research Reserve Construction program, the Marine Sanctuaries Construction, the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, Ocean Education Partnerships, 

and Competitive Education Grants. 

Additionally, NOAA’s 2013 budget plan will drastically reduce funding for other 

extramural programs, including the Integrated Ocean Observing System, the Coastal Services Center, the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, and the National Estuarine Research Reserve program. All of these programs directly connect 

the NOAA mission to coastal communities, to jobs, schools, recreation and other important values. They also connect communities back to NOAA, helping to ensure 

that NOAA is responding to real needs. 

In the past, NOAA has benefited enormously from its extramural partnerships, 

engaging hundreds of scientists and other agencies (e.g., NSF) in issues of direct 

and critical relevance to the Nation, at remarkably low cost. The extramural programs have been dollars well spent. In 2004 the NOAA Science Advisory Board’s 

Research Review Team report concluded: 

‘‘. . . Extramural research is critical to accomplishing NOAA’s mission. NOAA 

benefits from extramural research in many ways, including: access to world class 

expertise not found in NOAA laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct 

of global science; means to leverage external funding sources; facilitate multi-institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities; and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists also benefit from working 

with NOAA, in part by learning to make their research more directly relevant to 

management and policy. It is an important two-way street... NOAA cannot accomplish its goals without the extramural community, specifically the universities 

and institutions that represent the broad range of expertise and resources across the 

physical, biological, and social sciences. Moreover, there is the important issue of 

maintaining a scientific and technologically competent workforce in NOAA and the 

workforce is another ‘product’ of the extramural research community... Also it 

is important that during difficult budget periods that NOAA not disproportionately 

target the extramural research for budget cuts.’’ 

NAML fully recognizes the constraints facing the Federal Government and the 

Congress and the necessary limitations on Federal discretionary spending. For that 

very reason, NAML believes that extramural programs should be supported to the 

maximum extent. External programs are flexible, responsive to local and regional 

needs, and can leverage local and regional investments, as well as funds from other 

agency investments. They are often at the cutting edge, supporting innovation and 

nurturing the scientists of the future. These advantages are enhanced in programs 

for which peer-reviewed competition and overall merit determine the funding decisions. 

Through engagement with the extramural research community and the agencies 

that support it, NOAA can enhance its research priorities and address the Nation’s 

critical scientific problems. The place-based extramural programs also contribute to 

local and regional economic development and engage citizens in wise use of their 
303 

coastal and ocean resources. Finally, extramural research helps educate and train 

the next generation of marine scientists and engineers, expanding the impact of the 

Federal dollars toward building a globally competitive science, technology, engineering, and math workforce. 

As the Federal agency responsible for managing living marine and coastal resources, NOAA must have a presence beneath the sea to better understand the systems under its management. With Public Law 111–11, the Congress authorized 

NURP to provide NOAA with enhanced scientific access to the undersea environment. NURP has cost-effectively provided human access with submersibles and 

technical diving, and virtual access using robots, seafloor observatories, and innovative new technologies. NURP has provided scientists with the tools and expertise 

they need to investigate the seafloor and water column, allowing for unique new insights and data to address NOAA’s diverse mission. NURP is comprised of a network of regional centers and institutes of undersea science and technology excellence located at major universities. This extramural network facilitates collaborations with programs outside NOAA, leverages external funds and infrastructure, 

and provides access to world-class expertise and students. NURP projects are selected by a rigorous peer-review process based on scientific merit and relevance to 

NOAA and national research priorities. 

The John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program has also 

been eliminated from NOAA’s fiscal year 2013 Federal budget request. Marine 

mammals are sentinel species that inform our knowledge of the health of marine 

food webs. Marine mammal stranding response networks nationwide are run primarily through nonprofits and other nongovernment entities including, in many 

cases, marine labs affiliated with educational institutions. They coordinate their 

work with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and often engage 

large numbers of volunteers and students, making the program very cost effective. 

Consistent funding is necessary to maintain basic operational needs, volunteer engagement, and the continued success of these essential stranding networks. In addition to support for the stranding networks, NMFS reserves a portion of Prescott 

funds for emergency responses to catastrophic events, including oil spills, mass 

strandings, and hurricanes. 

Stranding networks are the Nation’s first responders to both live and dead marine 

mammals that come ashore, often in developed coastal communities. They perform 

important outreach functions for NOAA and collect data and samples that enable 

important population and ocean health assessment. This includes basic information 

on marine mammal diseases that are anthropogenic in nature, as well as those that 

can be spread to humans via contact with stranded animals. If NOAA is permitted 

to eliminate this program, it is unlikely that NMFS will be able to meet congressional mandates stipulated in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

To demonstrate the economic and environmental value of extramural programs to 

the Nation, consider the National Sea Grant College Program, a stellar example of 

NOAA’s ability to support extramural research that is locally and nationally prominent. In the last 2 years, Sea Grant has delivered the following benefits to the Nation: 

—Nearly $243 million in direct economic benefits, which represents nearly a 4 to 

1 return on the Federal investment; 

—An estimated additional $146 million in other Federal, State, and nongovernmental resources leveraged for research, extension, and other services that support the ocean and coastal enterprise; 

—144 new businesses created, 1,271 businesses retained, and more than 8,100 

jobs created or retained; 

—768 communities across the Nation adopted more sustainable economic or environmental development practices and policies; 

—340 communities adopted hazard resiliency practices to make them better prepared to cope with or respond to hazardous coastal events; 

—5,000 individuals or businesses received new certifications in hazard analysis 

and critical control point handling of seafood products, improving the safety of 

seafood consumption by Americans across the country; 

—40,000 acres of degraded ecosystems were restored; and 

—1,700 undergraduate students, 1,400 graduate students, and 800,000 K–12 students were reached with information about marine and Great Lakes science and 

resources. 

Besides the programs singled out in this presentation, a great deal of extramural 

research that supports NOAA’s overall mission is in specific programs such as the 

Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), the Coastal Services Center, the Center 

for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research (CSCOR), and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) program. For instance, CSCOR is a multi-topic 
304 

competitive research program that supports longer-term research on important 

coastal issues of harmful algal blooms, hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico and 

other U.S. waters, and multiple stressors. The NERRS programs are effectively 

aligned with academic institutions and especially marine labs, and they support significant research activities funded by other agencies. The IOOS has observing instrumentation in the water around the United States (and including the Gulf of 

Mexico) that currently provides real-time oceanographic data to users, including the 

U.S. Coast Guard, maritime transportation, oil spill response agencies (State and 

Federal), and fisheries managers, as well as local fishing and other businesses. 

Much of the data comes from academic scientists at no cost to the Federal budget. 

In all, these extramural programs provide NOAA with capabilities that far exceed 

what is possible in-house, enabling the agency to carry out its mission more effectively and more efficiently. 

The examples above demonstrate the unique value, cost effectiveness, and contribution that extramural programs make to the agency’s missions of science, service 

and stewardship. And last, but by no means least, NOAA extramural funding for 

colleges and universities fosters the integration of education and training into research, helping to create the next generation of scientific and technical talent that 

the Nation must have to remain competitive into the future. 

We urge the subcommittee to restore funding to these extramural programs when 

the subcommittee marks up the fiscal year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science, and 

related agencies appropriations bill. 

On behalf of my colleagues at NAML, thank you very much for the opportunity 

to express our concerns. We would be happy to provide additional information if it 

would be helpful to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC. 

Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2013 budget 

for the National Science Foundation (NSF). My name is Tom Jorling, and I serve 

as the interim CEO of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), Inc. 

a 501(c)(3) corporation established to implement the NEON Project supported by the 

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) program of the 

NSF. We are deeply appreciative of the support this subcommittee has provided the 

MREFC account, and NEON in particular, in previous years and hope it will continue as you consider the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the NSF MREFC account in the amount of $196.17 million. This funding recommendation is essentially 

level with the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for this account and will allow the continued construction of NEON consistent with the 5-year construction schedule developed by the NSF and NEON, Inc. and approved by the National Science Board. 

THE CHALLENGE

Maintaining this Nation’s Science and Engineering (S&E) leadership is increasingly seen as a precondition for maintaining U.S. competitiveness on the world 

stage. In February 2003, the National Science Board said: 

There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research infrastructure is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in Science and Engineering (S&E). New tools 

have opened vast research frontiers and fueled technological innovation in fields 

such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and communications... Recent concepts 

of infrastructure are expanding to include distributed systems of hardware, software, information bases, and automated aids for data analysis and interpretation. 

Enabled by information technology, a qualitatively different and new S&E infrastructure has evolved, delivering greater computational power, increased access, distribution and shared use, and new research tools, such as data analysis and interpretation aids, Web-accessible databases, archives, and collaboratories. Many viable 

research questions can be answered only through the use of new generations of 

these powerful tools. 

. . . In an era of fast-paced discovery, it is imperative that NSF’s infrastructure 

investments provide the maximum benefit to the entire S&E community. NSF must 

be prepared to assume a greater S&E infrastructure role for the benefit of the Nation. 

Pushing the frontiers of science requires a sustained effort to ascertain the scientific grand challenges that beckon our brightest minds, to determine how science 

and technology can best address emerging challenges, and to develop the leadership 

in turning knowledge into technologies and benefits for society. In order to conduct 
305 

basic research in every field of S&E, students, teachers, and researchers must have 

access to powerful, state-of-the-art scientific infrastructure—the type of infrastructure that has a major impact on broad segments of S&E disciplines. Large and upto-date research equipment and facilities are essential to the fundamental process 

of basic research. 

We are entering an era of large-scale, interdisciplinary science fueled by large 

data sets that will be analyzed by current and future generations of scientists. The 

rapid pace of changes around the globe has underscored the value of long-term data 

sets for understanding the context of scientific observations, and for forecasting future conditions. Natural and human-managed landscapes are subject to events and 

processes that play out over different scales of time and space. Some are rapid and 

visible, like extreme precipitation, wind, and wildfire events, while others are subtle 

and play out over decades, like changing ocean temperatures and pH that affect the 

world’s fisheries. Dealing with these challenges calls for a new generation of tools 

and observational capabilities. 

RISING TO THE CHALLENGE

There is no better generation to handle these long-term challenges than the cadre 

of early career scientists, engineers, and educators that we have in this country. 

These individuals have trained for professional and academic careers in a highly 

connected, fast-changing, digital world. Many are eager and ready to tackle dataintensive, data-driven scientific challenges if provided the opportunity and the requisite data. We need modern scientific tools that will allow this generation of scientists to listen to the heartbeat of an entire continental ecosystem, to observe the 

changing patterns of large-scale oceanic patterns that affect our weather, and to use 

powerful scientific analysis and visualization techniques to understand the 

connectivity between the atmosphere, land, and oceans. 

The successful nurturing of these capabilities depends on the availability and accessibility of data characterizing the structure and function of natural systems. Publicly accessible data represents a potent democratization of science—it opens up the 

marketplace of ideas and enables participation by constituencies that were previously excluded because of barriers related to the capital costs of scientific infrastructure. The MREFC account funds transformational scientific infrastructure entirely consistent with NSF’s vision of science entering into an ‘‘Era of Observations’’ 

and an ‘‘Era of Data and Information’’. 

THE MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT

NSF describes the NSF MREFC account as providing ‘‘unique, transformational 

research capabilities at the frontiers of science and engineering’’. Such multi-user 

facilities are identified through extended engagements with the scientific community, designed using processes that National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

Department of Energy, and others have developed over decades, and constructed 

using state-of-the-art technology. As members of this subcommittee are aware, the 

Congress, the NSF Inspector General, the National Science Board, and NSF provide 

stringent oversight of the planning, construction, and operations of all MREFC 

projects to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. 

We would like to applaud NSF’s stewardship of these facilities. The agency has 

defined processes that it requires all MREFC projects, including NEON, to follow. 

These defined processes and an expectation of the timeframes allow us to engage 

with our user-communities to prepare them for the use of the facility as it gets built, 

and for when it comes on-line. This allows universities to strategize their hiring 

strategies, and for our early career scientists to acquire the necessary skills that will 

allow them to participate in these new scientific enterprises. One such enterprise 

that we wish to highlight in this testimony is NEON. 

WHY THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC. 

Living systems interact with each other and with the rest of the Earth System 

at many scales. At a small scale, individual plants exchange energy and matter with 

the atmosphere to support growth. At a large scale, like that of an entire continent, 

exchange between biotic components, the atmosphere, and surface water affects climate and hydrology. NEON is the Nation’s and the world’s first science facility designed to enable understanding and predicting the way ecosystems work and respond to changes, especially at large scales; understanding how ecosystem processes 

feedback to alter Earth system processes, including climate and hydrology; and understanding the implications of these processes and feedbacks for the human endeavor. 
306 

The project is designed to fill a void in observing systems that collect the range 

of variables needed for a complete view of ecosystem responses to multiple interacting environmental stressors, essential if we are to maintain the ecosystems that 

support humans and all life. 

The concept for the ecological observatory was initiated in 1998 by the National 

Science Board’s Task Force on the Environment. This was followed by workshops 

conducted by a large segment of the ecological community and a succession of competitive planning grants from NSF. This process culminated in a proposal to construct what was to become the NEON project. There followed a multi-year process 

involving more than a dozen outside expert review panels convened by NSF, including a Conceptual Design Review, Preliminary Design Reviews and a Final Design 

Review in 2010. These successful reviews led to approval by the National Science 

Board and finally authorization for construction from the Congress in 2010 as part 

of the MREFC program of NSF. 

THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC. IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2013

BUDGET REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS

The total NSF MREFC request for NEON for fiscal year 2013 is $91 million. This 

level of funding would support continuation of civil and facility construction and instrumentation deployment across six geographical regions, and commissioning of the 

infrastructure in three others. Biological sampling and analysis activities will commence in all constructed and accepted Observatory sites. The funds will also support 

continuation of the NEON cyberinfrastructure in preparation for serving the freely 

accessible data to the scientific community. The first NEON airborne remote sensing 

platform is expected to be completed, fully instrumented, and flight-tested in preparation for delivery to Observatory operations in fiscal year 2014. 

The NEON project received its first funding from the MREFC program, $12.58 

million in fiscal year 2011 and $60.3 million in fiscal year 2012. The National 

Science Board approved plan for the full construction of the Observatory calls for 

$98.2 million in fiscal year 2014, $91 million in fiscal year 2015, and $80.66 million 

more than fiscal year 2016. The National Science Board approved total cost for the 

construction of the Observatory is $433 million. 

SUMMARY

We strongly support the fiscal year 2013 appropriations request for the MREFC 

account, including the request for NEON, because the cutting edge infrastructure 

is an essential component of the national effort to keep U.S. scientific enterprise at 

the leading edge. This is vital for advancing science and maintaining the United 

States as the leader in understanding the natural world and all the benefits that 

can flow from that understanding. Long-term observational data generated by 

MREFC facilities will open up new opportunities for innovation and discovery that 

will benefit scores of scientists, engineers, and educators by lowering barriers to participation at the very edges of science. We appreciate the constraints within the 

budget process, but urge the subcommittee to consider the NSF investment in major 

research equipment and related facilities construction as a critical investment in the 

future health and well being of the research enterprise—an enterprise that will fuel 

this Nation’s long-term economic competitiveness. 

Thank you for this opportunity to present these views. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE

ASSOCIATION

The National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA) is a not-for-profit 

scientific and educational organization dedicated to the protection, understanding, 

and science-based management of our Nation’s estuaries and coasts. Our members 

are the 28 reserves that make up the National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

(NERRS). Established in 1987, NERRA facilitates its members’ mission to protect 

our Nation’s estuaries and to promote conservation-based research, education, and 

stewardship through the reserves. For fiscal year 2013, NERRA strongly recommends the following reserve system programs and funding levels within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 

—NERRS Operations—$22.3 million; and 

—NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC)—$1.69 million. 

Additionally, NERRA also requests appropriation language directing NOAA to ensure that every reserve will get no less than the fiscal year 2012 allocation. This 
307 

will enable all reserves to meet obligations for core operations associated with research, education, stewardship, and coastal training responsibilities. 

In 28 beautiful coastal locations around our country, 22 States and Puerto Rico 

have protected—in perpetuity—more than 1.3 million acres of land for education, 

long-term research, science-based stewardship, recreation, and sustainability of the 

coastal economy. The States have been entrusted to operate and manage NOAA’s 

program as created by the Congress in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 

nearly 40 years ago. What sets this program apart from other place-based Federal 

programs, like the National Marine Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Refuges for example, is that the reserves manage a Federal partnership program, implemented locally by States or universities. 

The reserves have a tremendous positive impact on our economy including work 

to maintain clean water, keep the seafood and fishing industry viable, and provide 

communities with practical help and science-based information to address coastal 

hazards and maintain the area’s tourism. Estuaries, where rivers meet the sea, provide nursery ground for two-thirds of commercial fish and shellfish: in NERRS 

States, the shellfish (wholesale market value) and seafood industry (total sales generated by the seafood industry) contributed more than $2.7 billion to the economy 

in 2010 (SOURCE.—National Ocean Economic Program and NOAA Fisheries, Office 

of Science and Technology). Protection of these important estuaries within the 

NERRS can have a significant impact on specific species. For example, in Florida, 

Apalachicola Reserve is 1 of 3 reserves in the State: approximately 90 percent of 

Florida’s oyster harvest and 10 percent of United States total harvest comes from 

Apalachicola Bay (Source.—Wilber, 92). 

The work at each reserve goes beyond its property boundaries and creates a number of environmental and economic benefits for the communities and regions where 

they exist. For example, in 2010, NERRS coastal counties provided 4.4 percent of 

total wages earned in the United States and 4.2 percent of the Nation’s jobs contributing more than $26 billion in economic output (measured in gross State product) 

and supporting more than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries (SOURCE.— 

Bureau of Labor Statistics; NOAA). 

About the National Estuarine Research Reserve System 

Since 1974, beginning with the designation of the South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve in Oregon, the coastal States and the Federal Government 

have collaborated to create a unique network of estuarine areas protected for longterm research and education. The NERRS added its 28th reserve on Lake Superior, 

Wisconsin in October 2010. 

Pursuant to the CZMA, each reserve is chosen because it is a representative estuarine ecosystem able to contribute to the biogeographical and typological balance of 

the NERRS and because the area within the reserve is protected in perpetuity and 

is available for suitable public purposes such as education and interpretive use. The 

reserves are a network of protected areas established for long-term research, education, training, and stewardship. 

NERRS’s priorities are developed through a collaborative approach between the 

States and NOAA to address both national and local concerns. The reserves have 

a mandate pursuant to section 315 of the CZMA to support the coastal States 

through research and education as the States address today’s most pressing coastal 

issues such as impacts from changes in sea and lake levels and increased nutrient 

loading. The reserves conduct research, monitoring, restoration, education, and 

training designed to improve our understanding and management of coasts and estuaries. The reserves are public places that have significant local, regional, and national benefits because the lands are publicly owned and function as living laboratories and classrooms that are used by scientists, decisionmakers, educators, and 

people of all ages. They are located in pristine coastal areas that serve as ‘‘sentinel 

sites’’, places where early indicators of environmental change are scientifically measured to provide up-to-date information to local officials and the public to support environmental decisionmaking, and inform assessment of trends at the regional and 

national levels. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System Operations 

NERRA requests that program operations be funded at a level of $22.3 million, 

an amount level with Congressional Appropriations Act fiscal year 2012 level. This 

funding will be shared by the 28 programs to enable the NERRS to manage and 

maintain healthy estuaries. Healthy estuaries support fishing, seafood, ecotourism, 

recreation, clean water, and communities. Beyond the economic impact to our National, State, and local economies, reserves have national infrastructure that support bringing science to the management of our coasts. This was most recently evi-
308 

denced in the Deep Water Horizon oil spill of 2010, a coastal area that is home to 

five reserves. We know that the $1 billion tourism and seafood industries depend 

upon on clean water, and during the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill crisis the communities and industries along the gulf coast relied on disaster support efforts including data supplied by some of the five gulf coast National Estuarine Research 

Reserves, some of which continues today. 

Each reserve receives operation funds from NOAA that are matched by the States 

and that are used to leverage significantly more private and local investments that 

results in each reserve having on average more than five program partners assisting 

to implement this national program. In addition, the program significantly benefits 

from volunteers that are engaged in habitat restoration, education and science 

which offset operation costs at reserves by donating thousands of hours. Between 

fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2010, volunteers have contributed more than 

460,400 hours to the NERRS. In fiscal year 2010 volunteers contributed more than 

100,000 hours to the NERRS (SOURCE.—NOAA). 

NERRS have made countless economic contributions to their local communities, 

States, and Nation. In the category of eco-tourism, more than 2 million people annually visit the NERRS: an estimated more than $20 million annually in direct benefit 

from these visitor use opportunities (estimated using Federal, State, and local park 

entry fees). Visitors to our reserves walk the trails, paddle the waterways, bird 

watch, snowshoe, and participate in activities and events at each of our 28 reserves. 

In 2011, NERRS contributed more than $10 million to science and research. One 

example of this is NERRS water and weather monitoring programs are used at the 

local, State, and national levels to support assessment of water quality and guide 

and track remediation strategies, aid in weather and marine forecasts, support 

emergency response, and aid the water dependent and insurance industries. NERRS 

land conservation ensures that 1.3 million acres of coastal property worth more than 

$6.5 billion are protected. (Estimated based on the average cost of Federal investment per acre of land added to reserves over the last 10 years.) 

In addition, NERRS contributes more than $4.9 million in education relief offsets, 

educating more than 83,000 children annually through school-based programs 

grades K–12. This is a major benefit in some communities where local school districts have been forced to cut programs in these economic times. Likewise, NERRS 

offsets more than $13.4 million in training for more than 66,000 people. This is a 

direct benefit of the Coastal Training Program that provides knowledge, tools, and 

resources to assist communities in protecting our coasts and aiding in sustainable 

development. 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction 

NERRA requests $1.69 million for land conservation and facilities to maintain, 

upgrade, and construct reserve facilities and acquire priority lands. This competitive 

funding program is matched by State funds and has resulted in not only the preservation of critical coastal lands as described above, but also in the increase of construction jobs. For example, NERRS creates more than 60 jobs for each $1 million 

of Federal PAC money spent. In addition, NERRS leveraged investments of more 

than $114 million to purchase 30,000∂ acres of coastal property over the last 10 

years. A recent assessment of construction and acquisition priorities at the reserves 

shows that the NERRS have needs for more than $60 million for fiscal years 2011 

through 2015. 

President’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget 

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget, if enacted, would reduce the NERRS program funding by 15 percent from fiscal year 2012 omnibus bill levels of $22.259 million to $18.979 million and would reduce Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) funding by 100 percent from fiscal year 2012 omnibus bill levels of $1.7 

million to zero. According to the NOAA ‘‘blue book’’ language, ‘‘At this funding level, 

NOAA will eliminate the NERRS graduate fellowship program and decrease funding 

to each of the 28 reserves across the United States.’’ As stated previously, NERRA 

requests appropriation language directing NOAA to ensure that every reserve will 

get no less than the fiscal year 2012 allocation. This will enable all reserves to meet 

obligations for core operations associated with research, education, stewardship, and 

coastal training responsibilities. 

NERRA’s assessment of the potential funding cut impacts assumes that program 

operations in the States, at the 28 sites, would absorb the majority of the program 

cuts and thereby result in the greatest impacts being felt locally, even though it is 

believed that all aspects of the program—locally and systemwide—would receive reductions. The States suffer the greatest from the funding cuts. Program cuts pro-
309 

posed by the President would put at risk the more than $26 billion of economic output contributed by NERRS coastal counties in 2010, as well as the more than more 

than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries supported in these communities. 

Insufficient funding would impact State and local seafood and fishing industries 

that are a $2.7 billion economic contributor for States that have a reserve because 

reserve sites would suffer adverse economic impacts from reduced water quality and 

water quality data. In addition, NERRA believes that the NERRS program for Graduate Research Fellowships, providing advance degree educational opportunities for 

up to 56 university marine science-related students per year, will be eliminated. 

SUPPORT REQUESTED FOR COAST AND OCEAN AND MANAGEMENT

NERRS are connected to the coast and ocean management work done by its State 

and Federal partners. Specifically, in the States, reserves primary partners are the 

State coastal management programs in the majority of the States. NERRA requests 

subcommittee support for Coastal Zone Management (CZM) grants at $67 million. 

In addition, many reserves rely on congressionally appropriated Bay Watershed Estuary Training (B–WET) funds to augment educational funds. Therefore, NERRA 

request your support for this program in the appropriation of $9.7 million for B– 

WET grants. Finally, the reserves depend on NOAA’s technical assistance and partnership capacity. NERRA requests support of $37.1 million for the Coastal Services 

Center and $8.7 million for CZM Stewardship. 

CONCLUSION

NERRA greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided in the 

past. This support has been critical to sustain and increase the economic viability 

of the coast and estuary-based industries. We urge you to give every consideration 

to these requests as you move forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

For 12 years, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) has worked 

with the Congress and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) to connect our fellow citizens to the underwater places that define the 

American ocean—the National Marine Sanctuary System. The President’s budget 

request for 2013 could jeopardize economic growth in coastal communities by terminating funding for national marine sanctuary vessel acquisition and visitor center 

construction, including the completion of ongoing projects. NMSF respectfully requests that the subcommittee remedy this situation by appropriating: 

—$5.495 million to the Marine Sanctuaries Construction Base, within NOAA’s 

Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account (fiscal year 2012 enacted 

level); and 

—$49 million to the Marine Sanctuary Program Base, within NOAA’s Operations, 

Research, and Facilities account (fiscal year 2010 enacted level). 

Joining NMSF in this request is the national network of community-based, nonprofit organizations that support specific sites within the sanctuary system. On behalf of their members from coast to coast, the Channel Islands Sanctuary Foundation (California); Cordell Marine Sanctuary Foundation (California); Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association (California); Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary (Michigan); Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation (California); Olympic 

Coast Alliance (Washington); Sanctuary Friends Foundation of the Florida Keys 

(Florida); and Stellwagen Alive! (Massachusetts) support funding National Marine 

Sanctuary System at these levels. 

While we recognize the challenges associated with providing increased funding in 

the current budget climate, and the need to fund other important programs under 

the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, we believe that the President’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request fails to address critical sanctuary contributions to coastal job creation and economic growth, from supporting tourism to providing construction jobs. 

It also continues a deeply disturbing trend of underfunding the sanctuary program—despite nearly a decade’s worth of unmistakable signals from Democrats and 

Republicans in both Houses of Congress that the program warrants additional 

funds. 
310 

1O’Connor, Simon et al (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism numbers, expenditures 

and expanding economic benefits, a special report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Prepared by Economists at Large. Available at http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/ProgramlPublications/Whales/assetluploadlfile841l55365.pdf. 2Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium. (2012) ‘‘Major Marine Sciences Facilities in the Monterey Bay Crescent—2012.’’ Available at http://web.me.com/paduan/mbcorc/MembershiplInfolfiles/MontereyBayLabs2012-2.pdf. 3 National Ocean Economics Program. (2004) ‘‘Ocean Economy Data.’’ Available at http:// 

www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/oceanEconResults.asp?IC=N&selState=12&selCounty= 

12086&selCounty=12087&selYears=All&selSector=6&selIndust=All&selValue=All&cb 

Multiplier=Multiply&selOut=display&noepID=3204. 4Michigan Sea Grant. (2009). ‘‘Northeast Michigan Integrated Assessment Final Report.’’ 

Available at http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/nemia/report/NEMIA-Final-Report.pdf. 5Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2011) ‘‘Sanctuary Watch, Summer 2011.’’ U.S. Department of Commerce: NOAA National Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program. 

Available at http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/pdfs/sanctuarywatch/sw0611.pdf. 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ARE ECONOMIC ENGINES FOR COASTAL COMMUNITIES

National marine sanctuaries support economic growth and hundreds of coastal 

businesses in sanctuary communities; preserve vibrant underwater and maritime 

treasures for our children and grandchildren to enjoy; and provide critical public access for ocean recreation, research, and education. Investing in these sites does 

much more than simply protect small areas of the ocean—national marine sanctuaries are economic engines for coastal communities, and investing in sanctuaries 

is a downpayment on the future of fishing families, dive operators, and whalewatching vendors, not to mention the many other Americans whose livelihoods are 

dependent on a healthy ocean and coasts. We offer the following examples to suggest that the benefits of funding our national marine sanctuaries far outweigh the 

Federal outlays that support them: 

—Management of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off Massachusetts costs taxpayers less than $2 million annually, and healthy sanctuary 

waters draw the tourists who spent $126 million on commercial whale-watching 

trips there during 2008 alone, supporting 31 businesses and almost 600 jobs.1

—Taxpayers spend less than $3 million per year to manage the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off California, whose waters are the focus of a marine 

science and education industry that employed more than 2,100 people and had 

a $291 million budget in 2012.2

—The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, where management costs less 

than $6 million per year, protects coral reefs and legal fishing opportunities 

that are the backbone of a marine tourism and recreation industry in the two 

adjacent counties—employing more than 70,000 people and contributing $4.5 

billion per year to state GDP.3

—On the shores of Lake Huron, Michigan’s Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary costs less than $1 million annually and serves as a destination for tourists who spent $110 million visiting the three adjacent counties in 2000, providing almost $36 million in personal income and supporting 1,700 jobs.4

—Taken as a whole, the National Marine Sanctuary System manages our waters 

at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $340 per square mile, while management of National Park Service properties costs more than $16,000 per square 

mile.5

Investments in our National Marine Sanctuary System provide incredible returns 

to society, both today and for future generations, and we encourage the subcommittee to provide additional resources to sanctuaries wherever possible, enabling 

them to stimulate coastal economies, promote ocean recreation, and create a 

healthy, long-term balance on the water. 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES START AND STAY IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES

The designation and management of new sanctuaries is wholly dependent on a 

‘‘bottom-up’’ process where local communities are involved from very beginning— 

sanctuaries actually devolve power from Washington, DC and give constituents control over the destiny of their coasts. All sanctuary rules and regulations are developed on a site-by-site basis, and sanctuaries are designed from the outset to accommodate multiple uses of the ocean. Coastal communities have a controlling influence 

on sanctuary priorities, ensuring that they address unique, local circumstances. This 

community-driven approach to decide where sanctuaries are located and what is allowed within them is one of the most public in our democracy. National marine 

sanctuaries are created by and for the people: citizens and communities propose 

sites and then have at least three additional chances to weigh in during the process. 
311 

In addition, more than 700 Sanctuary Advisory Council representatives from the 

fishing, tourism, and maritime commerce industries; Tribes, State, and local government; and researchers, educators, and conservationists spend more than 13,000 

hours each year to help manage sanctuary operations day-to-day. Sanctuaries are 

also hubs for volunteer activity: more than 100,000 hours are contributed by local 

sanctuary volunteers each year. 

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES’ PROGRAMMATIC OUTLOOK UNDER PROPOSED FISCAL

YEAR 2013 FUNDING LEVELS

We remain concerned that NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) 

has not received sufficient appropriations for several consecutive budget cycles. As 

a result of these shortfalls, a consolidation with NOAA’s Marine Protected Areas 

Center, and the continued underfunding proposed for fiscal year 2013, we project 

the termination of contractors who perform full-time equivalent duties; reduced operations at visitor centers; a lack of contingency funding needed in case of emergencies like oil spills; and inoperable vessels tied up at the docks. In addition, lack 

of funds will likely result in cuts to public access and recreation opportunities, cancellation of partnerships that leverage private funds for taxpayer benefits, and the 

dismantling of successful education initiatives. 

The potential impact of reducing sanctuary appropriations goes far beyond the individual sanctuaries themselves: 

—limiting visitor center hours; 

—eliminating research programs; and 

—diminishing enforcement capacities will prevent ONMS from fulfilling its statutory mandates while also reducing the economic activity and job creation that 

surrounds healthy sanctuary communities from coast to coast. 

For example, funding national marine sanctuaries below the recommended levels 

could force the program to: 

Cut Treasured Public Access and Recreation Opportunities For All Americans.—Funding cuts risk the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary’s 767 

mooring buoys, which provide public access and recreational opportunities within the sanctuary while protecting coral reefs and shipwrecks from anchor damage, preserving them for future generations. 

Restrict Enforcement Operations That Protect Legal Fishermen by Guarding 

Against Illegal Fishing.—Lack of funding jeopardizes on-water patrols for illegal 

lobster fishermen in the Florida Keys NMS. In a single 2010 case, illegal fishermen pilfered 8,500 pounds of spiny lobster within a 6-month period. The lobster 

had a street value of $155,000—money that was effectively taken out of the 

pockets of hardworking, legal fishermen. 

Dramatically Shrink Visitor Center Hours.—Visitor centers are a vital link 

between sanctuaries and the millions of Americans who visit the coast each 

year and serve as the public face of NOAA. Sanctuary visitor centers see more 

than 200,000 visitors per year, including the Mokupaˇpapa Discovery Center 

(Hilo, Hawaii), Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center (Alpena, Michigan), and 

Florida Keys EcoDiscovery Center (Key West, Florida). 

Eliminate Cooperative Education Efforts With Local Museums That Leverage 

Private Funds for Taxpayer Benefits.—Placing exhibits in partner institutions, 

like the California Academy of Sciences’ three-story ‘‘California Coast’’ aquarium, is a successful and cost-effective method for reaching the American public. 

More than 1 million Academy visitors each year learn how the Gulf of the 

Farallones National Marine Sanctuary protects America’s valuable ocean and 

maritime resources. 

Cancel Collaborative Research Efforts With Local Universities That Leverage 

Private Funds for Taxpayer Benefits.—Funding cuts could risk partnerships 

with Oregon State University, Stanford University, and the University of California for collection of wind, tide, current, and marine life data critical to maritime commerce and search-and-rescue operations within the Channel Islands, 

Monterey Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 

Dismantle Successful Education Initiatives That Save Taxpayers Money by Focusing on Low-Cost Prevention Instead of Expensive Restoration or Remediation.—The Multicultural Education for Resource Issues Threatening Oceans 

(MERITO) program’s media outreach has touched more than 13 million California residents. The California Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B– 

WET) program increases the stewardship ethic of participating youth, and local 

communities in the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Hawaii, New England, and 

Pacific Northwest have imported the program. 
312 

6Lazo, J.K., D.M. Waldman, B.H. Morrow, and J.A. Thacher. 2010. ‘‘Assessment of Household 

Evacuation Decision Making and the Benefits of Improved Hurricane Forecasting.’’ Weather and 

Forecasting. 25(1):207–219. 7 National Marine Fisheries Service. 

1 Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Homicide Trends in the U.S. from 1976–2005. Department of Justice. 2 Ibid. 

3 Honoring Texas Victims. Family Violence Fatalities in 2010. Texas Council on Family Violence. Available at http://www.tcfv.org/pdf/Honoring-Texas-Victims.pdf. 

THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NEEDS SUFFICIENT FUNDS

TO FULFILL ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

As a member of the Friends of NOAA coalition, the National Marine Sanctuary 

Foundation works with other supporters, stakeholders, and partners of NOAA to 

educate and inform interested audiences about the full range of NOAA activities, 

enabling the agency to more effectively carry out its responsibilities relating to our 

ocean and coasts, fisheries, research, and weather and climate, including satellites. 

NOAA is one of the premier science agencies in the Federal Government and provides decisionmakers with critically important data, products, and services that promote and enhance the Nation’s economy, security, environment, and quality of life. 

More than 1.5 million NOAA weather forecasts and warnings per year generate benefits of at least $31.5 billion, and the agency’s ocean and atmospheric research, fisheries management, and satellite enterprises are essential for the continued prosperity of our Nation.6 For example, recovery of overfished stocks has produced an additional $2.1 billion in income and $5 billion in sales over the past decade.7 Providing insufficient funding for NOAA will only serve to diminish the economic activity and job creation that is at present successfully revitalizing communities across 

America. 

We hope the subcommittee will see the benefits of investing in NOAA and the National Marine Sanctuary System, and that a failure to provide sufficient funding will 

endanger, quite literally, American lives and livelihoods across the Nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL NETWORK TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

INTRODUCTION

I am testifying to request a targeted investment of $449.5 million in Violence 

Against Women Act (VAWA) programs administered by the Department of Justice, 

(DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women in the fiscal year 2013 budget (specific requests detailed below). In addition, I am testifying to request a $1 billion ‘‘cap’’ from 

the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), administered by the Office of Justice Programs, 

Office for Victims of Crime in the fiscal year 2013 budget. 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee 

Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Hutchison, Chairman Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran and distinguished members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony to the subcommittee on the importance of investing in VAWA and VOCA. I sincerely thank the subcommittee for 

its ongoing support and investment in these lifesaving programs. These investments 

help to bridge the gap created by an increased demand and a lack of available resources. I am the president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), 

the Nation’s leading voice on domestic violence. We represent the 56 State and territorial domestic violence coalitions, including those in Maryland, Texas, Hawaii, and 

Mississippi, their 2,000-member domestic violence programs, and the millions of victims they serve. Our direct connection with victims and service providers gives us 

a unique understanding of their needs and the vital importance of continued Federal investments. 

Incidence, Prevalence, Severity, and Consequences of Domestic and Sexual Violence 

The crimes of domestic and sexual violence are pervasive, insidious, and lifethreatening. Every day in the United States, an average of three women are killed 

by a current or former intimate partner.1 In 2005 alone, the most recent year with 

this data available, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner in the 

United States.2 In Texas, 142 women were killed by their current or former intimate 

partner in calendar year 2010.3 Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first-ever National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) which found that domestic violence, sexual violence, and 

stalking are widespread. In fact, domestic violence alone affects more than 12 mil-
313 

4 Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, 

J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 

2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention. 5 National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence 

Against Women in the United States. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 

2003. 6 Bureau of National Affairs Special Rep. No. 32, Violence and Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990); Joan Zorza, Women Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law, Clearinghouse Rev., Vol. 28, No. 4, 383, 385; Supra, see footnote 10. 7 ‘‘Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.’’ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jan 2008.; Cassandra Archer et al., Institute for Law and 

Justice, National Evaluation of the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program 14 (November 

2002). 8 ‘‘Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.’’ U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 2008. 9 Ibid. 

10 Andersen Clark, K., et al. (2002). ‘‘A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Violence Against Women 

Act of 1994.’’ Violence Against Women, 8, 417. 11The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A Rural and Urban Multiple Perspective Study 

of Protective Order Violence Consequences, Responses and Cost. (2009). U.S. Department of Justice. 

lion people each year; nearly 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime, and 

1 in 4 women have been a victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner. 

More than 80 percent of women who were victimized experienced significant shortand long-term impacts related to the violence such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), injury (42 percent), and missed time at work or school (28 percent). 

Finally, NISVS shows that most rape and partner violence is experienced before the 

age of 24, highlighting the importance of preventing this violence before it occurs.4

In addition to the terrible cost domestic violence has on the lives of individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers and communities. In fact, the 

cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year, $4.1 billion of which 

is for direct medical and mental healthcare services.5 Domestic violence costs U.S. 

employers an estimated $3 to $13 billion annually.6 Between one-quarter and onehalf of domestic violence victims report losing a job, at least in part, due to domestic 

violence. 

Despite this grim reality, we know that when a coordinated response is developed, 

and immediate, essential services are available, victims can escape from life-threatening violence and begin to rebuild their shattered lives. Funding these programs 

is fiscally sound, as they save lives, prevent future violence, keep families and communities safe, and save our Nation money. 

Investing in Violence Against Women Act 

The Congress first authorized VAWA in 1994 in response to the terrible crimes 

of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. The programs 

created by VAWA and administered by the DOJ and the Department of Health and 

Human Services, have changed Federal, tribal, State and local responses to domestic violence dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA creates and supports comprehensive, cost-effective responses to these pervasive and insidious crimes 

and has unquestionably improved the national response to domestic violence, dating 

violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Due to the overwhelming success of VAWAfunded programs, more and more victims are coming forward for help each year. 

More victims report domestic violence to the police: reporting rates by women have 

increased by up to 51 percent and by 37 percent for men.7 The rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent.8 Remarkably, 

the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent 

for women and 48 percent for men.9 In addition to saving and rebuilding lives, 

VAWA saved taxpayers $12.6 billion in net averted social costs in its first 6 years 

alone.10

A recent study demonstrates both the lifesaving and cost-effective nature of 

VAWA-funded programs. The study found that during the 6 months after a survivor 

obtained a protective order, the number of threats of physical harm or murder decreased nearly 50 percent, moderate physical abuse decreased 61 percent, and severe physical abuse decreased nearly 50 percent. Moreover, protective orders saved 

Kentucky at least $85 million in just 1 year.11 Because many VAWA-funded programs can help victims obtain protection orders, this study supports the efficacy of 

continued investment in these funding streams. 

While VAWA programs have made systemic changes to meet the needs of victims 

and saved countless lives, the demand for services continues to rise. Additionally, 
314 

12Domestic Violence Counts 2010: A 24-Hour census of domestic violence shelters and services 

across the United States. The National Network to End Domestic Violence. (January 2010). 13 2010 Biennial Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Grant Programs Under the Violence Against Women Act. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. 14STOP (Services • Training • Officers • Prosecutors) Program 2010 Report, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. 15 National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (2010). Internet survey of 1,300 rape crisis centers 

with 644 responses. 

many parts of the country still lack basic services and traditionally underserved 

populations face additional barriers to accessing services. The National Domestic Violence Census found that in just 1 day in 2011, more than 67,000 adults and children found safety in our Nation’s domestic violence shelters and programs. On the 

same day, however, more than 10,500 requests for services went unmet because programs did not have the resources to meet the needs of victims. 

In these tough economic times, State and private funding sources are dwindling, 

while at the same time there are more incidents of violence and more victims seeking help. As programs strive to meet the needs of all victims requesting services, 

the Federal funding is essential for ensuring that programs can keep their doors 

open and answer crisis calls. In fact, the National Domestic Violence Census found 

that in 2010, 1,441 (82 percent) domestic violence programs reported a rise in demand for services, while at the same time, 1,351 (77 percent) programs reported a 

decrease in funding.12 While we recognize the difficult decisions you face during this 

extremely challenging budget year, VAWA, VOCA, and Family Violence Prevention 

and Services Act (FVPSA) funding, is critically needed to prevent and end domestic 

and sexual violence in our country. To address unmet needs and build upon its successes, VAWA should maintain at least fiscal year 2012 funding levels, with key targeted investments for fiscal year 2013. 

Specific Investments in Violence Against Women ActPrograms 

Services, Training, Officers Prosecution—$205 Million Request.—Services, Training, Officers Prosecution (STOP) grants are formula grants given to each State to 

improve the criminal justice response to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 

assault, and stalking, are used to develop coordinated community responses. Many 

States and jurisdictions have implemented STOP-funded strategies that have led to 

a direct reduction in domestic violence homicides.13 As part of the coordinated community response, STOP also supports the work of victim services agencies. According to Parents and Children Together Peace Center, Hawaii, ‘‘as a result of these 

funds, we have been able to provide much-needed individual counseling to victims 

with complex needs such as mental illness, language barriers, living in a rural area 

and/or immigrants.’’ 14 Investment in the STOP program is needed to ensure that 

communities across the country continue to strengthen their efforts to hold perpetrators accountable and support victims. Sexual Assault Victim Services Program (SASP)—$35 Million Request.—This formula grant addresses the extreme needs of sexual assault victims by allowing 

States, tribes, and territories to provide critically needed direct services to victims 

and training and technical assistance to various organizations including law enforcement, courts, and social services. In 2009, 56 percent of rape crisis centers were 

forced to reduce staff due to a lack of funds. A 2010 survey revealed that 25 percent 

of rape crisis centers have a waiting list for crisis services.15 Increased investment 

in SASP is essential to meet the needs of sexual assault victims. 

Rural Grant Program—$41 Million Request.—The rural grant program supports 

services for victims of domestic and sexual violence living in rural and isolated 

areas. These victims face unique barriers to leaving an abusive situation, including 

a small number of programs serving a large geographic area, harsh weather conditions that can make travel difficult, under-resourced law enforcement, and a lack 

of essential services including child care, legal services, and public transportation. 

Restoring funding of this critically needed program to the fiscal year 2011 level of 

$41 million is needed to sustain these services. 

Level Funding Requests for Key Violence Against Women Act Programs 

Each authorized VAWA program plays a critical role in sustaining a holistic response to domestic and sexual violence. The individual programs cannot meet the 

increasing demand for services with continual funding cuts. 

Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program (GTEAP)—$50 Million Request.—GTEAP helps communities develop and sustain a seamless and comprehensive criminal justice response to domestic violence, 

enhancing victims’ safety and holding perpetrators accountable. In Maryland, 

GTEAP supports the innovative Lethality Assessment Program, which includes a 
315 

16See: Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2003). ‘‘Explaining the Recent Decline in Domestic Violence’’, Oxford Journals; MacFarlane et al., Protection Orders and Intimate Partner Violence: An 

18-Month Study of 150 Black, Hispanic and White Women. 17 Carter, T. (2004) Pour It On: Activists Cite Rising Need for Lawyers to Respond to Domestic 

Violence, A.B.A. Journal, pg. 73. 18Domestic Violence Counts 2011: A 24-Hour census of domestic violence shelters and services 

across the United States. The National Network to End Domestic Violence. (February 2012). 19 Correia, A., Housing and Battered Women: A case study of domestic violence programs in 

Iowa. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. March, 1999. 20 Charlene K. Baker, Cook, Sarah L., Norris, Fran H., ‘‘Domestic Violence and Housing Problems: A Contextual Analysis of Women’s Help-seeking, Received Informal Support, and Formal 

System Response,’’ Violence Against Women 9, no. 7 (2003): 754–783. 21 National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Detailed Shelter Surveys (2001). 

screening tool and protocol for first responders and others to assess lethality and 

link victims to services. Maryland experienced a 41-percent decrease in domestic violence homicides over the span of 3 years after implementing this program and jurisdictions in 11 other States have also implemented this successful tool. Ongoing 

funding for GTEAP will allow communities across the country to continue this lifesaving work. 

Civil Legal Assistance for Victims—$41 Million Request.—Research indicates that 

the practical nature of legal services gives victims long-term alternatives to their 

abusive relationships.16 However, the retainers or hourly fees for private legal representation are beyond the means of most victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In fact, almost 70 percent of all victims are without legal representation.17 The Civil Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) program is 

the only federally funded program designed to meet the legal needs of victims. According to Catholic Charities, Inc. of Mississippi, ‘‘the Legal Assistance Clinic has 

been proactive in working closely with other governmental agencies to ensure that 

client’s issues pertaining to housing (relocation or lease transfer) or employment 

issues are handled and resolved in a timely manner. Moreover, we have also worked 

very closely with social service agencies to ensure that clients receive the needed 

support services and other referrals to agencies/organizations.’’ Continued funding 

is needed to ensure victims have access to these needed services. 

Transitional Housing Grants—$25 Million Request.—These grants give victims a 

safe place to begin to rebuild their shattered lives. In just 1 day in 2011, 5,275 

adults and 8,501 children were housed in domestic violence transitional housing programs. On the same day, however, 6,714 requests for emergency shelter or transitional housing were denied due to a lack of capacity.18 The extreme dearth of affordable housing produces a situation where many victims of domestic violence must return to their abusers because they cannot find long-term housing,19 while others are 

forced into homelessness.20 Sustained funding for the Transitional Housing program 

will allow more States and localities to ensure that victims do not have to make 

these unfathomable choices. 

Remaining Violence Against Women Act Programs.—To end the intergenerational 

cycle of violence and address the needs of children and youth, we request $12 million for the consolidated VAWA youth and prevention programs. Additionally, we request at least fiscal year 2012 funding levels for the remaining VAWA CJS programs. 

Victims of Crime Act Fund Cap—$1 Billion Request 

VOCA, passed in 1984, created the VOCA Fund as a protected source of funding 

for crime victim programs. The Fund does not depend on taxpayer dollars—it derives entirely from fines and penalties paid by Federal offenders. To ensure a consistent distribution of the Fund to victim service providers each year, the Congress 

set a cap on the Fund, saving the amount collected over the cap to ensure its stability. Currently, the VOCA Fund has an estimated balance of more than $5 billion. 

The VOCA fund supports a formula grant to States for victim assistance programs, which provide victims with support and services in the aftermath of crime. 

Most domestic and sexual violence programs, which are at the heart of the response 

to victims, rely on continued VOCA funding to sustain their programs. With more 

than 2,000 community-based domestic violence programs, VOCA provides emergency shelter to approximately 300,000 victims, as well as counseling, legal assistance, and preventative education to millions of women, men, and children annually.21 This funding is absolutely crucial to keeping victims and their children safe. 

In order to meet the growing demand for these lifesaving services, I urge the subcommittee to release $1 billion through the VOCA cap. 
316 

CONCLUSION

An increasingly efficient, comprehensive, and life-saving response to victims, created and sustained by VAWA, FVPSA, and VOCA funding, has made tremendous 

strides toward preventing and ending domestic and sexual violence in this country. 

However, as these challenging economic times take a devastating toll on the ability 

of shelters and rape crisis centers to meet the needs of victims seeking help, victims 

face traumatic and life-threatening situations with no support. We recognize the difficult decisions you are faced, but we urge you to invest in these life-saving, costeffective programs that help break the cycle of violence, reduce related social ills 

and save our Nation money now and in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), our Nation’s largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more than 4 million members and supporters, I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony which includes funding recommendations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). While NWF supports numerous programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, including NOAA’s Estuary Restoration Program, Coastal Zone Management Grants Regional and Coastal Zone 

Management and stewardship; the purpose of this testimony is to recommend fiscal 

year 2013 funding levels (totaling $35.2 million) for specific environmental education and climate change education programs that we believe are vital to NWF’s 

mission to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children’s future. 

This subcommittee has taken a leadership role in funding environmental education and climate change education at the Federal level. While we appreciate the 

subcommittee’s leadership, we believe that the overall Federal investment in environmental education and climate change education programs nationwide—pennies 

per capita—is woefully inadequate. NWF also supports climate change education 

and environmental education programs across the Federal agencies at the U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, and Department of the Interior. 

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Agency Program Fiscal year 2012 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2013 

NWF 

recommendation 

NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training [B–WET] ................................................. 7.2 7.2 

NOAA Environmental Education Initiatives, including Environmental Literacy Grants .. 8.0 8.0 

NSF Climate Change Education .................................................................................... 10.0 10.0 

NASA Climate Change Education .................................................................................... 10.0 10.0 

The Need for Environmental Education 

As our Nation moves toward a clean-energy economy and creates new ‘‘green 

jobs’’, we must ensure that our education infrastructure keeps pace. As is increasingly recognized by business leaders, environmental literacy provides critical knowledge that is essential for the success of a 21st century workforce—equipping students with the skills to understand complex environmental issues, thus enabling 

them to both make better informed decisions as citizens and help find solutions for 

the challenges facing our Nation. Studies have demonstrated that environmental literacy is fundamental to improving student achievement in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education, to creating a stronger economy through 

green jobs, and to promoting environmental stewardship. To be successful as a Nation under a new clean-energy economy, we must have an environmentally literate 

citizenry that has the knowledge to find new, innovative solutions to protect our 

planet. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Environmental Literacy Grants 

NWF supports the fiscal year 2012 baseline for NOAA’s Environmental Literacy 

Grants and requests $8 million in fiscal year 2013. NOAA’s Office of Education oversees several Environmental Education Initiatives, the largest initiative being the 
317 

Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG) program which helps to establish new partnerships that deliver educational materials to thousands of teachers and students. 

The ELG program enables NOAA to partner with the top science centers, aquaria, 

and educators in the country to educate the public about vital issues around our 

changing planet. It also allows NOAA to leverage the vast array of climate science 

being undertaken to increase public understanding and the quality of education. 

These funds are awarded on a competitive basis and are increasingly used to build 

capacity at the national and regional levels. 

Bay Watershed Education and Training Programs 

NWF supports funding NOAA’s B–WET program at $7.2 million in fiscal year 

2013. Administered by NOAA since 2003, the B–WET program offers competitive 

grants to leverage existing environmental education programs, foster the growth of 

new programs, and encourage development of partnerships among environmental 

education programs within watershed systems. B–WET’s rigorously evaluated programs are implemented by region, which allows the unique environmental and social characteristics of the region to drive the design of targeted activities to improve 

community understanding, promote teacher competency, and enhance student interest and achievement in science. A fundamental goal of the program is to demonstrate how the quality of the watershed affects the lives of the people who live 

in it. B–WET supports programs for students as well as professional development 

for teachers, while sustaining regional education and environmental priorities. B– 

WET awards have provided environmental education opportunities to more than 

100,000 students and 10,000 teachers. With an increase in funding in fiscal year 

2008, B–WET expanded from the Chesapeake Bay, California, and Hawaii to also 

include the Pacific Northwest, the northern Gulf of Mexico, and New England. Sustained funding of $7.2 million in fiscal year 2013 will enable this successful program 

to continue addressing the needs of some of America’s largest watersheds. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Climate Change Education Grant Program 

NWF supports funding NASA’s Climate Change Education Grant Program at $10 

million in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2008, the Congress appropriated funds for 

the first time to address climate change education by providing funding for climate 

change education grants through NASA. In August 2008, NASA announced a Request for Proposals for a first-ever competitive grant program seeking applications 

from educational and nonprofit organizations to use NASA’s unique contributions to 

climate and Earth system science. The goals of the program include: 

—improving the teaching and learning about global climate change in elementary 

and secondary schools and on college campuses; 

—increasing the number of students using NASA Earth observation data/NASA 

Earth system models to investigate and analyze global climate change issues; 

—increasing the number of undergraduate students prepared for employment 

and/or to enter graduate school in technical fields relevant to global climate 

change; and 

—increasing access to high-quality global climate change education among students from groups historically underrepresented in science. 

NWF recommends that the NASA climate change education program be primarily 

used for grantmaking purposes, and focus not only on education about climate 

science, but also advance education that focuses on the connections and relationships between climate change, the economy, energy, health, and social well-being. 

National Science Foundation 

Climate Change Education Grant Program 

The National Wildlife Federation supports funding NSF’s Climate Change Edu- cation (CCE) Grant Program at $10 million in fiscal year 2013. While public awareness and concern for environmental issues continue to rise, the vast majority of the 

public remains demonstrably illiterate about the impact of the environment on their 

lives and how their decisions and actions contribute to it. 

Yet CCE is newly emerging as a field, with few materials, curricula, models, 

standards, or professional development opportunities to fill the void. Furthermore, 

CCE is inherently interdisciplinary; and as a result, it often falls through the cracks 

in traditional science education. 

NSF initiated the CCE grant program in fiscal year 2009. This program is aimed 

at improving K–12 to graduate education in climate change science and increasing 

the public’s understanding of climate change and its consequences. In fiscal year 

2012 CCE was appropriated $10 million. The Congress should sustain fiscal year 

2012 appropriation levels in fiscal year 2013 at $10 million to aid in the develop-
318 

ment of the next generation of environmentally engaged scientists and engineers by 

supporting awards in the following areas: 

—increasing public understanding and engagement; 

—development of resources for learning; 

—informing local and national science, technology, engineering, and mathematics 

(STEM) education policy; 

—preparing a climate science professional workforce; and 

—enhancing informed decisionmaking associated with adaptation to and mitigation of climate change impacts. 

These emerging priorities lie at the intersection of social/behavioral/economic and 

Earth system sciences. 

CONCLUSION

Providing Federal support for environmental education is a critical strategy in securing our new clean-energy future and preparing the next generation for the challenges and opportunities ahead. Thank you again for providing NWF with the opportunity to provide testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURAL SCIENCE COLLECTIONS ALLIANCE

The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the opportunity to provide 

testimony in support of fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the National Science 

Foundation (NSF). We encourage the Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.373 

billion in fiscal year 2013. 

The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a nonprofit association that supports 

natural science collections, their human resources, the institutions that house them, 

and their research activities for the benefit of science and society. We are comprised 

of more than 100 institutions which are part of an international community of museums, botanical gardens, herbariums, universities, and other institutions that 

house natural science collections and utilize them in research, exhibitions, academic 

and informal science education, and outreach activities. 

Federal support for science is an investment in our Nation’s future. The NSF supports research that creates new knowledge. NSF-sponsored research also helps to 

drive innovation and economic growth. The agency supports job creation directly by 

awarding research grants to scientists and institutions, and through the acquisition 

of research infrastructure and instrumentation. NSF also trains the next generation 

of researchers and science educators. Collectively, these activities provide the foundation for the Nation’s research enterprise and generate information that ultimately 

drives economic growth, improves human health, addresses energy needs, and enables sustainable management of our natural resources. 

The progress of basic scientific research requires a sustained and predictable Federal investment. Unpredictable swings in Federal funding can disrupt research programs, create uncertainty in the research community, and impede the development 

of solutions to the Nation’s most pressing problems. NSF’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2013 would sustain critical research and education efforts while funding 300 

new research grants. 

NSF’s Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) is the primary Federal supporter of 

basic biological research. BIO serves a vital role in ensuring our Nation’s continued 

leadership in the biological sciences by providing about 62 percent of Federal grant 

support for fundamental biological research conducted at our Nation’s universities 

and other nonprofit research centers such as natural history museums. BIO’s support of transformative research has advanced our understanding of complex living 

systems and is leading the way forward in addressing major challenges, such as conserving biodiversity, combating invasive species, and developing new bio-inspired 

technologies. 

Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation’s biological research infrastructure, such as natural science collections and university-based natural history museums. These research centers enable scientists to study the basic 

data of life, conduct modern biological and environmental research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students with hands-on training opportunities. Additionally, NSF’s Directorate for Geosciences and Office of Polar Programs support data 

and specimen collections that contribute to our understanding of the Earth’s systems. 

Support for Scientific Collections 

Scientific collections play a central role in many fields of biological research, including disease ecology, biodiversity, and climate change. They also provide critical 
319 

information about existing gaps in our knowledge of life on Earth. Indeed, the Federal Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections recognized this value in 

their 2009 report, which found that ‘‘scientific collections are essential to supporting 

agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global research enterprise.’’ We strongly encourage the Congress to support NSF’s request for $10 million to 

support the digitization of high-priority U.S. specimen collections. NSF’s investment 

in digitization would enable the scientific community to ensure access to and appropriate curation of irreplaceable biological specimens and associated data, and will 

stimulate the development of new computer hardware and software, digitization 

technologies, and database management tools. This effort is bringing together biologists, computer science specialists, and engineers in multidisciplinary teams to develop innovative imaging, robotics, and data storage and retrieval methods. These 

tools will expedite the digitization of collections and contribute to the development 

of new products or services of value to other industries. 

In addition to supporting digitization efforts, NSF supports curation and preservation of important biological specimens. We are concerned, however, about NSF’s proposal to change the Collections in Support of Biological Research (CSBR) program 

from an annual to biennial competition. This change would effectively cut by onehalf support for preservation and care of our Nation’s biological sciences collections. 

In addition to preserving important biological specimens for ongoing and future research, CSBR awards are an important source of revenue for American-owned companies that specialize in cabinetry and supplies used by museums and universities. 

CSBR awards also directly employ researchers and curators and are used to train 

the next generation of biological scientists. Given the current financial strain at 

many museums and universities, CSBR funding is a critical lifeline that helps to 

ensure proper curation of specimens. We urge the Congress to restore the proposed 

funding cut of $4 million and to encourage other NSF directorates to join with BIO 

in providing research support to our Nation’s natural science collections, which include mineral, water and ice, anthropological artifacts, and biological specimens. 

Other Programs 

The fiscal year 2013 budget would continue efforts to better understand biological 

diversity. Funding is included for the Dimensions of Biodiversity program, which 

supports cross-disciplinary research to describe and understand the scope and role 

of life on Earth. Despite centuries of discovery, most of our planet’s biodiversity remains unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly troubling given the rapid 

and permanent loss of global biodiversity. Better understanding of life on Earth will 

help us to protect valuable ecosystem services and make new bio-based discoveries 

in the realms of food, fiber, fuel, pharmaceuticals, and bio-inspired innovation. 

The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) also supports research and student training opportunities in natural history collections. GEO supports cross-disciplinary research on the interactions between Earth’s living and nonliving systems—research 

that has important implications for our understanding of water and natural resource management, climate change, and biodiversity. 

Within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, the Advancing Informal STEM Learning program is furthering our understanding of informal science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This program, formerly called the Informal Science Education program, supports projects that create 

tools and resources for STEM educators working outside traditional classrooms, 

such as at museums, botanic gardens, and zoos. The program also builds professional capacity for research and development. We urge the Congress to restore the 

proposed 22-percent cut to the program. 

CONCLUSION

Continued investments in scientific collections and the biological sciences are critical. The budget request for NSF will help spur economic growth and innovation and 

continue to build scientific capacity at a time when our Nation is at risk of being 

outpaced by our global competitors. Please support an investment of at least $7.373 

billion for NSF for fiscal year 2013. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for your prior 

support of the National Science Foundation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to provide testimony on the Department of Commerce fiscal year 2013 appropriations. My name is Billy Frank, and I am the chairman of the Northwest Indian 
320 

1 United States vs. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed Western Washington Tribes’ 

treaty fishing rights. 

Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes that are 

party to the United States vs. Washington 1 (U.S. vs. Washington). We support funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS). We are identifying four specific funding needs: 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

NWIFC specific funding requests: 

—$110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (NOAA/NMFS); 

—$20 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program (NOAA/NOS); 

—$3 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex (NOAA/NMFS); and 

—$16 million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program (NOAA/NMFS). 

The NWIFC also supports the budget priorities and funding requests of the National Congress of American Indians. 

We also want to bring to your attention an initiative that we have been pursuing—our Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative. The treaty rights of the western Washington treaty tribes are in imminent danger. Specifically, the treaty-reserved right 

to harvest salmon is at risk. The danger exists due to diminishing salmon populations, which limits or eliminates our right to harvest. All this is due to the inability to restore salmon habitat faster than it is being destroyed. We have called on 

Federal Government to implement their fiduciary duties by better protecting salmon 

habitat. The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to the tribes and the 

tribes’ treaties are constitutionally protected. By fulfilling these Federal obligations 

and implementing our requested changes, I have no doubt that we will recover the 

salmon populations. It is imperative that we are successful with this initiative as 

salmon are critical to the tribal cultures, traditions and their economies. 

When our tribal ancestors signed treaties, ceding millions of acres of land to the 

United States Government, they reserved fishing, hunting, and gathering rights in 

all traditional areas. These constitutionally protected treaties, the Federal trust responsibility and extensive case law, including the United States vs. Washington decision (1974), all consistently support the role of tribes as natural resource managers, 

both on and off reservation. In Washington State, these provisions have developed 

into a successful co-management process between the Federal, State, and tribal governments. These arrangements have helped us deal with many problems, but still 

require additional support to meet the many new challenges like air and water pollution and climate change. 

Of particular interest to us is the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. This is 

a critical funding source in restoring salmon habitat. This funding source continues 

to assist tribes in the implementation of salmon recovery plans and moves us in the 

direction of achieving the recovery goals, which is a direct request in our Treaty 

Rights at Risk initiative. We also appreciate a number of the National Ocean Policy 

intiatives that support key Federal, state and tribal partnerships. Our specific requests are further described below. 

Justification of Requests 

$110 Million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund 

The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is a multi-state, multi-tribe 

program established by the Congress in fiscal year 2000 with a primary goal to help 

recover wild salmon throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The PCSRF 

seeks to aid the conservation, restoration, and sustainability of Pacific salmon and 

their habitats by financially supporting and leveraging local and regional efforts. 

Recognizing the need for flexibility among tribes and the States to respond to salmon recovery priorities in their watersheds, the Congress initially provided funds for 

salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock enhancement, salmon research, and implementation of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States 

and Canada. PCSRF is making a significant contribution to the recovery of wild 

salmon throughout the region. 

The tribes’ overall goal in the PCSRF program is to restore wild salmon populations. The key tribal objective is to protect and restore important habitat that promotes the recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed species and other salmon 

populations in Puget Sound and along the Washington coast that are essential for 

western Washington tribes to exercise their treaty-reserved fishing rights consistent 
321 

2 Hoh vs. Baldrige—A Federal court ruling that required fisheries management on a river-byriver basis. 

with U.S. vs. Washington and Hoh vs. Baldrige.2 These funds will also support policy and technical capacities within tribal resource management departments to plan, 

implement, and monitor recovery activities. 

It is for these reasons that the tribes strongly support the Pacific Coastal Salmon 

Recovery Fund. The tribes have used these funds to support the scientific salmon 

recovery approach that makes this program so unique and important. Related to 

this scientific approach has been the tribal leadership and effort which has developed and implemented the ESA-listed Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan approved by NOAA. 

Unfortunately, the PCSRF monies have decreased over the past decade from the 

fiscal year 2002 amount of $110 million. Restoration of this line item in fiscal year 

2013 to the $110 million level will support the original intent of the Congress and 

enable the Federal Government to fulfill its obligations to salmon recovery and the 

treaty fishing rights of the tribes. 

$20 Million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program 

The Hoh Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, and the Quinault Indian Nation 

have deep connections to the marine resources off the coast of Washington. They 

have pioneered cooperative partnerships with the State of Washington and the Federal Government in an effort to advance the management practices in the coastal 

waters. However, to have an effective partnership, the tribes, and their partners 

need additional funding. 

The four tribes, the State of Washington and NOAA’s NOS, through the Marine 

Sanctuary Program, have formed the Intergovernmental Policy Council (IPC), which 

is intended to strengthen management partnerships through coordination and focus 

of work efforts. Through this partnership, the entities hope to maximize resource 

protection and management, while respecting existing jurisdictional and management authorities. In addition to this partnership with the Marine Sanctuary Program, the four tribes have proposed a mechanism by which they can effectively engage with the West Coast Governors’ Agreement for Ocean Health to create a regional ocean planning group for the west coast that is representative of the States 

and sovereign tribal governments with an interest in the ocean. 

The four coastal tribes and the State also wish to engage in an ocean monitoring 

and research initiative to support and transition into an ecosystem-based fisheries 

management plan for the Washington coast. This tribal-State effort would be in collaboration with NOAA and consistent with regional priorities identified by a regional planning body. Effective management of the ocean ecosystem and its associated resources requires the development of baseline information against which 

changes can be measured. This initiative will expand on and complement existing 

physical and biological databases to enhance ecosystem-based management capabilities. In turn, this will support ongoing efforts by the State and tribes to become 

more actively engaged in the management of offshore fishery resources. 

For the tribes to participate in this regional ocean planning body, and for the 

tribes and State to conduct an ocean monitoring and research initiative off the 

Washington coast, they will need funding to support this effort. The Regional Ocean 

Partnership Grants program, within the National Ocean Service Coastal Management account, would be an ideal program to support tribal participation with the 

West Coast Governors’ Agreement to address ocean governance and coastal/marine 

spatial planning issues. 

In addition, the economic value associated with effective marine resource protection is huge. Not only are marine areas crucial for our natural resources and those 

that use them—they are bridges of commerce between nations and continents. 

Healthy oceans are essential if we value stable climates that will sustain our economies and our lives. Tribes must be partners in the efforts to research, clean up, and 

restore the environment in order to deal with identified problems. 

$3 Million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty 2008 Chinook Annex 

Adult salmon returning to most western Washington streams migrate through 

United States and Canadian waters and are harvested by fisherman from both 

countries. For years, there were no restrictions on the interception of returning 

salmon by fishermen of neighboring countries. 

In 1985, after two decades of discussions, the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) was 

created through the cooperative efforts of tribal, State, United States and Canadian 

governments, and sport and commercial fishing interests. The Pacific Salmon Com-
322 

mission (PSC) was created by the United States and Canada to implement the treaty, which was updated in 1999, and most recently in 2008. 

The 2008 update of the treaty gave additional protection to weak runs of Chinook 

salmon returning to Puget Sound rivers. The update provides compensation to Alaskan fishermen for lost fishing opportunities, while also funding habitat restoration 

in the Puget Sound region. 

The PSC establishes fishery regimes, develops management recommendations, assesses each country’s performance and compliance with the treaty, and is the countries’ forum to reach agreement on mutual fisheries issues. As co-managers of the 

fishery resources in western Washington, tribal participation in implementing the 

PST is critical to achieve the goals of the treaty to protect, share, and restore salmon resources. 

We support the fiscal year 2013 NOAA fisheries budget which includes $3 million 

to implement the 2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex. Specifically, the funds 

would be used for Coded-Wire-Tag Program Improvements ($1.5 million) and Puget 

Sound Critical Stocks Augmentation ($1.5 million). 

$16 Million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program 

Salmon produced by the Mitchell Act hatcheries on the lower Columbia River are 

critically important in that they provide significant harvest opportunities for both 

Indian and non-Indian fisheries off the coast of Washington. This hatchery production is intended to mitigate for the lost production caused by the hydropower dam 

system on the Columbia River. This hatchery production is also important in that 

it dampens the impact of Canadian fisheries under the terms of the PST Chinook 

Annex on Puget Sound and coastal stocks. This funding provides for the operations 

of this important hatchery program and is required to mitigate for the Federal hydropower system on the Columbia River. 

OUR MESSAGE

We generally support the administration’s fiscal year 2013 budget with the 

changes noted above. The tribes strive to implement their co-management authority 

and responsibility through cooperative and collaborative relationships with the State 

and local communities. The work the tribes do benefits all the citizens of the State 

of Washington, the region, and the Nation. But the increasing challenges I have described and the growing demand for our participation in natural resource/environmental management requires increased investments of time, energy, and funding. 

We are sensitive to the budget challenges that the Congress faces. Still, we urge 

you to increase the allocation and appropriations that can support priority ecosystem management initiatives. For the sake of sustainable health, economies, and 

the natural heritage of this resource, it is critically important for the Congress and 

the Federal Government to do even more to coordinate their efforts with State and 

tribal governments. 

CONCLUSION

We are facing many environmental and natural resource management challenges 

in the Pacific Northwest, caused by human population expansion and urban sprawl, 

increased pollution problems ranging from storm water runoff to de-oxygenated or 

‘‘dead’’ areas in the Hood Canal, parts of Puget Sound and in the Pacific Ocean. The 

pathway to the future is clear to us. The Federal, State, and tribal governments 

must strengthen our common bond and move forward with the determination and 

vigor it will take to preserve our heritage. 

Western Washington tribes are leaders in protecting and sustaining our natural 

resources. The tribes possess the legal authority, technical and policy expertise, and 

effectively manage programs to confront the challenges that face our region and Nation. The activities and functions we perform also benefit the entire northwest region. 

The tribes are strategically located in each of the major watersheds, and no other 

group of people is more knowledgeable about the natural resources. No one else so 

deeply depends on the resources for their cultural, spiritual, and economic survival. 

Tribes seize every opportunity to coordinate with other governments and nongovernmental entities, to avoid duplication, maximize positive impacts, and emphasize the 

application of ecosystem management. We continue to participate in resource recovery and habitat restoration on an equal level with the State of Washington and the 

Federal Government because we understand the great value of such cooperation. 

Together, we must focus on the needs of our children, with an eye on the lessons 

of the past. We ask for the Congress to continue to support our efforts to protect 
323 

and restore our great natural heritage and support our funding requests. Thank 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NSF TASK FORCE OF THE ASME TECHNICAL

COMMUNITIES—KNOWLEDGE AND COMMUNITY SECTOR

INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 

ASME is a not-for-profit professional organization that enables collaboration, knowledge sharing, and skills development across all engineering disciplines, while promoting the vital role of the engineer in society. ASME codes and standards, publications, conferences, continuing education, and professional development programs 

provide a foundation for advancing technical knowledge and a safer world. ASME 

conducts one of the world’s largest technical publishing operations, holds more than 

30 technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and 

sets some 600 industrial and manufacturing standards. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Task Force of ASME’s Knowledge & Community Sector is pleased to comment on NSF’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, in 

support of this year’s proposed funding level of $7.37 billion for NSF. 

With its commitment to sponsoring broad-based, cross-cutting programs that expand the boundaries of science and engineering, the NSF is vital in guiding the Nation’s nondefense-related research and education. As acknowledged by the administration and the Congress, for the United States to remain globally competitive, prosperous, and secure, the Nation must support transformative, fundamental research 

that fosters invention and leads to ground-breaking societal advances. Such a paradigm produces a high-tech workforce, stimulates economic growth, addresses critical 

national challenges, and sustains our Nation’s standing as a global leader. 

The total fiscal year 2013 NSF budget request is $7.37 billion, representing an 

increase of 4.8 percent more than the $7.03 billion estimate for NSF in fiscal year 

2012. While the present budget request still places the NSF far behind the goals 

of the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Act, the NSF Task Force 

feels this is a responsible budget given the current fiscal environment. 

Research and Related Activities comprises the major portion of the total NSF request at $5,983 billion, a 5.2-percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 level. 

All of NSF’s research directorates receive notable increases in fiscal year 2013. 

These increases should help the Directorates to recover from the post-2004 NSF 

budget cuts but would still not bring total NSF funding to its all-time high 2004 

level (in fiscal year 2012 adjusted dollars). The resources for the Engineering Directorate (ENG) increase by 6.1 percent more than the fiscal year 2012 level to $876.3 

million, of which $165.2 million is budgeted through mandate for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) 

programs that ENG administers for all of NSF. 

ENG comprises the disciplinary-area divisions of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems, up 4.7 percent to $179.4 million; Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI), up 6.6 percent to $217 million; and 

Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems, up 7.1 percent to $114.3 million. Industrial Innovation and Partnerships increases 8.7 percent to $210.3 million; 

Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation increases 3.2 percent to $32 million; 

and Engineering Education and Centers increases 2.7 percent to $123.27 million. 

NSF will continue to support research and education efforts related to broad, 

foundation-wide investments. A share of the ENG budget (allocated from the constituent divisions), will contribute to these initiatives. The following key activities 

receive increases: 

—Faculty early career development (up 4.9 percent to $216 million); 

—Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) (up 22.6 percent to $243 million); and 

—Research at the Interface of Biological, Math, and Physical Sciences (up 50.9 

percent to $30 million). 

Notable reductions include: 

—NSF’s Climate Change Research program (a 37.4-percent cut to $6 million), and 

—the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (R&D) 

program (a 6-percent cut to $1,207.2 million). 

NSF-wide funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative increases by 6.3 percent to $434.9 million for fiscal year 2013. In another agency-wide technology pro-
324 

gram, the administration has proposed significant new funding for a cross-cutting 

advanced manufacturing initiative entitled Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems (CEMMSS), totaling $257 million in fiscal year 2013, an 

increase of 80.9 percent from roughly $142 million in fiscal year 2012. Funding for 

CEMMSS includes $20.8 million in NSF funding for the National Robotics Initiative, which partners with National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), and United States Department of Agriculture to promote 

U.S. leadership and education aimed at next generation robotics. 

Another initiative which the Task Force views as critical to re-establishing U.S. 

leadership in clean-energy technology is the Science, Engineering, and Education 

Sustainability (SEES) program. SEES, proposed for a 29.2-percent increase to $203 

million in fiscal year 2013, will integrate NSF’s climate, energy, and engineering 

programs to increase U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship and reduce energy use and carbon intensity, while generating continued economic growth. 

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS-NATIONAL SCIENCE

FOUNDATIONTASK FORCE POSITION

AFFIRMATION AND ENDORSEMENT

The ASME NSF Task Force highly endorses NSF’s crucial function in directing 

basic research and integrated education programs that keep America at the vanguard of science, engineering, and technology. NSF possesses an exceptional record 

of comprehensive and flexible support of a breadth of research, from ‘‘curiosity-driven’’ science to targeted initiatives. This achievement has been made possible via 

strict adherence to the independent peer-review process for merit-based awards. The 

proposed increases under the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget should allow NSF 

to properly sustain and expand these efforts and commitments, advancing discovery 

and learning, spurring innovation, and honing the Nation’s competitive edge. 

The fiscal year 2013 budget request represents a 4.8-percent increase more than 

fiscal year 2012 funding. Almost all of the total increase for NSF is in R&D activity 

funding, totaling $5.98 billion, an increase of 5.6 percent more than fiscal year 2012 

funding. Sufficient investment in fundamental science and engineering research, 

that involves both established and emerging areas, is essential in recognizing and 

nurturing innovation, in preparing the next generation of scientific talent and leaders, and in producing the products, processes, and services that improve health, living conditions, environmental quality, energy conservation, and national security for 

all Americans. 

Overall, the Task Force also supports and commends activities within ENG. 

NSF’s support of ‘‘fundamental research that can contribute to addressing national 

challenges’’ is exemplified within ENG. It is important to emphasize that it is 

through such fundamental science and engineering investment that the next generation technologies are spawned. Examples of successes emanating from ENG include 

using a technique of catalytic fast pyrolysis in a fluidized bed to make green gasoline from sawdust and other plant materials. Researchers have designed snake robots with sensor-based exploration that maneuver in three dimensions and navigate 

all manners of terrain, building a map to establish their location; current applications range from search and rescue to minimally invasive heart surgery to archaeological exploration. Researchers have developed a new material, with a low-temperature nonmagnetic phase and a strongly magnetic high-temperature phase that 

is capable of converting heat into electricity, with implications in revolutionizing 

power plant technology. 

NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and ENG is the focal point 

within NSF for this key national research endeavor. ASME has strongly supported 

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) since its inception as an NSF investment area in fiscal year 2000. The administration has requested $434.9 million for 

the NNI in fiscal year 2013, a 6.3-percent increase. The Task Force strongly supports this funding, particularly for investments in activities that will increase research in two key areas—nanomanufacturing and environmental health and safety. 

Finally, ASME continues to support NSF’s vision of ‘‘a nation that capitalizes on 

new concepts in science and engineering and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.’’ Thus, ASME commends the President’s expansion of 

the Faculty Early Career Development and the Graduate Research Fellowships programs. Funding for the Faculty Early Career Development awards will support exceptionally promising college and university junior faculty who are most likely to 

become the academic leaders of the 21st century. The fiscal year 2013 request provides substantial increases for some of NSF’s flagship graduate fellowship and 

traineeship programs, but does not universally increase investments: 
325 

—$243 million is provided for the GRF program (an increase of 22.6 percent); 

—$52 million (a reduction of 13.6 percent) for the Integrative Graduate Education 

and Research Traineeship Program; and 

—$27 million for the Graduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Fellowships in K–12 Education program (a reduction of 0.2 percent). 

NSF also supports the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program at $68 

million (an increase of 3.7 percent), the Research Experiences for Teachers program 

at $5 million (¥21.6 percent), and the Research in Undergraduate Institutions program at $40 million, (the same level as last year). 

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

ASME’s key questions and concerns arising from the fiscal year 2013 budget request center on: 

—the need for sustainable funding for NSF; 

—low-funding success rates for new grants, and low funding levels for existing 

grants; 

—funding ranking for ENG with respect to other Directorates within NSF; and 

—the need for increased funding for core disciplinary research within ENG. 

NSF is the only Federal agency devoted ‘‘to the support of basic research and education across all fields of science and engineering’’. While comprising only a small 

percentage of the total Federal budget for R&D, NSF provides 22 percent of the Federal support given to academic institutions for basic research overall, or 61 percent 

when medical research supported by the NIH is excluded. Moreover, while NSF does 

not directly support medical research, its investments do provide the technologies 

in diagnosis, medicine, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and drug delivery that are 

essential for the medical sciences and related industries. Given recent appropriations to provide NSF with budget increase despite the long-term fiscal challenges 

posed by our national debt, the ASME NSF Task Force lauds the Congress and the 

administration for their recognition of the unique role that NSF plays in the scientific enterprise, and encourages them to provide sustainable funding for NSF in 

fiscal year 2013 for the future prosperity of our Nation. 

Although the funding success rate for research grants at NSF has increased over 

the past few years, it is still well less than the 30-percent level of the late 1990s, 

a trend projected to continue in fiscal year 2013. The 2011 funding success rate is 

estimated at 22 percent, evincing that budget increase of 1.7 percent in fiscal year 

2012 and the slated budget increase of 4.8 percent for fiscal year 2013 would still 

prevent a large number of excellent, meritorious proposals from being funded. Nonetheless, even maintaining current grant size and duration is not enough. An extended period of constant grant sizes has diminished buying power for grants due 

to inflationary effects, thus limiting the ability of grant recipients to adequately support research and student development. Note that the bulk of the grants are budgeted for graduate student stipend and tuition. Noteworthy, ENG has a funding success rate for research grants of 5 percent less than the average for other NSF directorates (ENG achieved a 17 percent success rate verses approximately 22 percent 

for NSF-wide in 2011). Moreover, ENG is also reduced its average annualized award 

size to $110,000 in fiscal year 2011, down more than $6,500 from the fiscal year 

2010 level. 

ENG is the single largest source of Federal funding for university-based, fundamental engineering research—providing 45 percent of the total Federal support in 

this area. However, ENG (less SBIR/STTR) is still only fourth in total funding (at 

$711.1 million) of the six Directorates within NSF, despite receiving an increase of 

5.7 percent in the fiscal year 2012 (excluding SBIR/STTR). Our Nation’s longstanding global prominence in technological innovation may be jeopardized if such 

investments in basic engineering research and education are hindered by dearth of 

Federal funding in engineering. 

The total funding for nonpriority-area core disciplinary research, from which new 

priority areas and even new disciplines are often engendered, within ENG should 

still be scrutinized. Funding for broad, Directorate-wide priority areas (e.g., Cyberenabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart Systems; Clean-Energy Technology; 

and National Nanotechnology Initiative) and the SBIR/STTR program within ENG 

constitute almost one-half of the budget request for ENG. The Task Force does not 

advocate for the redistribution of monies from investment priority-areas into nonpriority core areas, but rather provide significant increases for completely flexible core 

funds in order to develop the creative and novel ideas that feed the comprehensive 

fundamental science, engineering, and technology knowledge base, which serves to 

advance this Nation’s health, prosperity, and welfare, and security. 
326 

CONCLUSION

The ASME NSF Task Force urges the Congress to support the administration’s 

request at a minimum of $7.37 billion for fiscal year 2013, and enthusiastically supports the NSF’s strategic plan of ‘‘empower the Nation through discovery and innovation.’’ We commend the Congress and the administration for their recent support 

for NSF in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process, but remain concerned that 

inadequate funding will impede those pursuing research oriented careers in STEM 

disciplines. 

We are further concerned the goals of the America COMPETES Act have largely 

fallen off of the national agenda. U.S. investments in science and technology have 

consistently paid back into the economy—generating new jobs and new industries— 

far more than taxpayers have invested. The lack of focus on scientific and technological competitiveness is particularly worrisome for America’s future global competitiveness given the continued strong growth in R&D investments around the 

world. The Congress should work to fulfill the goals of the America COMPETES Act 

in order to stimulate our economy with the fruits born from science and technology. 

Sustained yearly increases in the NSF’s budget are needed for both core disciplinary 

research and integrated education. Increasing award duration would promote a 

more stable and productive environment for learning and discovery. Longer timetables would also provide researchers with opportunities to deliver expanded education and research experiences to students. We encourage the Congress to make 

available these needed resources for NSF in fiscal year 2013. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY

Thank you for this opportunity to provide Ocean Conservancy’s recommendations 

for fiscal year 2013 funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). We urge the Congress to provide an overall funding level of $5.3 billion 

for NOAA in order to fully fund the request for NOAA’s satellite procurements and 

restore overall funding for ocean and coastal programs to fiscal year 2010 levels. 

Within that total we recommend the following funding levels for the following specific programs: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Account, program, or activity Fiscal year 

2012 enacted 

Fiscal year 

2013 President’s budget 

Fiscal year 

2013 recommended level 

Operations research and facilities: 

National Ocean Service: 

Regional ocean partnerships ......................................................... 3.5 4.0 10.0 

Marine debris ................................................................................. 4.60 1 3.40 5.25 

National Marine Fisheries Service: 

Expand annual stock assessments ............................................... 63.5 68.6 68.6 

Fisheries statistics ......................................................................... 23.1 23.5 24.4 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research: 

Integrated ocean acidification ....................................................... 6.2 6.4 11.6 

Program Support: Office of Marine and Aviation Operations ................ 182.9 196.2 196.2 

TOTAL, NOAA .............................................................................. 4,964.0 5,133.0 5,300.0 

1 Proposed funding for Marine Debris in fiscal year 2013 is unclear as NOAA has moved the Marine Debris program line into the Habitat 

Conservation and Restoration and merged it with several other programs. 

Ocean Conservancy has worked for nearly 40 years to address ocean threats 

through sound, practical policies that protect our ocean and improve our lives. We 

recognize that real leadership means real cooperation—between governments, businesses, scientists, policymakers, conservation organizations, and citizens. Our focus 

is on creating concrete solutions that lead to lasting change—so we can benefit from 

the ocean for generations to come. 

We simply cannot afford the underfunding of NOAA’s ocean and coastal programs. 

NOAA’s mission in protecting, restoring, and managing our oceans and coasts is vitally important not only to our oceans and coasts, but also to our coastal and national economies. In 2009, according to the National Ocean Economics Program, 

coastal tourism and recreation contributed more than $61 billion to the Gross Domestic Product and accounted for more than 1.8 million jobs. Covering two-thirds 

of Earth’s surface, the ocean is home to 97 percent of all life. Even the air we 
327 

breathe is connected to a healthy ocean—more than one-half of the oxygen in the 

atmosphere is generated by ocean-dwelling organisms. 

While we recognize these are tough fiscal times, and the Congress is trimming 

Government budgets across-the-board, NOAA’s ocean programs have been particularly hard-hit with a nearly 14-percent reduction since 2010. With satellite procurement costs continuing to grow, we urge the Congress to maintain a balanced portfolio on investments across NOAA’s missions. Americans shouldn’t have to choose 

between forecasting the weather and protecting our ocean. We need both. We recommend a total funding level of $5.3 billion for NOAA. This funding supports the President’s request for the Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account, while restoring funding for the Operations Research and Facilities account 

to fiscal year 2010 funding levels. Providing the resources needed to make smart 

choices for a healthy ocean will not just benefit those who live and work along the 

coast, but the American economy and environment as a whole. 

Within the recommended funding of the Operations, Research, and Facilities account, Ocean Conservancy would like to highlight the following as top priorities for 

robust funding: 

Investments in Fisheries Science and Information 

Expand Annual Stock Assessments, $68.8 million.—Stock assessments provide 

critically needed resources for fisheries managers to assess priority fish stocks and 

implement the requirement for annual catch limits (ACLs). The survey and monitoring and stock assessment activities funded under this line give fishery managers 

greater confidence that their ACLs will avoid overfishing while providing optimal 

fishing opportunities. Because the information provided by stock assessments is so 

vital to the near-term implementation of ACLs and long-term goals for sustainable 

management of U.S. fisheries, increased funding for stock assessments should remain among the highest priorities in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. We have turned 

the corner on ending overfishing and the information provided by stock assessments 

is needed to sustain the progress we have made and to continue to improve fisheries 

management for the long-term health of fish and fishermen. 

Fisheries Statistics: Marine Recreational Fisheries Monitoring, $24.4 million.—Despite their often sizeable economic and biological impacts, much less data are collected from recreational saltwater fisheries than commercial fisheries due to the 

sheer number of participants and limited sampling of anglers’ catches. Improved 

sampling and timelier reporting of catch data are needed for successful management 

of marine recreational fisheries. NOAA has recently begun to implement the new 

Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) with the goal of providing better 

regional monitoring of recreational fishing participation, catches, landings, and releases of finfish species in marine waters and estuaries for all 50 States and the 

U.S. territories and Commonwealths. Since its inception in 2008, MRIP funding has 

increased to expand the program’s capability, but significant additional funding is 

still needed to provide more frequent and timely data for more effective in season 

management of recreational fisheries. An increase of $1.3 million more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level is needed for MRIP for a funding level of $24.4 million 

for Fisheries Statistics in fiscal year 2013. 

Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Operations and Maintenance $196.2 million.—Base funding for NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) 

supports a fleet of 10 Fishery Research Vessels whose primary mission is to provide 

baseline information on fish populations that is critical to the development and regular updating of fishery stock assessments for the catch-setting process. More than 

80 percent of stock assessments for species rely on this data. In recent years, however, rising operating costs (largely attributable to rising fuel costs) and budget constraints have sharply reduced the base-funded days at sea (DAS) for NOAA’s fleet. 

The number of base-funded DAS for NOAA’s fleet declined 40 percent between 2006 

and 2011 forcing NMFS to spend its program funds to ‘‘buy back’’ days at sea not 

covered by OMAO in order to maintain its regularly scheduled surveys and collect 

data that is needed to set appropriate catch limits. In order to meet the number 

of DAS needed to collect the data required by managers, we support the President’s 

budget request of $196.2 million. 

Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, $10 million.—The Regional Ocean Partnership (ROP) grants program provides competitively awarded funds to projects that 

support regional priorities for ocean and coastal management and science. Regional 

approaches continue to be the most effective and efficient way to address ocean 

management challenges. Dozens of coastal Governors have come together voluntarily to establish ROPs that bring together State and Federal agencies, tribes, local 

governments, and stakeholders to tackle ocean and coastal management issues of 

common concern, such as pollution, habitat restoration, and siting offshore energy. 
328 

While priorities, structures, and methods may differ, these partnerships are collectively working toward an improved ocean environment and a stronger ocean-related 

economy for the Nation. Competitively awarded grants for ROPs ensure that ocean 

management is a State-driven process where priorities are determined by actual, onthe-ground needs. Without these competitive grant funds, States and their partnerships will be less able to assert local and regional management needs, and their 

ability to leverage the Federal Government’s expertise and capacity will be weakened. 

While we greatly appreciate the President’s budget request for $4 million for ROP grants, the reality is that $4 million spread across the entire Nation’s coastal regions falls far short of what State partnerships actually need. Without this increase, 

it is possible that some regions and regional entities may receive either no funding 

or only very limited funding. Increased Federal support for ROPs—which represent 

every coastal and Great Lakes State in the continental United States—will ensure 

that funding will reach more regions and strengthen more States’ ability to foster 

sustainable use of our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. For these reasons, we request that the ROP Grants line-item within NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS) 

be increased to $10 million. 

Marine Debris, $5.25 million.—Marine debris has become one of the pervasive pollution problems facing the world’s oceans, coasts, and waterways. Research has 

demonstrated that persistent debris has serious effects on the marine environment, 

wildlife and the economy. Marine debris is its various forms including derelict fishing gear and plastics, causes wildlife entanglement, destruction of habitat, and 

ghost fishing. It also presents navigational hazards, causes vessel damage, and pollutes coastal areas. The problem of marine debris has been growing over the past 

several decades and natural disasters such as the March 2011 Japanese tsunami 

tragedy can exacerbate an already challenging issue. Trash travels and research indicates that tsunami debris could impact the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in the 

spring of 2012 and the west coast of the United States in 2013. 

While the quantity of marine debris in our ocean has greatly increased, funding 

for NOAA’s Marine Debris Program has remained well less than the authorized 

level of $10 million. We were pleased to see an additional $600,000 for marine debris removal in 2012, but additional resources are needed to ensure NOAA has the 

capacity to monitor and respond to the impacts of debris from the tsunami and 

other sources. In order to sustain current programs and allow NOAA the capacity 

to evaluate, track and clean up the debris from the tsunami which is likely to impact U.S. shores, for fiscal year 2013 we request $5.75 million, $750,000 more than 

fiscal year 2012 funding levels. 

In addition, the administration has proposed moving the Marine Debris Program 

out of the NOS and into the National Marine Fishery Service’s (NMFS) Habitat 

Conservation and Restoration Program. We have significant concerns with this proposal. When the Congress passed the Marine Debris Act of 2006, the Marine Debris 

Program was deliberately placed within NOS. The program’s role includes conducting scientific research, addressing navigational hazards, identifying the economic impacts of debris, and preparing and responding to marine debris events. If 

placed under the umbrella of NMFS’s Habitat Conservation and Restoration Program, the effort and the scope Marine Debris Program could be restricted. Working 

closely with NOS’s Office of Response and Restoration’s (ORR) emergency division, 

the program has collaborated on tsunami debris response through modeling, assessment, and preparation. At a time when the potential impacts of the tsunami are 

unknown, it seems a close connect between ORR and the Marine Debris Program 

should be a priority. 

Integrated Ocean Acidification Program, $11.6 million.—In recent years, scientists 

have raised the alarm about ocean acidification—a process whereby ocean waters’ 

absorption of carbon dioxide emissions alters marine acidity. Over the last 250 

years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of carbon dioxide, triggering a 30-percent increase in ocean acidity. These changes can have far-reaching consequences 

for marine life, including economically important species like shellfish and corals. 

For example, the shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest has been devastated 

in recent years as more acidic waters encroached upon important oyster hatcheries, 

nearly wiping out several years-worth of oyster ‘‘seed’’. 

Recognizing the dire need for better understanding of this emerging economic 

threat, in early 2009 the Congress passed and enacted the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) Act. Under FOARAM, the Congress instructed NOAA to establish an ocean acidification program to coordinate research, 

establish a monitoring program, develop adaptation strategies, and provide critical 

research grants to improve the understanding of ocean acidification’s ecological and 

socioeconomic impacts. Because economic impacts like those seen in the shellfish in-
329 

dustry are on the leading edge of what will be a growing problem, adequate funding 

for this line item is critical to fulfill the Congress’ directives and build the scientific 

foundation needed to protect vulnerable industries from ocean acidification. While the President’s budget requests $6.4 million for Integrated Ocean Acidification for fiscal year 2013, we believe that the President’s fiscal year 2012 request of 

$11.6 million is far more reflective of the actual on-the-ground needs. As stated in 

the President’s fiscal year 2012 NOAA congressional budget justification, funding at 

the $11.6 million level will allow NOAA to develop more cost-efficient acidification 

sensors for monitoring; conduct an assessment of acidification effects on commercial 

and recreational marine fish stocks; and create a Coral Reef Ocean Acidification Observing Network. By increasing the programmatic funding for Integrated Ocean 

Acidification to this level, NOAA will be able to take these concrete actions to more 

effectively tackle the economic, on-the-ground implications of ocean acidification and 

prepare more effectively for future adaptation strategies that will protect our Nation’s key ocean and coastal economic assets. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

The following testimony is being submitted in response to the administration’s 

proposal to terminate funding for the Inter Jurisdictional Fisheries Act (IJFA) 

Grants to States, a longstanding line item account within the National Marine Fisheries Service budget. In addition to the fiscal year 2013 proposed termination, the 

administration has zeroed out the IJFA Grants program for fiscal year 2012 as part 

of its spend plan, although the Congress appropriated $1,157,000 for this year. Traditional funding levels for the IJFA have been roughly $2.5 million annually. 

These grants serve to support the conservation and management of fish species 

which occur in both Federal and State waters. For the west coast, the funding is 

used to support conservation and management tasks not currently being undertaken 

by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Regional Fishery Management Councils. IJFA is a dollar-for-dollar matching program. The States 

and the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions have considered this program to 

be a cornerstone in the Federal-State fishery management partnership. The administration’s decision to terminate this program effectively nullifies this partnership. 

Set forth below is an explanation of how the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 

(PSMFC) use IJFA matching grants. If the program funding is terminated, these activities will cease as well or NOAA will be required to allocate internal resources 

for their continuation. 

USES OF INTER JURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT FUNDS BY THE WEST COAST STATES

AND PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

Washington and Oregon use the majority of their IJFA funds for groundfish data 

collection and analysis activities that directly support the implementation of Pacific 

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. 

In addition, a portion of these funds directly support the cost of yelloweye rockfish 

surveys using remotely operated vehicles, yellow rockfish longline surveys, and 

nearshore rockfish tagging projects providing the essential charter boat rental, 

equipment/gear, data processing, and salary for technicians involved in coastal. A 

portion of the funds support management of Oregon’s Pink Shrimp Fishery. Ocean 

shrimp are an interjurisdictional fishery found on the west coast. Resource management of shrimp requires monitoring and sampling of fishery catches and logbooks. 

IJFA funds directly support biologists in monitoring, sampling, and management coordination of the shrimp fishery. 

In California IJFA funds support the coastal pelagic species program. Pacific Sardines, Pacific Mackerel, and Jack Mackerel account for nearly 86,000 tons of commercial catch in California. 

Field personnel funded by IJFA funds monitor daily landings of Pacific Sardine 

and Pacific Mackerel made to major commercial fish dealers and processors. Data 

from samples are used to determine the composition of the catch from which estimates of population size determine recommended harvest amounts for adoption by 

the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

Field biologist and temporary help staff are also funded by IJFA funds to participate in at-sea cruises designed to collect fishing independent information on the status of coastal pelagic species. These fishery independent data are also used as part 

of sock assessment efforts to determine allowable harvest levels. 

In Idaho IJFA funds support field biologists in carrying out activities to determine 

the abundance and migratory patterns of steelhead returning to the Snake River. 
330 

This information is a critical component to setting management, harvest, and 

escapement levels conforming to United States vs. Oregon and United States-Canadian Treaty obligations. 

In Alaska, IJFA funds support salmon research activities in southeast Alaska. 

The funds have been used to complete four subprojects including Pink and Chum 

Salmon stock evaluations, Coho Salmon spawning research, salmon catch sampling, 

and troll fishery management methods research. 

IJFA funds are used by PSMFC to coordinate the Tri-State Dungeness Crab Fishery. This is the largest economic fishery in the west coast and seasons are managed 

on an Interjurisdictional fishery basis. Without IJFA funding of meetings and workshops would not be possible and State management of Dungeness Crab could become a Federal responsibility. 

In addition PSMFC has used IJFA funds to establish a new initiative to support 

and encourage increased scientific and conservation for coastal cutthroat trout 

(CCT) throughout their geographic distribution (from California to Alaska). The effort includes nine State, Federal, tribal, and provincial partner agencies. This IJFA 

funded range-wide initiative is important because it helps coordinate activities for 

fish species that is typically underfunded. It is necessary because the trout has a 

complex regulatory history, for example, it is currently listed as a sensitive species 

by many of our partner agencies, and was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Finally, these trout hold a unique place in the angling 

world as it is 1 of 2 sea-going trout in Western North America. The PSMFC initiative has resulted in two technical workshops and a national symposium, a framing 

document that outlines the needs and broad-scale priority actions for CCT, a status 

assessment in collaboration with the Western Native Trout Initiative, and an ambitious and successful data gathering project. 

Since 1991, IJFA funds have been used by the PSMFC to sponsor biennial west 

coast workshops on steelhead management. Topics for these workshops include 

stock status, ESA activities, life histories of steelhead, life histories and historical 

abundance of steelhead, and technology applications for steelhead studies. This 

unique forum allows steelhead managers and researchers on a coastwide basis 

(United States and Canada, including Alaska and Idaho) to discuss common problems and to share insights into possible solutions. 

IJFA funds also support the Technical Subcommittee (TSC) of the Canada-U.S. 

Groundfish Committee, which has met at least annually since 1960. The purposes 

of the TCS are to: 

—Exchange information on the status of groundfish stocks of mutual concern and 

coordinate, whenever possible, desirable programs of research. 

—Recommend the continuance and further development of research programs 

having potential value as scientific basis for future management of the groundfish fishery. 

—Review the scientific and technical aspects of existing or proposed management 

strategies and their component regulations relevant to conservation of stocks or 

other scientific aspects of groundfish conservation and management of mutual 

interest. 

—Transmit approved recommendations and appropriate documentation to appropriate sectors of Canadian and U.S. governments and encourage implementation of these recommendations. 

IJFA funds support PSMFC staff for habitat conservation and marine debris 

abatement work through participation in three primary Interjurisdictional forums: 

—the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (Council) Habitat Committee; 

—the West Coast Governor’s Agreement on Ocean Health marine debris action coordination team; and 

—the Pacific Marine Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership. 

Work regarding climate change strategies and planning for the Pacific Northwest 

was also pursued. IJFA project funding allowed PSMFC to play active roles in preparing for, participating in, and doing follow-work for the Council Habitat Committee and serving as the vice chair of that committee. This committee advised the 

Council on conservation and resource topics that influence habitat productivity. 

These include duties mandated by the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94–265) to comment on significant issues 

that affect salmon productivity. Additionally, Essential Fish Habitat, climate change 

and ecosystem-based fishery management and topics regarding water issues, are 

frequently a part of its agenda. 

Since 1999 the PSMFC’s Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program (with the support of IJ funds) has worked to prevent and/or minimize impacts of AIS, particularly 

those species that affect fisheries and the habitat upon which those fisheries de-
331 

pend. The program elements include eradication, research, monitoring, educational 

outreach, interjurisdictional planning, and coordination. 

IJFA funds are critical and providing support for the AIS program particularly 

in the past 5 years as west coast steelhead and salmon waterbodies are being 

threatened by quagga and zebra mussels. Zebra and quagga mussels are some of 

the economically damaging aquatic organisms to invade the United States. The destructive powers of these prolific mollusks lies in their sheer numbers and their 

ability to biofoul and restrict the flow of water through intake pipes, disrupting supplies of drinking, cooling, processing, and irrigating water to the Nation’s domestic 

infrastructure. 

A quagga/zebra mussel infestation in any of these salmonbearing watersheds 

would be a disastrous step backward for the recovery of these imperiled species and 

has heightened the urgency of management initiatives to halt further range expansion. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REBECCA UNDERWOOD—PARENT/GUARDIAN/ADVOCATE

I wish to express my appreciation to the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for this opportunity 

to submit written testimony for the record of the hearing held on Wednesday, March 

8, 2012, to consider fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department of Justice 

(DOJ). 

As noted during Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony and subsequent questions from the subcommittee members on Wednesday, March 8, 2012, budget realities exist. Dollars are precious. The Civil Rights Division has requested additional 

funds to strengthen civil rights enforcement, including enforcement of the Civil 

Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) as part of a Vulnerable People Priority Goal. I write to express my deep concern regarding DOJ activities under 

CRIPA/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Olmstead enforcement resulting in 

the closure of intermediate-care facilities for individuals with severe and profound 

developmental/intellectual disabilities against resident’s choice. Federal tax dollars 

are currently being spent by DOJ under the guise of ‘‘civil rights enforcement’’ to 

undermine and dismantle a system of care for our most vulnerable citizens, those 

with severe and profound developmental/intellectual disabilities. In the process of 

‘‘civil rights enforcement’’, DOJ, due to blatant disregard for the individual choice 

requirements of ADA, is overriding individual civil rights. 

My interest in this issue is as the mother and co-legal guardian of our son who 

due to profound neurological impairment occurring at birth, has functional abilities 

of a 4–12-week-old infant despite his 32 chronological years. In addition to the profound neurological impairment due to subarachnoid hemorrhages, pulmonary hemorrhages impaired his respiratory functional status. He requires and receives 24/7 

intensive skilled nursing care in a State-owned and -operated Medicaid-certified intermediate care facility for individuals with developmental disabilities (ICF/DD). 

This placement was not our only choice when we could no longer provide the intensive care our son requires, but it definitely was and continues to be the best choice 

for our son. He has thrived in this setting beyond our wildest expectations. Our son 

will never walk, talk, roll over, be able to hold his own head up, speak a word or 

call me ‘‘momma’’ or even recognize me as his mother. He is medically fragile. His 

care needs are intensive. He is appropriately served by a highly trained, specialized 

team will be difficult and extremely costly to duplicate in a smaller setting that DOJ 

favors. 

DOJ policies and actions work to eliminate the safe homes for vulnerable people 

like my son. Claiming that Medicaid-certified facilities (ICFs/DD) are ‘‘isolated’’ and 

‘‘segregated’’, the Civil Rights Division commences investigations aimed at closure 

and elimination of this option of care for our most vulnerable loved ones. 

Civil Rights Enforcement in Wisconsin 

DOJ descended upon Wisconsin to conduct ‘‘investigations’’ of 2 of our 3 Stateowned and -operated facilities for people with developmental disabilities, including 

our son’s facility, under authority of CRIPA. Surprisingly, a whole year passed following the ‘‘investigations’’ without word from DOJ as to their findings despite the 

fact that DOJ had committed substantial resources to wide-ranging investigations 

of two major facilities—investigations that supposedly met the criteria for activity 

commencement under CRIPA. It was later learned that one of the initial DOJ consultants had written a favorable report of the conditions within our son’s facility. 

The report never surfaced and this consultant has never been used by the DOJ 

again. 
332 

DOJ then requested to return to ‘‘assess progress’’ since the previous visit—but 

with new consultants. These consultants produced the obligatory derogatory report 

alleging egregious and flagrant violations of residents’ civil rights. DOJ proposed— 

Wisconsin rejected—that the residents be transitioned out. Clearly DOJ’s goal was 

not merely to correct what DOJ defined as egregious and flagrant conditions and 

violations but to actually shut these facilities down. 

Then, as now, parents and guardians were left out of the ‘‘investigations’’. As one 

attorney from the Civil Rights Division wrote regarding the request of Wisconsin 

families to be consulted and involved in the investigations: 

‘‘There are many committed and commendable private organizations and individuals that have an important role in overseeing the care residents in institutions receive. However, their ‘participation’ and ‘representation’ in investigative tours is ‘inappropriate.’ ’’ 

Involving the parents and legal guardians of residents was ‘‘inappropriate’’ in the 

eyes of the DOJ. Parents were denied the right by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division 

to be involved in the investigations of the alleged violations of their children’s civil 

rights. 

We were stymied for years in our attempts to learn the nature of the complaints 

that prompted this wide-ranging investigation. It was not complaints from residents 

and their families, but instead from outside sources—agencies and organizations 

that continue to this day to advocate against the option of Medicaid-certified and 

-licensed congregate care facilities. 

History appears to be repeating itself in how DOJ conducts CRIPA/ADA/Olmstead 

investigations. Bolstered by advocacy organizations that are also using Federal 

funds to work to undermine and effect the elimination of the option of Medicaidcertified congregate care settings for our most vulnerable citizens, DOJ is now seeking additional funds for the Civil Rights Division to strengthen civil rights enforcement as part of the Vulnerable People Priority Goal. 

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division is moving fast and furious in States across the 

country declaring that the civil rights of vulnerable persons who reside in ICFs/DD 

are being violated even though the legal guardians have carefully chosen an ICF/ 

DD setting after much careful deliberation. 

Misguided DOJ ADA/Olmstead enforcement policies which ignore and disregard 

individual choice regarding residential services are affecting and harming thousands 

of vulnerable people with severe and profound disabilities who function as infants 

and toddlers despite having the chronological age of adults. 

The United States Supreme Court Justices were quite clear on the issue of individual choice in the Olmstead decision: 

‘‘We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones 

termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle to benefit from 

community settings... Nor is there any Federal requirement that communitybased treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.’’ 

Civil Rights Enforcement in Georgia 

In October 2010, DOJ reached a settlement agreement with the State of Georgia 

by which all individuals with developmental disabilities are required to transition 

out of their Medicaid-certified facilities against their choice. Families and legal 

guardians were not consulted or allowed to be involved in the development of the 

agreement which is mandating the relocation of their vulnerable family members, 

individuals with the most severe and profound levels of developmental and intellectual disabilities. They are ‘‘vulnerable people.’’ 

When the settlement agreement with the State of Georgia was announced, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights referred to the agreement as a ‘‘template 

for Olmstead enforcement activities across the country’’. What this said to families 

across the country is that DOJ intends to force the closure of all ICFs/DD and force 

residents out against their choice into community-based settings. 

I support the option of community-based residential settings and services for 

those who choose and can benefit from those settings. However, forced transitions 

to community-based services and settings against choice, under the guise of 

‘‘Olmstead enforcement’’, are in complete opposition to the actual ruling of the 

United States Supreme Court in Olmstead. 

Civil Rights Enforcement in Arkansas 

Following a multiyear CRIPA/ADA civil rights investigation, Arkansas defended 

the Conway Human Development Center in Conway, Arkansas, at trial in Federal 

court in September 2010. The cost to Arkansas families and taxpayers to prevail in 
333 

court was in excess of $4 million. The costs incurred by DOJ in this grand defeat 

and borne by Federal taxpayers in this misguided litigation is unknown. 

Federal District Court Judge Leon Holmes, in his ruling dismissing the case, 

noted DOJ’s complete disregard for family and guardian input: 

‘‘Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights have been violated. Not this one... All or nearly all of these residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the legal rights of their children or wards. Those 

parents and guardians, so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United 

States. Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position of asserting that certain persons’ rights have been and are being violated while those 

persons—through their parents and guardians disagree.’’ 

Civil Rights Enforcement in Virginia 

A settlement agreement has recently been reached between the DOJ Civil Rights 

Division and the Commonwealth of Virginia. If this settlement agreement is accepted by the Court, closure of ICFs/DD will result. Families, not permitted an opportunity for input, have been forced to file a motion to intervene to protect their loved 

ones from being displaced. 

In Virginia, as in Georgia and my State of Wisconsin, parents and legal guardians 

who expressly opposed closure were ignored. The blatant disregard by the DOJ for 

the choice requirements of Olmstead cannot be allowed to continue. 

Conclusion and Request 

In ruling in Olmstead, the Supreme Court Justices interpreted the ADA to require 

choice. Current activities of DOJ, operating out of public view and disregarding family and guardian involvement, to coerce States to cease operating programs (ICFs/ 

DD) which provide life sustaining services for persons with lifelong, severe intellectual disabilities are not in the public interest. In light of budget realities we must 

ask if the best use of public dollars is the deinstitutionalization activities being carried out by the DOJ which run counter to the choice requirement of Olmstead which 

DOJ claims to be ‘‘enforcing’’ while displacing affected vulnerable people from their 

life sustaining services. 

I refuse to believe that it was the intention of the Supreme Court Justices in the 

Olmstead decision that DOJ would time after time, in State after State, decide that 

the civil rights of each and every resident of a State-operated, Medicaid-certified 

ICF/DD are being violated simply because the resident or their legal representative 

has not chosen community-based services. What is choice if there is no choice? 

I respectfully request the subcommittee to provide oversight and accountability of 

the devastating activities of the DOJ by which States are coerced into closing ICFs/ 

DD, forcing vulnerable persons to be dislocated from their life-sustaining services. 

Please discontinue funding deinstitutionalization programs of the DOJ Civil Rights 

Division which, through a misguided and harmful agenda, denies choice, and is undermining and working to effect the elimination of a life sustaining option of care 

under the guise of ‘‘civil rights enforcement’’. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) is a proven, trusted, and innovative program that supports local, State, Federal, and tribal criminal justice agencies in their effort to successfully resolve criminal investigations and ensure officer 

safety. There is no other program in existence through which officers can receive 

the level of support that RISS provides. Although the demand for RISS’s services 

grows each year, the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for RISS was severely decreased 

from the fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $45 million to $27 million. RISS and law 

enforcement agencies nationwide have already felt the effects of this $18 million reduction. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of officers and public safety professionals RISS serves, we urge you to restore fiscal year 2013 RISS funding to $45 

million. 

RISS has spent nearly 40 years building a valuable and cost-effective program 

that is used and trusted by officers and criminal justice professionals in all 50 

States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Australia, Canada, England, and 

New Zealand. RISS consists of six regional centers that tailor their services to meet 

the needs of their unique regions while working together on nationwide initiatives. 

RISS supports efforts against organized and violent crime, gang activity, drug activity, terrorism, human trafficking, identity theft, and other regional priorities, while 

promoting officer safety. The support provided by RISS has enabled law enforcement 

and public safety agencies to increase their success exponentially. 
334 

RISS offers law enforcement agencies and officers full-service delivery, from the 

beginning of an investigation to the ultimate prosecution and conviction of criminals. An officer can query intelligence databases, retrieve information from investigative systems, solicit assistance from research staff, utilize surveillance equipment, receive training, and use analytical staff to help prosecute criminals. Law enforcement agencies and officers rely on RISS for its diverse and far-reaching services 

and programs. Without access to these services, thousands of law enforcement agencies and hundreds of investigations will suffer. 

RISS has been at the forefront in providing resources to enhance officer safety. 

More than 19,000 law enforcement officers have died serving our Nation. The RISS 

Officer Safety Event Deconfliction System (RISSafe) is an essential component to 

helping ensure that our officers are safe. RISSafe stores and maintains data on 

planned law enforcement events, with the goal of identifying and alerting affected 

agencies and officers of potential conflicts impacting law enforcement efforts. 

RISSafe is the only comprehensive and nationwide deconfliction system that is accessible on a 24/7/365 basis and available to all law enforcement agencies. 

Since RISSafe’s inception in 2008, more than 456,800 operations have been entered. Of those operations, 32.5 percent, or 148,646, have resulted in an identified 

conflict. Currently, 19 RISSafe Watch Centers are operational, 13 of which are operated by organizations other than RISS. These organizations have invested resources 

to support this critical officer safety program. Many agencies have adopted internal 

policies mandating the use of RISSafe. RISSafe continues to proliferate throughout 

the country, with demand increasing each day. It is impossible to put a cost to the 

number of officers RISSafe has already prevented from harm or, worse, death. 

The RISS Officer Safety Web site was deployed in March 2011 and has been visited more than 13,000 times. The Web site serves as a nationwide repository for 

issues related to officer safety, such as concealments, hidden weapons, armed and 

dangerous threats, videos, special reports, and training. RISSafe and the RISS Officer Safety Web site are two important components of the U.S. Attorney General’s 

Law Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative, along with VALOR and the Bulletproof 

Vest Initiative. Efforts are underway to bidirectionally interconnect the secure 

VALOR Web site with the RISS Officer Safety Web site. RISS also provides officer 

safety training and develops and distributes publications about emerging threats, 

such as the Sovereign Citizens Movement special research report. With more than 

800,000 law enforcement officers across the country, more support to ensure their 

safety is essential. 

RISS provides a full complement of investigative support services, including analysis, investigative and research support, equipment, training, publications development, field services support, and technical assistance. Since 2000, RISS has assisted 

in training more than 668,000 individuals, conducted more than 326,000 on-site visits, loaned almost 57,000 pieces of equipment, and produced more than 290,000 analytical products. These statistics show how RISS is impacting law enforcement efforts, but the real success stories come directly from agencies and officers. For example, RISS staff provided support in a child pornography case involving digital 

forensics analysis. The collection of pornography discovered was one of the largest, 

with more than 100,000 images. With RISS’s help, the case led to an 18-year sentence. 

On January 8, 2011, United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords hosted a 

‘‘Congress on Your Corner’’ gathering in Tucson, Arizona, to talk with her constituents. As the event began, a gunman entered the crowd and shot Representative Giffords. The gunman turned on the crowd, killing 6 individuals and seriously wounding 12 others. The shooting was recorded on video by a store security camera. There 

was an urgent need to locate an audio/video analyst to clarify the still photos taken 

from the video surveillance to determine whether an accomplice was at large. RISS 

was contacted to assist in this effort. The results of the RISS analyst’s work enabled 

law enforcement to close a potential lead, saving valuable law enforcement time and 

resources. 

The same types of successes are happening in jurisdictions across the country. 

Since 2000, agencies utilizing RISS’s services and resources made more than 57,360 

arrests and seized more than $942.5 million in narcotics, property, and currency. 

RISS is an excellent return on investment for our country. All law enforcement and 

public safety entities are facing tightened budgets and limited resources. RISS helps 

augment law enforcement efforts. A Pennsylvania police officer said, ‘‘RISS offers 

services and support that law enforcement cannot obtain anywhere else. Analytical 

products, equipment loans, and training are important tools for law enforcement. 

Connectivity to RISSNET is absolutely critical to solving multijurisdictional crimes.’’ 

Historically, law enforcement agencies have faced obstacles related to information 

sharing, communications, and technology. Many problems stemmed from the fact 
335 

that although these agencies individually held pieces of information, they lacked a 

mechanism to securely collect and exchange information. Consequently, law enforcement’s response to criminal activity was often fragmented, duplicative, and limited. 

Since the inception of the RISSNET in 1997; however, many of these obstacles have 

been resolved. RISSNET is a secure Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) law enforcement information sharing cloud provider. RISSNET provides access to millions of 

pieces of data; offers bidirectional information sharing; and connects disparate 

State, local, and Federal systems. Agencies can easily connect to RISSNET, securely 

share information and intelligence, and query multiple systems simultaneously. 

Our Nation’s public safety mission requires an interoperable information-sharing 

environment to proactively solve crimes. RISSNET is a critical component in meeting this need. RISSNET also serves as the secure communications infrastructure for 

other critical resources and investigative tools. Currently, 86 systems are connected 

or pending connection to RISSNET and more than 400 resources are available via 

RISSNET to authorized users; the owners of these resources rely on RISSNET for 

its secure infrastructure. By connecting agencies and systems to RISSNET, rather 

than funding the build-out of new stand-alone systems, hundreds of millions of dollars are saved and millions of data records are easily and quickly accessible by law 

enforcement. Examples of RISSNET resources include the RISS Criminal Intelligence Databases (RISSIntel), RISSafe, the RISS National Gang Program 

(RISSGang), the RISS Automated Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX), the 

RISSLeads Investigative Bulletin Board, the RISSLinks data-visualization and linkanalysis tool, the RISS Center Web sites, and secure email. 

The RISSIntel user interface provides for real-time, online federated search of 15 

RISS partner intelligence databases, including State systems and CalGang, and 

does not require the RISSNET user to have a separate user account with the respective partner systems. In fiscal year 2011, RISSIntel contained more than 3.1 million 

intelligence records and users made almost 4 million inquiries. These records include individuals, organizations, and associates suspected of involvement in criminal 

activity, as well as locations, vehicles, weapons, and telephone numbers. The interaction between RISSafe and RISSIntel provides comprehensive officer safety event 

and subject deconfliction services. 

RISSGang is the only comprehensive gang resource that offers a criminal intelligence database, a Web site, a secure bulletin board, and specific news and publications. The RISSGang database provides access to gang information, including suspects, organizations, weapons, photographs, and graffiti. RISSGang provides for a 

federated search, including CalGang. RISS is connecting other gang databases to 

RISSNET. RISS ATIX is a communications and information sharing capability that 

enables law enforcement, public safety, and private sector entities to share terrorism and homeland security information in a secure, real-time environment. RISS 

ATIX includes discipline-specific Web pages, a secure bulletin board, document library, and email. 

RISSLeads provides authorized law enforcement officers with the ability to post 

information regarding cases, investigative leads, or other law enforcement issues. 

Authorized users are able to view and respond to posts. Connecting law enforcement 

officers across jurisdictional boundaries is crucial in detecting and apprehending today’s mobile and sophisticated criminals. 

Each RISS Center maintains a Web site to provide users with easy access to 

RISSIntel and other resources, such as the National Railroad Trespasser Database, 

the Cold Case Database, the Forensic Accounting Database, and the 

Pseudoephedrine Violator Tracking System. Because of demand from agencies and 

officers, RISS has expanded its Pawnshop Database nationwide. The number of investigative records available through these different systems exceeds 28 million. 

RISSNET is 1 of 4 SBU networks participating in the Assured SBU Interoperability Initiative under the auspices of the White House and the Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment (PM–ISE). The goal is to provide 

simplified sign-on and access to a variety of system-to-system enhancements within 

an interoperable and protected SBU environment for local, State, Federal, and tribal 

law enforcement, regardless of agency ownership of the individual network. RISS is 

the only non-Federal partner providing the critical State, local, and tribal law enforcement piece essential to the Nation’s information sharing environment. RISS is 

at the forefront in providing federated access and simplified sign-on. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Online users, the Chicago Police Department users, and the Pennsylvania Justice Network users access RISSNET resources 

via Federated Identity. 

RISS continuously seeks and is sought out by others to enable new information 

sharing partnerships that leverage its secure SBU information sharing capabilities. 

Most recently, several State Medicaid Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) began pursuing 
336 

the use of RISSNET to securely share information, strategies, best practices, lessons 

learned, and other information to help in their detection and prosecution efforts. Ultimately, this project has the potential to support Medicare and other healthcare 

fraud investigations and information sharing efforts. In addition, RISS supports the 

Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, the National Virtual Pointer 

System, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the National Gang 

Intelligence Center, the United States Secret Service, and the United States Attorneys’ Offices. RISS continues to connect fusion centers to RISSNET, integrate RISS 

services and tools into fusion center operations, and provide training. RISS is supported by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the National Narcotic Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, and the National 

Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations. 

It is respectfully requested that the Congress restore fiscal year 2013 funding for 

RISS to the fiscal year 2011 amount of $45 million so that this essential information 

sharing and public safety program can continue to serve our Nation. Inadequate 

funding and support for RISS could cost lives, hinder investigations, and impact the 

safety of our communities. It would be counterproductive to require local and State 

RISS members to self-fund match requirements, as well as to reduce the amount 

of Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary funding. Agencies require more, not 

less, funding to fight the Nation’s crime problem. RISS is unable to make up the 

decrease in funding that a match would cause, and it has no revenue source of its 

own. Cutting the RISS appropriation by requiring a match should not be imposed 

on the program. 

RISS provides resources and capabilities to share critical information nationwide, 

serves as a secure platform for other criminal justice entities, and provides investigative support services that, in many cases, agencies would not otherwise receive. 

RISS is essential in creating a safer working environment for our Nation’s law enforcement. Appropriate funding will enable RISS to continue effectively serving the 

criminal justice community. For additional information on the RISS Program, visit 

www.riss.net. RISS appreciates the support this committee has continuously provided to the RISS Program and is grateful to provide this testimony. 

LETTER FROM RICHARD M. WHITMAN, NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY DIRECTOR, 

OREGON GOVERNOR’S OFFICE

MARCH 20, 2012. 

The Hon. BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC. 

The Hon. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on 

Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRWOMAN MIKULSKI AND SENATOR HUTCHISON: The Governor of Oregon 

is committed to working together with California and Washington to improve ocean 

health off the west coast. In 2008, our then Governor Kulongoski released the action 

plan for the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Heath, together with the Governors of California and Washington. As recommended by both the U.S. Commission 

on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission, the action plan uses a collaborative approach to address some of our region’s most pressing ocean and coastal 

management challenges, such as preparing coastal communities for the effects of sea 

level rise. 

The purpose of this letter is to request support for $10 million in the fiscal year 

2013 budget for the nine regional ocean partnerships in the United States. These 

grants will provide essential support for the development and implementation of action plans within each region. Additionally, I request appropriation language stating 

that 10 percent of the total funding be divided equally to existing partnerships for 

operations support, and that the remaining funding broadly support the development and implementation of regional priorities as determined by the partnerships 

through competitive solicitations. 

The alliance affirms our commitment to work together on seven priority issues: 

—Ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches; 

—Protecting and restoring healthy ocean and coastal habitats; 

—Promoting the effective implementation of ecosystem-based management of our 

ocean and coastal resources; 

—Reducing adverse impacts of offshore development; 

—Increasing ocean awareness and literacy among our residents; 
337 

—Expanding ocean and coastal scientific information, research, and monitoring; 

and 

—Fostering sustainable economic development throughout our diverse coastal 

communities. 

Regional approaches can advance Federal interests in ocean management through 

coordination with other levels of government by providing direct resources to address the unique needs of a region, as well as integrated, efficient, and effective 

management of ocean resources. 

The plan advances key priorities of the National Ocean Policy in areas such as 

water quality, ocean and coastal research and mapping, coastal pollution, and habitat protection and restoration. The West Coast Governors Alliance works closely 

with representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior to implement 

the regional action plan, and will continue to collaborate with the interagency Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources. 

Our request to support funding for regional ocean partnerships in the fiscal year 

2013 budget will help the region, and regional ocean partnerships throughout the 

United States, implement effective regional ocean governance to the benefit of coastal communities and all who benefit from healthy coasts and oceans. Thank you for considering this request to support $10 million in fiscal year 2013 

funding for the regional ocean partnerships in the United States. This level of funding will help the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health implement its actions plan, and will improve the economic and environmental health of both the 

west coast and the Nation. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD M. WHITMAN, 

Natural Resources Policy Director, 

OREGON GOVERNOR’S OFFICE. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEA GRANT ASSOCIATION

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jonathan Pennock 

and I am the director of the University of New Hampshire Marine Program and the 

New Hampshire Sea Grant College Program. I am submitting this testimony in my 

capacity as president of the Sea Grant Association (SGA). SGA appreciates very 

much the support the Congress has provided the National Sea Grant College Program over the years. Because of that support, Sea Grant has been able to deliver 

a number of quantifiable benefits to the residents of our ocean and coastal communities which are documented below. In that light, to continue to provide similar expected benefits to coastal residents in the future, the SGA recommends that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) be funded at the level recommended by the Friends of NOAA Coalition ($5.3 billion) and that the National 

Sea Grant College Program within NOAA be funded in fiscal year 2013 at $69 million. 

Recognizing the constraints in the budget process, this amount is $18.5 million 

less than the authorized level for fiscal year 2013. While it represents an increase 

of $6 million more than the amount appropriated in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act, it is consistent with guidance provided in the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 2012 appropriation that said: ‘‘the Committee recognizes 

the important role the Sea Grant program plays in connecting coastal and Great 

Lakes communities with practical research and results, and encourages the growth 

of this program in future budget requests.’’ 

For more than 40 years, the National Sea Grant College program has worked to 

create and maintain a healthy coastal environment and economy. The Sea Grant 

network includes more than 30 programs based at top universities in every coastal 

and Great Lakes State, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The programs of the Sea Grant network work together to help citizens understand, conserve, and better utilize America’s coastal, ocean and Great Lakes resources. A partnership between universities 

and the Federal Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Sea Grant directs Federal resources to pressing problems in local communities. By drawing on the experience of more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, public 

outreach experts, educators and students from more than 300 institutions, Sea 

Grant is able to make an impact at local and State levels, and serve as a powerful 

national force for change. 

Sea Grant invests in high-priority research, addressing issues such as population 

growth and development in coastal communities; preparation and response to hurricanes, coastal storms, and tsunamis; understanding our interactions with the ma-
338 

rine environment; fish and shellfish farming; seafood safety; and fisheries management. The results of this research are shared with the public through Sea Grant’s 

integrated outreach program, which brings together the collective expertise of onthe-ground extension agents, educators, and communications specialists. The goal is 

to ensure that vital research results are shared with those who need it most and 

in ways that are timely, relevant, and meaningful. 

THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE NATION’S COASTAL COMMUNITIES

More than one-half of the Nation’s population lives in coastal watershed counties 

and this coastal population has increased by nearly 51 million people over the past 

40 years. It is expected to grow by another 10 percent in the next decade. The coastal economy contributed $8.3 trillion to the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product resulting in 66 million jobs and wages worth an estimated $3.4 trillion (NOAA 2009). 

Much of this economic activity comes from commercial fishing (estimated at $4 billion per year and 1 million jobs), recreational fishing (estimated at $73 billion per 

year and supporting more than 320,000 jobs), our Nation’s seaports ($1.9 trillion 

worth of imports came through U.S. ports in 2010 supporting an estimated 13 million jobs), and coastal tourism ($531 billion in 2010). Additionally, more than 50 percent of the total energy produced domestically occurred in coastal States including 

natural gas production, electricity generation, and oil and gas production. Coastal 

areas are providing opportunities for renewable energy development with projects 

that seek to extract energy from the movement of ocean water due to tides, currents, or waves; from the temperature differential between hot and cold ocean 

water; and from strong winds in offshore ocean environments. 

SEA GRANT’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE NATION’S COASTAL

COMMUNITIES

According to data collected for the 2-year (2009 and 2010) period by the National 

Sea Grant Office within NOAA, the Sea Grant program delivered the following benefits to the Nation: 

—Nearly $243 million in direct economic benefits to the Nation, which represents 

nearly a 4 to 1 return on the Federal investment; —An estimated additional $146 million in other Federal, State, and nongovernmental resources was leveraged for research, extension, and other services to 

support the ocean and coastal enterprise; 

—144 new businesses were created, 1,271 businesses were retained, and more 

than 8,100 jobs were created or retained due to Sea Grant efforts; 

—768 communities across the Nation have adopted more sustainable economic or 

environmental development practices and policies; 

—More than 340 communities adopted hazard resiliency practices with Sea Grant 

assistance to make them better prepared to cope with or respond to hazardous 

coastal events; 

—More than 5,000 individuals or businesses received new certifications in hazard 

analysis and critical control point handling of seafood products, improving the 

safety of seafood consumption by Americans across the country; 

—More than 40,000 acres of degraded ecosystems were restored as a result of Sea 

Grant activities; and 

—Sea Grant supported more than 1,700 undergraduate and more than 1,400 

graduate students, and some 800,000 K–12 students were reached with information about marine and Great Lakes science and resources. 

The National Sea Grant College program is one of the very few nationally competitive grant programs that can demonstrate this kind of real impact at the local, 

State, and national levels. 

SEA GRANT WILL CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL

POSITION OF AMERICA’S COASTAL COMMUNITIES

Since its creation in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program has been at 

the forefront of addressing economic opportunities and environmental issues facing 

coastal communities through its research and outreach efforts. For every Federal 

dollar provided for this program, between one and two additional non-Federal dollars are contributed by non-Federal entities, thus leveraging and extending the impact of the Federal investment. With additional funding and guidance from the Congress, Sea Grant could bolster its network resources and focus on preparing communities to better prepare for and recover from extreme events such as coastal storms 

or oils spills, or reversing the trend of working waterfront enterprise losses (such 

as fish harvesting/processing facilities and marinas), and advancing the coastal tourism industry in sustainable ways. 
339 

Over the next 5 years, Sea Grant will concentrate effort in four areas: 

—healthy coastal ecosystems; 

—sustainable coastal development; 

—a safe and sustainable seafood supply; and 

—hazard resilience in coastal communities. 

These four interrelated focus areas emerged from the NOAA and program’s strategic planning process as areas of critical importance to the health and vitality of 

the Nation’s coastal resources and communities. They respond to issues of major importance to NOAA, are consistent with the work of the NOAA coastal program integration effort, and are topical areas in which Sea Grant has made substantial contributions in the past and is positioned to make significant contributions in the future. 

In each of the four focus areas, Sea Grant has identified goals to pursue and strategies designed to take advantage of its strengths in integrated research, outreach, 

and education, and its established presence in coastal communities. Understanding 

relationships and synergies across focus areas is vital to achieving the focus area 

goals. Sea Grant is one of many partners working to address these complex and 

interrelated issues. Understanding how activities in one area can support and complement other activities, and using partnerships to accomplish shared goals, are 

strategies inherent to Sea Grant, and will be central to achieving the goals outlined 

in the NOAA and program’s strategic plan. 

America must use its coastal resources wisely to sustain the health and productivity of coastal communities. With the requested Federal funding that will leverage 

significant State and local support, the National Sea Grant College Program will be 

uniquely positioned to continue its contributions to our coastal communities. As 

such, the Sea Grant Association requests $69 million in Federal Sea Grant funding 

in fiscal year 2013. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. SGA would be happy to 

provide answer questions or provide additional information to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEARCH—THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR JUSTICE

INFORMATION AND STATISTICS

INTRODUCTION

I am Kelly Harbitter, Programs and Policy Advisor for SEARCH. I write to you 

today on the Department of Justice (DOJ) funding to be provided for in the fiscal 

year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

SEARCH recommends that the National Criminal History Improvement Program 

(NCHIP) receive appropriations of $25 million. 

SEARCH is a State criminal justice support organization created by the States 

and comprised of Governors’ appointees from each State. Each State pays dues annually. SEARCH’s mission is to promote the effective use of information and identification technology by justice agencies nationwide. SEARCH has a longstanding 

partnership with DOJ to promote information sharing, as well as to protect personal 

privacy within the criminal justice community. It is from this perspective—and on 

behalf of these State partners—that I would like to address the level of NCHIP 

funding as set forth in the President’s proposed budget released on February 13, 

2012. 

As you know, NCHIP received an allocation of $5 million in the recent budget proposal. SEARCH recognizes that these are difficult budgetary times, and as such, the 

States have been judicious in their investment in criminal history improvement over 

the past several years. But the demand for accurate, complete, and timely criminal 

records continues to grow at a rapid pace, and there should be a priority placed on 

NCHIP funding. Indeed, despite the single-digit budget allocations, State applications for NCHIP funding over the last several years have been nearly five times the 

budgeted amounts. SEARCH recommends that NCHIP receive appropriations at a 

level considerably higher than the President’s proposal, at $25 million rather than 

$5 million. This level of funding reflects the States’ identified needs and will enable 

States and territories to continue to improve the quality, timeliness, and accessibility of criminal history records. 

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

The NCHIP program was first initiated in 1995, and has been extraordinarily successful in helping States to improve the accuracy, reliability, and completeness of 

their automated criminal history record systems. 
340 

1The Interstate Identification Index is the national system designed to provide automated 

criminal history record information. The III stores the criminal history records of Federal offenders and records of offenders submitted by all States and territories. 2Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (November 2011) (available at: https:// 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/237253.pdf). 3See GAO reports (available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04364.pdf; http://www.gao.gov/ 

new.items/d08898r.pdf). 4The Attorney General’s Report on Criminal History Background Checks, United States Department of Justice, section III.6, p. 18 (June 2006) (available at: http://www.justice.gov/olp/ 

aglbgcheckslreport.pdf). 

DOJ administers NCHIP through the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in DOJ’s 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP). NCHIP responds to a DOJ objective to enhance 

the criminal justice capabilities of State governments by improving the accuracy, 

completeness, and timeliness of criminal history records. These State systems support Federal records systems, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

Interstate Identification Index (III).1 III consists of records, 70 percent of which are 

maintained by the States and only 30 percent are maintained by the FBI.2

BJS, with limited funding, has been widely recognized for its extraordinary efficiency, effectiveness and accomplishments in the NCHIP program. The last two Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports on NCHIP (in 2004 and 2008) highlighted the program’s continued success in meeting its goals and the significant 

progress States made toward automating State criminal history records and making 

them accessible nationally.3 The reports also noted BJS’ adherence and enforcement 

to the important oversight issues the Congress is concerned with regarding grant 

programs today. Indeed, the States—including the State repositories—have devoted 

massive efforts and resources over many years toward building automated, criminal 

history record databases that are accurate, complete, and reliable. Notwithstanding 

the efforts of BJS and the States, there continue to be significant shortfalls in arrest 

reporting; in disposition reporting; and in accuracy and data quality. Most significantly, approximately one-half of arrest records contained in the FBI III database 

are missing dispositions.4

NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING

The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget would provide $5 million for NCHIP. This 

is not a sufficient amount to promote the program’s success. 

Despite NCHIP’s noted success, this gradual reduction in funding has adversely 

affected the program. NCHIP has been so significantly underfunded that some 

States no longer receive any allocation from the NCHIP grants. A pattern of underfunding State efforts to maintain effective criminal history records reverberates 

across the entire criminal justice system, not only in the individual States. Because 

State criminal history records are the primary source for the FBI III database, any 

constraints on the States weakens the ability of many Federal programs to identify 

threats and keep our Nation safe. 

In fact, the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the Nation’s criminal history 

record system has a more important and comprehensive impact today than ever before, including for law enforcement investigations; for officer safety; for sentencing 

and other criminal justice purposes; for expungement and other re-entry strategies; 

for homeland security and antiterrorism purposes; for public noncriminal justice 

purposes, including security clearances and employment suitability; for private sector risk management purposes; and for research and statistical programs that provide critical guidance for justice assistance decisions and for shaping law and policy. 

Without an adequate level of funding for the States, the quality of criminal records 

available nationwide will be negatively impacted. 

STATE SUCCESSES WITH NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FUNDING

Virginia.—With NCHIP funds, the Virginia State Police personnel provide electronic access to criminal history records on-site at gun shows. This ensures rapid 

response to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and 

prevents the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons. NCHIP funds have also 

furthered efforts in Virginia to improve the completeness and accuracy of computerized criminal history files and the Court Automated Information System. Between 

October 2010 and December 2011, the completion rate for missing dispositions 

reached approximately 95 percent. Virginia plans to use NCHIP funds to achieve 

additional goals to research, resolve, and enter as many missing final court disposi-
341 

tions associated with Virginia criminal history records as possible, as well as assist 

with the ever-increasing problem of juvenile arrests and dispositions. 

Michigan.—Michigan has used NCHIP grants since the program began to enhance its automated criminal history record system and integrate it with the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). NCHIP also funded a number of 

data quality studies and improvement projects to improve the completeness, accuracy, and disposition reporting associated with Michigan criminal history records. 

The State has also significantly reduced disposition backlogs. By mid-2000, Michigan had surpassed the 95-percent goal of complete, accurate, and timely electronic 

reporting of criminal dispositions (established by The Crime Control Act of 1990) for 

adult felonies. Michigan continues its success with initiatives with the courts and 

prosecutor’s offices for enhanced interfaces to the criminal history. 

New York.—New York has used NCHIP funds since the beginning of the program 

to support major initiatives to modernize and vastly improve the ability to provide 

critical information services to New York’s State and local criminal justice agencies. 

One of the most important achievements has been to solve the problem of missing 

dispositions in the criminal history repository. Working with the courts, the State 

repository agency identified system and database problems that contributed to unresolved arrest events. The attention to these problems resulted in a completion rate 

for missing dispositions of greater than 92 percent. NCHIP funds also supported enhancements to domestic incident reporting practices in New York. Law enforcement 

officers, preparing to execute a warrant at a suspect’s home, benefit from knowing 

if the suspect has any criminal history in domestic violence. These funds were also 

used to develop the New York State Integrated Justice portal, a single access point 

for public safety practitioners to access the State’s justice systems and data. 

Nevada.—The Nevada Department of Public Safety was able to clear a backlog 

of more than 300,000 court dispositions with NCHIP funding. The Department says 

this monumental task could not have been completed without NCHIP funding. 

Florida.—In Florida, citizens and visitors to the State are safer today thanks to 

the productive use of NCHIP funding. Since 1995, Florida’s criminal justice community has used NCHIP funding to make many major improvements in the collection 

and sharing of information in support of public safety. Among the most significant 

accomplishments supported by NCHIP are: 

—creation of a secure statewide Criminal Justice Network for information sharing 

among criminal justice agencies; 

—automation of court disposition reporting (the rate of adult felony dispositions 

has been improved from around 60 percent in 1995 to more than 75 percent at 

the end of 2011 for all felony arrests dating back to 1911); 

—background screening for volunteers and employees working with children, the 

elderly and disabled; and 

—enhancement of information sharing about the State’s more than 58,000 sexual 

offenders and predators. 

Alaska.—Alaska has used NCHIP funding since 1996 for: 

—independent repository audits; 

—implementing automated interfaces and charge tracking systems; 

—developing uniform offense citations table; 

—addressing missing dispositions critical to NICS, recidivism studies, and the repository; 

—implementing Live Scan stations, (which raised compliance rates from 56 percent to more than 90 percent for mandatory fingerprinting at the Anchorage 

courthouse during the 2-year pilot project); and 

—the electronic sharing of automated court criminal records and more. Undertaking these projects would not have been possible without the help from 

NCHIP. 

Hawaii.—In Hawaii, NCHIP funding has been indispensible to laying the foundation for the State’s fully integrated justice information sharing system. The Hawaii 

Integrated Justice Information Sharing (HIJIS) was designed to build statewide information sharing capabilities across the whole of the justice and public safety enterprise, to facilitate information exchange with Federal, State, county agencies, and 

to leverage national information sharing standards and best practices. In addition, 

among the many activities that Hawaii’s NCHIP funding has allowed the State to 

accomplish are the following: 

—Design, develop, and implement CJIS-Hawaii, the enhanced statewide criminal 

history record information system; 

—Partner with the State court system to share real-time disposition and court 

status data; 

—Enable CJIS-Hawaii to share information with the national NCIC Protection 

Order and National Sex Offender Registry systems; 
342 

—Implement a statewide integrated booking and mugshot system; 

—Deploy livescans at all county police departments and Sheriff’s Offices, accomplishing a paperless and electronic process end to end; and 

—Design, develop, and implement a ‘‘lights out’’ automated identification process 

for the State so that response times are instantaneous and based on positive 

identification. 

CONCLUSION

Congressional support through the NCHIP program to the State criminal history 

repositories is vital. The Federal investment can be leveraged many times over by 

contributing to the ability of State and local criminal justice agencies to provide 

timely, accurate, and compatible information to Federal programs such as III. 

On behalf of SEARCH, its Governors’ appointees, and the thousands of criminal 

justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and who benefit from 

SEARCH’s efforts, I thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS

This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the Society for Industrial and 

Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to continue your support of the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2013 by providing NSF with $7.373 billion. 

In particular, we urge you to provide the request level for key applied mathematics 

and computational science programs in the Division of Mathematical Sciences and 

the Office of Cyberinfrastructure. 

We are submitting this written testimony for the record to the Subcommittee on 

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. Senate on behalf of the SIAM. 

SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and computational 

mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts, engineers, statisticians, 

and mathematics educators. They work in industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and Government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In 

addition, SIAM has almost 500 institutional members, including colleges, universities, corporations, and research organizations. 

First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your subcommittee’s continued leadership on and recognition of the critical role of the NSF and its 

support for mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong U.S. economy, workforce, and society. 

Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support of NSF in 

fiscal year 2013 and beyond. In particular, we request that you provide NSF with 

$7.373 billion, the level requested for this agency in the President’s fiscal year 2013 

budget request. 

As we are reminded every day, the Nation’s economic strength, national security, 

and public health and welfare are being challenged in profound and unprecedented 

ways. Addressing these challenges requires that we confront fundamental scientific 

questions. Computational and applied mathematical sciences, the scientific disciplines that occupy SIAM members, are particularly critical to addressing U.S. competitiveness and security challenges across a broad array of fields: medicine, engineering, technology, biology, chemistry, computer science, and others. 

SIAM recognizes the challenging fiscal situation, and notes that in the face of economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science, and engineering remain 

crucial as they power innovation and economic growth upon which our economy and 

fiscal health depend. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

NSF provides essential Federal support for applied mathematics and computational science, including more than 60 percent of all Federal support for basic academic research in the mathematical sciences. Of particular importance to SIAM, 

NSF funding supports the development of new mathematical models and computational algorithms, which are critical to making substantial advances in such fields 

as climate modeling, energy technologies, genomics, analysis and control of risk, and 

nanotechnology. In addition, new techniques developed in mathematics and computing research often have direct application in industry. Modern life as we know 

it—from search engines like Google to the design of modern aircraft, from financial 

markets to medical imaging—would not be possible without the techniques developed by mathematicians and computational scientists. NSF also supports mathematics education at all levels, ensuring that the next generation of the U.S. work-
343 

force is appropriately trained to participate in cutting-edge technological sectors and 

that students are attracted to careers in mathematics and computing. 

Below are highlights of the main budgetary and programmatic components at 

NSF that support applied mathematics and computational science. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION DIVISION OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

The NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) in the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) provides the core support for all mathematical 

sciences. DMS supports areas such as algebra, analysis, applied mathematics, 

combinatorics, computational mathematics, foundations, geometry, mathematical biology, number theory, probability, statistics, and topology. In addition, DMS supports national mathematical science research institutes; infrastructure, including 

workshops, conferences, and equipment; and postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate training opportunities. 

The activities supported by DMS and performed by SIAM members, such as modeling, analysis, algorithms, and simulation, provide new ways of obtaining insight 

into the nature of complex phenomena, such as the power grid, software for military 

applications, the human body, and energy-efficient building systems. SIAM strongly 

urges you to provide DMS with the budget request level of $245 million to enable 

sustained investment by NSF in critical mathematical research and related mathematical education and workforce development programs. 

In particular, investment in DMS is critical because of the foundational and crosscutting role that mathematics and computational science play in sustaining the Nation’s economic competitiveness and national security, and in making substantial 

advances on societal challenges such as energy, the environment, and public health. 

NSF, with its support of a broad range of scientific areas, plays an important role 

in bringing U.S. expertise together in interdisciplinary initiatives that bear on these 

challenges. DMS has traditionally played a central role in such cross-NSF efforts, 

with programs supporting the interface of mathematics with a variety of other 

fields, such as geosciences, biology, cybersecurity, and solar energy. 

SIAM supports DMS’s participation in the several new NSF-wide initiatives, including Cyber-Enabled Materials and Manufacturing for Smart Systems (CEMMSS), 

which would support partnerships between mathematical scientists, computer scientists, physical scientists, and engineers to develop computational tools for transforming materials discovery to power our manufacturing base and help advance 

myriad technologies. In addition, SIAM continues to support DMS’s role in enabling 

interdisciplinary work through participation in the Research at the Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) initiative, which supports 

research in mathematical and computational biology to expand our understanding 

of biological processes and inspire potentially transformative new technologies for 

manufacturing and energy. 

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE

Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information technology and cyberinfrastructure. 

Programs in the NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) focus on providing research communities access to advanced computing capabilities to convert data to 

knowledge and increase our understanding through computational simulation and 

prediction. 

SIAM strongly urges you to provide OCI with the budget request level of $218.3 

million to invest in the computational resources and science needed to solve complex 

science and engineering problems. In addition, SIAM strongly endorses OCI’s efforts 

to take on the role of steward for computational science across NSF, strengthening 

NSF support for relevant activities and driving universities to improve their research and education programs in this multidisciplinary area. 

The programs in OCI that support work on software and applications for the next 

generation of supercomputers and other cyberinfrastructure systems are very important to enable effective use of advances in hardware, to facilitate applications that 

tackle key scientific questions, and to better understand increasingly complex software systems. SIAM strongly supports the proposed increase in funding for OCI 

data activities, including data infrastructure, tools, and repositories. The explosion 

in data available to scientists from advances in experimental equipment, simulation 

techniques, and computer power is well known, and applied mathematics has an important role to play in developing the methods and tools to translate this shower 

of numbers into new knowledge. 

SIAM continues to support the agency-wide initiative Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering (CIF21). This program works to de-
344 

velop comprehensive, integrated, sustainable, and secure cyberinfrastructure to accelerate research and capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and 

engineering. 

SUPPORTING THE PIPELINE OF MATHEMATICIANS AND SCIENTISTS

Investing in the education and development of young scientists and engineers is 

a critical role of NSF and a major step the Federal Government can take to ensure 

the future prosperity and welfare of the United States. Currently, the economic situation is negatively affecting the job opportunities for young mathematicians at universities, companies, and other research organizations. It is not only the young 

mathematicians who are not being hired that suffer from these cutbacks. The research community at large suffers from the loss of ideas and energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career researchers bring to the field 

and the country suffers from the lost innovation. 

In light of this situation, SIAM strongly supports NSF’s proposed fiscal year 2013 

increases in the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) program and the Faculty 

Early Career Development (CAREER) program. The GRF program would receive 

$243 million, which would support 2,000 new graduate student awards. The CAREER program would receive $216 million and would support an additional 40 CAREER awards, totaling 440 new awards for fiscal year 2013 if funded. 

Before reaching the graduate and early career stage, young mathematicians and 

scientists gain critical interests and skills as undergraduates. SIAM supports efforts 

by NSF to improve undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and notes the key role that mathematicians play in training for these fields. As interdisciplinary research questions become increasingly central to scientific progress, students need early exposure to research experiences and 

interdisciplinary challenges. SIAM supports the newly proposed Expeditions in Education Initiative, which will better link NSF research and education activities to enable hands-on learning for students on cutting-edge systems and challenges across 

disciplines. 

CONCLUSION

We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing support of NSF 

that enables the research and education communities it supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake activities that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the United States. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our competitive edge in science and technology, and therefore, we 

respectfully ask that you continue robust support of these critical programs by providing $7.373 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2013. 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the subcommittee on behalf 

of SIAM. SIAM looks forward to providing any additional information or assistance 

you may ask of us during the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The 

Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) is an international, nonprofit conservation organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and 

waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and water upon 

which all life depends. 

As the Nation enters the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle and another year of fiscal 

challenges, the Conservancy recognizes the need for fiscal austerity and stresses our 

concern that the natural resource stewardship programs should not shoulder a disproportionate share of cuts in this budget. 

Our recommendations this year do not exceed the President’s budget request except in cases in which the ocean and coastal programs have borne a severely disproportionate cut and will result in the inability for NOAA to meet its critical stewardship mandates. Moreover, as a science-based and business-oriented organization, 

we believe strongly that the budget levels we support represent a prudent investment in our country’s future that not only help NOAA achieve their most critical 

missions by catalyzing local and regional action, but will also reduce risks and ultimately save money based on tangible economic and societal benefits natural resources provide each year to the American people. 

Fisheries Management.—The 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) were intended to end over-
345 

1 Relocated in NOAA’s fiscal year 2013 bluebook under ‘‘Habitat Management and Restoration’’. 2Kroeger, Timm (2012). ‘‘Oyster Reef Restoration in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Ecosystem 

Services, Economic Benefits and Impacts, and Opportunities for Disadvantaged Coastal Communities.’’ The Nature Conservancy. 

fishing in the United States and reduce destructive fishing practices in U.S. waters. 

Further, it included new provisions that create mechanisms for communities to engage in conservation efforts while securing the contribution of marine fisheries to 

their local economies. NOAA Fisheries, in implementing the MSFCMA, has made 

important strides in addressing these challenges and strengthening fisheries management; however, much more needs to be done. To recover fish stocks so that they 

provide food and jobs to struggling fishermen now and in the future, we need to recover overfished stocks, reduce destructive fishing practices, restore coastal habitats 

that produce fish, and support the efforts of fishermen and local communities that 

depend on fishing. The following NOAA programs are essential to achieving healthy 

coastal habitats and continued robust fisheries management. 

Fisheries Habitat Restoration 1.—Marked by the President’s fiscal year 2013 request, we are increasingly concerned that NOAA views investment in habitat restoration subordinate to more traditional fisheries management undertakings. As the 

gulf oil spill made tragically clear, healthy coastal habitats are essential to the economic and social well-being of coastal residents as well as others throughout the Nation that rely on coastal communities for commerce, food, and recreation. Coastal 

wetlands and nearshore waters produce the fish and shellfish that feed America. 

Furthermore, salt marshes, oyster reefs, seagrass meadows, and coral reefs help to 

prevent erosion and protect our communities from storm surges. Since 2001, The 

Nature Conservancy and NOAA have partnered through the community-based Restoration program (funded under the Fisheries Habitat Restoration line item along 

with the Open Rivers Initiative) to restore the health of degraded habitats in places 

and ways that benefit not just local marine life, but communities and coastal economies as well. 

Through the 124 community-based projects supported in the first decade of this 

partnership, NOAA and the Conservancy have helped protect vital coastal and marine habitat, restore species that keep coastal systems healthy, remove invasive species, create shellfish spawning sanctuaries and re-establish water flows to estuaries. 

Beyond the environmental benefits, these projects have shown that restoration pays 

off for coastal communities, producing jobs for direct restoration work and supporting coastal communities through increased fish production. A recent economic 

analysis of oyster reef restoration in the Northern Gulf of Mexico provided compelling evidence for such claims, finding that two reefs totaling 3.6 miles would increase economic output of commercial finfish and crab landings by $35,000 per year; 

cut wave height and energy significantly, reducing shoreline erosion and associated 

damages to private property and public infrastructure; and remove up to 4,160 

pounds of nitrogen per year from Bay waters.2

Through our on-the-ground experience we recommend $22 million for the Fisheries Habitat Restoration in the fiscal year 2013. Moreover, we request that no less 

than $9 million should be made available for competitive cooperative agreements 

through the Community-based Restoration Program (CRP). Additional funding beyond cooperative agreements and program administration of CRP should be dedicated to the Open Rivers Initiative. 

National Catch Share Program.—Catch Shares give participating fishermen a 

stake in the benefits of a well-managed fishery and align the incentives for resource 

stewardship with the natural incentive for fishermen to increase their earnings with 

a sustainable business model. Transition to these systems is difficult and getting the 

design and implementation of these new catch share programs, including provisions 

to engage fishing communities, right is critical. The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $28 million for the National Catch Share 

Program. 

Annual Stock Assessments.—The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated annual catch 

limits in all fisheries to prevent overfishing by in place by 2011. While this milestone has been achieved, there is room for continued improvement in fishery data 

collection and stock assessments. Adequate stock assessments are essential for the 

sound management of fisheries and the sustainability of fishing resources. The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $69 million for 

annual stock assessments. 

Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.—The Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund 

(PCSRF) is the most critical Federal program addressing major threats to Pacific 

salmon so that these fish can continue to sustain culture, economies, recreation, and 
346 

ecosystem health. This Federal funding source is tailored for each State, competitively awarded based on merit and has funded hundreds of successful, on-theground salmon conservation efforts. PCSRF invests in cooperative efforts to conserve 

species under the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jurisdiction and 

projects are matched at a 3:1 ratio (Federal/non-Federal) and have resulted in significant progress in protecting and restoring salmon across their range. Notably, the 

PCSRF has catalyzed thousands of partnerships among Federal, State, local, tribal 

governments, conservation, business, and community organizations. The Conservancy urges sustaining at least $65 million for the competitive and proven PCSRF 

grants program. 

Species Recovery Grants.—Through this program, NMFS provides grants to States 

to support conservation actions that contribute to recovery or have direct conservation benefits for listed species, recently de-listed species, and candidate species that 

reside within that State. We support the President fiscal year 2013 budget’s request 

for $4.8 million. 

Ocean Services.—Over the years, and across many sites, NOAA has been an invaluable partner to the Conservancy. NOAA programs that provide practical, community-oriented approaches to restoration, resource management, and conservation 

are natural fits for the Conservancy’s mission. The Coastal Services Center and National Estuarine Research Reserve programs educate hundreds of local community 

officials and practitioners to better ways to apply tools and science. In addition, 

NOAA’s data, research and monitoring of coastal and marine systems directly provide data and decision-support tools that inform the safe operations of industry, 

prioritize habitats for restoration, and advance science-based management decisions. 

The following funding recommendations highlight critical programs that support 

productive coastal communities and healthy coastal and marine places. 

Coral Reef Conservation Program.—The decline of coral reefs has significant social, cultural, economic, and ecological impacts on people and communities in the 

United States and around the world. The Conservancy works with NOAA’s Coral 

Reef Conservation Program under a competitively awarded, multiyear cooperative 

agreement to address the top threats to coral reef ecosystems: 

—climate change; 

—overfishing; and 

—land-based sources of pollution. 

Together we develop place-based strategies; develop resilient marine-protected 

area networks; measure the effectiveness of management efforts; and build capacity 

among reef managers at the global scale. NOAA has undertaken a coral reef conservation priority setting exercise in all seven of the U.S. jurisdictions with coral 

reef resources. The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $27 million to provide funding to support implementation of these conservation priorities, including more comprehensive mapping and data compilation and 

analysis on cold water corals in U.S. waters. 

Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program.—Created by the Congress in 

2002 and formally authorized in 2009, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) program has helped preserve approximately 45,000 acres of 

America’s most important coastal areas. All Federal funding for CELCP is leveraged 

by at least an equal amount of State, local, and private investments. There is significant demand for coastal conservation that is not being met. In the last several 

years, NOAA has identified and vetted more than $270 million in coastal projects 

that are eligible for CELCP program funding. The fiscal year 2013 President’s budget request recommends the removal of all funds for CELCP. The Conservancy recommends including the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $3 million in the budget 

to minimally support a program that utilizes both acquisition and conservation easements to protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical, or aesthetic values. 

Regional Ocean Partnerships.—The funding would provide support to implement 

priority actions identified by existing and developing Regional Ocean Partnerships 

including the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council 

on Oceans, the South Atlantic Alliance, the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, the West Coast 

Governors’ Agreement on Ocean Health, and the Council of Great Lakes Governors. 

These multi-state collaborations originated to address regional priorities such as 

habitat conservation and restoration, energy siting, coastal resilience to severe 

storms, coastal water quality, and regional data and science needs. Additional funding should be provided to support State and regional engagement in the development of marine planning, including stakeholder processes and consensus building 

tools, analysis of data and information, and facilitation of broad public participation 

in the planning process. The Conservancy urges a least $4 million to advance vital 

regional ocean and coastal priorities. 
347 

National Estuarine Research Reserve System.—The National Estuarine Research 

Reserve System (NERRS) partners with States and territories to ensure long-term 

education, stewardship, and research on estuarine habitats. Atlantic, gulf, Pacific, 

Caribbean, and Great Lakes reserves advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries and serve as a scientific foundation for coastal management decisions. This 

unique site-based program around the Nation contributes to a systemic research, 

education, and training on the Nation’s estuaries. The Conservancy recommends including the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $22 million in the budget. 

National Marine Sanctuaries Program.—National marine sanctuaries support economic growth and hundreds of coastal businesses in sanctuary communities; preserve vibrant underwater and maritime treasures for Americans to enjoy; and provide critical public access for ocean recreation, research, and education. Investment 

in these sites do more than simply protect small areas of the ocean, but a downpayment on the many other Americans whose livelihoods are dependent on a healthy 

ocean and coasts. The Conservancy supports the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget 

request of $47 million. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share with the subcommittee the Conservancy’s 

priorities in NOAA’s fiscal year 2013 budget. We would be pleased to provide the 

committee with additional information on any of the Conservancy’s activities described here or elsewhere. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PLANETARY SOCIETY

The Planetary Society is deeply troubled with the priorities reflected in National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) fiscal year 2013 budget. If implemented, it will portend grave consequences for our Nation’s ability to conduct deepspace science missions and could irreversibly erode unique aspects of the space industrial base needed for such missions. 

Specifically, the disproportionate cut to the Planetary Science budget would force 

NASA to walk away from planned missions to Mars, to back out of international 

agreements with the European Space Agency (ESA), delay for decades any flagship 

missions to the outer planets, and radically slow the pace of scientific discovery, including the search for life on other worlds. We think this is the wrong direction for 

America’s space program. 

Planetary Science is the part of NASA that’s actually conducting interesting and 

scientifically important missions. Spacecraft sent to Mars, Saturn, Mercury, the 

Moon, comets, and asteroids have been making incredible discoveries, with more to 

come from recent launches to Jupiter, the Moon, and Mars. The country needs more 

of these robotic space exploration missions, not fewer. 

For the first time in human history, we have the tools available to directly test 

the hypothesis of whether there is, or has been, life on other worlds such as Mars 

or Europa. Such a discovery would be a seminal event in human history and would 

have a deep and profound impact on how we view our place in the Universe, much 

as Copernicus sparked the Age of Enlightenment 500 years ago with his theory that 

the Earth orbits the Sun, just like any other planet. We stand at the dawn of a similar period in which our knowledge and understanding of the Universe is poised to 

take another giant leap forward. 

We understand that NASA is undertaking a review to examine options for potential future Mars missions, and we support efforts to put the program back on track, 

but we are also adamant that decisions for future planetary missions be guided by 

the most recent Planetary Science Decadal Survey of the National Research Council. 

It took almost 2 years to forge a consensus of 1,700 planetary scientists and should 

not be dismissed or watered-down. NASA’s science programs have achieved great 

successes based on the decadal-survey process and all should be reluctant to abandon it. 

While it may appear attractive to develop an integrated strategy for Mars science 

missions and an eventual human mission to Mars, the lack of clear goals and tangible program plans on the human side suggests the discussion is premature, at 

best. 

We recognize the intense fiscal and budget pressure the country faces. We understand that agency programs are receiving unprecedented scrutiny and that budgets 

are shrinking. However, today’s budget environment is also an opportunity to take 

stock of what’s working and what’s not working, and to adjust priorities. 

Today, approximately 27 percent of NASA’s budget goes to Science, with 8 percent 

of NASA’s total going to Planetary Science. The human spaceflight program 

(SOMD∂ESMD) consumes about 45 percent of NASA’s budget, and the remaining 

28 percent goes to aeronautics, technology, and infrastructure. The Planetary Soci-
348 

ety is a strong supporter of both human and robotic space exploration and a strong 

advocate for investments in technology. However, given the impacts of the proposed 

fiscal year 2013 budget, some adjustments are needed. 

Specifically, the Planetary Society recommends reallocating approximately 3 percent from within NASA’s total budget to rebaseline the share for Science to at least 

30 percent and restoring the $300 million cut to Planetary Science to fund it at $1.5 

billion. This modest rebalancing will allow NASA to fully implement the decadal 

survey for Planetary Science, send a mission to Mars and prepare for missions to 

the outer planets, while allowing NASA to continue a robust program of missions 

in Earth Science, Astronomy, and Heliophysics. 

We arrive at this conclusion primarily because NASA’s Science program currently 

has an abundance of compelling world-class science missions with clearly defined 

mission goals and carefully crafted program plans that are poised to move out. We 

believe that a healthy and vibrant Science program is an excellent investment that 

will energize, engage, and inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers, educators, and the public, as has been the case with the Mars rovers and many other 

missions. The diversity and frequency of science mission opportunities laid out by 

the decadal survey will significantly contribute to thousands of high-tech jobs in the 

aerospace industry, at research laboratories, and in universities. These programs 

will stimulate the best and brightest with interesting and meaningful scientific and 

technical challenges that will make our Nation stronger and more competitive. 

While we recognize these are difficult choices, we believe an increase in the share 

of the NASA budget for Science to 30 percent is the best place for the agency to 

make the most effective use of the taxpayers’ money at this time and in today’s 

budget environment. 

We are at the brink of the next revolution in scientific understanding. A great 

Government will lead this pursuit and make these investments because it will make 

a difference to our society and to our children. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SECTION OF THE PACIFIC SALMON

COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, my name is W. Ron Allen, and I serve as a Commissioner on the 

United States Section of Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The PSC was established in 1985 to oversee implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) between the United States and Canada. In May 2008, the PSC concluded bilateral negotiations that developed revised 10-year salmon fishing regimes to replace regimes 

that were expiring at the end of 2008. The provisions of the new fisheries agreements were approved by the United States and Canadian Federal governments and 

are being implemented for the 2009–2018 period. The U.S. Section is requesting 

that the Congress includes funding in the fiscal year 2013 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) budget for the Pacific Salmon Treaty at $9,708,000 and the 

Chinook Salmon Agreement at $1,844,000. 

The implementation of the Treaty is funded through the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and State. The Department of Commerce funds implementation 

of the Treaty as line items under Salmon Management Activities. The funding for 

Salmon Management Activities in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget is similar 

to previous years. However, the line item breakout within Salmon Management Activities was not made available to us. 

The U.S. Section recommends that the Congress: 

—Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty line item of NMFS at $9,708,000 for fiscal year 

2013 an increase in funding compared to $5,600,000 in recent-year budgets. 

This funding provides support for the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, 

and Idaho and the NMFS to conduct the salmon stock assessment and fishery 

management programs required to implement the Treaty’s conservation and allocation provisions for Coho, Sockeye, Chinook, Chum, and Pink salmon fisheries. Included within the total amount of $9,708,000 is $400,000 to continue 

a joint Trans-boundary River Salmon Enhancement Program as required by the 

Treaty. 

—Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement line item of NMFS 

for fiscal year 2013 at $1,844,000, level funding from what has been provided 

by the Congress in recent years. This funding is necessary to acquire the technical information to fully implement the abundance-based Chinook salmon management program provided for under the Treaty. 

The funding identified above is for ongoing annual programs and does not include 

new funding specifically needed for full application of the revised agreement for 

2009–2018 that was negotiated by the PSC and accepted by the governments of the 
349 

United States and Canada on December 23, 2008. Funding for implementing the revised treaty arrangements was part of NMFS fiscal year 2012 budget, and the U.S. 

PSC Commissioners recommend that it be continued in the fiscal year 2013 Federal 

budget. 

The base Treaty implementation projects included in the Pacific Salmon Treaty 

line item consist of a wide range of stock assessment, fishery monitoring, and technical support activities for all five species of Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from southeast Alaska to Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The States of Alaska, 

Washington, Oregon, Idaho, the Federal NMFS, and the 24 treaty tribes of Washington and Oregon are charged with conducting the salmon fishery stock assessment 

and harvest management actions required under the Treaty. Federal funding for 

these activities is provided through NMFS on an annual basis. 

The agency projects carried out under PSC funding are directed toward acquiring, 

analyzing, and sharing the information required to implement the salmon conservation and sharing principles of the Treaty. A wide range of programs for salmon stock 

size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock distribution, and catch and effort 

information collection from fisheries are represented. The information from many of 

these programs is used directly to establish fishing seasons, harvest levels, and accountability to the provisions of Treaty fishing regimes. The base Treaty implementation funding of approximately $5.6 million budget has 

essentially remained at this low level since the early 1990s. Since that time, the 

growing complexity of conservation-based, and Endangered Species Act compliant 

fishing regimes has required vastly more stock assessment, fishery compliance monitoring, and technical support activities. In order to continue to fulfill the Federal 

commitments created by Pacific Salmon Treaty, the States have had to augment 

Federal funding with other Federal and State support. For example, additional 

sources of funding have included Federal Anadromous Fish Grants, Federal Pacific 

Coast Salmon Recovery Funds (PCSRF), Federal Dingell-Johnson dollars, and State 

general funds. However, alternative sources for funding have been reduced or eliminated with the Anadromous Fish Grants eliminated in the Federal fiscal year 2010 

budget, use of PCSRF monies constrained in fiscal year 2010 by new appropriations 

language and further constrained in 2012 by the NMFS, and State dollars and Dingell-Johnson grants cut significantly during the current economic downturn. 

The economic impact of commercial and sport fisheries has been measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at approximately $2–$3 billion per year to the States 

involved in the PST. To continue to implement the Federal PST conservation-based 

fishing regimes that contribute to the sustainability of salmon stocks and the large 

economic return to the States, the U.S. PSC members recommend an increase in 

base treaty implementation funding from the current $5.6 million to $9,708,000. 

Effective, science-based implementation of negotiated salmon fishing arrangements and abundance-based management approaches for Chinook, southern Coho, 

Northern Boundary and Trans-boundary River salmon fisheries includes efforts such 

as increased annual tagging and tag recovery operations and application of other 

emerging stock identification techniques. The U.S. PSC members recommend that 

$9,708,000 be provided for the NMFS Pacific Salmon Treaty line item in fiscal year 

2013 for the States for Treaty technical support activities. The $400,000 that has 

been provided in the separate International Fisheries Commissions line item since 

1988 for a joint Trans-boundary River enhancement program with Canada is now 

included in this amount. The recommended amount for the combined projects represents an approximate increase of $4,108,000 more than the amount appropriated 

for fiscal year 2012. 

Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Congress provided $1,844,000 to allow for the 

collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery management information to implement a new abundance-based management approach for Chinook salmon coastwide in the Treaty area. Through a rigorous competitive technical review process 

for project approval, the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the 

24 treaty tribes use the funding to support research and data collection needed for 

abundance-based Chinook management. The U.S. Section recommends level funding 

of $1,844,000 for fiscal year 2013 to support the abundance-based Chinook salmon 

management program. 

The United States and Canada agreed in 1988 to a joint salmon enhancement program on the Trans-boundary Rivers, which are rivers rising in Canada and flowing 

to the sea through Southeast Alaska. Since 1989, the Congress has provided 

$400,000 annually for this effort through the NMFS International Fisheries Commission line item under the Conservation and Management Operations activity. 

Canada provides an equal amount of funding and support for this bilateral program. 

The funding for the U.S. share is included in the $9,708,000 the U.S. Section is recommending for the fiscal year 2013 NMFS Pacific Salmon Treaty line item. 
350 

This concludes the statement of the U.S. Section of the PSC submitted for consideration by your subcommittee. We wish to thank the subcommittee for the support 

that it has given us in the past. I will be pleased to answer any questions of the 

committee members. 

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY 

Fiscal year 2010 

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2011 

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2013 

U.S. Section 

recommendation 

Department of Commerce: 

Pacific Salmon Treaty line item ....................................................... $5,610,000 $5,600,000 1 $9,708,000 

Pacific Salmon Treaty—Chinook Salmon Agreement line item ....... 1,844,000 1,844,000 1,844,000 

1 The recommended fiscal year 2013 amount includes $400,000 provided for the Joint Trans-boundary River Enhancement Program currently 

funded under the NMFS International Fisheries Commission account. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share the fiscal year 2013 budget requests of 

the Pacific Salmon Commission. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC

RESEARCH

On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), I submit this written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for the committee record. UCAR is a 

consortium of more than 100 research institutions, including 77 doctoral-degree 

granting universities, which manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF). I urge 

the subcommittee to support the following levels of science funding in the fiscal year 

2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

National Science Foundation.—At least $7.373 billion, including $106.6 million for 

NCAR within the Geosciences Directorate (GEO). 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.—$5.073 billion for Science, and 

within this mission directorate, $1.785 billion for Earth science, including $440.1 

million for Earth science research, and $647 million for Heliophysics. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).—$5.008 billion, including $413.8 million for the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), 

$212.7 million for the OAR Climate Research line, and $991.9 million for the National Weather Service (NWS). 

Countless economic studies over the years have demonstrated the link between 

federally funded scientific R&D and economic vitality, industry and job growth, productivity, competitiveness, and innovation. Even in this difficult economic environment, we must maintain a balance of basic research elements including the scientific workforce; data collection, analysis and storage; computing; and facilities. As 

I describe below, I am concerned that the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2013 represents some imbalance within the science agencies. 

National Science Foundation 

I urge you to support the President’s fiscal year 2013 request of $7.373 billion for 

NSF. NSF’s mission is to support basic research which is the basis for two key drivers of our economy—technology development and innovation. According to the NSF 

budget request, ‘‘In a given year, NSF awards reach nearly 1,900 colleges, universities, and other public and private institutions in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2013, NSF support is expected to reach approximately 285,000 researchers, postdoctoral fellows, trainees, teachers, and students.’’ 

As illustrated by these numbers, NSF is indispensable to the health and resiliency 

of our Nation’s scientific R&D enterprise. 

National Center for Atmospheric Research.—NSF’s GEO supports a broad and diverse academic field that contributes to our understanding of long-term weather, extreme weather, dynamics of water resources, effects of the Sun on the Earth, effects 

of space weather on global communications, interactions of the Earth’s systems, energy resources, geologic hazards, and all aspects of the global oceans. UCAR endorses the President’s fiscal year 2013 request of $906.4 million for NSF’s GEO. 

However, I do have concerns within the GEO budget request that I would like 

to address, namely the proposed budget for the NCAR. In recent years, NSF has 

created constructive, cross-cutting initiatives meant to address issues of importance 

to the Nation, such as sustainability. Investment in these meritorious activities has 
351 

unfortunately come at the expense of established NSF programs and centers, many 

which complement the new initiatives. Given Federal budget pressures, this promises to undercut some of the basic, critical programs that NSF provides the Nation, 

including NCAR, an NSF Federally Funded Research and Development Center that 

expands the capacity of the Nation’s academic community to understand weather, 

the composition of the atmosphere, Sun-Earth interactions, space weather, and the 

interactions between oceans and atmosphere. 

Further, while NSF, GEO, and the Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences 

in which NCAR resides, all show increases in the budget request for 2013, primarily 

to fund ongoing growth in the sustainability research portfolio, NCAR’s proposed 

budget is decreased by 6.4 percent compared to the fiscal year 2012 estimate. The 

budget request language states, ‘‘This level of support protects the operation of the 

NCAR/Wyoming Supercomputer Center (NWSC), completed on time and within 

budget, and maintains support for other key community research infrastructure operated by NCAR.’’ However, NCAR encompasses an integrated and well-leveraged 

combination of both science and facilities. Continuing full support for this infrastructure, including the added costs of operating the NWSC, while absorbing a cut 

to the NCAR budget of more than $6 million, will place NCAR’s basic science research and community support programs, some of the best in the world, in jeopardy. 

Cutting the laboratory would be counterproductive to the potential productivity of 

the NWSC, given the computing center’s reliance on NCAR modeling and scientific 

expertise. With a balanced NCAR portfolio of science and facilities, NWSC operations will advance many fold critical weather and climate research contributions. 

We estimate that real cuts, when all expenses are tallied, would amount to decreases to NCAR’s scientific research on the order of 11 to 13 percent. Simply to 

maintain programs and infrastructure, NCAR would need an increase over the fiscal 

year 2012 appropriated amount. I urge the committee to support funding of $106.6 

million for NCAR within GEO’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, and 

further, to direct the agency to maintain ongoing support for NCAR at sustainable 

levels in future budgets, including the financing of the NWSC operating costs, without reducing the NCAR base funding as an offset. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration—Science Mission Directorate 

The research supported and data collected by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate are essential to atmospheric 

sciences research and global Earth observations. Through the use of space observatories, satellites, and other probes, NASA helps us achieve a deeper understanding 

of Earth, including answers to how the Earth’s long-term weather patterns may be 

changing. I urge the subcommittee to fund the Science Mission Directorate at $5.073 

billion, the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2012 and a level of funding that 

would help to keep on track future missions that are now threatened with delay. 

Earth Science.—Given the promise of observatories such as the Orbiting Carbon 

Observatory 2 (OCO–2), I am pleased that the President’s budget request proposes 

to increase funding for this and other Earth System Science Pathfinder missions in 

fiscal year 2013. The National Academy of Sciences decadal survey, Earth and 

Science Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond, released in 2007, continues to provide a critical set of recommendations of the 

most compelling needs in future Earth observations. Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation 

Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) and Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) are Tier 1 decadal 

survey missions funded within the Earth Systematic Missions line office. Expected 

to launch in 2014 and 2016, respectively, the fiscal year 2013 request keeps these 

important missions on schedule. However, other important missions recommended 

by the decadal survey are threatened with delays that jeopardize their future. Given 

the importance of these measurements to scientists, State and city planners, first 

responders, and Governors, the Nation must not allow any further delay in the deployment of these resources needed for our States and localities to wisely and appropriately adapt in the decades to come. I urge you to fund the President’s request 

of $1.785 billion for Earth science in fiscal year 2013. 

While the fiscal year 2013 budget request provides funding to keep many important Earth science missions on track, it also proposes a $6.5 million cut to Earth 

Science Research that is critical to translating missions into discoveries and new 

knowledge. At least 90 percent of the funds of this program are competitively 

awarded to investigators in academia, the private sector, laboratories, and other 

academic centers to utilize NASA data to further our understanding of Earth processes. A $6.5 million cut portends the loss of ongoing research projects and critical 

grant money for atmospheric scientists at national universities and NCAR. I urge 

you to restore funding for Earth Science Research to $440.1 million, the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2012. 
352 

Heliophysics.—With all of human civilization located in the extended atmosphere 

of the Sun, heliophysics is a critical discipline for understanding Sun/Earth connections. This research allows us to analyze the connections between the Sun, solar 

wind, and planetary space environments. NASA’s Heliophysics division enables 

NCAR to serve the solar-terrestrial physics community through delivery of community models for the upper atmosphere, instrumentation for space and balloon flights, 

and solar and upper-atmospheric data from space and balloon missions. I urge you 

to fund Heliophysics at the requested $647 million. 

NOAA 

All Americans benefit from the life-saving warnings produced by NWS. What 

many Americans do not understand is the research behind producing accurate forecasts. Satellite and ground observations collect data around the clock on real-time 

conditions. Computer models are run to produce projections and predictions as 

weather develops. Research collaborations with the Nation’s leading universities and 

the private sector produce improved data analysis, enhanced forecasting capabilities, 

and technology development. Free and open access to forecasts and weather data 

enable broadcast meteorologists and others to reach citizens, local governments, and 

resource managers with critical information. The sum of the parts, when all are supported appropriately in a balanced manner, adds up to saved lives, protected property, enhanced homeland security, and benefits to the economy. Yet NOAA’s budget 

is one of the least balanced of the scientific agencies. NOAA is roughly a $5 billion 

agency, with nearly $2 billion dedicated to satellite programs. These satellite observing systems, all located within NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and 

Information Service, will produce data that are absolutely essential to the Nation’s 

weather, space weather, and climate forecasting capabilities. But they cause an imbalance to NOAA’s budget that threatens to torque NOAA’s mission and products. 

I urge you to support the requested fiscal year 2013 amount of $5.008 billion for 

NOAA, but to consider increasing that amount to restore the balance to NOAA programs that will make it possible for the agency to provide the best scientific and 

operational products. 

Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.—In fiscal year 2011, the appropriated amount for OAR was $416.6 million. For fiscal year 2013, the President requests a total of $403.4 million, taking the office back almost to the 2009 level. 

While it may appear that OAR receives a healthy 7.7-percent proposed increase for 

fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2012 cuts were much deeper than this increase. I urge 

you to fund OAR at the requested $413.8 million (operations, research, and facilities 

(ORF) and procurement, acquisition, and construction (PAC) combined), recognizing 

that additional investment is needed to restore recent funding cuts to OAR that 

have resulted in the termination and downsizing of many important NOAA research 

programs. 

One example of such fiscal year 2012 cuts at OAR is the Climate Competitive Research, Sustained Observations, and Regional Information program, which funds extramural research that leverages NOAA programs and provides some of the needed 

program balance to its portfolio. States rely upon the climate, weather, and water 

outlooks developed under this program to develop seasonal and yearly management 

plans for water, agriculture, energy, and fisheries. In addition to these critical regional outlooks, this account funds global ocean observing programs essential for accurate weather forecasting and satellite calibration and validation, which are required to reap full use of the billions invested in satellite observations. I urge you 

to fund OAR’s Climate Research portfolio at the requested $212.7 million, and to 

fund the President’s request of $146.3 million for Climate Competitive Research, 

Sustained Observations, and Regional Information. 

National Weather Service.—As noted earlier, NWS is a 24/7 operation, and is this 

Nation’s sole authoritative source for issuing warnings and forecasts related to 

weather, severe weather, and long-term weather trends. To continue providing these 

critical services to the country, NWS must have as much information about weather 

conditions as possible. The less information, the less accurate the forecast will be. 

Yet, the fiscal year 2013 request seems to cut multiple data gathering programs. 

Again, the loss of data gathering capabilities creates a serious imbalance to NWS 

activity. However, within NWS, we are extremely pleased with the progress being 

made by the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) that promises great 

improvement in the reliability of hurricane forecasts. HFIP computing resources 

have been proposed for cuts in fiscal year 2013. Given the great promise of HFIP 

to save lives and property, I ask that that computing resource be restored. I urge 

you to fund NWS at the requested level of $991.9 million (ORF and PAC combined) 

and to consider a higher level so that restoration of essential observing and computing facilities may be achieved. 
353 

Thank you for your service to our Nation’s scientific enterprise and for the opportunity to express these views on behalf of the geosciences community. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER

I write today to urge you to support the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request of $413.8 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 

(NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), which supports some 

of the Nation’s most critical environmental research. Within OAR, I particularly 

support the Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional Information program, which facilitates the production of regional, national, and global 

weather and water outlooks. The President’s budget request of $146.3 million for 

this program would restore the 20-percent cut it sustained in fiscal year 2012. 

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION’S OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

NOAA OAR funding supports research that increases the effectiveness of observations, monitoring, and modeling to help States manage their infrastructure, agricultural resources, fisheries, water resources, and natural disaster planning and response. Past research has focused on forecasting large storm events, seasonal wildfire forecasts, assessing local impacts of projected sea-level rise, improving seasonal 

precipitation forecasts to improve dam management for both flood control and water 

storage, and forecasting energy demand scenarios. 

OAR funding also supports 18 Cooperative Institutes. These are located across 21 

States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands and are affiliated with 48 universities 

and research institutions. The Cooperative Institutes are partnerships that benefit 

the Nation by leveraging the unique strengths of NOAA and universities and research institutions in areas ranging from satellite climatology and fisheries biology 

to atmospheric chemistry and coastal ecology. In addition to facilitating long-term, 

substantive research collaboration, the Cooperative Institutes facilitate the training 

of the Nation’s next generation of both NOAA’s and the Nation’s scientific workforce. These cooperative entities—already strained by fiscal year 2012 budget cuts— 

are the very type of innovative partnerships the Federal Government should be promoting. Given the value of the Cooperative Institutes, further reductions to NOAA’s 

research budget would have negative implications that extend far beyond any nearterm budget savings. 

In addition, some of NOAA’s laboratories that support Cooperative Institutes and 

which are, in part, supported through OAR funds—such as the Geophysical Fluid 

Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, the Earth Systems Research Laboratory in 

Colorado, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Washington, the Atlantic 

Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory in Florida, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Michigan, and the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Oklahoma—risk staff reductions and reduced research effectiveness as a result of budget cuts in NOAA’s research portfolio. 

COMPETITIVE RESEARCH, SUSTAINED OBSERVATIONS, AND REGIONAL INFORMATION

While OAR sustained a 10-percent cut in funding in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal 

year 2011 levels, the Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional 

Information program carried a disproportionate amount of that burden with a 20- 

percent cut from fiscal year 2011 levels. The President’s budget request would restore this program’s funding to ensure continued support of critical science aimed 

at understanding the impact of atmospheric, oceanic, land-based, snow and ice processes on climate. 

This competitive climate research program funds grant activities focused on climate observation and monitoring; Earth system science; modeling, analysis, predictions, and projections; and climate and societal interactions. These programs not 

only fund important research in these areas, but they also support unique tools such 

as observational instruments, data and information sets, and assessment teams. 

These measure key climate factors such as temperature, precipitation, runoff, and 

soil moisture, and contribute to regional decisionmaking across the United States 

to facilitate responses to climate variability and change. 

CONCLUSION

Research that stems from NOAA’s OAR budget has real and positive impacts on 

the Nation’s well-being, allowing us to prepare for the impacts of shifts in weather, 
354 

water supplies, and storms. Just some examples of the research areas that could 

be negatively impact from further reductions include: 

—Forecasting of hurricanes and El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation events; 

—real-time sea level measurements used for tsunami warning systems; 

—storm surge monitoring; and 

—provision of data for early drought warning systems used by water and natural 

resource managers in the Colorado River Basin, California, and the shared watershed of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. 

Even in this fiscally constrained environment, the Nation must continue to invest 

in climate research, observations, monitoring, and modeling. I urge you to support 

the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request for NOAA OAR research at $413.8 

million, and the competitive climate research program at $146.3 million. Funding 

at this level will enable the Nation’s research institutions to continue their long and 

proud history of partnering with NOAA, industry, and other Government agencies 

to provide the Nation with useable atmospheric and oceanographic data to help plan 

for and respond to the impacts of climate variability and change. 

Thank you for your consideration of this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VOR 

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS OF INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES FOR

PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION THAT AFFECT THEIR CHOICE OF RESIDENCY

VOR, a national advocacy organization for people with intellectual disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) and their families express gratitude to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for this opportunity 

to submit testimony for the record of the hearing on March 8, 2012, in consideration 

of fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). VOR’s members look forward to working with Senators and their staff to ensure the civil rights 

of our most fragile citizens with ID/DD. 

REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MEET ITS CHOICE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTIONS INVOLVING

INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES

To protect the interests of the residents of ICFs for the DD and their families to 

be the primary decisionmakers regarding where they reside, in response to the blatant and repeated disregard of the ADA requirement for individual choice of residency by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, VOR requests that the subcommittee include the following language in the DOJ Civil Rights Division appropriations: 

—In any action taken by DOJ, including investigations, that involves the residents of an ICF/ID, DOJ shall consult with the residents (or, if a resident has 

a legal representative, the resident’s legal representative) and families among 

all other interested parties before taking action. 

—If, after taking action, families wish to intervene on behalf of their family member with ID/DD in the DOJ action, DOJ is encouraged to support such intervention. 

ABOUT VOR

VOR is a national advocacy organization representing individuals with ID/DD and 

their families. VOR has thousands of members across the country, with representation in every State. Unlike other national advocacy organizations, VOR recognizes 

that individuals with ID/DD and their families are the primary decisionmakers regarding services and supports. We recognize that legitimate choice and person-centered supports are only possible in a system that offers a full array of quality residential and support options, from small homes to Medicaid-funded and licensed 

ICFs/ID. 

RATIONALE: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION HAS ROUTINELY

IGNORED OLMSTEAD’S CHOICE MANDATE

For fiscal year 2013 DOJ has requested an additional 25 attorneys and $5.1 million to enable the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division to, among other activities, ‘‘strengthen 

civil rights enforcement efforts’’ as part of the Attorney General’s Vulnerable People 

Priority Goal. A portion of the requested increase will reportedly allow the Civil 

Rights Division to increase its enforcement of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 
355 

1 VOR contends that DOJ actions to close ICFs/DD contrary to resident choice also violates 

the Federal Medicaid law which requires that ICF/DD residents be informed of alternatives 

under the home and community-based services waiver and be given the choice of either ICF/ 

DD or home and community-based services waiver supports. 42 C.F.R. 441.302(c). 

Persons Act (CRIPA). Presumably any additional funds and attorneys, in part, 

would also be applied to the Civil Rights Division aggressive enforcement of 

Olmstead. According to a recent statement by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights: 

‘‘The agreement with the Commonwealth [of Virginia] is part of a broad, nationwide effort to enforce the Olmstead decision. In the last 3 years, the Civil Rights 

Division has joined or initiated litigation to ensure community-based services in 

more than 35 matters in 20 States. We reached comprehensive agreements with the 

States of Georgia and Delaware that, like the agreement with Virginia, provide 

broad relief for thousands of individuals with disabilities.’’ (Tom Perez, ‘‘Department 

of Justice Transformative Olmstead Settlement’’, February 6, 2012). 

In DOJ actions in Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, Arkansas and other States, the legal 

‘‘relief’’ for the affected individuals sought or supported by the Civil Rights Division 

has been the displacement of fragile individuals from life-sustaining, federally licensed supports (‘‘deinstitutionalization’’) without regard to choice and with little 

apparent concern for outcomes. These actions to enforce Olmstead are expressly contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision:1

‘‘We emphasize that nothing in the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] or its 

implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons 

unable to handle or benefit from community settings... Nor is there any Federal 

requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not 

desire it.’’ 527 U.S. 581, 601–02(1999) (see also, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, ‘‘It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of litigation to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out 

of appropriate care and into settings with no assistance and supervision’’). 

Specifically, the Supreme Court held that community placement is only required 

when: 

—The State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement 

is appropriate; 

—The transfer from an institutional setting to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual; and 

—The placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available. Id. at 587. 

Increased funding for CRIPA or ADA enforcement for deinstitutionalization activities will undoubtedly result in expanded DOJ legal activities to undermine and ultimately eliminate the option of Medicaid-certified ICFs/DD. 

Families and legal guardians of our country’s most vulnerable people with severe 

and profound ID/DD, who function at the level of infants and toddlers despite having the chronological age of adults, have strong objections to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division’s activities to ‘‘enforce the Olmstead decision.’’ Routinely, DOJ fails to seek 

or consider the input or protestations of the very individuals who have the greatest 

insights into the needs and desires of the affected individuals: 

‘‘. . . close relatives and guardians, both of whom likely have intimate knowledge 

of a mentally retarded person’s abilities and experiences, have valuable insights 

which should be considered during the involuntary commitment process.’’ Heller v. 

Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) 

‘‘Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families are the primary 

decisionmakers regarding the services and supports such individuals and their families receive and play decisionmaking roles in policies and programs that affect the 

lives of such individuals and their families.’’ DD Act, 42 U.S.C. 15001(c)(3)(1993) 

(Findings, Purposes and Policies). 

The following examples exemplify the Civil Rights Division’s blatant disregard for 

Olmstead‘s choice requirements: 

United States v. Georgia 

A Settlement Agreement reached between DOJ’s Civil Rights Division with the 

State of Georgia in October 2010, prohibits the admission of any individual with a 

developmental disability to a State hospital (ICFs/ID) by July 1, 2011, and requires 

the transition of ALL individuals with developmental disabilities already living in 
356 

State ICFs/ID to community settings by July 1, 2015. Affected individuals were not 

afforded any choice and families and legal guardians expressly opposed the settlement: ‘‘[I]f everyone is forced to accept community living, then no one has choice.’’ 

(Resolution of the East Central Georgia ICF/ID Family Association Opposing Settlement Agreement, November 30, 2010). 

Predictably, the 1-year implementation report by the court-appointed independent 

reviewer has found problems associated with the health and safety of displaced residents with regard to access to healthcare, medication, nutrition, and safety. Reportedly, there have been at least four deaths. 

United States v. Virginia 

A January 2012 Settlement Agreement between DOJ and the Commonwealth of 

Virginia continues to display the ideological agenda of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in its relentless effort to eliminate the option of Medicaid-certified ICFs/DD. If 

approved by the court, it will result in the closure of four public ICFs/DD. Families 

who had no meaningful opportunity to provide input to settlement terms but who 

expressly opposed closures were not listened to. A Motion to Intervene on behalf of 

residents of all Virginia ICFs/DD has been filed in an effort to protect individuals 

from displacement and harm. The Motion to Intervene demonstrates that DOJ has 

ignored choice, as required by Olmstead. 

An earlier court decision from Virginia points to a pattern and practice by DOJ 

to disregard choice contrary to Olmstead: 

‘‘Thus, the argument made by ARC and the United States [DOJ] regarding risk 

of institutionalization fails to account for a key principle in the Olmstead decision: 

personal choice. And here, where more residents desire to remain in institutional 

care than the new facility can provide for, there is little to no risk of institutionalization for those whose needs do not require it and who do not desire it.’’ (Arc of 

Virginia v. Kaine (December 17, 2009) (see also, Stanley Ligas, et al. v. Barry S. 

Maram, et al., 05 C 4331 (N.D. Illinois, July 7, 2009) (denying proposed settlement 

and decertifying class on finding that the named plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria 

set forth in Olmstead because class definition was not restricted to individuals who 

were eligible for, and desired, community placement). 

Arkansas 

In its CRIPA and ADA ‘‘civil rights’’ case against the State of Arkansas regarding 

its Conway ICF/ID, DOJ spent millions of Federal dollars and lost soundly. In his 

ruling dismissing the case, Federal District Court Judge Leon Holmes, addressed 

squarely the complete disregard by DOJ of family/guardian input and choice: 

‘‘Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights have been violated. Not this one . . . . All or nearly all of those residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the legal rights of their children or wards. Those 

parents and guardians, so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United 

States. Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position of asserting that certain persons’ rights have been and are being violated while those 

persons—through their parents and guardians disagree.’’ 

CONCLUSION: PLEASE CONDITION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

APPROPRIATIONS ON RESPECTING CHOICE

Choice is required by the ADA, as interpreted by Olmstead. Families and guardians of our country’s most vulnerable citizens seek relief from DOJ’s deinstitutionalization actions which are counter to the Olmstead choice mandate, counter to 

the best interests of the affected individuals who are displaced from life-sustaining 

services, and are pursued in complete disregard of the input of individuals and their 

families as primary decisionmakers. VOR requests the subcommittee to require DOJ 

to fulfill the ADA’s choice requirement by the following: 

—In any action taken by the DOJ, including investigations, that involves the residents of an ICF/ID, DOJ shall consult with the residents (or, if a resident has 

a legal representative, the resident’s legal representative) and families among 

all other interested parties before taking action; and 

—If after taking action, families wish to intervene on behalf of their family member with ID/DD in the DOJ action, DOJ is encouraged to support such intervention. 

Thank you for your consideration. 
(i) 

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page 

Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee ................................. 34 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 56 

American: 

Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 247 

Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the .............. 249 

Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 251 

Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the .................................. 253 

Society: 

For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 254 

Of: 

Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the ............................................. 256 

Mechanical Engineers, Prepared Statement of the ......................... 258 

Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 261 

Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the ......................................... 263 

ASME Technical Communities’ NASA Task Force, Prepared Statement of ....... 266 

Bolden, Charles F., Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration .......................................................................................................... 205 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 212 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 210 

Brown, Senator Sherrod, U.S. Senator From Ohio, Statements of .......... 23, 167, 232 

Bryson, Hon. John, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce ..................................................................................................................... 143 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 150 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 149 

California Coastal Commission, Prepared Statement of the ............................... 270 

Coastal States Organization, Prepared Statement of the .................................... 271 

Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi: 

Question Submitted by ..................................................................................... 203 

Statements of................................................................................................ 147, 225 

Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 199 

David Engels and Leni Engels, RN, Prepared Statement of ............................... 274 

Earth Institute, Columbia University, Prepared Statement of the ..................... 275 

Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents, Prepared Statement of the ... 278 

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Prepared Statement of .................................................................................................................. 281 

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California .................................. 32 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 190 

Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina ........................... 30 

Question Submitted by ..................................................................................... 203 

Holder, Hon. Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice .................. 1 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 9 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 7 

Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas: 

Questions Submitted by................................................................................. 48, 242 

Statements of.................................................................................. 5, 115, 148, 209 
Page

ii 

IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors’ Club®, Prepared Statement of the .................. 282 

Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Prepared Statement of the ................. 285 

Innocence Project, Prepared Statement of the ...................................................... 287 

Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii ........................................ 146 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 146 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 183 

Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the ............................ 289 

Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey: 

Questions Submitted by........................................................................ 47, 141, 198 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 131 

Statements of.................................................................................................. 38, 129 

Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont: 

Questions Submitted by........................................................................ 46, 141, 189 

Statement of ...................................................................................................... 37 

Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the ............................. 292 

Marine Conservation Institute, Prepared Statement of the ................................ 294 

Mary P. Paulsen, Prepared Statement of .............................................................. 297 

Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland: 

Opening Statements of .................................................................. 1, 111, 143, 205 

Prepared Statements of ................................................................. 3, 112, 145, 208 

Questions Submitted by........................................................................ 40, 138, 177 

Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department 

of Justice ............................................................................................................... 111 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 120 

Summary Statement of .................................................................................... 116 

Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska: 

Questions Submitted by ................................................................................... 60 

Statements of.................................................................................................. 25, 169 

National: 

Association of: 

Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Prepared Statement of the .... 298 

Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement of the ................................... 301 

Ecological Observatory Network, Inc., Prepared Statement of the .............. 304 

Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of the ......... 306 

Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Prepared Statement of the .......................... 309 

Network to End Domestic Violence, Prepared Statement of the .................. 312 

Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the ............................................ 316 

Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the ....................... 318 

Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ................................................. 344 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the ................ 319 

NSF Task Force of the ASME Technical Communities—Knowledge and Community Sector, Prepared Statement of the ........................................................ 323 

Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the ................................................... 326 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the ......... 329 

Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas ............................................. 27 

Prepared Statement of ..................................................................................... 113 

Rebecca Underwood—Parent/Guardian/Advocate, Prepared Statement of ........ 331 

Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Question Submitted 

by ........................................................................................................................... 198 

Regional Information Sharing Systems Program, Prepared Statement of the ... 333 

Richard M. Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director, Oregon Governor’s 

Office, Letter From .............................................................................................. 336 

Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the .............................................. 337 

SEARCH—The National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics, 

Prepared Statement of ......................................................................................... 339 

Shelby, Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Statements of ..................... 16, 229 

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Prepared Statement of the ... 342 

The Planetary Society, Prepared Statement of ..................................................... 347 

United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement 

of the ..................................................................................................................... 348
Page

iii 

University: 

Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared Statement of the ............ 350 

Of Colorado Boulder, Prepared Statement of the .......................................... 353 

VOR, Prepared Statement of .................................................................................. 354 

(v) 

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Page 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 177 

Advancing the Frontiers of Innovation .................................................................. 154 

Arctic Outer Continental Shelf ............................................................................... 175 

Background on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P–3s .......... 162 

Build it Here—Sell it Everywhere ......................................................................... 151 

Census ...................................................................................................................... 179 

Management ..................................................................................................... 175 

Coastal Protections .................................................................................................. 193 

Consolidation of Offices ........................................................................................... 192 

Cuts to National Weather Service Workforce ....................................................... 178 

Cyber Espionage ...................................................................................................... 159 

Department of Commerce Restructuring: National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 172 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Arctic—Outer Continental 

Shelf ...................................................................................................................... 176

Economic Development Administration ................................................................. 164 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Input .................................................................. 197 

Fishery Management ............................................................................................... 169 

Gaps in Weather Coverage ..................................................................................... 160 

Gulf of Mexico Fisheries ..................................................................................... 166, 171 

Habitat Programs .................................................................................................... 186 

Henry B. Bigelow Homeport ................................................................................... 198 

Hurricane Hunters .................................................................................................. 161 

Intellectual Property ............................................................................................... 157 

International Trade Administration ................................................ 188, 196, 202, 203 

Marine: 

Debris Program ................................................................................................. 184 

Mammal Stranding—Gulf of Mexico .............................................................. 203 

National: 

Oceanic and Atmospheric: 

Administration .................................................................... 178, 183, 190, 199 

Management ....................................................................................... 174 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Relationship ...... 161 

Ship Ka’imimoana .............................................................................. 187 

Administration’s: .......................................................................................

Hurricane Hunter Planes .................................................................. 180 

Telecommunications and Information Administration .................................. 197 

Navigation Response Teams ................................................................................... 186 

Pacific: 

Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund ....................................................................... 192 

Salmon Protected Species Research and Management Funding .................. 191 

Patent: 

Application Backlog .......................................................................................... 157 

Examiner Recruitment, Hiring: 

And Training ............................................................................................. 158 

Training, and Prioritized Examination Process ...................................... 158 

Potential Listing of River Herring as Threatened Under the Endangered 

Species Act ............................................................................................................ 200 

Prioritized Examination Process ............................................................................ 159 

Regional Fishery Management Councils ............................................................... 189 
Page

vi 

Satellite Program ..................................................................................................... 160 

Sequestration....................................................................................................... 165, 177 

State-Federal Partnerships ..................................................................................... 201 

Status of the Hurricane Surveillance Aircraft (Hurricane Hunters) ................... 162 

Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars ........................................................................... 156 

Supporting U.S. Businesses and Communities ..................................................... 153 

Trade Enforcement .................................................................................................. 167 

Tsunami: 

Hazard Mitigation Program ............................................................................. 183 

Preparedness ..................................................................................................... 195 

United States Patent and Trademark Office .................................................... 181, 189 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Acceptance...................................................... 64, 68, 71, 75, 79, 82, 86, 90, 93, 102 

Activation of Aliceville Federal Corrections Institute .......................................... 17 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 40 

Attorney’s Fees for Prosecutors in Stevens Case ................................................... 25 

Big Bend ................................................................................................................... 54 

Bill Allen Matter ...................................................................................................... 108 

Bulletproof Vests ..................................................................................................... 37 

Bureau of Prisons .................................................................................................... 59 

Cartels Recruiting College Students and Minors .................................................. 53 

Community Oriented Policing Service: 

Grants ................................................................................................................ 19 

Office .................................................................................................................. 20 

Conditions of Private Counsel Retention by the Department of Justice 

for Representation of Current and Former Federal 

Employees................................................... 61, 65, 69, 72, 76, 80, 83, 87, 91, 100 

Cybersecurity ........................................................................................................... 29 

Danger Pay for Mexico ............................................................................................ 51 

Department of: 

Justice Task Forces .......................................................................................... 51 

Justice’s Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement and Ensuring 

Officer Resilience and Survivability Initiative Training ........................... 48 

Discrepancies Between Department of Justice and President’s Requests .......... 50 

Duplication: 

In Government Programs ................................................................................ 41 

Of Services ........................................................................................................ 20 

Fast and Furious Language Removed From the Request .................................... 52 

Federal: 

Criminal Discovery Reform .............................................................................. 106 

Prison Funding ................................................................................................. 17 

Programs Facing Cuts ...................................................................................... 45 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act .................................................................... 33 

Funds Requested by State and Local Organizations for Byrne Grants .............. 20 

Grant Program Duplication .................................................................................... 37 

High-Capacity Ammunition .................................................................................... 39 

Illegal Trafficking of Tobacco .................................................................................. 47 

Impact of Sequestration .......................................................................................... 30 

Indemnification of Legal Fees Incurred by Stevens Prosecutors ......................... 60 

Justice Department Enforcement and Wind Farms ............................................. 57 

Memorandum for File ........................................................................................... 99, 103 

Methamphetamine: 

In Tennessee ..................................................................................................... 56 

Labs ................................................................................................................... 36 

Military Commissions .............................................................................................. 32 

National: 

Academy of Sciences Forensics Study ............................................................. 49 

Advocacy Center ............................................................................................... 30 

Forensic Academy—University of Tennessee ................................................. 58 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 34 

Security ............................................................................................................. 10, 33 

New York City Police Department Surveillance ................................................... 40 

Program ............................................................................................................. 46 

Office of: 

Justice Programs .............................................................................................. 20 
Page

vii 

Office of—Continued 

Legal Counsel Memorandum—Counterterrorism Operations ...................... 46 

Oil: 

And Gas Price Fraud Working Group ............................................................. 24 

Speculation ........................................................................................................ 33 

Pan Am 103 Bombing .............................................................................................. 47 

Prison Overcrowding ............................................................................................... 27 

Prisons and Detention ............................................................................................. 14 

Prosecutorial Misconduct ........................................................................................ 105 

Prosecutors in Stevens Case .................................................................................... 23 

Recess: 

Appointment ..................................................................................................... 37 

Appointments ................................................................................................... 31, 35 

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group .................................... 23 

Retention and Payment of Private Counsel .......................................................... 94 

Revamping the Federal Criminal Code ................................................................. 31 

Same-Sex Immigration Petitions ........................................................................... 38, 47 

Sample Private Counsel Retention Letter ............................................................. 99 

Savings and Efficiencies .......................................................................................... 15 

Senator Stevens Case .............................................................................................. 54 

Sequestration ........................................................................................................... 28 

State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement ............................................................ 13 

Stevens Case ............................................................................................................ 21, 25 

SWB Communications ............................................................................................. 54 

Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center and National Center for Explosives Training Research ...................................................................................... 16 

The John R. Justice Program ................................................................................. 28 

Traditional Mission Programs ................................................................................ 11 

Violent Crime ........................................................................................................... 39 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 138 

Criminal Threats ..................................................................................................... 122 

Cyber Security Cuts ................................................................................................ 139 

Federal: 

Bureau of Investigation Rescission ................................................................. 139 

Programs Facing Cuts ...................................................................................... 138 

High-Capacity Ammunition Clip ............................................................................ 141 

Illegal Trafficking of Tobacco .................................................................................. 142 

Most At-Risk Area ................................................................................................... 142 

National Security Threats ....................................................................................... 120 

New York City Police Department Surveillance of Muslim American Community ........................................................................................................................ 141 

Offsets ....................................................................................................................... 124 

Provide Details on any Recognition That was Given to the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation Agent That Reported the Alleged Misconduct of Senator 

Ted Steven’s Case ................................................................................................ 134 

Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories ........................................................... 141 

Report on Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Investigation of the Alleged Misconduct of Senator Ted Stevens’ Case ................................................................ 136 

Traditional Crime Fighting ..................................................................................... 140 

Whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation Makes Public Data on Crimes 

Occurring on Cruise Ships .................................................................................. 131 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

A Healthy National Aeronautics and Space Administration Relying on Ten 

Centers .................................................................................................................. 232 

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 242 

Aeronautics Research .............................................................................................. 216 

Commercial: 

Cargo and Crew ................................................................................................ 238 

Providers Progress ............................................................................................ 229 

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration .......................... 225 

Cross-Agency Support ............................................................................................. 224 

Education .................................................................................................................. 223

Engine Testing and Development .......................................................................... 226 
Page

viii 

Government Buying Practices ................................................................................ 230 

Human Exploration and Operations ...................................................................... 218 

James Webb Space Telescope............................................................................. 227, 238 

Main Propulsion Test Center .................................................................................. 226 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport ............................................................................ 240 

Orion: 

And Space Launch System Audit Study ......................................................... 236 

As Backup ......................................................................................................... 243 

Plum Brook Test: 

Center ................................................................................................................ 233 

Facility ............................................................................................................... 233 

Priority Goals ........................................................................................................... 234 

Santa Susana Field Laboratory .............................................................................. 244 

Science ...................................................................................................................... 214 

Missions in the Future ..................................................................................... 240 

Sequester Consequences ......................................................................................... 228 

Sequestration ........................................................................................................... 242 

Shuttle Retirement Payment .................................................................................. 243 

Space: 

Launch System/Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.................................. 234, 237 

Technology ......................................................................................................... 222 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Core Mission ................. 229 

Æ