[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2010
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
ADAM SCHIFF, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Blazey, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
Tracey LaTurner, Diana Simpson, and Darek Newby
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
Federal Law Enforcement Response to U.S.-Mexico Border Violence.. 1
Drug Enforcement Administration.................................. 115
Legal Services Corporation....................................... 193
Department of Justice............................................ 269
Department of Commerce........................................... 383
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 587
S
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
PART 7--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR 2010
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2010
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia, Chairman
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
ADAM SCHIFF, California ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
MICHAEL HONDA, California JO BONNER, Alabama
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Obey, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Lewis, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
John Blazey, Dixon Butler, Adrienne Simonson,
Tracey LaTurner, Diana Simpson, and Darek Newby
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 7
Page
Federal Law Enforcement Response to U.S.-Mexico Border Violence.. 1
Drug Enforcement Administration.................................. 115
Legal Services Corporation....................................... 193
Department of Justice............................................ 269
Department of Commerce........................................... 383
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 587
S
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-291 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania JERRY LEWIS, California
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York TODD TIAHRT, Kansas
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut ZACH WAMP, Tennessee
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia TOM LATHAM, Iowa
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
ED PASTOR, Arizona JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina KAY GRANGER, Texas
CHET EDWARDS, Texas MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida
SAM FARR, California DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana
ALLEN BOYD, Florida KEN CALVERT, California
CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia TOM COLE, Oklahoma
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BARBARA LEE, California
ADAM SCHIFF, California
MICHAEL HONDA, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
TIM RYAN, Ohio
C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
Maryland
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
CIRO RODRIGUEZ, Texas
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado
Beverly Pheto, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2010
----------
Tuesday, March 24, 2009.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TO U.S.-MEXICO BORDER VIOLENCE
WITNESSES
BILL NEWELL, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, ATF PHOENIX DIVISION
JOSEPH ARABIT, SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE, DEA EL PASO DIVISION
PHIL GORDON, MAYOR, CITY OF PHOENIX
DAVID SHIRK, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE TRANS-BORDER
INSTITUTE
Opening Statements of the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Well, good afternoon. We are here today to discuss the
rising tide of drug cartel-related violence in the U.S.-Mexican
border region and our federal response to this problem.
As with any issue related to the border, this problem has
many dimensions and it requires a response with many
dimensions.
Other Subcommittees have already examined the border
security and foreign aid elements of our response and today we
will be focusing on the law enforcement response.
It would be difficult to overstate the severity of the
situation in Mexico today. There have been over 7,000 cartel-
related killings in Mexico since the beginning of 2007,
including increasingly brazen attacks on law enforcement,
political and governmental targets.
The level of brutality in many of the attacks is truly
appalling, with details so gruesome that they could come
straight from the script of a horror movie.
This violence is being fueled by the constant northward
trafficking of tons of narcotics and the southward trafficking
of cash and weapons.
This traffic has created a literal war zone in the streets
of some Mexican towns and states as the Mexican government has
deployed its military to join law enforcement officers in
pitched battles against these cartels.
The United States has both an interest and an obligation to
help Mexico overcome these difficult challenges. We are
fortunate to have a dedicated partner in President Calderon,
who has staked his personal and professional legacy on beating
these cartels.
The Department of Justice has a significant role to play in
aiding his struggle and we look forward to hearing more today
about how our federal law enforcement entities can bring their
resources and expertise to bear on this situation.
At the same time, we must also be cognizant of the
potential for spill-over violence, when the violent crimes of
these Mexican cartels begin to cross the border into our
southwestern states and beyond.
We have seen lots of media reports over the past several
months about cartel-related violence springing up in states
from Arizona to Maine. It is important for us to assess the
potential for spill-over violence, look at the impacts cartel-
driven violence has had on our local communities, and discuss
strategies to prevent it.
In doing so, we must balance the need to acknowledge the
seriousness of the situation with the need to avoid unnecessary
hysteria.
It is my hope that our hearing today will inform the
Subcommittee's discussion of these issues over the next few
months. We certainly could not have picked a more timely date
to kick off that discussion as the Administration has announced
just this morning a comprehensive border violence policy that
takes advantage of the significant new resources this
Subcommittee provided for border crimes over the last few
months.
Those resources include over $15 million in regular and
supplemental funds for ATF's Project Gun Runner, $21 million
for DEA to expand its enforcement operations along the border
and in Mexico and Central America, and 10 million for DEA to
target Mexican methamphetamine trafficking.
It is my intention to follow-up on these investments with a
Subcommittee trip to the southwest border region to assess
further the adequacy of the recommendations made to this
Committee, the adequacy of resources provided to date, and
additional needs for consideration in fiscal year 2010.
Our witnesses today will also help to provide perspective
and to set the stage for the 2010 process.
First, we will hear from Professor David Shirk, the
Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San
Diego.
Did I pronounce that correctly, Professor?
Mr. Shirk. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Shirk will place current events within
the broader context of crime and judicial reform in Mexico and
will give his assessment of both the Mexican and U.S. responses
to the violence.
Next we will hear from the panel which includes Mayor Phil
Gordon from the City of Phoenix, Special Agent Bill Newell from
ATF's Phoenix Division, and Special Agent Joseph Arabit from
DEA's El Paso Division.
These three witnesses are on the ground in our southwest
border states addressing this problem every day. They will
testify about the challenges that they face, discuss their
efforts to combat cartel-related violence and its underlying
causes, and suggest ways to improve on strategies going
forward.
I would like to thank all the witnesses in advance for
their time today. They all took a big effort to get here and we
appreciate the opportunity to have the benefit of their
expertise. We look forward to a lively discussion with them.
Before we begin, I would like to first turn to my Ranking
Member, Mr. Wolf, for any opening remarks that he might like to
make.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really do not have any. Just to welcome the witnesses.
There seems there is not a day that goes by that we do hear
about this. We have also heard that there are reports of the
spill-over and these gangs operating in other areas. I am
anxious to find out if there is any connection between these
gangs and MS13 or any domestic gangs, but look forward to your
testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Professor Shirk, your written statement will
be made a part of the record and you can proceed with your oral
testimony as you wish.
Mr. Shirk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the University of----
Mr. Mollohan. You have to push your button in and you might
want to pull it a little bit closer to you so you will not have
to lean.
Mr. Shirk. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Mollohan. I can hear you fine, but it is being----
Mr. Shirk. Can you hear me now? Okay. Thank you.
Opening Statement of Professor David Shirk
First of all, thank you, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the
Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego.
Thank you to the other members of this Committee for the
invitation to provide testimony on the recent surge in drug
violence in Mexico and the border region.
You have already explained very well the importance and
urgency of this issue. So I would like to talk a little bit
about our efforts to monitor the situation in the southwest
border region and provide some testimony about the efforts that
are being made currently to address those problems.
Our organization has been monitoring a wide array of rule
of law challenges through something called the Justice in
Mexico Project, an ongoing research initiative that pays
special attention to drug violence, justice sector reform, and
other problems related to the rule of law in Mexico.
I would like to focus especially today on the challenges
that are presented to U.S. border communities and the possible
strategies and resource allocations that can be helpful in
addressing the challenge of Mexican drug violence.
From the outset, I want to state clearly and definitively
that while the escalating drug war violence presents a major
challenge to the Mexican state and to the United States, the
prospect of a state collapse in Mexico and the prospect of
high-level spill-over violence perpetrated by Mexican organized
crime appears to be greatly exaggerated at this time.
Still, there is no doubt that high-impact crime and
violence and the ineffectiveness and corruption of the state's
public security apparatus present severe challenges in Mexico.
Our data find, from reports from the Mexico City based
Reforma Newspaper, that the vast majority, that is roughly 60
percent, of over 13,000 cartel-related killings in Mexico since
2005 occurred in five Mexican states, Chihuahua, Sonora,
Michoacan, Baja California, and Guerrero. Of these, Mexican
border states accounted for approximately 40 percent of all
cartel-related killings.
Since 2000, the Mexican government has embarked on a
deliberate strategy to try to break the cartels down into
smaller, more manageable pieces that can be dealt with more
effectively by state and local law enforcement.
The disruption and fragmentation of organized crime
networks has led to increased in fighting and competition,
effectively replacing the cartels with organizations that are,
in fact, smaller, but also far more dangerous and unpredictable
and far less manageable.
One thing is certain. The current rate of killings, more
than 400 per month, puts Mexico on track to have another very
bad year in 2009.
There is also no doubt about the trans-national nature of
organized crime or the fact that there are significant measures
that we can take to better address the problem here in the
United States.
Although some of the issues, I believe, are often overblown
by inaccurate media reporting and hyperbolic rhetoric, there
are significant concerns about the reach and the proliferation
of violent trans-national organized crime networks in the
United States, the southbound flow of arms and bulk cash from
the southwest border region into Mexico, kidnappings and other
diversified criminal activities in U.S. border states, the
impacts of Mexican drug-related violence in U.S. healthcare
facilities, and the possible corruption and penetration of U.S.
law enforcement agencies.
In the interest of time, I will just highlight a couple of
these.
First of all, it is important to say that the violence
raging between the Mexican cartels or what is left of them has
not spilled over in the kind of extreme violence that has
become so prevalent in Mexico. The overall efficacy and
integrity of U.S. law enforcement has prevented this from
happening, at least prevented the cartels from operating as
audaciously as they do in Mexico.
Moreover, while literally hundreds of Mexican cartel
operatives and Mexican Nationals involved in the drug trade
have been detected or arrested in the United States, it is not
clear that the cartels' retail operations are exclusively
Mexican or to what extent U.S. subsidiaries form part of the
distribution chain.
Our hasty and careless response to these concerns could
prove costly, counterproductive to our relationship with
Mexico, and ultimately ineffective in addressing the actual
problems we face.
While better legislation is needed to contain the spread of
high-powered weapons and their use, more resources should and I
am glad to see are being directed towards the regulation of gun
sales and the investigation of illegal gun trafficking in the
southwest border region, the tracking and seizure of drug
profits, and the support of long-term development of rule of
law reform in Mexico.
Unfortunately, I see only three possible scenarios for a
dramatic reduction in drug violence in Mexico and the border
region. The first is a pact between what is left of the major
cartels that would reestablish the agreed upon structuring of
organized crime in Mexico. Such an arrangement is less likely
today, however, because the cartels are so fragmented.
Moreover, even if it were possible, it would be contrary to the
best interests of the United States and Mexico.
A second scenario is for a major change in U.S. drug policy
and the regulation of psychotropic drugs as a public health
problem rather than a strictly law enforcement problem.
The first and best solution is to reduce overall drug
consumption in the United States. Eventually consideration also
needs to be given to finding the least harmful ways to regulate
the drug market and address drug consumption as a public health
problem more so than as a security problem.
In the short term, though, barring a major improvement in
the situation in Mexico's domestic rule of law and barring any
major changes in U.S. drug policy, a continuation of the
Mexican government's current approach, the atomization or
expulsion of the cartels from Mexico seems to be the most
politically viable option.
On the one hand, this will imply sustained investment in
current rule of law reform initiatives and a costly hard-fought
battle against the cartels that will undoubtedly require tens
of billions of dollars and result in continued violence over
the next few years.
On the other hand, this approach will also result in a
quote, unquote balloon effect as major drug trafficking
operations move outside of Mexican territory and develop new
routes in the Caribbean, Guatemala, and elsewhere as we have
already begun to see.
In the end, if Mexico is to succeed in its efforts to
combat trans-national organized crime, U.S. cooperation will be
essential. Mexico has worked very closely with the United
States in recent years to enhance bi-national cooperation and
these efforts deserve our ample appreciation and support.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to provide this
testimony, and I look forward to your questions.
[Testimony of Professor David Shirk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.
Members of the Committee, in the first round we are going
to certainly stick to five minutes of questioning and then we
will see where we are in the second round.
patterns of drug-related violence
Doctor, let me go right to the question of violence and the
potential for spill-over violence from the Mexican situation
that you have described.
You have documented a steady northward move of cartel-
related violence over the last three years from central Mexico
to areas immediately adjacent to the U.S. border.
What explains this shift and should we expect that violence
to continue creeping right on northward into the United States?
Mr. Shirk. The patterns of drug violence that we have
documented have basically followed feuds between the drug
cartels. Those feuds have been partially driven by the
disruption of the cartel leadership beginning back in about
2002, initially the disruption of the Arellano Felix cartel,
but also other operations in the Gulf, the Gulf cartel, and
more recently efforts to crack down on the Sinaloa cartel.
As the drug cartels have splintered and broken apart,
partly because of in fighting, partly because of greater
pressure from the government, we have seen the movement around
the country of different clashes between the cartels and to a
certain extent with the government.
It is not clear, however. That pattern has, although it has
been in the last few years moving northward, it has also jumped
around from state to state. We have recently seen a diminution,
for example, in the border state of Baja California, but a
surge in other states like Guerrero and Durango, which are
further south from the border.
So it is not clear that this is a forward movement of the
drug cartels into the United States.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you know, I was looking at your chart
some time ago and it seemed pretty clear to me. Yes, Baja
looked like violence had subsided there, but it looked like it
was moving right up against the border.
Mr. Shirk. The last year in 2008, the two leading states
were the State of Chihuahua and the second state was Sinaloa.
Chihuahua actually accounted for nearly a third of all drug-
related killings in Mexico. So that is pressing right up
against the U.S. border.
What I am not positive about is whether this is a movement
into the United States or rather just a fight for control over
these very lucrative routes into the U.S. for the movement of
drugs.
I would be very surprised if drug cartels felt that they
could operate with the same kind of impunity that they do in
Mexico here in the United States.
Mr. Mollohan. How are you measuring violence coming across
the border?
Mr. Shirk. Well, first of all, we have seen an increase in,
for example, drug-related, well, drug-related violence in U.S.
hospitals, for example. I mentioned the introduction of people
into U.S. hospitals, particularly in El Paso, in the last year.
Mr. Mollohan. Is there any agency that counts drug-related
violence incidents?
Mr. Shirk. Not to my knowledge, because I think it would be
difficult to distinguish between regular gang-level violence,
as you indicated in the introduction, and other forms of
specifically cartel-related violence.
Mr. Mollohan. From a rational perspective, you would think
that cartels operating in Mexico would not want to get that
violent north of the border, lest they incur the greater wrath
of the United States authorities and the kind of resources that
the United States could bring to bear. That would be
additionally threatening to them.
Mr. Shirk. I think the issue of rationality is very
important to underscore. The cartels as they become broken down
into sort of gang-level units have become somewhat less
rational and more disorganized in their operations. So that I
think is somewhat of a concern.
But I think that the thing that allows the cartels to
operate the way they do in Mexico is the impunity with which
they can act.
I mentioned in my testimony that about one in four crimes
are reported in Mexico and of those, a much smaller fraction
are even investigated.
And so the lack of rule of law in Mexico allows these
cartels to operate with a very high degree of impunity. I do
not think that is as much of a problem here in the United
States and I think that is a testament to the integrity of our
law enforcement institutions throughout the country.
And so that is why I am less concerned about raging gun
battles in the streets of the United States or the corruption
of high-level officials here in the United States.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
connections between mexican cartels and other organized crime
Thank you for your testimony, Doctor. I have a whole series
of questions. In the interest of the time, I will try to make
them fast and if you can give me a yes or no.
Is there any connection with regard to the cartels down
there and Al-Qaeda or any terrorist activity from around the
country, around the world?
Mr. Shirk. Not that I have any knowledge of. And I think
that would be extremely irrational on the part of the cartels.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Is there any connection with regard to the
cartels and MS-13, which is very prevalent here in the U.S.?
Mr. Shirk. That, I think there may be more of the
possibility of a connection between trans-national organized
gangs like MS-13 and the Mara Salvatrucha. I do think that that
is something to be concerned about. The Mexican mafia, which is
not technically a Mexican cartel organization but a U.S. based
gang, does have connections to Mexico.
Mr. Wolf. Have we ever seen a trend like this before going
back over a hundred years or fifty years? Is this something
that happened in the 1930s or 1920s or is this just kind of a
new phenomena that we are faced with?
Mr. Shirk. I think organized crime is not a new----
Mr. Wolf. No, I know that. But, I mean, this.
Mr. Shirk. Of this kind of gang-land violence?
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Shirk. Certainly in the 1920s, we saw this kind of
thing in Chicago.
Mr. Wolf. No, I know that. But, I mean, coming----
Mr. Shirk. In Mexico?
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Shirk. In the 1990s, we started to see this kind of
drug feud in Mexico. And, in fact, you saw higher rates of
killing in, for example, the City of Tijuana in the mid 1990s
than you do today.
But this scale and this breadth of violence in Mexico has
not happened before because I do not think the Mexican State
has taken the problem as seriously as it does today. They are
really working hard to fight against these organizations.
Mr. Wolf. So the violence is more as a result of the fact
that the Mexican government is doing everything they possibly
can to crack down; therefore, the violence is coming up? Is
that the reason?
Mr. Shirk. I think that is correct.
coordination between agencies
Mr. Wolf. How is the coordination on this side of the
border with regard to like are all of the sheriff departments
in Texas and all the sheriff departments and law enforcements
in Arizona, do they all coordinate together? I know there are
fusion centers along the border, but is there really in-depth
coordination all along the border in the four states?
Mr. Shirk. I think that there are varying degrees of
cooperation here in the United States among law enforcement
agencies. I think that what I have noticed is there are very
different models at each major corridor along the border for
U.S. cooperation and for U.S.-Mexico cooperation.
Mr. Wolf. And which model is working the best?
Mr. Shirk. Well, I am partial to San Diego, I suppose. But
what I have seen that has been very effective is the creation
of liaison mechanism relationships in the San Diego corridor
between international liaisons both from Mexican agencies and
from U.S. agencies to try to cooperate and share information,
develop partnerships and relationships across the border for
even dealing with very small kinds of issues that agitate
cross-border communities like abductions and stolen vehicles
and the like, which in many cases form part of the activities
of organized crime.
Mr. Wolf. I just saw, and tell me, Mr. Chairman, when my
time is up, I just saw that the Justice Department announced a
major effort and I think they gave the responsibility to the
Deputy Attorney General Ogden.
Can you do this from Washington or do you need, and I do
not want to use the word, but I will in the interest of time, a
border czar, if you will, on the four states that are
coordinating with regard to ATF, DHS, DEA, FBI, local police,
Phoenix police, the sheriff departments? Do you need one person
who has the responsibility to coordinate down on the border
rather than running this from Washington?
Mr. Shirk. I think that the czar model has certain benefits
and certain disadvantages.
Mr. Wolf. What are the disadvantages?
Mr. Shirk. Disadvantages, in many cases, the czar is not
sufficiently empowered to mandate agency action, but rather
plays more of a coordinating role. But I think that the
benefits of that coordinating role can be very important.
The last time we had a border czar under the Clinton
Administration, Allen Burson, was able to make significant
progress in achieving both coordination among agencies on this
side and with his counterparts in Mexico.
Mr. Wolf. The last question. Given the responsibility that
the czar would be given, that responsibility of the concerns
you expressed, assuming that individual were given that
authority, would it be your recommendation for a border czar,
and I do not like to use the word czar, but for the border czar
or not for one?
Mr. Shirk. To avoid the use of the word czar, I think more
coordination----
Mr. Wolf. Well, you can use--yeah.
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. More coordination on the U.S. side
of the agencies, a specific coordinator for those agencies, I
think, could be a useful innovation in this Administration.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
involvement of the mexican military
Professor, everyone on this panel, regardless of how we
think about different issues, agrees that this is a major
problem that has to be dealt with immediately. But whenever you
have a clamping down by any government, any law enforcement,
there are many sides to that issue.
And I have had people visit me from Mexico saying that in
some cases government officials may use this war on drugs and
on the cartels as an opportunity to clamp down on political
opposition. And it gets mixed in who they went after and
whether that person was a drug dealer or a person who last week
was involved in a political protest against the government.
I also note in your testimony some unease with the use of
using the Mexican military.
So are we speaking about the same thing that these folks
came to talk to me about and what is your unease with using the
military in these cases?
Mr. Shirk. The use of the military for domestic law
enforcement operations is dangerous because the military is a
very blunt instrument. It is not intended for community
policing, for respecting due process and civil rights. They are
not trained for that.
And I think that has been a major concern for human rights
activists and other experts focused on this issue. There have
been numerous complaints in the last year due to the military's
involvement and alleged violation of human rights.
Also, the involvement of the military in the domestic-
political arena is a dangerous game that has been played before
in Latin America with very severe and dire consequences for
democratic governance.
That is the source of my unease and I think it is the
source of unease for many Mexican citizens as well.
Mr. Serrano. Well, it is interesting your last comment
because I am a student of some of the things that have happened
historically in Latin America and I know that the military
would look for any opportunity to move in and establish
changes, including a total change in government.
Therefore, should the United States play a role in
supporting the Mexican military in their fight or should part
of our demand, if you will, as we in the future give aid and
support, be that it be handled by local enforcement?
Mr. Shirk. Well, the fact of the matter is that local law
enforcement, state and even federal law enforcement in Mexico
is not presently capable of managing the problems that we have.
The lack of institutional integrity in Mexico is very dire,
high rates of corruption, lack of resources. Effectively the
Mexican government has turned to the military as its last
resort. I think we need to be very understanding of that fact
and view the use of the military in Mexico as a short-term
option.
I think we should be wary to make sure that we ensure that
any U.S. funds are not used inappropriately, that there is a
sincere and dedicated effort on the part of the Mexican
government to protect human rights, and to prosecute human
rights violations.
That said, I think Mexico is at the end of its rope and
there is no alternative at this point that the Mexican
government can come up with other than the military. If this
effort fails, there is no other place that Mexico can turn. And
that is very disconcerting.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Professor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
stability of the mexican state
I share Mr. Serrano's concern about the involvement of the
military and their history of unfortunately corruption both in
the military and local officials.
And from what I am hearing, Chairman Serrano, there is
indeed a lot of concern on the U.S. side that what we are
seeing in the civil war in northern Mexico is in many ways
rearranging the food chain and payback.
I think Mr. Serrano is exactly right. There is a lot of
payback going on. And with the violence that we see and, in
fact, Mr. Chairman, the testimony we are going to receive in a
minute from the Drug Enforcement Agency from Special Agent
Arabit from El Paso points out that the DEA, quote, assesses
that a large percentage of the officials killed in both years
were corrupt officials who either failed to do the bidding of
their controlling cartel or who were targeted for assassination
by a rival cartel.
It is a lot of payback, Mr. Serrano is exactly right, and
rearranging the food chain which is one of the reasons I was so
concerned about the Amerita Initiative and voted against it. I
hope that if at least we are going to send them the vehicles, I
hope we will lo jack the helicopters and lo jack some of those
vehicles so we can see when they start using them, we hope they
do not, for corrupt purposes.
But your testimony a moment ago, Professor, is that you
said Mexico is at the end of their rope, but a minute ago in
your testimony, you felt that it was overblown to be concerned
about the stability of Mexico.
Yet, the testimony that this Committee has received that we
have on homeland security, many members of this Committee are
also on the Homeland Security Committee, are that Mexico and
the U.S. military has ranked the Mexican government, the
Pakistani government, and Afghan government as the three most
unstable, potentially likely to collapse governments in the
world.
And the level of violence we are seeing today in northern
Mexico certainly has to be qualified as essentially a civil
war. The level of violence is unprecedented. I mean, they are
saying a spill-over.
The DEA, Mr. Chairman, is going to testify in a moment, I
will get to a question, I guess, in a minute, but a lot of this
is something I have paid, and is near and dear to my heart as a
Texan, and worked closely on, but the DEA is going to point out
in a minute, Mr. Chairman, that the U.S. law enforcement
agencies do not consider it spill-over unless there is, where
is that, it says in here deliberate, the DEA federal law
enforcement does not consider it spill-over unless it is
deliberate. Well, yeah, here it is on page six. As agreed to by
the interagency community, spill-over violence entails
deliberate, planned attacks by the cartels on U.S. assets or
citizens.
Well, in Houston, Texas, in broad daylight, you had a
machine gun fight at one of the biggest intersections in
southwest Houston, at Bisnet and Belair in my district, a
machine gun battle between two human smugglers. And they are
trying to kill each other. That is not counted as spill-over
because they are shooting each other and it is not a deliberate
attack on U.S. civilians. But those bullets were not hitting
each other. Bullets were flying everywhere.
So I have to say, Professor, my impression is you tend to
be understating, I think, the level of the potential for the
collapse of the Mexican government. You said yourself they are
at the end of their rope. If Mexico collapses, we are going to
see millions of people come over the border seeking asylum
quite properly.
And so I wish you would talk to us in a little more
realistic way. Talk to us about the stability of the Mexican
government and what we are seeing, not just deliberate
violence, but the incidental violence, the attacks in and
between smugglers and the kidnappings that we are seeing.
In Houston, Texas, a Houston police officer shot in the
face. We have had terrible murders in Houston.
Frank Wolf's district in northern Virginia, Frank has got
MS-13 gang members all over northern Virginia.
Talk to us a little bit, if you could, my Chairman has been
very gracious for the time, about the stability of the Mexican
government, number one, and the realistic spill-over that we
are seeing here in the United States.
Mr. Shirk. Thank you, Congressman.
I want to say again I do not think that Mexico is currently
anywhere close to Pakistan or Colombia. When we saw the
violence in Colombia in the late 1980s and through the 1990s
really, you had insurgent groups controlling broad swaths of
territory. You had rebel armies that were competing for control
of the state. You had a murder rate of approximately 100 per
100,000.
In Mexico, the rates vary, but we are talking about maybe
10 to 15 per 100,000. Things would have to get ten times worse
in Mexico in terms of the level of violence to equate what we
have seen in Colombia, which I would categorize incidentally as
a failed state, at least through much of the 1990s.
Mr. Culberson. But Mexico is more dangerous than Iraq.
There are more deaths in northern Mexico than there have been
in Iraq. I am already over my time. The Chairman is going to
get the hook.
Thank you. You have been very kind, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead. You can respond.
Mr. Shirk. May I respond to the Iraq comment?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Shirk. The number of civilians killed in Iraq, I
believe was about 7,000 in the previous year compared to about
6,000 in Mexico. So that I do not think is an accurate
reflection. And, of course, it varies by how you do your count
of civilian deaths, et cetera. But I do not think that is a
fair characterization.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
potential impact of legalization
Professor, when I was running for Congress in 2002 and
during the six and a half years that I have been in Congress,
my personal position has always been against legalization of
illegal drugs.
And I noted in your written testimony, and forgive me, I
was out of the room for part of your oral testimony, but you
actually cover part of this. And I would like to focus on that
for just a minute.
Interestingly, a writer to the Mobile Press Register, the
newspaper in my home of Mobile, Alabama, this Sunday actually
opined that as prohibition proved to be a failure in the 1920s,
we were not able to manage it and it was the right thing to do
to leave it up to states and local option, that perhaps, he
suggested, and since this is being telecast, if anyone is
watching back home, I want to make sure that this is Michael
Tomison's view, not Joe Bonner's view, but his suggestion was
that if we legalized marijuana, that that would go a long way
toward reducing the violence that is going on with the drug
cartels in Mexico.
You touched on it a little bit in your written testimony. I
thought I would give you a chance to elaborate on that and
share us your views.
Mr. Shirk. Thank you.
It is an extremely complex issue. And, unfortunately, we
have not really been asking that question, what would happen if
we legalized drugs in the United States. I think the answer is
nowhere near as simple as anyone likes to believe. It would not
be the end of the world on the one hand, but it would involve
serious problems and challenges.
I think one thing to talk about is, first of all, the
phenomena of decriminalization. We have been reducing penalties
on drug users here in the United States. In many different
states, we have actually legalized medical use of marijuana, in
about 13 states. And that actually effectively increases the
available market for the illicit drug sales and partially state
sanctioned drug sales in the United States.
I am not sure that is a very positive tendency if we are
trying to fight the cartels and giving them more opportunities
to make money.
On the other hand, legalization could involve some very
serious consequences, public health consequences with higher
rates of addiction and use, consequences for our law
enforcement officers who would have to deal with a whole host
of very serious problems.
The real question, though, is are those costs greater than
the costs that we are currently paying in this war and that we
have been paying for the last roughly 70 years of prohibiting
the use of these substances.
I do not have an answer as to whether or not legalization
would be a better alternative to what we are doing now, but I
am disturbed by the fact that we have not really seriously been
considering alternative approaches to try to deal with drug
consumption as a public health problem. Whether or not we
legalize drugs, we definitely need to try to reduce drug
consumption. We need to reduce drug demand here in the United
States. We need to combat addiction. And we could do a lot more
of that than we have been.
Mr. Bonner. Just a quick follow-up. A couple years ago, I
had the opportunity to travel on a Congressional Delegation
down to Laredo, Texas and to spend a couple days with the
Border Patrol agents there. And this was at the time when
illegal immigration was the number one issue. It was not the
economy. It was not even Iraq. It was the flow of illegals
coming into this country through Mexico.
And one of the startling things that stuck out in my mind
was we were with the Border Patrol. It was almost midnight. And
two young ladies crossed over the Rio Grande River and one had
an infant, just a few months old. And it just struck me about
how people were literally willing to risk their lives to come
into this country for not necessarily a promise of quick or
easy fortune, but a bad day in America was better than a good
day in their home country.
But when we were talking with the Border Patrol people the
next day, they were talking about what the real challenge no
one was really talking about then, I think we are now, was the
illegal drugs coming in and just coming in by the truckload.
And I guess my question is, does it take a crisis like what
we are seeing happening in Mexico now for us to put our proper
attention on what the real problem is as opposed to what the
mask of the problem is?
Mr. Shirk. I do think that that is one positive side effect
of some of the hyperbolistic rhetoric and coverage that we have
had is that, yes, we are now focused on our number two export
market. We are now focused on the neighbor with which we share
the closest ties culturally in terms of immigration, et cetera.
And I think that out of crisis, we should find opportunity
here to work with Mexico and strengthen the bilateral
relationship.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
smuggling detection
I was just curious, just an overview, talking about drug
trafficking and crimes along the borders in a couple of states.
Very quickly, can you tell us where the source of the drugs are
and how it travels and the kind of interdiction that goes on
along the border on the Mexican side and what kinds of help
should we be looking at offering the Mexican side of the border
for detection that go along with the drugs? Coming from the
other side, what is the major traffic coming from the other
side, from our side to the Mexican side? What is the major
traffic there and what is its source?
Mr. Shirk. The drug cartels in Mexico have control over an
estimated 90 percent of the cocaine market moving from the
Andean region into the United States.
Mr. Honda. Uh-huh.
Mr. Shirk. They control approximately, I think it is 40
percent or more of marijuana that is consumed in the United
States. We are fairly self-sufficient. A significant
proportion, we grow our own. We also import a fair amount from
Canada.
But the cartels use virtually all manner of conveyance to
move product into the United States. They use boats. They use
clandestine entry points, including tunnels, anything to evade
interdiction.
Our interdiction efforts at the border frequently result in
major seizures. But, unfortunately, wherever we try to
interdict, the Mexican cartels do try to find other ways of
bringing product into the United States. And they are extremely
creative.
Last year, for example, they found panels, a truck that
actually had panels that were modified cocaine substance that
was literally driven into the United States and looked like a
car or looked like a vehicle. And the creativity, the ingenuity
of these organizations is tremendous.
In terms of southbound, the cartels are heavily dependent--
--
Mr. Honda. Could you talk about what are some of the
techniques----
Mr. Shirk. Detection techniques----
Mr. Honda [continuing]. That we could----
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. We use, very effective methods are
the use of K-9 units, the use of X-ray detection technology.
And there is a new X-ray technology that is being developed
that is even more rapid and efficient in searching vehicles as
they move across the border with very low levels of X-rays that
you can do it on a fairly regular basis.
Those technologies are fairly expensive and not fully
distributed all along the border. So the primary method of
detection that is most important, I think, at our ports of
entry is having trained, qualified personnel in our Customs, in
the Department of Homeland Security for detecting and
interviewing individuals and commercial vehicles as they move
across the border.
Unfortunately, I think that we do not have adequate either
physical infrastructure or personnel to move our commercial
vehicles and personal vehicles into the United States quickly
enough because the inspection process is slow. Those slow down
very significantly.
On the last point, in terms of southbound efforts, we
inspect a very small percentage of flows going into Mexico and
Mexico also inspects a very small percentage of the traffic
that goes across into Mexico.
So one of the things that people have talked a lot more
about is greater interdiction at our southbound ports of entry.
That is concerning to me because currently our northbound
efforts at interdiction slow down cross-border trade in the
United States and Mexico to the point that we lose somewhere
between six and ten billion dollars each year in cross-border
trade just from the San Diego port of entry alone.
If we try to impose southbound interdiction at a rate
equivalent to or similar to what we are doing for northbound
traffic, that is going to have important economic effects not
just for our border communities but for the rest of the United
States and for all of the hundreds of billions of dollars in
NAFTA trade that we have here.
But we do need to do more to try to prevent the flow of
bulk cash and the flow of arms south of the border. I
personally think that we should be doing more at the point of
transaction. In other words, doing more investigations into the
financial operations of the drug cartels and more effort to
regulate the sale of guns here in the United States, enforcing
existing laws, and perhaps considering new ways of regulating
and restricting access to very high-powered weapons.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
adequacy of the administration's border security plan
President Obama has made some announcements today and they
include hundreds of new FBI, DEA, ATF agents assisting in this
effort on the border, some 700 million new dollars to Mexico to
help bolster their efforts in terms of purchase of helicopters
and the like.
This goes along with, what the Committee has already
appropriated, over a billion four over the next couple of years
towards the efforts of the Mexican government. There are a
number of other pieces to the announcement today by the
Administration.
Would you care to comment, if you know about the specifics,
about what you think regarding these additional efforts which
include 54 million for local law enforcement in the tribal and
border states along the border?
Mr. Shirk. I will not go into the specifics because I have
not read the specific allocations that have been made, but I do
think that there is definitely a need for more resources of the
kind that have been mentioned so far, more resources for ATF,
more resources for enhancing ports of entry and enhancing our
capability in terms of inspection for arms and for bulk cash
movements.
I do think that these are necessary and valuable efforts
and, importantly, they signal to Mexico that we are serious
about addressing the aspects of the problem that we are
responsible for on our side of the border.
Mr. Fattah. Now, the obvious challenge as we go forward is
that there is still lots of money to be made if you want to
sell drugs in the United States. It is a very wealthy country
in comparison. And no matter what we do, borders, law
enforcement, this financial incentive is going to continue.
One of the things that the President's appointee for the
drug czar is talking about is our nation taking much more
seriously the question of drug treatment, and how to lessen the
demand. As you know, there are certain people in our country,
no matter how much drugs might be available, are never going to
utilize them. They are never going to purchase them. They are
not going to use them.
We have a certain subset of our population that for a
variety of reasons are susceptible to drug addiction or to drug
use and there is a need to focus in on treatment really as a
law enforcement mechanism, to the degree that we can lessen the
demand, then people would not be willing to lose their lives to
try to sell something they could not sell in our country.
If you would like to comment on that, that would be useful
to the Committee.
Mr. Shirk. I agree. I think that we need to do a lot more
to try to address demand in the United States. The issue of
treatment is very important when the small percentage of
regular cocaine users account for approximately 80 percent of
demand for cocaine. That means that if we could reduce
consumption among those regular users, we could dramatically
cut overall demand in the United States.
I could not agree more that we need to try to discourage
the consumption of drugs in the United States.
Mr. Fattah. All right. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Shirk. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
securing our border
Mr. Ruppersberger. Getting back to the issue of the border,
I know you have said that you do not feel that by Mexico
putting troops on the border would do anything or would be a
deterrent.
Could you explain that, please?
Mr. Shirk. By Mexico putting troops on the border----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. Would be a deterrent to----
Mr. Ruppersberger. To the drug war and the problems and
escalation of violence that we have right now.
Mr. Shirk. What I think is there has been no demonstrated
effect other than to--in terms of reducing violence. The more
the military has gotten involved in some ways, the more
violence we have seen as the cartels become more fragmented,
less predictable, and more violent as they sort of frenzy
amongst each other trying to compete to take up and take
control over routes that have been disrupted.
So the question is whether there is an end in sight that
the military can help to achieve. The best hope as I have
described it so far appears to be making the cost of operating
in Mexico so great that the drug cartels or some other drug
cartels establish alternative routes into the United States
that do not involve staying in Mexico.
In other words, the balloon effect of pushing those drug
cartels out of Mexico and perhaps into the Caribbean and----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let me ask you this as it relates
to immigration, as it relates to drugs, as it relates to gun
running, whatever. The bottom line, we have not been able to
secure our border, our southern border.
And if there is something really that every nation should
have as a priority is to secure their borders for a lot of
different reasons. I know you look a lot at history and you
have studied this issue.
Have you looked at what has happened in Colombia with Uribe
working with the United States, being able to deal with the
issue of corruption, the resources that were needed, whether it
is UAVs or the boat runners, those type things? Do you think
that the plan that we have used and worked with Uribe would
help on the border, at the border, the escalation of drugs,
guns, and violence in Mexico?
Mr. Shirk. I think that the government of Colombia has been
very successful in disarming, for example, paramilitary groups.
They have also been very successful in striking strategically
to hurt insurgent groups like the ELN and the FARC.
Unfortunately, we have seen a similar pattern in Colombia
of spiraling violence and the creation of smaller organizations
that produce further chaos.
Right now Colombia is the number two country worldwide for
refugees. There are 30,000 refugees who have been displaced
because of the spiraling violence.
So if the Colombian----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, that is the same issue at the
Mexican border right now too.
Mr. Shirk. Well, the difference is that, first of all, we
do not have armed insurgent groups that are seriously
challenging----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Like the FARC?
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. The Mexican state like the FARC.
And we also have not seen the extremely high levels of--we are
talking, you know, hundred per hundred thousand----
Mr. Ruppersberger. Right.
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. Homicides and the kind of
displacement of the domestic population. So thankfully Mexico
is very far away from that kind of a failed state scenario.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let me get to another. I do not
know how much more time I have. But it seems to me that some of
the most effective ways to deter whether it is terrorism,
whether it is drugs, or whatever is kind of a strike force
concept.
If you look at the JTTF, you are familiar with that, where
you have the federal, state, and local, you have CIA, NSA
coming together not only from an intelligence point of view but
also from an enforcement point of view, getting intelligence,
analyzing the intelligence, and then operating.
There are fusion centers on the border now which are kind
of like that, but do you have an opinion if we could use more
resources, the same resources, just a small amount that we are
using in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we have the components of
the intelligence, we have the components of our special ops or
we have our coming together whether it is Immigration, whether
it is Customs, DEA, FBI, whatever, do you feel that that could
help Mexico by us being stronger on the border?
I have not seen what the President came out with today, so
I cannot analyze that. But do you have an opinion whether or
not that type of concept would work on the border and the
problems that we have right now?
Mr. Shirk. I think that the approach you are suggesting,
greater emphasis on intelligence, on fusion centers, on special
tactical forces, interagency forces, I think that has proved
successful in the United States and it can be a useful approach
in the southwest.
I would go further than that and also suggest that as we
see continued concerted efforts on the part of the Mexican
government and the establishment of agencies that do have a
high degree of integrity, we should engage in intelligence
sharing and greater cooperation across the border of that
nature.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Because the members of the panel limited their questions to
five minutes, we got through that with a lot of good questions.
I would like to do a second round with our witness, who I think
is providing very good testimony, and again limit our questions
to five minutes.
assessment of mexican response capabilities
Doctor, getting at the question of Mexico's strengths and
their weaknesses, how well they are doing? If you could
critique their performance, where are they doing it right in
Mexico? Where are they not? Give us insight into how we could
best be of help to them.
Mr. Shirk. Well, I think we have to think about the long-
term solutions. And I know that in the long-term, we are all
dead. But I think that we need to think about really investing
heavily in rule of law reform.
One of the things the Mexican government has done well, for
example, or has made a very positive effort in the last couple
of years is in promoting reform of the judicial system, which
will necessarily require an overhaul and reform of the police
force.
In the United States, we did those kinds of reforms,
especially in the 1960s. Congress approved millions of dollars
of funding for the improvement of our criminal justice system
partly in response to legal changes that happened here in the
early 1960s, the introduction of Miranda rights, the
introduction of a universal right to a public defender. Those
kinds of things raised the bar for law enforcement and our
criminal justice system and we responded by investing heavily
in strengthening state and local police forces to improve their
professionalism.
Mr. Mollohan. This sounds long term.
Mr. Shirk. Mexico needs to do more of that.
Mr. Mollohan. That sounds long term.
Mr. Shirk. That is long term.
Mr. Mollohan. Short term, should we continue going with the
military? Should we encourage Mexico to go with its police
force and do something with them?
Mr. Shirk. Short term, and this goes to Congressman
Culberson's point, short term, I do not think that Mexico has
an alternative but to involve the military. It is not that they
are on the verge of collapse, but rather their strongest, most
respected, most or least corrupted unit is the military. And
that is their best hope for trying to address these problems at
this time. It should, however, I think, be a short-term option.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. In my limited time, I would like to go
to federal law enforcement programs.
You criticized U.S. border security efforts for being
insufficiently targeted and too dependent on finding the needle
in the haystack. That was the Border Patrol efforts as I
understand it.
How would you apply this critique to federal law
enforcement programs?
Mr. Shirk. I think that there has been so much emphasis in
the last few years on the border as the primary line of defense
on many different security issues. And, unfortunately, I think
that trans-national crime and terrorism are not problems that
can be easily interdicted. If your first or last line of
defense is your border, we have, I think, much to be concerned
about.
We definitely need to see more efforts in terms of
investigative efforts or investigations about how these cartels
operate, hit them where it hurts the most in terms of their
ability to move their profits back into Mexico and then launder
them through their financial system. We also need to do a lot
more to restrict their access to the weapons that they use to
commit these murders.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Doctor.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
levels of success achieved by mexico
You have so many questions and the time. I guess the one
that is troubling me the most, I wanted to ask you two
questions and get a comment on one, where is it the least of
the problem and where is the most successful? What four states
are doing the best job and what area? And as they do a good
job, does it shift to another area?
Mr. Shirk. This is where I am not convinced that we have
seen a consistent pattern. When the Mexican military was
deployed to Michoacan at the end of 2006, we subsequently saw a
dramatic reduction in drug cartel-related killings in that
state. They dropped to about half and many people attributed
that to the success of the military.
But in the neighboring state of Guerrero, also on the
central Pacific Coast, we saw a dramatic increase, a doubling
of drug-related killings practically despite the deployment of
a similar number of Mexican troops. So there is not a
consistent pattern in terms of reducing the violence.
My understanding is that in recent weeks, the deployment of
I think another 6,000 troops to the State of Chihuahua or, I am
sorry, 5,000 troops to the State of Chihuahua on the border has
been followed by a reduction in violence.
How the cartels respond to the government presence has not
been consistent or the military presence has not been
consistent. And that is where my concern lies when I raised the
point about will the military be effective as an instrument. I
do not think that the military alone can be effective.
I think what is really needed to combat trans-national
organized crime are greater efforts at trans-national
collaboration between the United States and the kind of
intelligence sharing, shutting down of their cash flow and
shutting down of the flow of weapons moving south across the
border.
Mr. Wolf. Last two. What is the total population or the
number of the Mexican military? How many are in the Mexican
military?
Mr. Shirk. I do have data on this. I am not going to guess
at the number. I think it is around 130, but I can pull that
out if you need me to.
Mr. Wolf. So they must be stretched. They must be
stretched.
Mr. Shirk. The Mexican military, I think, is, the number of
military personnel deployed by the Mexican government to combat
the drug war is, according to the Mexican government, is 45,000
troops. About 9,000 of those last year were deployed to
specific urban or metropolitan areas. And this year, they have
deployed double that amount, about 18,000, to various major
metropolitan areas in high drug trafficking states.
And in that sense, I do not think that the Mexican military
is overly stretched, but they are making a very concerted
effort.
law enforcement corruption
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And the last question is on page eight, you
say since its formation in 2002, heightened recruitment efforts
at the Department of Homeland Security brought in greater
numbers of inexperienced agents while tighter security at the
border created greater incentives for organized crime groups to
infiltrate the agency and corrupt U.S. border security agents.
And then you end by saying from October 2003 to April 2008,
there were numerous cases of alleged corruption identified
along the border and the potential vulnerability of U.S. law
enforcement agencies to corruption.
I think we have the most honest law enforcement, I think,
probably in the world. But I have never seen that in writing
before. Would you comment a little bit about that.
Mr. Shirk. That is a special report that was done by the
New York Times and it drew on agency information about simply
the number of cases subject to internal review within Customs
and Immigration along the border. And the number of cases, 125
in California, 157 in Texas, double digits in Arizona and New
Mexico, those are not all cases of drug-related corruption of
our agencies and I do want to underscore that.
What I think is troubling is that we do have cases of
corruption in our law enforcement agencies at low levels in the
United States and that those could be taken advantage of by
drug trafficking organizations. I think we need to look more
carefully at it.
Mr. Wolf. Really, though, then you are not saying this is a
problem in the United States of corruption?
Mr. Shirk. I think the severity of the problem is nowhere
near the level of the problem that we see in Mexico. When you
are talking about hundreds of cases, though, of agents
corrupted along the US-Mexico border, I think that would be
concerning to any U.S. citizen.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTROL OF FIREARMS REACHING MEXICO
Professor, the question I want to ask you is probably
somewhat better suited for the next panel, but your testimony
has been so full of knowledge that I cannot pass it up.
One of the touchiest subjects that we have in this Congress
and in this country is the issue of gun control, yet we know,
according to the Mexican government, and I do not think we
dispute it much, that 90 percent of the weapons being used in
Mexico come from this country.
Without getting you in trouble, although I do not think you
worry about that too much, under our present laws and what we
allow in terms of the use, the sale, the bearing of arms in
this country, can we really ever think that we could stop any
of those weapons going into Mexico, because, as you know, the
Mexican government and the Mexican community in general says we
have a problem? We understand it is our problem. But there are
two problems. The guns come from here and we are the drug
consumers.
Mr. Shirk. I feel the same way about trying to control
Mexican demand for arms that I do about the demand for drugs in
the United States. These are market problems that are not easy
to solve.
There are public policy problems that you solve and there
are public policy problems that you manage. I do not think we
are going to solve gun trafficking as long as this very high
level of demand is in Mexico, but we can certainly do more to
try to regulate it and to manage the problem.
Are existing laws adequate for preventing the trafficking
of high-powered weapons into Mexico? Evidently not. When you
have thousands of weapons moving into Mexico, 90 percent of
them coming from the United States, arguably existing laws are
not currently effective and current enforcement efforts are not
sufficient.
The increase in the number of ATF personnel and anti-weapon
smuggling efforts in the southwest, I think, is a very good
start, but I do think that we need to look more carefully at
what existing regulations we have.
The number one place for entry of weapons into Mexico is
the State of Tamaulipas, just south of east Texas. California
has much lower flows of guns moving into Mexico, especially
high-powered assault weapons, in part because there, I think,
are more restrictive controls in the State of California for
the sale and purchase of those kinds of weapons.
I know that that is a very controversial issue and I know
that we need to respect the Constitution in the United States
and the Supreme Court's interpretation of our right to bear
arms.
But that said, I do think that there is certainly more that
we can do. We just have to figure out what we are going to do.
Mr. Serrano. Now, I may be wrong, I think I read this
somewhere, maybe not in your testimony, about the fact that
most of those weapons are coming basically from one percent of
gun dealers in the country.
If that is so, if I read that correctly somewhere, then
that should be easier to target; would you not agree? I mean,
if it was widespread that people were selling to improper
people illegally, okay, but if it is one percent of gun dealers
in the country, you probably could target them and do a better
job.
Mr. Shirk. I think the statistic that I am recalling is the
percentage of gun dealers who are regulated in the United
States. It is a very small percentage. We throw around numbers
a lot. And I think we could be doing more inspections of
existing gun dealers.
There are some 6,700 gun dealers in the southwest border
region and I think we need to do more to try to inspect and
regulate those. And that is what a lot of those ATF agents and
inspectors hopefully will be doing as they are brought into the
region.
Mr. Serrano. In closing, Mr. Chairman, but you do believe
or have you stated that there may be a relationship or there is
a relationship between California's behavior on guns and east
Texas' behavior on guns as to why more flow one way and not the
other way?
Mr. Shirk. That could be the case. I think it would in
fairness to alternative explanations, it could also be related
to trade routes and other operations that the cartels have. So
I do not think we can definitively state that, but we certainly
should give it more of a look as to why we see that variation
along the border.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know east Texas is a lot safer than parts of California
where they have gun control and certainly a lot safer than D.C.
Washington, D.C. has the toughest gun control laws in the
country and it is one of the most dangerous parts of the city,
parts of the country there is.
You know, the right to keep and bear arms is one of our
most sacred rights. It is one that has served this country
well.
And I co-authored the concealed carry law in Texas and I do
not think there has even been a fistfight between concealed
carry permit holders in Texas in the 12 or 15 years it has been
on the books.
And they have stopped a lot of crime. They have saved a lot
of police officers. They have saved a lot of fellow citizens.
And a law enforcement officer's best friend is a licensed
concealed carrier permit holder who is trained in the law,
trained to use the weapon, and is a law-abiding citizen who is
there to be a support for law enforcement.
So I have to tell you I strenuously disagree with your--
your testimony tends to tell me that you believe in gun control
and I just do not see it as a good solution in this area.
In any event, I just appreciate your testimony. I do want
to ask. I do not know much about the Trans-Border Institute. I
tried to Google you in my mobile web browser and could not find
out, but you are part of the University of San Diego?
Mr. Shirk. That is correct.
Mr. Culberson. You are funded through the State of
California, through federal grants or both?
Mr. Shirk. No. We have been very fortunate to have funding
from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation as well as the
Tinker Foundation. Our unit is also funded directly by the
University of San Diego thanks to our past Provost, Sally Fury,
who established a line within our university.
Mr. Culberson. And what are the goals of the Tinker
Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation? Why are they funding you
and what sort of positions do you advocate that is consistent
with their philosophy?
Mr. Shirk. The purpose of our effort through the Justice in
Mexico Project which is funded by both of those agencies is
consistent with Hewlett and Tinker's efforts to promote greater
collaboration between the United States and Latin America,
specifically their interest in our relationship with Mexico.
Our primary goal in the Trans-Border Institute is to further
cooperation with and understanding of Mexico. Our activities
are consistent with theirs.
I will say that I do not have a definitive position on gun
control, Congressman. I think that we are all concerned about
the flow of weapons going south of the border and we need to
think carefully about what are the best ways of trying to deal
with that. I do not know. I have not seen a study that says
that definitively an assault ban would deal with that.
Certainly our last assault ban here in the United States
was not designed with southbound flows of weapons to Mexico in
mind. So I do not think that we have any good evidence and I
think it is something that we need to think very carefully
about as you suggest.
Mr. Culberson. Certainly any problems we are having with
the flow of guns or the flow of illegal substances with crime
on the borders are lack of enforcement of existing law. We have
got plenty of gun laws on the books. And the ones that are--the
overwhelming majority of all the people out there that have
permits to sell guns are honest, law-abiding people who do
their best to comply with ATF regulations.
And I can tell you, and I know my five minutes is probably
close to being up, but there is a great success story that I
hope you will pay attention to in Texas on the border in
Operation Streamline, a zero tolerance policy that the Border
Patrol began in Del Rio at the initiative of Federal Judge Ali
Alidlum, took it on herself to bring together the prosecutors,
the Border Patrol, the Marshals, the sheriffs, all the law
enforcement community in the Del Rio sector, and it is working
beautifully, Mr. Chairman.
And we will hear, I am going to ask some of the witnesses,
in particular, I understand we have got El Paso is here, and we
will talk, I would like to ask them about it, because this is a
success story. It is a win-win supported by the local community
which is 96 percent Hispanic. Dramatic drops in the crime rate
and it has made the border sector in Del Rio and Laredo much
safer as a result of enforcing the law. That is all we need to
do, just enforce the law, and this problem will largely be
solved.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In that light, can you repeat for me the percentage of
illegal guns that are found in Mexico because of drug running
that comes from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas?
Mr. Shirk. An ATF trace in 2007 found that 90 percent of
weapons seized in Mexico, that I think this was some 7,000
something weapons seized in Mexico, that 90 percent of those
came from the United States. And of that 90 percent, 40 percent
came from three U.S. border states, California, I believe it
was Arizona, and Texas. Those are the statistics that I cited
earlier.
Mr. Honda. And of the three, where did the largest amount
of guns come from?
Mr. Shirk. That data, I do not have. I would have to look
back at the report to figure out whether the majority came from
Texas or came from California.
PROFESSIONALIZATION OF MEXICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Honda. A quick question. It is probably a judgment
statement on your part, but we seem to have a very strong
central government in Mexico that wants to make the changes and
put themselves out to do the battle.
From there to the border states of Mexico is a long
distance. It seems to me that the centralized government has to
look at infrastructure kinds of issues in order to create the
same determination in the states that are along the border,
Sonora, Chihuahua. What are the other ones?
Mr. Shirk. The Mexican states along the border are Baja
California----
Mr. Honda. Right.
Mr. Shirk [continuing]. Sonora, Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and
Nuevo Leon.
Mr. Honda. And of these states, the government in those
states, is it a fact that the folks who are in law enforcement
could probably use more professional training, a better pay
scale so that they are not susceptible to corruption and
bribery and things like that?
But on top of that, it seems to me that every time a drug
lord or a drug trafficker is thrown into jail in those states
that sometimes the whole place just empties out and is left
alone and open to being freed again.
Are there stories or incidents that you can share with us
that reflect that and do you have a recommendation that we
should be looking in to bolster that up?
Mr. Shirk. Well, there are some 430,000 police, domestic
police agents in Mexico at the federal, state, and local level,
according to a study that we did a couple of years ago. Of
those, about 75 percent are preventive police agents that until
recently did not have investigative capabilities. And of those,
most tend to be local police forces.
And the thing that we have seen in our studies of police in
Mexico, domestic police, is that there is a lot of room for
professionalization.
We are doing a survey right now in central Mexico, in the
State of Jalisco, of local police forces to try to determine,
for example, the level of professional development, level of
education, other aspects of those, of their professionalisms.
But the preliminary indications suggest that at least half
of the police forces that we are talking about, these local
police forces, lack a high school education and in many cases
are paid extremely inconsequential salaries. That contributes
to unfortunately a high level of susceptibility to corruption
and a low level of actual professional capability to actually
deal with some of the problems that we are talking about.
So I think Mexico needs to do more to address the
deficiencies of its domestic police forces. I think we can be
helpful in working with Mexico to address those deficiencies.
It is tricky because we do not want to become responsible for
training a domestic police force that becomes a menace to its
own population.
That said, I do think that we can through some of the
programs we actually have right here along the border which
involved exchanges between police, liaison relationships
between police, information sharing among police, we can help
those agencies to become much more professional and effective.
And I expect that to happen over the next five to ten
years. I expect to see major gains in Mexico's police force
thanks to some of the investments that they are making, some of
the pressure from Mexico's new justice reforms, and other
changes that I think will advance the rule of law in Mexico.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
REACH OF MEXICAN CARTEL IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to get into the issue of how the
violence might be spilling over into the United States.
The first thing, we all know that when we are dealing with
the issue of gangs, if you put a lot of pressure in one area, a
lot of times, the gang will move to another area, another
jurisdiction, whatever.
I think what we see on the border and some of your
testimony is that some of the cartels have been slowing down or
whatever and you have more independent groups that are trying
to take control. Then you have a lot of violence.
What do you see about the drug cartels moving into the
United States and connecting with gangs along the border, but
even beyond that to urban areas, say Baltimore, Washington, 95
corridor, that type thing?
Do you see this escalation going to the United States
escalating that and what do you see the relationship between
the United States gangs and then drug cartels and how do they
communicate, how do they pay each other, how are they able to
have the drugs transported?
Mr. Shirk. I would say that since at least the 1970s,
Mexican organized crime groups have had retail operations and
connections to distributors, illegal distributors here in the
United States. You cannot have trans-national organized crime
without ties to local networks for distribution and in many
cases even controlling to a certain degree those operations.
So I think that this is actually a longer-standing problem.
What is obviously concerning to us is whether or not the feuds
between cartels that are currently playing out in Mexico will
be playing out in our streets.
I am less familiar with the experience of Texas and some of
the other border states. I have seen, for example, and paid a
fair amount of attention to the issue of kidnapping, for
example, in the State of Arizona.
It is not clear to me from that information that I have
seen that the kidnapping, the increased kidnapping we have seen
in the Phoenix area, for example, and I know we will hear
testimony on this, that that is necessarily a reflection of the
drug cartels or rather immigrant smuggling groups which may be
an entirely different animal from what we are talking about
here.
But I think the main concern that we should have is whether
or not the operational--the contest for operational control is
spilling over into the United States. And I am not sure that we
have a lot of good evidence of that. We certainly have some
isolated incidents. And as I said, I am less familiar with some
of the specific incidents in the Texas area, so I would be
interested in hearing more about that.
But at this time, the scale of violence that we have seen
in Mexico is not being replicated on the U.S. side of the
border thankfully. Should we be concerned about these isolated
incidents and try to empower local law enforcement along the
border to better address those, absolutely.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, let me give you an example. You
have Mexico versus the United States. You have what I
understand a police chief who is effective against the drug
cartels, who is considered to be honest, and, yet, was told
that if you do not resign because he was putting pressure on,
we are going to kill a police officer every other day, so this
police chief resigned. Probably one of the worst things he
could do, but felt that he did not have the support from his
government or whatever to protect his troops.
The United States of America and no matter whether it is a
small town, a large area, whatever, would not tolerate that. We
would do whatever we had to do to make sure that would not
happen. And that is one of the big differences that we have
now.
But my concern is the organized crime approach. And you
have money. You have the ability. Still that we have not--it is
amazing to me with a country like ourselves that is considered
the most powerful country in the world, we have satellites, we
have all sorts of technology, and, yet, we still cannot secure
the border and can stop this.
So my question again is, do you see the gang connection,
organized crime between the cartels escalating in the United
States and more violence occurring in the United States beyond
just the border, in urban areas? I mean, we are having the
Mayor of Phoenix here and some of those different urban areas.
Mr. Shirk. Definitely I do believe that the drug
trafficking cartels have--their networks extend to other
markets in the United States. They have to. That is where the
highest profit margins are on the retail side of these drug
trafficking organizations.
But you raise a very good example. When we talk about
spill-over drug violence and the spill-over power of these
cartels, we do not see the kind of thing that you are
describing.
Drug cartels basically able to force the head of a local
law enforcement agency in the United States to step down, that
kind of impunity does not exist on this side of the border. We
do see very localized violence. We see the same kinds of
killings and intimidation between gang members and rival
distributors that we have seen in this country for many years
unfortunately.
But thankfully I do not----
Mr. Ruppersberger. The term for that is turf battle.
Mr. Shirk. Those are turf battles, local turf battles. The
question is how badly are those being exacerbated by what is
happening on the Mexican side. And I do not think we have a
good answer for that.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
Dr. Shirk, thank you very much for your fine testimony here
today. You have given us informed, excellent responses to our
questions over a broad range and supplied the Committee with a
lot of information, in and of itself, but also an excellent
backdrop to our next panel.
Thank you very much for your testimony here today. And I
know there are going to be members who would like to submit
questions for the record. If you would be kind enough to
respond to them in your good time, the Committee would
certainly be appreciative.
Mr. Shirk. Happy to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
other members of the Committee, for having my testimony.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. It has been tremendous for you to
come all the way here today.
Our next panel is an equally informed one. If each of you
would come to the table. Thank you.
Your written statements will be made a part of the record
and we look forward to your oral testimony.
And let us begin with Mayor Gordon and then we will turn to
Special Agent Newell and then to Special Agent Arabit.
Mayor Gordon, welcome.
Opening Statement of Mayor Phil Gordon
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman Mollohan and
also Ranking Member Wolf and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee.
I am also proud to be joined by Chief Jack Harris behind me
who is here to answer any technical or professional questions
the Subcommittee may desire. He has been with the Phoenix
Police Department for the past 36 years and has risen through
the ranks.
Let me be blunt----
Mr. Mollohan. Will the Chief raise his hand, so we know.
Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Gordon. Let me be blunt, direct, and realistic. There
is no doubt in my mind or the residents of Phoenix or our
police department and other federal agencies in Phoenix that a
crisis, a critical crisis exists at our border with Mexico.
The border itself which is vast and porous and may explain
some of the reasons without a significant increase in the
amount of agents on the ground and technology, it is ten
thousands of square miles. It is the largest border at 2,000
miles with the significant population located several hundred
miles away.
So there is miles and miles of open terrain, that even if
you are next door in an adjoining canyon, you would not know
that people are there smuggling drugs and people in.
I am a very, very concerned Mayor. Phoenix finds itself at
the center of this perfect storm of what is going on. Yet, I
also come with optimism and to give and suggest solutions to
the wisdom of this Committee which are proven and successful in
achieving and making Phoenix and the Valley one of the safest
major cities in the country today despite its increase in
population and proximity to the Valley.
All crimes are down in Phoenix for the last year, including
homicides, which are down 24 percent. But the violence is
spilling over and I will address that shortly.
We have a police department with 3,400 sworn officers. Our
city is 540 square miles. That equates to about an officer per
square mile. They arrest over 46,000 criminals a year, handle
nearly 750,000 calls a year, and they are stretched like all
police departments, federal and local, to its very limits.
Yet, due to the happenstance of the border and the
associated increasing crimes that continue to go on, our police
departments are doing much more at a significant cost both to
residents financially and residents' potential safety-wise.
And they cannot do it alone and that is why for years we
have been partners with the federal government in these
creative partnerships, some of which have been referred to,
that have proven success for in some cases decades.
Partnering with the DEA, the Border Patrol, FBI, ATF, the
U.S. Attorney, the U.S. Postal Inspectors, and state and other
local agencies, these law enforcement agents have disrupted and
curtailed serious major felony criminal activity.
They have executed thousands of warrants, indicted
thousands of felons, and arrested thousands of dangerous and
violent people engaging in drug trafficking, gun smuggling,
drug smuggling, human smuggling, and kidnapping, by the way,
all related. There is no difference today in whether it is drug
smuggling and people smuggling. It is all together. It is all
about money.
And, in fact, on the human smuggling side, it is as
profitable or more so with much less risk, but it is going on
simultaneous with the same individuals.
We have kept millions of dollars from flowing. And the way
we have done it is our Chief has said and the other federal
agencies we are going after the worst of the worst, the
syndicates, the king pins, and the tops of the snakes. That is
how we can be most effective as a nation, a city, and a state,
by allocating scarce resources where they have the greatest
impact. And let me say that is by partnering with our federal
partners. That has been going on for decades in Phoenix to
effectively increase the resources available.
Again, the federal government, let me be clear, has been a
tremendous partner in the Valley. We have accomplished
important things together and helped keep our community one of
the safest in our nation, also safe by disrupting these
organizations, but they continue.
The Phoenix Police Department together with ICE is
partnered in Phoenix, a unique program that has been very
effective. We actually have ICE imbedded agents on a full-time
basis in our police department. That is where their desks are.
They go out on the streets together. They provide the
intelligence across agencies together. And they partner with us
to take down violent criminals, which, by the way, in Phoenix
is down six percent for the last year alone, again despite the
growing population and the proximity to the border.
In addition to ICE, our Phoenix police are imbedded in the
FBI. We have imbedded city prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney's
Office, allowing us to bring and prosecute federal cases, most
importantly those prohibited young cases of felons that are
holding guns or ammunition.
Phoenix and its federal partners have established a task
force to aggressively pursue kidnappers and those who invade
homes that are plaguing our city, our community, and, by the
way, directly related to the syndicates and the drug smuggling
are these home invasions which are starting to spill over into
the streets. And we share excellent results. Again grateful to
our federal partners.
Let me just give a few short examples, if time permits,
that again have been operating over years that have had
profound results.
Operation Blank Check, a partnership with our local federal
agencies that led to the felony indictment of hundreds of
individuals, disrupted thousands of past crimes, solved
thousands of past crimes. It was a year-long investigation that
led directly to the arrest of hard-core gang leaders of 22
different gangs who traffic in drugs and fraudulent checking
schemes to finance their operations, totaling more $3 million
in one year. Again, cross border also.
Operation En Fuego, also in partnership with our local
federal agencies, was responsible for the breakup of a major
Phoenix-based smuggling organization and the indictment of
almost four dozen individuals on felony charges related to the
human smuggling of more than 10,000 individuals.
Operation Tumbleweed, again involving our local federal
agencies, disrupted and stopped the illegal activity of 20
different organizations throughout the U.S. and Mexico by
following the common money trail right back to all drug
smuggling, human smuggling, money laundering, all disrupted and
stopped.
Additionally, our federal partners in the City of Phoenix
shut down two of the largest syndicates in the nation that
dealt in the tragedy of human smuggling, as well as drugs. Just
these two syndicates alone smuggled in over 15,000 people
illegally into the United States through the Border and then
through Mexico, on to all parts of our country. And by the way,
these two organizations brought in $30 million into Mexico that
were tracked back, and they are out of business now.
Phoenix P.D. is a critical participant in a federal/state
project called Impact, which includes ICE and DPS, again to
disrupt, dismantle, and deter violent criminal organizations
profiting from illegal immigration and drugs. A major member of
the FBI Violent Street Gang Task Force, which resulted in more
than 300 felony arrests in the past year alone, the majority
related to border syndicates and smuggling of drugs and people.
So for us and for this country, partnerships are about
everything and nobody does it better, in my personal opinion,
than the federal partners, the City of Phoenix, other local
jurisdictions, and the state police in Arizona, and are proven
models that work and work well. So I am here to ask for and
plead for your continued support and increased funding of these
partnerships. That means besides the political support, which I
know we have from you all, but also it means financial support.
The City of Phoenix, by the way, has reduced our budget by
almost a third, $280 million. It has continued to put public
safety as its number one priority. But unfortunately, because
of the cost of these operations that require many, many
officers, a long time of undercover that cannot just be
replaced by other individuals, we have had to curtail at a
significant cost to the City and the State and the nation some
of these activities. And that, to me, is the most important
focus I could leave you with, is this is what is working. These
operations cost significant amount of time and money and
equipment. New officers to replace those that are there and
undercover, and the expertise developed over time, as well as
the surveillance. And these dangerous, well armed--and by the
way, many times with military grade weapons, are very
sophisticated with significant intelligence and smuggling
operations over tens of thousands of square miles of desert.
And a quick response is important. People are being
tortured in our very city. Again, people are being kidnapped.
People are being murdered in Phoenix. Traditionally, to this
date, those innocent victims and bad guys on bad guys. But
every night Phoenix police together with other federal agencies
are called out from across the country, from across the world,
and across the nation, that their relatives have been
kidnapped. They were extorted to give more money. They cannot
come up with it, and they only have hours to find their loved
one, wife, husband, daughter, son, that would either be killed,
raped, or in some cases never heard from again. That requires
significant, intensive, and immediate responses. Most nights we
have over sixty Phoenix police officers, some federal agents,
rushing to rescue those on a reactive basis.
So again, I come to Washington today to thank you
significantly from my heart, to ask you for your continued
support. And, again, not only to continue funding but to
increase it. If you have even one dollar to invest, and the
last dollar, I would respectfully request that you put them
into these task forces that have profound effects across the
nation. Under the federal government, under local government,
however you choose. It is there.
Thank you very, very much for your time and for the
opportunity. And these are, this is one drug drop house of
hundreds and hundreds discovered every year, thousands that the
condition of what individuals are held in, the torturing.
[Testimony of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. I am sure we will have questions on those,
Mayor.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you very much for that excellent
statement. Special Agent Newell.
Opening Statement of Special Agent Bill Newell
Mr. Newell. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking
Member Wolf, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, as
the ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division I
am responsible for ATF operations in both Arizona and New
Mexico, which constitutes about 552 miles of the U.S.-Mexico
Border. I am honored to appear before you today regarding ATF's
ongoing role of preventing firearms from being illegally
trafficked from the United States and working to reduce the
associated violence along the Border.
On behalf of the men and women of ATF I would like to begin
by thanking you for the generous support you have shown ATF
over the years in providing the resources our agency needs to
undertake our mission. We are appreciative of the support the
Subcommittee provided ATF in both the fiscal year 2009
appropriations and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
also known as the stimulus bill. In a moment I will discuss how
we intend to use these funds to stem the illegal flow of
firearms into Mexico.
For over thirty years ATF has been protecting our citizens
and communities from violent criminals and criminal
organizations by safeguarding them from the illegal use of
firearms and explosives. We are responsible for to both
regulating the firearms and explosives industries and enforcing
criminal laws relating to those commodities. ATF has the unique
experience, expertise, tools, and commitment to investigate and
disrupt groups and individuals who obtain guns in the U.S. and
illegally traffick them into Mexico in facilitation of the drug
trade.
The combination of ATF's crime fighting expertise, specific
statutory and regulatory authority, and our local capability in
strategic partnerships just as the Mayor mentioned, is used to
combat firearms trafficking both along the U.S. borders and
throughout the nation. For instance, from fiscal year 2004
through February 17th of this year Project Gunrunner, ATF's
strategy for disrupting the flow of firearms to Mexico, has
referred for prosecution 795 cases involving 1,658 defendants.
Those cases include 382 firearms trafficking cases involving
1,035 defendants and an estimated 12,835 firearms.
While the greatest proportion of firearms trafficked in
Mexico originate out of the U.S. states along the Southwest
Border, ATF trace data has established that traffickers are
also acquiring firearms from other states as far east as
Florida and as far north and west as Washington State. A case
from April 2008 involving a violent shootout in Mexico that
resulted in thirteen deaths illustrates this very point. ATF
assisted Mexican authorities to trace sixty firearms recovered
at a crime scene in Tijuana. As a result, leads have been
forwarded to ATF field divisions in Denver, Houston, Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle to
interview the first known purchasers of those firearms. These
investigations are ongoing.
As the sole agency that represents 107,000 FFLs, federal
firearms licensees, nationwide, of which roughly 6,700 are
along the Southwest Border, ATF has the statutory authority to
inspect and examine the records and inventory of licensees for
firearms trafficking trends and patterns, and revoke the
licenses of those who are complicit in firearms trafficking.
For instance, ATF used regulatory authority to review the
records of an FFL in El Paso, Texas to identify firearms
traffickers who purchased seventy-five firearms that were
trafficked in Mexico. Our investigation led to the arrest of
eight individuals who later received sentences ranging from two
to three years.
An essential component of ATF strategy to curtail firearms
trafficking into Mexico is the tracking of firearms seized in
both countries. Using this information ATF can establish the
identity of the first retail purchaser of the firearm and
possibly learn pertinent information, such as how the gun came
to be used in furtherance of a crime, or how it came to be
seized in Mexico. Furthermore, analysis of aggregate trace data
can reveal trafficking trends and networks, showing where the
guns are being purchased, who is purchasing them, and how they
flow across the Border.
Let me share an example with you of how trace data can
identify our firearms trafficker. ATF's analysis of trace data
linked a man living in a U.S. Border city to four crime guns
recovered in four different crime scenes in Mexico. Further
investigation uncovered that he had purchased 111 AR-15 type
receivers and seven additional firearms within a short time
span using nine different FFL wholesale distributors as sources
for his guns. In April of 2008 ATF seized eighty firearms from
the suspect and learned that he was manufacturing guns in his
home. He sold over 100 guns alone to an individual who is
suspected of being linked to a Mexican cartel. Investigative
leads are being pursued and charges are pending.
Additionally, drug traffickers are known to supplement
their firearms caches with explosives. Our expertise with
explosives has proven to be another valuable tool to use in the
fight against drug cartels and the violence. In fact, in the
past six months we have noted a troubling increase in the
number of grenades seized from and used by drug traffickers in
Mexico. And we are concerned about the possibility of firearms
related violence spilling into U.S. Border towns. We have had
at least one such incident in San Juan, Texas when a hand
grenade was thrown into a bar with a crowd of twenty patrons.
ATF was able to quickly identify the grenade and believes it is
linked to a drug cartel. Moreover, we believe these grenades
were from the same source as those used during an attack on the
U.S. Consulate in Monterrey, Mexico. Last week the individual
who we believe directed the attack on the U.S. Consulate was
arrested by the Mexican government. ATF is continuing to assist
the United States agencies as well as Mexican officials with
this investigation.
We are aware that there is a growing concern amongst many
Americans regarding spillover violence from the Border area. As
the Mayor mentioned, Phoenix has experienced a marked increase
in the number of kidnappings and other violent acts, such as
home invasion. To address this violence, in September of 2008
ATF partnered with the Phoenix Police Department to create the
Home Invasion and Kidnapping Enforcement, or HIKE, Task Force.
ATF is contributing its expertise in reducing violent crime, as
well as our investigative and intelligence capabilities to this
partnership.
ATF's Project Gunrunner includes approximately 146 special
agents dedicated to investigating firearms trafficking to
Mexico on a full time basis, of which thirty-two are located in
my field division. Project Gunrunner also includes fifty-nine
industry operations investigator responsible for conducting
regulatory inspections of FFLs along the Southwest Border,
including thirteen that are assigned to the Phoenix Field
Division.
The funding that this Subcommittee has provided in the
stimulus and the fiscal year 2009 budget will allow ATF to
create five new Project Gunrunner teams focused solely on
firearms trafficking between the United States and Mexico. This
funding will allow the hiring of sixty-five special agents and
other personnel, as well as the purchase of equipment needed to
operate along the Border. It will also fund four special agent
positions which will be assigned to areas of Mexico where
currently ATF does not have a presence. The funds in these two
bills are providing critical resources for ATF to expand our
capabilities along the Southwest Border and we look forward to
discussing with you the resources needed to continue that
expansion.
Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, and distinguished
members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
ATF, and on behalf of the men and women of the Phoenix Field
Division, I want to thank you and your staff for your critical
work. And with the backing of the Subcommittee ATF can continue
to build upon our accomplishments in making our nation safer.
Thank you very much, sir.
[Testimony of Special Agent Bill Newell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Special Agent Newell. Special
Agent Arabit.
Opening Statement of Special Agent Joseph Arabit
Mr. Arabit. Yes, sir. Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member
Wolf, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. On behalf
of the Drug Enforcement Administration Acting Administrator
Michele Leonhart, I appreciate your invitation to testify today
regarding violence along the Southwest Border.
DEA thanks the Committee for its support of DEA's Drug Flow
Attack Strategy, DFAS. The resources provided in fiscal year
2009 will allow DEA to build upon its successes, like the $2.9
billion in revenue that it denied drug traffickers in fiscal
year 2008. DFAS acts as a forward defense of the United States
by interdicting the flow of illegal drugs and the traffickers
who smuggle them northward before they reach Mexico or the
Southwest Border. Stopping the drugs before they reach Mexico
and the Southwest Border impacts the U.S. drug supply, weakens
the Mexican cartels, and helps reduce border violence.
I come here today as the Special Agent in Charge of DEA's
El Paso Field Division, one of DEA's five Southwest Border
divisions. Prior to becoming Special Agent in Charge in El Paso
I was stationed in a few cities in Texas, including Houston and
San Antonio. I also spent approximately five years working
undercover for DEA in Mexico. I spent two and a half years in
Mexico City and two and a half years in Mazatlan, Sinaloa,
allowing me to offer a unique perspective here today.
The Southwest Border and the security threat posed by drug
trafficking along the Border is not a new issue for DEA. As the
lead law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing the drug
laws of the United States, DEA special agents have been on the
front lines of both sides of the Southwest Border for decades,
gathering intelligence and conducting enforcement operations to
dismantle the most powerful and ruthless drug trafficking
organizations. The operations of these organizations have
destabilizing effects, not only in the Border region but
throughout Mexico. The Southwest Border is a principal arrival
zone for most illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as
well as being the predominant staging area for the drugs'
subsequent distribution throughout the country. This area is
particularly vulnerable to drug smuggling because of the
enormous volume of people and legitimate goods crossing the
Border between the two countries each day. Disrupted supply
routes along the Southwest Border translate into intense
competition manifested in violence between the drug trafficking
organizations. The drug trade in Mexico has been rife with
violence for decades. Incidents of violence and murder, much of
which is drug related, have remained at elevated levels in
Mexico for three years since the Calderon Administration
initiated a comprehensive program to break the power and
impunity of the drug cartels.
The violence in Mexico can be organized into three broad
categories. They are: intra-cartel violence that occurs among
and between members of the same criminal syndicate; intercartel
violence among and between rival cartels; and cartel versus
government violence. It is significant to note that intra and
intercartel violence have always been associated with the
Mexican drug trade. Cities like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana in
particular have witnessed escalating violence since 2006. In
2007, the number of drug related killings in Mexico doubled
from the previous year. Of the estimated 2,471 drug related
murders, approximately 10 percent were Mexican military and law
enforcement officials.
In 2008, estimates increased to approximately 6,263 drug
related killings, with 8 percent of those being Mexican
military and law enforcement. DEA estimates that approximately
95 percent of the officials killed in both 2007 and 2008 were
corrupt officials who either failed to do the bidding for their
controlling cartel, or who were targeted for assassination by a
competing cartel. Around 1,000 people have died this year in
Mexico, about 10 percent of whom are public officials.
In the past year, U.S. intelligence and law enforcement
agencies have worked diligently to reach a consensus view on
spillover violence and on U.S. vulnerability to Mexican
cartels' violent tactics. The interagency has defined spillover
violence to entail deliberate, planned attacks by the cartels
on U.S. assets, including civilian, military, or law
enforcement officials, innocent U.S. citizens, or physical
institutions such as government buildings, consulates, or
businesses. We assess with medium confidence that in the short
term there will be no significant increase in spillover
violence as Mexican drug trafficking organizations understand
that intentional targeting of U.S. persons or interests
unrelated to the drug trade would likely undermine their own
business interests.
In response, the DEA continues to work vigorously in
cooperation with its federal, state, local, and foreign
counterparts to address the violence through the sharing of
intelligence and joint investigations. DEA has the largest U.S.
drug law enforcement presence in Mexico and is primed to mount
an attack on these drug trafficking organizations at all levels
with the Calderon administration. The disruption and
dismantlement of these organizations, the denial of proceeds,
and the seizure of assets significantly impacts the drug
trafficking organizations' ability to exercise influence to
further destabilize the region. Project Reckoning and Operation
Xcellerator are recent examples of this U.S.-Mexico
collaboration. While these collaborative operations are
intended to break the power and impunity of the cartels, in the
short term they also exacerbate the violence in Mexico.
In short, guided by intelligence, DEA is working diligently
on both sides of the Border to stem the flow of illicit drugs
and assist our Mexican counterparts in curbing violence
associated with the drug trade. DEA recognizes that interagency
and international collaboration and coordination is fundamental
to our success. DEA will continue to closely monitor the
security situation in Mexico and ensure that the rampant
violence does not spill over our Border by continuing to lend
assistance and support to the Calderon administration.
Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, members of the
Committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify,
and I will be happy to address any questions you may have.
[Testimony of Special Agent Joseph Arabit follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONDING TO SPILLOVER VIOLENCE IN PHOENIX
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Special Agent Arabit. Mayor
Gordon, these displays over here--would you quickly, for the
record and for the Committee, describe for us what they are,
what they represent?
Mr. Gordon. Yes. The one on the floor is about an
individual, an immigrant, that was tortured. You can see it on
his fingers. The second one immediately to the left of me is a
neighborhood, an upper middle class, brand new neighborhood,
probably with a maximum of two years. So these homes are being
rented throughout Phoenix. It is not just low income homes, but
solid middle class neighborhoods. Twenty, thirty, forty, in
some cases hundreds of individuals are warehoused in there.
They have ``paid their money'' to get to Phoenix, which is they
pay money. They get to the Border, they pay money to come
across the desert, and then they pay money to get to Phoenix to
then be shipped throughout the United States. That you will
notice the barred up windows, which creates a significant
danger both for police, fire, and the individuals inside since
there is no way out but the front door. There is armed
individuals, usually.
As the police came into this one, the individual on top was
one of the individuals, and the Chief can answer specifically
as to how he was kept, probably as a result of his family not
paying more money. All of these individuals were being held
while their families throughout the U.S. or the world were
extorted for additional monies.
Mr. Mollohan. The person in the upper picture with the
hands tied--is that person expired?
Mr. Gordon. No, sir. That is the condition that the police
found him.
Mr. Mollohan. Identify yourself, Chief, please?
Chief Harrison. My name is Jack Harrison, the police chief
in Phoenix. And the individual on the top was kidnapped. His
wife was called and they asked for $500,000 ransom to release
him. As they were trying to get the money she called the
police, and we were able to locate the individual. There is
another photograph that shows his fingers had been smashed with
a brick. It is very common to be tortured. This particular
individual we found out was a cocaine dealer and it was related
to the drug trade.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Chief. Mayor, listening to your
testimony it sounded like you have a big problem that you are
being very aggressive about dealing with and successfully so.
And you are extremely complimentary of the partnership
relationships you have with the federal government. Am I
characterizing your testimony accurately?
Mr. Gordon. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you, because it sounded really
good and satisfactory in most regards, in what ways could these
partnerships be strengthened? Where would you suggest that we
start? And what is the issue? More dollars? More resources?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And again,
the Chief or the agents that are here can correct me if I am
wrong. But number one, these operations engage a lot of
intelligence and sharing information, a lot of officers
directly assigned. And due to the economic constraints on local
governments, and in particularly Phoenix which represents about
50 percent of the sworn agents in the state, 60 percent of the
sworn officers in the valley, we are not able to continue to
provide those officers at the rates that the federal agencies
would like.
Mr. Mollohan. You as the City of Phoenix are not able to
partner adequately with your federal counterparts because you
do not have enough agents?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, I would never say that, we do not
have enough agents, which we do not. There is always crime,
unfortunately, because of the economic budget.
Mr. Mollohan. Right.
Mr. Gordon. We will provide the agents, but we need the
financial ability so that we can hire the other offices to keep
the streets safe.
Mr. Mollohan. So it is a city resource issue----
Mr. Gordon. It is a city resource----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. From your standpoint.
Mr. Gordon [continuing]. Primarily. Also, it is the, for
the federal government and the city, it is the sophistication
of the intelligence. If one could picture, and there was a
question raised with the helicopters and the planes, with the
desert being so large you can have a plant--sorry, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no, no. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Gordon. You can have an airplane there spotting. What
is happening now is, because of the desert, if you can picture
those auto trucks that have ramps where you drive the new cars
up? Well, the smuggling cars and the drugs go up to any part of
the Border. If there is even a fence, drive it up, drive it
down, unload it, and are gone before there is any possibility
of agents being there.
Mr. Mollohan. Before my time runs out, may I ask the Chief
that same question? Chief, from the federal government's side,
what programs do you like best and what programs would you like
to see increased?
Chief Harrison. Yes, sir. There are a number of things that
we would ask for. The HIKE unit that we had to put together
takes ten officers and a supervisor out of patrol to be able to
go after these kidnappers as they are happening. So increase in
personnel.
Mr. Mollohan. Now, that is for you?
Chief Harrison. For our Department.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, but I am asking a different question. I
am asking, what would you like to see the federal government do
more of? You like what they are doing. And maybe they are doing
enough. I mean the answer might be----
Chief Harrison. We like the partnerships with the agencies,
such as ATF and with ICE. Being able to add personnel to those
units. Prosecutors through the U.S. Attorney's Office that are
specifically utilized to target weapons violations and those
types of operations is what we would like to see. An increase
in funding, personnel, and equipment. The surveillance
equipment, the computer equipment, it is very, very involved
and it is very, very expensive.
Mr. Mollohan. I will follow up in the second round. I want
to stay within my time. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Mr. Wolf.
INTEGRITY OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor, I appreciate
your testimony and both of the special agents. And I think it
is the obligation of government to provide public safety. I
mean, that becomes more important than almost anything. That is
an act of domestic terrorism.
I wanted to ask the two special agents, I believe our law
enforcement people are some of the most honest people. Do you
believe that there is a problem with regard to corruption in
federal law enforcement down on the Border? U.S. side.
Mr. Newell. On the U.S. side?
Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir. Correct.
Mr. Newell. Well----
Mr. Wolf. United States government law enforcement people.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir. I understand your question. Well,
Ranking Member Wolf, having worked twenty years on the Border I
know for a fact that we do not have the level of corruption on
this side, on this side, you know, as compared to Mexico. You
know, huge amounts of money changing hands always are enticing.
But we, if there is an instance ever of an allegation of any
corruption on any, you know, launched against or made against
any of our people we aggressively address that. So the answer
to your question is, I do not, I know for a fact, at least
speaking for ATF, that it is not even close to comparison. It
is just because of the amount of money involved on the Mexican
side.
Mr. Wolf. How about DEA?
Mr. Arabit. Congressman Wolf, thank you for the question. I
agree with Mr. Newell's assessment. We see isolated incidents
of corruption. But it is not something that you see every day,
or every week, or even every month. So the incidents are very
isolated.
INTEGRATION OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Mr. Wolf. We have had a serious problem in our region of
MS-13. And what we did is, we put together a coordinated effort
where there is one location whereby we have every law
enforcement in the entire region, from Arlington, Alexandria,
Fairfax, Manassas, Manassas Park. And FBI and DEA, ATF and
Marshal Service all meet together. Is there that type of
coordination that you have? I mean, we have one location for
this entire region, which is probably larger than the
geographic size of Phoenix. Do you do this same type of
coordination there that we would do here for MS-13? Yes,
whoever. Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Wolf, as a mayor that is not part of the
federal organization, I have traveled the U.S. for years, both
in the private sector and now fifteen years public. There is
not an area in this country that is so integrated for so long
where you have FBI using Phoenix police for cold cases, Phoenix
police using ATF for its, it is brothers and sisters that have
literally grown up together. The answer is yes.
Mr. Wolf. And what about as you leave Phoenix and go in
other parts, is it the same?
Mr. Gordon. Yes, sir. The valley represents 60 percent of
the entire state, and probably nearly 80 percent of the private
property in the State of Arizona. If there is any type of
incident it is really the valley. And with your permission, Mr.
Wolf and Mr. Chairman, I think because of the integration of
the criminals across the Border and within the urban, within
the United States, it becomes more and more dependent now that
the local police agencies and the federal agencies work
together, sharing their expertise in both areas. And that is
where I think we are all trying to say, is continuing to fund
those ongoing operations that we see it as something that is
standard for years, that integration. And every special agent
that I have ever talked to in any agency I think will tell you
that our area is the model. And I am not speaking for Phoenix.
I am talking about the federal/local partnerships.
CARTEL INVOLVEMENT IN U.S. CITIES
Mr. Wolf. Two questions. Connected, how involved are other
gangs? MS-13, for instance, in this and connectivity into
Mexican gangs? And secondly, I was driving in my car about two
weeks ago and there was a hearing. I think it could have been
Homeland Security. There was a member questioning DHS. And the
comment by the member was that these gangs have now infiltrated
the United States. Are in I think it was over 200 cities. And
then it kind of ended, the news report went on. One,
connectivity to MS-13, Los Zetas, and different gangs.
Secondly, how active are they in Buffalo, Kansas City,
wherever, far, far away from the Border? What is the impact
inside the United States as well as directly on the Border?
Maybe both of you could take that?
Mr. Arabit. Thanks for the question, Congressman Wolf. With
respect specifically to the MS-13, we do not see any connection
between the MS-13 and cartel leadership. It is quite possible
that the MS-13 has connections to street level dealers or mid-
level distributors. But we do not know of a connection between
MS-13 and cartel leadership.
Mr. Wolf. And what about involvement in having people for
these gangs, or in other cities in the United States well
inland from the Border?
Mr. Arabit. There have been----
Mr. Wolf. How active are they in Kansas City, in Buffalo,
Toledo, New York City, Washington, D.C.?
Mr. Arabit. Congressman Wolf, there have been isolated
reports of gang involvement. For example, Los Zetas being
involved in the interior of Texas. But they are just isolated,
uncorroborated reports. We do not have any definitive
information to indicate that Los Zetas are involved in any
activity in Texas.
Mr. Newell. I agree with that assessment, Mr. Wolf. One of
the issues, though, is regarding firearms trafficking to
Mexico. It is a national issue. And we see throughout the
United States, in certain areas, it is a national issue. The
same way that gangs acquire firearms in the United States using
straw purchasers is a very, very common way that the drug
cartels are getting guns through the use of straw purchasers.
So there are some similarities there in how they are doing it.
Mr. Wolf. But the question is that I wanted to ask is,
though, is these gangs that are involved in what the Mayor and
the Police Chief said, and they are active, the cartels in
Mexico, do they have operations in cities throughout the United
States? In Wheeling, West Virginia? In Washington, D.C.? In
Charlotte, North Carolina? Or is the activity in those areas
totally different that what is taking place, connectivity to
the cartels?
Mr. Newell. I would assess it, Mr. Wolf, this way. That
there is a loose affiliation between the local gangs in these
areas with the cartels. Cartels are separate from a gang in the
sense that a cartel is almost like a virus, if you will. They
go in and they are intending to take over an entire area. Where
a gang is really kind of looking at taking care of their own
area, in a smaller gang in a city. But there are loose
affiliations. But like Mr. Arabit said, we have not seen that
direct connectivity between the drug cartels and those gangs
that you are referring to.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would it not be
true, though, the cartels are certainly in smuggling the gang
members into the United States? Gang members are paying cash,
the cartels will take any cash paying customer?
Mr. Newell. Sure. I mean, it is all about the money.
FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS IN ARIZONA
Mr. Culberson. To that extent, certainly, they are
smuggling them in. And first of all, I want to thank you
gentlemen for the terrific work you do. You know, God bless
you, you are in the front lines of a real war. And that is just
not known, I think, widely known to a lot of people how serious
and dangerous the Southwest Border is. And I wanted to, in the
brief time that I have got, talk a little bit about the scope
of the problem, to illustrate for the Chairman and my Ranking
Member Mr. Wolf, and the Committee, the scope of the problem,
number one, and then talk about a solution that really is
working very, very well along the Texas Border.
And in particular talking about in Phoenix, you are in the
Tucson sector, and I have had the chance to go out and visit
Tucson, talk to Chief Gilbert of the Border Patrol who is your
sector chief down there. And am frankly astonished and appalled
to discover that the U.S. Attorney in the Tucson Sector will
not prosecute. Apparently, ATF, DEA cases brought to her by
the, now she is gone, the old U.S. Attorney. But the Tucson
Sector, it is a fact that if you were, and these are numbers
from the Border Patrol, Mr. Chairman, that if you were arrested
in the Tucson Sector carrying less than 500 pounds of dope you
had a 99.6 percent chance of never being prosecuted and being
home in time for dinner. You would be out for about two and a
half hours. And I would like to, you all are aware of the low,
of the near zero prosecution rate in the Tucson Sector, Mr.
Mayor and Chief? By the U.S. Prosecutor? You are familiar with
this problem?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, actually just from
my perspective, you know, and not parochial, Tucson is 120
miles from, south of Phoenix. I will leave it to the experts on
Tucson. But the City of Phoenix, actually, as we testified,
puts two city attorneys at our expense. We are asking for
funding to continue that, and that is another program to
prosecute strictly Phoenix federal prohibited gun cases and
drug cases.
Mr. Culberson. You are up to your ears in alligators in
Phoenix, you are not really familiar, I guess, with what, is
what you are telling me.
Mr. Gordon. I----
Mr. Culberson. Which basically is the problem, you are up
to here. You have got so much on your own plate right there.
That is a huge source of the problem, Mr. Chairman, I can tell
you. Is going down to the Border and seeing the Border Patrol
agents are, of course, intensely frustrated that 99.6 percent
of every arrest they make, 99.6 percent of the people they
arrest, are gone. They are going to be released and not
prosecuted. They have had cases, they showed us, Mr. Chairman,
of a video taken from a surveillance airplane of, did they have
vehicles in that train? Was it vehicles and people? People,
they had whole, like army ants coming over the Border with
thousands pounds they found on them? About a thousand pounds.
And Border Patrol agents went out there, intercepted them at
2:00 in the morning, snakes, cactus, these guys are armed to
the teeth. Pitch black, DEA was involved in this, I think, you
guys went out there in the middle of the night. This was an
arrest in the Tucson Sector near the Fort Huachuca. And the
U.S. Attorney turned them all loose. So there is a, it is
essentially the wild west.
One of Phoenix's big problems, Mr. Chairman, is that the
U.S. Attorney in that sector is not doing their job, and that
is something I want to make sure we zero in on. This, in fact,
Mr. Chairman, the Committee was very generous last year. With
your help, Mr. Chairman, and with the help of Ranking Member
Frelinghuysen, and Frank was a big part of this when Frank was
our Chairman and Ranking Member. But in last year's bill, Mr.
Chairman, this Committee provided enough money to hire twenty-
five new federal prosecutors in Arizona. Yet the U.S. Attorney
out there refused to hire them. She only hired, filled nine of
the positions. And they are still turning loose 99.6 percent of
all the people arrested. So it is a huge part of your problem
because they are coming over the Border in Tucson.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was able to establish in my
Homeland Security Committee, and also in testimony before this
Committee, but the Border Patrol Chief Aguilar confirmed what I
had been saying for years, and that there are actually manned
observation posts in Arizona. The smugglers are so brazen that
they actually have, and Mayor's nodding his head. You are
familiar with this. They have got on hilltops on U.S. soil
observation posts manned by these smugglers with the best
satellite phone technology, scrambled satellite phones, high
powered weapons, food. They even bring them female
companionship. These guys have got all they need. And they are
out there watching our law enforcement officers go out and
attempt to make these arrests. The DEA and ATF, you are
probably familiar with this. In El Paso, have you heard about
the observation posts in Arizona? It is wide open, wild west in
Tucson, Mr. Chairman.
So number one, we want to make sure, I want to work with
the Committee in making sure we get those prosecutor positions
filled. And finally, Mr. Chairman, one other point I want to
make, and also for your sake, Mr. Mayor, and Chief Harrison,
that the U.S. Attorney's Office, because you know how
relentless I am, I bird dogged this on the Operation
Streamline. And I was able to establish with certainty that the
U.S. Justice Department told us last year that if this
Committee fully funded President Bush's request, and in fact
you even beefed it up a little bit, Mr. Chairman, the U.S.
Attorney's Office, they promised us that they would be able to
implement Operation Streamline, the zero tolerance policy, from
Brownsville to San Diego. That they would have the resources to
do this in Arizona.
So I want you to know help is on the way, Mr. Mayor. The
Chairman, I may be about to run out of my time on the five
minutes. I wanted you to know, help is on the way. It is a
partnership. It is really important that the U.S. Attorney
there who is based in Phoenix, who covers the entire Tucson
Sector, do her or his job in handling these prosecutions.
And then finally, Mr. Chairman, can I just ask very
quickly, the Chief, there was a story in the press about five
or six months ago about a paramilitary band dressed in black
that assaulted a house in Phoenix. And the reports I got on the
news wires was that this was some kind of a paramilitary strike
force. The drug cartels going in to take out or execute a hit
in Phoenix. Number one, tell us more about that story and how
common is that? These guys have penetrated into Phoenix. They
can operate at will anywhere in the United States, can they
not?
Chief Harrison. That was reported, that it was some type of
a military operation. But that was not accurate. These were
drug dealers. They were heavily armed. They had come into a
West Phoenix neighborhood and invaded a house going after money
and drugs. They fired over a hundred rounds from assault
weapons into the house, and our officers happened to come upon
them as the gunshots were being fired. And we were able to
capture some of those people.
Mr. Culberson. That was not the Zetas?
Chief Harrison. But it was falsely reported that it was a
military operation out of Mexico.
Mr. Culberson. Paramilitary. It was not the Zetas?
Chief Harrison. It was drug dealers.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. I am going to give the witnesses a chance to
respond to Mr. Culberson's concerns. And can we start with
Mayor Gordon?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much. I think my only response,
request would be the filling of a permanent U.S. Attorney,
particularly in Arizona and the Border states would be greatly
appreciated by everyone. Right now it is interim, as everyone
is aware of, and it really was almost an interim position as
the previous, prior U.S. Attorney was let go. And so it has
been, I believe personally, something that should be a priority
to put on the, I guess, all the Borders given the changeover,
that we get a U.S. Attorney. And that I know about and
understand. I think, again, we need to have a U.S. Attorney
assigned to Arizona.
Mr. Newell. Mr. Culberson, it boils down for us in ATF, to
a resources issue. I mean, of the twelve agents that I have at
my disposal to address Gunrunner and the firearms trafficking
issues in Metro Phoenix, the fifth largest city in the country,
I have got two dedicated full time for the HIKE, the Home
Invasion Kidnapping Enforcement Task Force, and one of the my
three intel analysts over there full time. So I have taken two
of twelve and one of three resources to dedicated, because it
is a very important issue.
In Tucson, for instance, the Violent Crime Impact Team that
Ranking Member Wolf is familiar with, the Violent Crime Impact
Team Initiative, I have three in my division. I have one in
Mesa, Arizona, one in Tucson, and one in Albuquerque. Because
Tucson is starting to see an uptick in home invasions. And the
same issues that Phoenix, unfortunately, is afflicted with
right now. I have retooled the VCIT mission. The VCIT mission
is violent crime, addressing firearms related violent crime.
Well, these home invasions, these kidnappings, as the Mayor and
the Chief have said, involve firearms related violent crime. So
the VCIT in Tucson is addressing firearms related violent crime
in Tucson, in the city limits of Tucson, working in close
partnership with Tucson P.D.
But again, it is resource driven. I have got agents, and
this is almost like a plea on my part. I have got agents that
have not had a day off in months, because they are seriously,
seriously dedicated to this. I have to balance the personal
needs of my employees with the mission needs of ATF. And I
routinely have to tell supervisors, ``Send that person home.
They have a family.'' Because we are that dedicated to this
issue.
I fought very hard a year ago and finally have a PGR, I
have a member of the Mexican PGR fully vetted in my office. It
is the first time we have done it. We are hoping to expand it.
Because one of the key things, it is not just partnerships on
this side of the Border but partnerships with our Mexican
counterparts. If we can find those key people in Mexico to
partner with, to share information. Not just talk about sharing
information but actually doing it, I think that is going to be
how we really get to the next level here.
And, you know, the Border is not a barrier to criminals. We
need to eliminate the Border as a barrier for us and how we do
business.
Mr. Mollohan. I want to get to that relationship with the
Mexican agents in just a moment, but I want to give Special
Agent Arabit an opportunity to respond to Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Arabit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Culberson,
obviously, more prosecutors facilitate what we do. Along the
entire Southwest Border region, we have task forces, we have
OCDETF strike forces which include federal, state, and local
agencies that are working very hard on this important issue. We
also have High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Forces that
are working very hard on this issue. And obviously, the
additional prosecutors would help facilitate the good work that
those folks do.
RESOURCE NEEDS IN THE FIELD
Mr. Mollohan. Now, let us talk about resource needs a
little bit, Special Agent Arabit. Talk about the territory you
are covering, the resources in terms of manpower and equipment
that you have to cover that territory, and its adequacy or
inadequacy for the record, please.
Mr. Arabit. Sir, I cover the El Paso Field Division, and
that is comprised of five different offices. We have an office
in El Paso; an office in Alpine, Texas; an office in Las
Cruces, New Mexico; an office in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and
an office in Midland, Texas. We have 124 special agents and we
have approximately fifty-five task force officers. These are
officers from state and local agencies who are deputized to
work on our task forces. They are deputized as federal agents.
Just in the last couple of days I learned that we are going
to assign a Mobile Enforcement Team to the El Paso Field
Division to work on methamphetamine related cases and also on
border violence. In fact, there are four Mobile Enforcement
Teams that will be assigned along the Southwest Border. Well,
actually two along the Southwest Border, one in Phoenix, one in
El Paso, and then one in Chicago and one in Atlanta based on
the fact that, you know, that the Mexican drug cartels have an
influence in those cities.
There are also an additional sixteen positions that are
under consideration for various offices, or the five, rather,
offices along the Southwest Border.
Mr. Mollohan. So, you are the expert. Tell us your opinion.
Adequate? Not adequate? You know, you just described additional
initiatives as a result of the omnibus funding that we just
passed. $10 million in the omnibus for the Mexican Meth
Trafficking Program. You are obviously getting some of that
money. You just indicated that. $21 million in the omnibus and
the GWOT for DFAS programs. Adequate? Inadequate?
Mr. Arabit. Well the first thing----
Mr. Mollohan. What do you need?
Mr. Arabit. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The
first thing that I will say is that 29 percent of our domestic
agent work force is located along the Border. To address the
threat we realigned resources in 2002. I think for the moment
it is adequate, but obviously in the 2010 budget we will be
asking for more positions for the Southwest Border. But I think
for right now it is adequate.
Mr. Mollohan. Now, I want you to answer this question as an
agent out there in the field. How many more agents would you
like having working out there with you?
Mr. Arabit. Well sir----
Mr. Mollohan. Would you like to have any more?
Mr. Arabit. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Mollohan. How many more would you like to have?
Mr. Arabit. Obviously additional enhancements would help us
to more effectively and efficiently do our job.
Mr. Mollohan. How many teams? Give us some sense of scale.
Mr. Arabit. Well sir, the Mobile Enforcement Team that is
being assigned to the El Paso Field Division is going to be a
tremendous help to us. You know, a few additional teams like
that would be beneficial.
Mr. Mollohan. Special Agent Newell? If you----
Mr. Newell. Same question, sir?
Mr. Mollohan. Same question.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. And then I will follow up.
Mr. Newell. Well, obviously sir, you know, twenty years in
ATF. When I came on the job twenty years ago I think we had
roughly 1,800 agents and we currently have roughly 2,500 agents
now. So I hope I have my numbers right. That is approximately
right. So yes, sir, I can always say we desperately need more
resources. You know, one of the issues, and I said that to
Congressman Culberson, is I have routinely conversations with
my supervisors about, ``You send that agent home for a few
days.'' Because we have taken this, everything we have done in
the last, really, since we started Project Gunrunner has been
with the existing resources. We redeployed resources, existing
resources around the country, to the Border. And with the
generous support, with the stimulus package, with the $10
million we started El Centro, California, a field office in El
Centro, California, Las Cruces, New Mexico, and McAllen. And
with five, and four additional positions in Mexico. With the $5
million in the fiscal year 2009 we created, we are getting an
office in Houston and another office in Phoenix. So----
Mr. Mollohan. They are shorting you $1 million. I think it
is $6 million.
Mr. Newell. $5 million is it, I believe.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh no, go get that other million. It is
there.
Mr. Newell. But, yes sir, to answer your question,
obviously, yes sir, I mean I could always use additional
resources.
COORDINATION WITH MEXICAN COUNTERPARTS
Mr. Mollohan. Describe your relationships with your
counterparts in Mexico, what it is now, what it should be, and
what we should be doing with your counterparts that we are not
doing?
Mr. Newell. Well like Mr. Arabit, I spent four years in
Bogota, Colombia during the early nineties, during an
interesting time in Colombia. And I will tell you, the only way
we can make tremendous firearms trafficking cases is training
and vetting key law enforcement officials, in this instance in
Mexico, that can work in partnership with us to ensure that we
get in a timely fashion the firearms tracing information so we
can trace it and identify, you know, the sources of those
firearms.
So to answer your question, sir, about a year ago, with
ATF's support, we started a pilot project of getting a PGR
representative, the Mexican version of DOJ. And we have that
person in my office in Phoenix. It has already paid dividends.
Because that person not only is a PGR prosecutor and attorney,
he also works under the umbrella of the Consul General's Office
in Phoenix. So he kind of has a dual hat. And, you know, done
the right way and fully vetted, of course, these individuals
give us the portal, if you will, into a system that has been
almost at the Border stopped. And now it is not. And we are,
you know, DEA has many vetted units in Mexico and I will let
Mr. Arabit speak about that. But it is key. Partnerships with
our foreign law enforcement counterparts is key in this.
Mr. Mollohan. Now, what we want to understand is scale,
here. To what extent would that have to be scaled up to be
adequate?
Mr. Newell. As far as our partnerships?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Mr. Newell. Well, something similar to, you know, DEA has a
tremendous program in Mexico with their vetted units. Something
very similar with us in Mexico, as well.
Mr. Mollohan. How far away are you from being there?
Mr. Newell. It is a resource issue, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I know what it is. I know it is a
resource issue.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. I am asking how many more agents? How long
would it take to train and to implement and to create the
partnerships? And how many people are we talking about?
Mr. Newell. Just in my Field Division, sir, I could easily
use another group in Phoenix and another group in Tucson, and
the major cities. And, you know, you are talking about a year
process to hire them on, get them through the academies----
Mr. Mollohan. How many agents are in a group?
Mr. Newell. Usually it is a ten, one, and one model, sir.
Ten agents, one supervisor, and one support staff. So, but
again, it is like the money that we have gotten in the stimulus
as well as the 2009. It is about a year process, to get them
hired, get them through the process, you know, get them
background cleared, get them through the academies. The
individuals that we are getting from the stimulus, in for
instance Las Cruces, is probably going to be October, November
just because of the time frames that are involved with it.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. What I am trying to understand is your
relationship with your counterparts in Mexico. What more do we
need to do there? And how do we need to help Mexico?
Mr. Newell. Well sir, I think deploying additional ATF
assets in Mexico and having the vetted units in----
Mr. Mollohan. That needs to happen?
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Special Agent Arabit.
Mr. Arabit. Yes, sir. DEA has eleven offices in Mexico. We
have had agents on the ground in Mexico for decades. We have
100 employees----
Mr. Mollohan. Sounds like you are further ahead than ATF is
in these relationships.
Mr. Arabit. We have been in Mexico for many, many years,
sir. As I mentioned, we have 105 employees in Mexico, sixty-two
of those employees are special agents who are involved in the
intricate details of the work with the Mexican government. We
do everything from, you know, from sharing sensitive
intelligence from wiretap information on the U.S. side with the
Mexicans to helping them establish wiretap cases and wiretap
programs. We share informants. We, you know, we have access to
Mexico's witnesses, Mexico's evidence. We have had the
opportunity to build so many cases on the U.S. side as a direct
result of that collaboration. So we have been working with the
Mexican government for a long time.
Mr. Mollohan. What part of that is adequate and what part
of it is inadequate?
Mr. Arabit. Well, I think the part that is inadequate, sir,
is just the part that is being addressed by the Merida
Initiative. And that is the institution building. I think the,
you know, the Mexican government under President Calderon's
administration is doing just a tremendous, tremendous job
rebuilding their institutions. And I think that we have to be
there to support them with Plan Merida.
As Mr. Newell pointed out, we work a lot with vetted units.
These vetted units are comprised of personnel that have been
trained by DEA, and in some instances polygraphed by DEA. These
are the people we work with on a daily basis. But there are
only a couple of hundred of these people. And so Plan Merida
addresses that specific issue in that, you know, it affords for
the training of these individuals which is a very important
component in our collaborative relationship.
The only other thing I would like to point out is just two
recent examples of our extensive collaboration with Mexico.
Operation Xcellerator, where thousands of pounds of drugs were
seized, over $59 million in currency was seized, and more than
750 individuals were arrested. That operation would not have
been anywhere near as successful as it was without the
extensive collaboration of the Mexican government.
The second operation I would mention is Project Reckoning.
And that was the operation that targeted the Gulf Cartel. You
know, the Zetas and company. And in that particular instance
the Mexican government collaborated with us extensively. In
fact, we used some of their information to secure some of the
indictments in that case. And so I say that to say that the
collaboration with the Mexican government is good.
The final point I would like to make, sir, is our El Paso
Intelligence Center also has some Mexican police
representatives involved. And so we are collaborating with them
on a daily basis. I specifically, and my Field Division in El
Paso, specifically collaborate with our office in Ciudad
Juarez. And we have a real time exchange of information with
the Mexican government.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Special Agent Arabit. Mr. Wolf.
MILITARY ON THE BORDER
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a thought before I
ask a question. It appears that the problem is too that we have
really lost control of our Border. And, you know, my dad was a
policeman, a police officer, and I am very sympathetic to
police officers. And I was thinking as we were listening to
your testimony, the two Border Patrol people who were put in
jail and allowed to be in jail for the longest period of time.
I do not know how many years they were in jail. A couple of
years. That the disincentive and the message, you know, that
that would send to a law enforcement person, to have two people
who were attempting to do their jobs. I do not know all of the
case. And then you were talking about the U.S. Attorney. The
U.S. Attorney prosecuted them. And I watched part of that
hearing. And he could not really answer a lot of the questions.
So I sort of started to think of that. What does that mean?
What kind of message? And did that set us back?
The two questions I have is, one, and then you can just
answer me and I will shut the microphone off. We hear a lot of
people talking about military on the Border, our military down
on the Southwest Border. There have been some governors that
have asked.
Secondly, what ever happened, you lost an Agent Camarena,
if I recall, twelve, fifteen years ago. Do you recall that
case?
Mr. Arabit. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Wolf. Whatever happened to the people that killed him?
Were they ever tracked down? Were they ever prosecuted? So one,
and Mr. Mayor before, you know, anything we can do to help you.
Because I think public safety, the people that live there, that
is the number one thing they deserve. To make sure they live in
safe neighborhoods. So anything we can do to help I think we
should. But if you can answer, troops on the Board, U.S. troops
on the Border, and secondly whatever happened to the people
that killed Agent Camarena? Were they prosecuted?
Mr. Arabit. Thank you for the question, Congressman Wolf.
With respect to the individuals who tortured and murdered
Special Agent Ricky Camarena in February of 1985, they were
captured and they do currently sit in jail.
Mr. Wolf. In a U.S. jail, or in a jail in Mexico?
Mr. Arabit. There are a couple in jail in Mexico and a few
in a U.S. jail.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And I guess since, I do not want to put
them in a tough spot, your thoughts about U.S. troops on the
Border?
Mr. Gordon. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Wolf, I will answer that
directly. I would also like to point out that just over a year
ago, almost exactly a year ago, Officer Erfle, a Phoenix police
officer, was killed by a violent gang member that was
undocumented and was able to come across illegally at the
Border on several occasions. He also happened to be a partner
at one time with my son, who is a Phoenix police officer, and
watched his two little children cry. And so this is an
important issue for me on a personal level, that we need to
secure that Border.
With respect, and probably the only thing I will differ
with these brave individuals in that they represent to the left
of me, not politically, but to the left of me. Is that, you
know, there could not be enough agents on the Border and in the
urban core cities. Even what was announced today, which is a
great first step by the administration, it is a drop in the
bucket in terms of what is needed. And I realize it is
resources. But these are the most effective results.
I personally support the National Guard on the Border. And
assuming the Constitution is followed and allowed any resources
that the federal government can give, particularly in the
intelligence area, and the tracking area. This to me is about
the U.S. sovereignty protection. I think that the Border needs
to be secured to protect those innocent immigrants that are
being brought across. And on the other hand, our security, the
more we can do, and if I could squeeze this in. If I was asked
the question about how many more agents, and maybe again the
model of what could occur if this is what the federal
government agents and that this Subcommittee would want is
Phoenix, again, it is that year to get an agent under the
federal system hired, trained, polygraphed. Phoenix, and I just
checked with the Chief, is willing to increase our
participation in that interim gap under and by in charge of the
federal agencies to help in that interim period. If you could
fund that part we can hire patrol officers, and we are hiring
patrol officers. The expertise that these experienced officers
have are hard to develop, even new agents. And anything we can
do in that area would help this entire nation.
So I think certainly the more presence on the Border the
more important it is. And with respect to Mexico, those brave
officers and government officials are the targets of the
killings and the assassinations. And the more we can do to help
them. I think the Chief has told me your, the DEA, that over
200 chiefs of police and sheriffs were assassinated over the
last two years. That sends the message, unfortunately, to those
brave individuals also. So getting the support in whatever
manner it takes, I would be there publicly to support that.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Culberson.
OPERATION STREAMLINE
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to document
for the Committee, Mr. Chairman, in detail to show what is
working and what we can do to help support that effort in
expanding Operation Streamline, the zero tolerance policy. And
I wanted to ask the witnesses first of all, particularly
Special Agent Newell and Special Agent Arabit if, I want to
characterize Operation Streamline because time is brief. And
the success we have seen in the Del Rio Sector as opposed to
what is going on in Tucson.
And it is, securing the Border is no different than
securing a neighborhood or a city. If the law is enforced,
uniformly, fairly, with a sense of equal justice for everybody,
if people know with certainty that the law is being enforced,
and there is a prosecutor standing behind these officers, and a
jail cell waiting for a criminal with a certainty of
prosecution, the streets are going to be quiet. And it is
working in Del Rio. And I would like to ask you, Special Agent
Newell and Special Agent Arabit to confirm that what we have
seen firsthand in Texas in the Del Rio Sector and the Laredo
Sector with Operation Streamline is, we have seen about a 70
percent drop in the crime rate, Mr. Chairman, in the Del Rio
Sector, about a 60 percent drop in the Laredo Sector. We have
seen dramatic, we are talking about a 50 percent drop in
illegal apprehensions in the Laredo Sector. An even bigger drop
in illegal apprehensions, I think it is 70 percent or 80
percent in Del Rio. Simply by enforcing existing law.
There is an existing statute that says that six months in
jail if you cross the border illegally. The judge, Judge Ludlum
literally sat the prosecutors down, and the U.S. Attorneys, and
the magistrates and said, ``You are going to put in the time.''
She brought in all the law enforcement, federal, state, local,
we are all going to work together. It is a team effort, Mr.
Mayor, you are exactly right. Judge Ludlum, God bless her, she
initiated this then I found out about it and was able to help
with this great Committee. With the help of earmarks, which are
so badly abused but are so important. In fact 80 percent of my
earmarks went outside of my district, Port of Houston or the
Border, in particular.
But I was able to target money to this program with great
success, with your help, Mr. Chairman, and the help of Chairman
Price. And as a result, the, all that is happening in Del Rio
and Laredo is the law is being enforced, that is six months in
jail. Everyone is being arrested. Obviously with the exception
of women and children, the offices are using their own good
judgment. If you are arrested by the Border Patrol in Del Rio
or Laredo you will be prosecuted for, and you will be thrown in
jail for a short period of time, up to six months. A couple of
days, a couple of weeks, six months, and then deported. And
they do not get any repeat customers. Mr. Chairman, there is
actually a surge in demand for bed space but there are actually
vacancies. Are there still vacancies in the Val Verde County
Jail? They have vacancies as we sit here today in the Val Verde
County Jail because the word got out.
And you can actually see the edge of the sector, Mr.
Chairman, of the Del Rio Sector. The trash picks up. Because
they are all going around it. And they know that if they cross
in Tucson it is the wild west. They have a 99.6 percent chance
of never being prosecuted if they carry less than 500 pounds of
dope. And as a result all the loads, when I hope we go to
Tucson, you will see the evidence room. All the loads are under
500 pounds. And they all go free. But if they cross at Del Rio
they go to jail. So it is working in Del Rio and in the Laredo
Sector.
Would you agree that enforcing the law, using Operation
Streamline, if we were to expand Operation Streamline, and the
U.S. Attorney has already told us, the Department of Justice,
Mr. Chairman, that they have the resources to implement
Streamline from Brownsville to San Diego using last year's
since we approved last year's omnibus. Would you agree, Agent
Newell and Agent Arabit that if we were to expand Operation
Streamline from Brownsville to San Diego the border would
largely be as quiet and secure up and down the entire border as
it is in Del Rio and Laredo? And that you agree it is a
successful program?
Mr. Newell. Well, Congressman Culberson, I know Chief
Gilbert and Chief Beeson well. They are friends of mine and
they are outstanding law enforcement professionals. And, you
know, our concern in ATF, is of course of firearms related
violent crime, as it is with them. I meet with Chief Gilbert
and Chief Beeson on a regular basis. And their concern just
like mine is the safety of the Border Patrol agents on the
Border.
Mr. Culberson. And he is the Chief of the Tucson Sector,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir. Chief Gilbert is Tucson and Chief
Beeson is Yuma.
Mr. Culberson. Right. And his agents are assaulted
regularly because the illegals have no respect for law
enforcement because they are not going to jail.
Mr. Newell. Right. And our concern----
Mr. Culberson. Is that correct?
Mr. Newell. Our concern, of course, is the firearms
violence.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Newell. And so we, you know, I regularly work with the
Border Patrol and meet with them. And any cases that we can
take regarding obviously, you know----
Mr. Culberson. Right. Firearms. But----
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. My time is so limited. Forgive me.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Can I ask Agent Arabit? Is it, tell us about
Operation Streamline and your impression. Is it working and a
successful program that we should expand to the El Paso Sector
and Lordsburg?
Mr. Arabit. Sir, the limited knowledge that I have on
Operation Streamline has more to do with the high prosecution
rate. And my opinion as far as the high prosecution rate is
that if, you know, if the bad guys know they are going to get
prosecuted then they are not going to cross there.
Mr. Culberson. It works?
Mr. Arabit. It works, yes.
PARALLELS WITH COLOMBIA
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
There is no question about it. Thank you, and you have been
very generous with the time, Mr. Chairman. If I could ask one
question that I hope will be helpful in illuminating the
purpose of this hearing in conclusion, because Agent Newell,
you have got experience in Colombia. Could you talk to us about
the parallels between what we see today, the level of violence
in Northern Mexico, with what you saw in Colombia? And what
historical parallel is there to help the Chairman of the
Subcommittee get a handle on what we are seeing today in
Northern Mexico?
Mr. Newell. Well I think what we are seeing, sir, from my
personal experience is the efforts that President Uribe took in
Colombia are very similar to the efforts President Calderon has
taken. You know, he is taking the battle to the drug cartels.
And they are responding with the only way they know how, which
is rampant violence. And that violence is being perpetrated by
guns that they are illegally purchasing and illegally
trafficking, in large part out of this country. So the
parallels are that the government of Mexico, in my opinion, is
taking just a phenomenal, taking on a phenomenal task and doing
the best they can, considering the daunting task.
But to address something, if I may, Mr. Congressman, is in
the interim of that one-year period to hire people we have
detailed and are detailing to the Border to fill that gap. So
there will not be a one-year lull, if you will, until the time
that, you know, those agents are coming on. We are detailing to
Texas a significant amount of personnel to deal with a bunch of
investigative leads we have in Texas on firearms trafficking
issues.
Mr. Mollohan. What percent of your agents are on the
Southwest Border?
Mr. Newell. Sir, I think currently we have dedicated to
Project Gunrunner we have roughly about 146 special agents.
There is thirty-two in Phoenix Field Division, which of course
is Arizona and New Mexico. Because we also obviously enforce
the arson laws, explosives laws, and other things that we are
statutorily mandated to.
Mr. Mollohan. But of all the agents you have in the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, what percentage of them are
stationed in the Southwest Border?
[The information follows:]
What percentage of ATF agents are stationed in the Southwest
Border?
Answer. As of April 11, 2009, ATF has a total of 2,569 agents. ATF
has 419 agents working on the Southwest Border, as defined by ATF's
four field divisions (Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles), which
constitutes 16% out of ATF's total agent population. Of the 419
Southwest Border agents, ATF has 155 agents working firearms
trafficking cases.
Mr. Newell. Sir, I do not have, I can get you that
information. I am sorry, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman, may I have one very narrow
follow up?
Mr. Mollohan. Do you want Special Agent Arabit to answer
that same question about Colombia?
Mr. Culberson. Yes. I would be very interested in the
analogy. And do you think, either one of you, that the
government of Mexico is in danger of collapsing? The U.S.
military has said that Mexico, Pakistan, and I think
Afghanistan are three of the most unstable governments in the
world and most likely to collapse. I wanted to ask you about
that. And then one very narrow follow up for ATF. Yes, thank
you. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Arabit. Thank you, sir, for the question. I do not
believe that the government of Mexico is going to collapse. I
think the difference between, one of the big differences, the
distinct difference between Mexico and Colombia, is that you do
not have an active insurgency in Mexico as you did in Colombia,
and maybe still do in Colombia to some degree with the FARC.
And I think that is an important thing to note. The government
of Mexico is working on unprecedented levels to break the power
and the impunity of the cartels. I have personally seen it.
I was in Juarez last Thursday. And what I saw just amazed
me. I saw the military and the SSP, which is one of the police
agencies in Mexico, working in a task force environment. And I
saw them in the streets of Ciudad Juarez working in convoys,
and setting up checkpoints. And the reason for that, I know
there was a concern raised earlier about the military being
involved. The reason for that, as was explained to me by the
general who is in charge of security for Ciudad Juarez, was
that if the military encountered a police situation, they would
contain the situation and pass the defendants, the bad guys,
over to the police for further processing. And in my entire
time working with Mexico, and even in Mexico, I have never seen
that sort of cooperation among the military and police entities
in Mexico.
And so the will to resolve this problem is certainly there.
I just think that we need to manage our expectations in terms
of how quickly the problem will be resolved. Because they are
taking, they are trying to take a crisis situation in Mexico
and transform it into a traditional police problem that will
eventually be dealt with by the police force, once the police
force is trained and up to speed and staffed. So I do not
believe that Mexico is anywhere near the verge of collapse.
Mr. Culberson. May I ask one very narrow follow up of ATF?
Yeah. Do you, if I could, Special Agent Newell, I wanted to ask
you specifically, of those federally, the FFLs, the federal
firearm license holders in the United States. What percentage
of those FFLs are deliberately involved in criminal activity?
It has got to be less than 1 percent.
[The information follows:]
What percentage of federal firearm license holders in the U.S. are
deliberately involved in criminal activity?
Answer. To date, over the ten-year period from FY 1999 to FY 2009
(as of 4/1/09), 245 cases involving 262 defendants (federal firearms
licensees) have resulted in a determination of guilt in judicial
proceedings. During this time period there have been at least 104,000
active federal firearms licensees in business each year. Thus over the
10 year period in aggregate, approximately \1/4th\ of 1 percent of FFLs
have been found guilty of criminal activity in federal court.
Mr. Newell. It is a very small percentage.
Mr. Culberson. Less than half of a percent?
Mr. Newell. I do not have the exact percentage off the top
of my head, sir, but it is a very small percentage?
Mr. Culberson. Probably less than one-half of 1 percent?
Mr. Newell. Again, sir, I do not have that. But----
Mr. Culberson. Certainly less than 1, and I am delighted to
hear it. The next time that comes up in one of our hearings I
am glad to have that little piece of statistical ammunition.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Newell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Some wrap up
questions. Mr. Culberson is a real advocate for doing
additional things on the Southwest Border to improve the
situation. I know he has appreciated these hearings for that
reason, and he frequently communicates with the Chairman and
Ranking Member of this Subcommittee and the Homeland Security
Subcommittee about this. So we commend him for that.
COMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITIES
In dealing with these issues, we have heard more than once
that the cartels have better communications equipment than the
United States federal agents or the local police have. Is that
true? And if so, how is it true and to what extent?
Mr. Arabit. Thank you for the question, sir. The cartels
are well equipped. I will just leave it at that.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I do not want you to leave it at that. I
want you to explain to the Committee what you mean and give us
some detail.
Mr. Arabit. Sir, I would like to explain that to you in
private.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh. Sure. Of course.
Mr. Arabit. But they are well equipped.
Mr. Mollohan. Do we have an issue here? Okay. Well, we will
leave that at that then. Mayor? Chief? If you are comfortable
with answering that.
Chief Harrison. I would only say that only additional
funding that is available for interoperability for local
agencies, that that is extremely important on a daily basis as
well as in an emergency like 9/11. Because when you travel from
one side of the valley in Phoenix to the other you travel
through ten of fifteen different police agencies. And if they
are all on different radios and they are unable to communicate
with each other, that creates a real officers safety hazard
because officers are traveling back and forth across the valley
following suspects. We have had shoot outs in Phoenix involving
officers from other agencies. We did not even know it was
happening until they were able to call. So just from the
communications standpoint anything that is dedicated to true
interoperability for local agencies is very valuable for police
and fire.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, thank you. Mayor, you probably know
this, but for the record, there is $1 billion in the stimulus
bill for the COPS hiring program, Community Oriented Police.
That is really a reactivation of that program in a fairly big
way. The whole purpose was to address the concerns that you
expressed here at the beginning of the hearing and that the
Chief echoed about needing additional personnel to meet this
challenge. So I wanted to make sure you knew about that. I am
sure you did. But I want to encourage you to apply for it.
What an excellent panel. Both panels were excellent and we
very much appreciate your testimony here today. As you can see,
there was a lot of interest from members of the Committee. We
know the administration just today came out with an initiative.
We want to support that and already have in a number of ways.
This testimony today will help us identify areas where we can
be more robust in our funding, more targeted, and help you all
do the tremendous and dangerous job that you do every day. And
you have made that clear here today, that you greatly
appreciate the kind of work ethic and sacrifice that your
people are making. We recognize it and appreciate it as well,
and we appreciate your good work and the good work of those who
are over you.
So thank you for your testimony and for your coming these
long distances. And Godspeed.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 26, 2009.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
MICHELE M. LEONHART, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, DEA
Opening Statement by Chairman Mollohan
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Well, good morning. I would like to once again welcome
Michele Leonhart, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, to discuss drug enforcement priorities and
strategies, both domestically and abroad.
Because we will not be receiving the detailed President's
budget request until next month, Ms. Leonhart, this hearing
will be a little different from DEA hearings of previous years.
We will have less questioning about line item changes in
your budget and more about your overarching programs and
activities. However, to the extent that you are able to share
details about your budget request, we are happy for you to do
so.
Our discussions today will range across a wide variety of
topics. Of course, we are interested in your major enforcement
activities targeting the trafficking of illicit narcotics.
We actually began our discussion of enforcement activities
two days ago when a representative of DEA's El Paso field
office joined other witnesses and provided excellent testimony
on the trafficking of narcotics from Mexico into the United
States as part of our hearing on cartel-related violence in the
border region.
We hope to expand on that discussion today to include your
programs in other major source and transit countries around the
world, including Afghanistan, Bolivia, and Colombia.
At the same time, I want to make sure that we pay
sufficient attention to the abuse of licit controlled
substances.
Much of your work in this area is regulatory as opposed to
enforcement oriented and as a consequence, it can be
overshadowed by DEA's other programs. Its importance, however,
is highlighted by discouraging data on prescription drug abuse,
which has been increasing across many age categories for the
past few years.
We are anxious to hear how DEA is continuing to address
this problem while still ensuring unimpeded medical access to
legal controlled substances.
In a moment, I will ask you to proceed with your oral
testimony. Your written statement, of course, will be made a
part of the record. But first I would like to call on our
Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, for any comments he may like to make.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no comments. I just want to welcome you and look
forward to your testimony.
And I yield back.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Ms. Leonhart, once again, welcome, and you may proceed.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Statement of Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart
Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Wolf, members of the
Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to appear before you to discuss
DEA's programs and recent accomplishments.
I want to thank you for your support. You enable us to do
our jobs and you deserve much of the credit for our successes.
I would like to highlight several areas of importance
violence in Mexico and the Southwest Border, increasing
methamphetamine production in small toxic labs, growing abuse
of prescription drugs, and combating terrorists where there is
a nexus with drug trafficking.
Mexico and the Southwest Border. The violence we are seeing
in Mexico is unprecedented, but it is not surprising. It is a
symptom of the pressures DEA and the Mexican government are
inflicting on the Mexican drug cartels.
For many years, drug traffickers operated in Mexico with
impunity, but under the Calderon Administration, which works
closely with DEA, things have changed. As a result, the
traffickers are fighting back like caged animals. And our
response must be to stay the course, keep up the pressure, and
never give in.
My optimism about Mexico is supported by two recent
successful DEA-led operations against Mexican cartels:
Operation Xcellerator, which targeted the Sinaloa cartel, and
Project Reckoning, which targeted the Gulf cartel. These
cartels bring multi-ton quantities of cocaine and marijuana and
large quantities of methamphetamine into the United States and
are responsible for much of the violence in Mexico.
To date, these two operations alone have resulted in
arrests of more than 1,400 individuals; the seizure of more
than $132 million in cash; the seizure of 29 tons of cocaine;
the removal of a weapons arsenal in Mexico that included
hundreds of assault rifles, explosives, an anti-tank rocket,
and other weapons; and, most importantly, the indictment of the
top tier of the Gulf cartel.
I am happy to report that just last week, Mexican special
forces arrested Vicente Zambada. Mr. Zambada was a major
Mexican trafficker in charge of importing tons of cocaine for
the Sinaloa cartel.
Our enforcement successes are actually changing the
dynamics of the cocaine market. We are reducing the
availability of cocaine in America. Cocaine prices continue
going up and purity continues going down. And over a two-year
period, the price of cocaine has increased by more than 100
percent and purity has decreased by 35 percent. This was
accomplished through DEA's hard work and that of our federal,
state, and local partners and our Colombian and Mexican
counterparts.
Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a drug of major concern
to DEA and this Subcommittee. Thanks to law enforcement
efforts, changes in state laws and the 2006 ``Combat Meth
Epidemic Act,'' the number of small labs in the United States
decreased dramatically in 2006 and 2007.
Unfortunately, traffickers learned how to circumvent the
CMEA through the illegal practice of smurfing and now the
number of small toxic labs is rising again in some locations.
Smurfing is difficult to stop as the CMEA does not require
electronic or interconnected log books.
Prescription drugs. Prescription drug abuse is one of our
greatest areas of concern and the internet is a major source of
these diverted pharmaceuticals. To combat this problem, DEA
reprogrammed 108 diversion investigator positions into special
agents and added intelligence analysts and state and local task
force personnel to form what we call tactical diversion squads
all across the country. As these resources come online, they
will help us bring diversion under control.
Afghanistan and narco-terrorism. The last area I want to
mention is DEA's contribution to combating terrorism. DEA plays
an integral role in the United States' overall Afghanistan
strategy. Drug trafficking fuels terrorism and it destabilizes
governments. DEA is working closely with the Afghan government
to create institutions capable of enforcing the rule of law.
Thanks to the funding we received in the 2008 GWOT
supplemental, we are significantly expanding our presence in
Afghanistan and this will lead to more successful operations
like DEA's Operation Albatross and the arrest of more Afghan
drug lords.
In Operation Albatross, DEA's FAST teams worked with our
Afghan counterparts to dismantle a super-lab complex and drug
bunkers in a Taliban-controlled area in Kandahar Province. We
seized 238 tons of hashish, the largest seizure of hashish in
history, valued at approximately $600 million.
And recent DEA investigations also led to the arrest of two
major international arms traffickers, Victor Bout, known as the
``Merchant of Death'', and Monzer Al Kassar, leader of an
international arms trafficking organization.
Al Kassar was sentenced last month to 30 years in prison
for conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons
that were to be used to kill Americans in Colombia. And we are
pursuing the extradition of Mr. Bout from Thailand.
In conclusion, drug traffickers are in business to make
money and DEA is in business to stop them. Between 2005 and
2008, DEA stripped traffickers of more than $9 billion in
revenue, including $2.6 billion in hard cash.
These enforcement successes are not the only signs that we
are on the right track. There are roughly 900,000 fewer teens
using illicit drugs now than there were eight years ago. In the
same time frame, current teen meth use has plummeted 50 percent
and cocaine use in the American workforce decreased nearly 40
percent in the past three years.
Our efforts are paying off, but we must do more. We
continue to face many challenges, but I am confident the DEA
will have many more successes to report to you in the year
ahead.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you, and I look
forward to your questions.
[Written statement by the Honorable Michele Leonhart,
Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MEXICO CARTELS
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Ms. Leonhart.
A couple days ago, this Subcommittee held an afternoon of
hearings with regard to drug trafficking on our southwestern
border and the violence associated with it on both sides of the
border.
I would like to give you an opportunity to speak to that
issue as well here first thing today. As I ask that question, I
would note that Secretary of State Clinton made what I
understand are some informal comments that were reported in the
press to the effect that, by some indices, U.S. drug policies
could be talked about in terms of being a failure. I think that
assessment is at odds with the testimony that we heard the
other day.
What is your assessment and perhaps even your reaction to
her comments? I want to stress that I think they were informal
and perhaps not well thought through, but we look forward to
your comments on that.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would say the failure is that we still have drug
use and abuse in this country. But in terms of Mexico, that is
nothing but a pure success. That is a sign post that what we
are doing and what we have been doing over many, many years is
finally working.
And I say that as a veteran DEA agent for 28 years. Having
worked in San Diego on the border and other places in the
country, I know our efforts with our Mexican counterparts, and
I have to include our Colombian counterparts, working together,
our three countries have strategized over the last several
years on how to take down both the Colombian cartels and the
Mexican cartels.
Our strategies over the last two years have been to do as
much damage to the Mexican cartels as possible in an attempt to
disrupt them and dismantle them and to have a change in the
cocaine and meth markets in this country. And we have done
that.
So I could not label that failure. If you talk to experts
in drug enforcement around the country, if you talk to the
General of the Colombian National Police and if you talk to the
Attorney General of Mexico, Eduardo Medina Mora, and I have
talked to all of them, they will tell you that this is a
success.
And what we are hoping to do is as long as the valiant and
courageous President Calderon and Eduardo Medina Mora and Mr.
Garcia Luna stay the course, we see great things for Mexico. We
see great things for the drug market in our country. We see a
Mexico that can become like Colombia which, being a drug agent
and seeing Colombia in the 1990s, is nothing like what Colombia
is today.
And those are our hopes for Mexico.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are analogizing your success in
Colombia, which was a process, not an event--it took a long
time for that success to demonstrate itself--to Mexico today.
You are suggesting that the strategies and tactics that you are
employing in Mexico are bearing success and you predict, as you
look to the future, will be increasingly successful and result
in the kind of trends that we are now getting in Colombia; is
that correct?
Ms. Leonhart. That is correct. Those results like Colombia
and also a continued change in the drug market in the United
States.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you can understand why folks who are
maybe taking a snapshot of the situation might have concerns
because there is a lot of increasing violence that was evident
in our hearing. It is all over the newspapers and perhaps in a
sensationalized way to some extent.
What indices should we be looking at to be able to share
the optimism that you just expressed?
Ms. Leonhart. I think the first thing that we do is we
listen to President Calderon and we listen to the Attorney
General and law enforcement officials in Mexico. They are very
optimistic about what they are doing, and they do have a plan.
They are optimistic that what they are doing is making a
difference.
And what we know about cartel leaders, and especially
Mexican drug cartels, is they are on the run. They are fighting
each other for the trafficking routes and the corridors to move
product into the United States. They are fighting within their
own cartels for leadership because the Mexican government and
DEA have really done damage to these cartels.
We have had, for instance, the leader of the Gulf cartel
extradited to the United States two years ago, and we have had
many extraditions since of major drug traffickers. So they are
in disarray. And one of the things we can do is look and see
what we are learning from the other drug traffickers.
We conduct our investigations, and I can tell you that when
we are intercepting traffickers during these investigations, we
hear utter frustration on their part; because of different law
enforcement operations that we have going on in the transit
zone, operations that we have been conducting with the Mexican
officials in Mexico now for two years. They are frustrated and
they are changing the routes. They are changing their methods
and they are making mistakes and we have been capitalizing on
that.
I think other things that you can look to is that there is
still the majority of people within Mexico, you will hear from
51 percent to 58 percent, that still back President Calderon,
with all the violence still back President Calderon, and are
looking to see a change in their country. And the perfect
example is to look at Colombia.
Mr. Mollohan. Are there any measurements of success? A
decrease? We are talking about an increase in violence. You are
suggesting that is cartel-on-cartel violence, competition for
territory, competition for the business, and that in some way,
that is a positive sign. That is an interpretation of it.
Is there anything, and perhaps there is not, that we can
look to that is obvious or that we can benchmark today and look
to tomorrow as trends of success?
Ms. Leonhart. Yes. There are a couple of things.
What I needed to mention is a third dynamic there. It is
not just the fighting within the cartel for leadership and
money and power. It is fighting each other and it is for the
first time in history, they are actually fighting the
government. So that is a third factor that makes this different
and why we see it as successful.
But we can look to our own country for some dynamics that
are happening here in the drug market and that will tell the
story. And that really is the poster that I have here today.
And if I can walk you through that and explain it, I think you
will understand it a little bit more.
We looked over 24 months, December 31, 2006 to December,
well, all of 2007 and all of 2008, we looked. And when I was
here last year, I was saying that we are in the perfect storm.
Our enforcement operations, the operations we are doing in
Mexico, all the money we are taking from the cartels, all the
pressure we are putting on them, has changed the cocaine
market.
And I reported to you that in a 12-month period with
sustained pressure on the cartels that we had increased the
price of cocaine by 21 percent. At the same time, we had
decreased the purity 10 percent.
And I reported to you that at that time, 38 markets around
the country simultaneously were reporting shortages of cocaine
and we could verify skyrocketing prices.
One more year of that sustained pressure, we take a look at
it today and I can tell you that the price of cocaine, the
average price of a pure gram of cocaine on the streets of
America right now is up 104 percent, and the purity has dropped
again to 35 percent.
At the same time, that is a change in price and purity for
cocaine, but when we look at drug use, we see major changes as
well. A year ago, I reported great success because we saw that
twelfth graders' prior-year use of cocaine was down nine
percent. It is continuing to go down and today it is down 23
percent.
I also talked about workplace drug testing and said we had
never seen anything like this. And these are the biggest drops
in 19 years and the drop was 19 percent. It now has dropped 34
percent in the workplace for cocaine positives.
So not only has the cocaine market changed, but we have
seen a change in teen and adult usage in this country. So that
is why we call it the perfect storm. We have never seen it
lined up like this.
We were very cautious, very cautious and that is why we
waited that year to even come to you and say we think something
is happening, but now when we have 24 months of this and all
the successes taking billions of dollars, that we stripped the
cartels of billions of dollars over the last few years, this is
putting pressure on them and it is affecting us.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we know that those results come about
by the hard work of you and your agents working in very
dangerous circumstances, so we compliment you for those
results. And we will have other questions.
Mr. Wolf.
VICTOR BOUT ARREST
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome. And I have a lot of questions that just your
testimony has raised.
But before I get into that, I want to thank your people for
the Victor Bout arrest. When I would be in Africa, in the Congo
and in Sierra Leone, they would say their Victor Bout plane is
on the runway. And what he did with regard to Charles Taylor
and the cutting off of arms and the Congo and the death is
unbelievable.
And I do not believe that your people have gotten enough
credit and I do not know that people quite understand that this
fellow is a merchant of death.
There is another issue which we will not get into. I think
it is very troubling. There have been reports that other
agencies of our government have used him. And under no
circumstances would that ever be justified.
So I want to thank you. And I think the public ought to
know that what your people have done is almost incredible
because he would be with impunity. He would just move wherever.
And some day, I would love your people to just come up and tell
me how you actually happened to do that.
Now, the question is, how successful will we be to
extradite him and bring him back to the United States because I
would say on behalf of the people that I would see, and I would
go into villages where they would talk about short sleeve or
long sleeve and their arm was cut off and all of the things?
And I think with Charles Taylor's trial now in Hague, this guy
has got to be part of it.
So how hopeful are you and is the Administration doing
everything it can to bring this guy back and convict him here
in the United States? Can you tell us, and, one, thank you and
your people who were involved in that, can you tell us a little
bit more about it?
Ms. Leonhart. I can tell you that we are very optimistic
that he will be extradited to the United States. Both in the
prior Administration and the current Administration, both
Administrations saw what a spectacular case it was and how
important it is to bring him to justice here in the United
States to stand for those crimes. Nobody else could catch him
for all these years.
We know that from our law enforcement partners in Thailand
that they will do whatever they can. We know that the courts
are doing what they can. There are procedures that have to go
on and I think there is possibly one more hearing. It was
supposed to be a couple of weeks ago. I think they have put it
off due to witness problems on his part. But we expect to have
word after that hearing.
Mr. Wolf. Could you tell the Committee and for the record
just how extensive and his involvement in some of the things
that he has been involved in over the years?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, we did note, you know, he was involved
in drug trafficking and money laundering, but, more important
than that, just all the conflicts he has been involved in and
all the weapons he has supplied.
And this is a man that is all about greed, and when he saw
the chance to sell arms to the FARC in Colombia to kill
Americans, he took advantage of that and it was just
dramatically done. It could be a movie some day, moving from
one place to another.
Mr. Wolf. Well, there was a movie.
Ms. Leonhart. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. How accurate is that movie?
Ms. Leonhart. I have watched the movie and I can only
imagine like most movies that it is probably a bit dramatic,
but the events that they are covering pretty much parallel what
we know his life to be.
Mr. Wolf. Is the indictment for the sale of arms to FARC?
Is that what the----
Ms. Leonhart. Yes. We did traditional drug enforcement
work. We had an undercover operation where our undercovers
posed as the FARC in Colombia. And he was very interested in a
transaction for arms where he would sell arms and went to the
meeting to negotiate that. And we were able to have our
counterparts in Thailand arrest him.
Mr. Wolf. Are there any other indictments for him around in
other countries of the world, any African countries or anything
at the Hague or anything like that?
Ms. Leonhart. I do not believe so. I believe that there may
have been former charges in other countries brought against him
and dropped. We felt that this was the chance to stop what he
was doing and that this is where he would be brought for
justice.
Mr. Wolf. At his pinnacle, how many airplanes did he have?
Ms. Leonhart. I am not sure, sir. We could get you that
information. In fact, we would like to come and give you a
briefing.
[The information follows:]
How many airplanes did he [Victor Bout] have?
Answer. On April 22, 2009 Acting Administrator Michele M.
Leonhart and other senior DEA staff briefed Congressman Wolf on
the Victor Bout case. The briefing included information
regarding Bout's airplanes.
Mr. Wolf. Sure. I would like that.
The last question is, so you are saying the Administration,
the Obama Administration is committed to this and are our
people out there in Thailand, in our embassy working
aggressively to make sure that this happens?
Ms. Leonhart. This is a major, major priority for DEA. And
I know that the Attorney General, Mr. Holder, sees it as a
priority and is doing what he can to make sure that justice is
done and that we get Mr. Bout extradited out of Thailand.
Mr. Wolf. I think the Committee should know and something
should be put in the record that he was responsible for the
death of so many people. In Africa, he was the merchant of
death. He had literally furnished, I believe, most of the
weapons to Charles Taylor. Much of his weapons have gone into
the Congo.
And I just think what the DEA has done on this has been
incredible and, yet, there has been very little notoriety about
it, I think because people do not know, you know, who he is
and, therefore, they just think perhaps he is just some guy.
I hope that the Administration will stay firm and not allow
any of his friends in other countries to intercede.
DEA'S EXPULSION FROM BOLIVIA
One other question, too, a little bit off of what your
testimony is. In January, President Morales ordered the DEA to
leave Bolivia and we understand you have relocated your staff
to the southern countries.
Can you explain how you have reconfigured your overseas
staffing? And what impact, because I know that is a terrific
problem down in Bolivia, what impact has this had and how do
you see this thing working out? And is there anything on the
horizon whereby he may allow our people back in?
And, lastly, was DEA the only one that was expelled? Was--
--
Ms. Leonhart. No, sir.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. ATF or AID or anybody else?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, actually, the Ambassador was expelled
first.
Mr. Wolf. Oh, he went to the Ambassador too?
Ms. Leonhart. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. So what do we have, DCM there?
Ms. Leonhart. We have INL, I believe is left there with
maybe a couple of other officials, but he expelled the
Ambassador first, then expelled our people who were working out
in Beni, expelled them from that location and then later
expelled us.
Mr. Wolf. What were his reasons, because there is a drug
problem in Cochabamba, there is a drug problem with young
Bolivian children, there is a drug problem? Why would he do
that?
Ms. Leonhart. His support for counter-narcotics programs is
diminished and he does not want DEA in his country.
Mr. Wolf. Is there a reason or is there something that he
wanted to do privately? Is there a reason why or is it just
that----
Ms. Leonhart. He believes that he does not need DEA in the
country to attack the drug problem.
Mr. Wolf. Do they have an effective drug program, Bolivia?
Ms. Leonhart. I would say that their successes were because
DEA and the Bolivians worked together for many years, 35 years
in Bolivia. I would not say that they are successful today and
I would not say that they will be successful in the future.
Mr. Wolf. Last question and I can ask others in the second
round, but is there any prospects or is there any effort being
made to allow the DEA or others to come back in or is that just
kind of pretty much on hold?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, President Morales said himself that DEA
will not return to Bolivia during his term as President. And at
this point in time, he is expected-- well, he is going up for
reelection in December of 2009. That would give him five more
years if he wins that election.
Mr. Wolf. Do the people support him on this? Is it a
popular position in Bolivia or is it----
Ms. Leonhart. That, I do not know.
Mr. Wolf. And is there a drug problem? I mean, I have
talked to people down through areas and they maintain that they
do have a drug problem within their own country in addition to
outside. Is there a drug problem in the cities of Bolivia among
Bolivian children and----
Ms. Leonhart. They have their own drug use and drug abuse
problem and they have their own problem in that they are a
supplier of coca.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My last question of the day was going to be on the subject
that Mr. Wolf touched, so I will touch that subject first.
First of all, thank you for your testimony and for your
service, although I must say that your testimony left out at
least an allegation with little truth to it. The allegation by
President Morales was that DEA was involved in espionage in his
country and that was the reason that he got rid of them.
Now, there is a major drug issue in Latin America. And I
fall traditionally, and the Chairman and the Ranking Member
know this, I fall on the side of those unfortunately few
Americans who want less American interference in Latin America.
But at the same time, I want a very strong fight against
drugs in cooperation with those governments. And I think many
of those governments want to participate with us in that war on
drugs.
But there is, whether we like to admit it or not, it might
be that DEA is caught up in what we hate to admit has been an
ongoing belief in Latin America that there has been a lot of
political interference.
You know, we have a record in Chile with Allende where the
CIA played a major role. We played at least a role of
indifference in an attempted coup on President Chavez. We have
had hostile behavior, whether warranted or not, towards Cuba.
We hold a couple of colonies in that area, including one where
I was born. So it has not been a pretty picture on either side.
And what I think we are seeing, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, is that a lot of that hostility now is playing out in
areas where it should not play out because whether you are on
the left or on the right on this issue, everyone should be for
fighting the war on drugs.
But there is still a spillover from a time gone or still
around where many of those leaders felt that our government was
interfering too much. And so you have us accusing Chavez of
something and he accusing us and Morales kicking out the
Ambassador and we have no Venezuelan Ambassador here.
The only salvation here is that the Secretary of State has
said and the President has said that he would like to review
our whole policy in Latin America. That has always been the
forgotten area.
And I think if you change some of our behavior, if we
change some of our behavior or at least begin to give the
feeling that we are there to support anybody who is
democratically elected regardless of their rhetoric towards us,
that then we can open the door to these other things that have
to be done.
And I would agree with you that, you know, every time I
have had a chance to speak to anybody near the Bolivian
government or in the Bolivian government, I say this is a
mistake. We have to fight this war.
I mean, there is a record in Latin America of using
agencies other than the obvious agencies to disrupt government
and I am not making that up. That is historically true. That is
the problem that we have to deal with.
Having said that, let me just move on to one of my
questions. As we do more, do more--well, let me ask you a
question before I leave the subject.
Did you know, had you heard that one of his main reasons
for asking DEA to leave was that he accused DEA of espionage?
Ms. Leonhart. I did hear those accusations and they are
untrue. They are preposterous. DEA is in that country to
conduct joint drug operations and has for 35 years with great
success. So our role was going after drug traffickers, solely
going after drug traffickers.
DRUG TRADE IN THE CARIBBEAN
Mr. Serrano. All right. Thank you.
As we do more and more and more on the Mexican border, is
there any fear that in the Caribbean, the drug trade will ramp
up in a way that we are not keeping an eye on it? I am
specifically speaking about the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico
and places like that. As we concentrate on one area, does
something else happen in the other area?
Ms. Leonhart. We think alike. And I made a trip to the
Dominican Republic last year, just about this time last year,
because as we saw this happening and we saw the pressure we
were putting on the Mexican drug cartels, we knew that pressure
would probably cause a change in routes and that route would
then affect the Caribbean.
I went and met with officials there and we had jointly done
a few operations in 2007. And we were able to continue some of
those operations and we put more focus on both Haiti and the
Dominican Republic over the last year and a half. And we have
very good relationships with them and we have some things in
place to give us an indication if there is a change.
Right now 90 percent of the cocaine destined for the United
States goes, you know, through Central America and Mexico and
10 percent through the Caribbean, but we have been watching
that. We have been watching air tracks from Venezuela into
Haiti and the Dominican Republic. And it is a priority for us.
We have to be vigilant about that area.
Mr. Serrano. And I hope it remains a priority because, you
know, you guys do good work and you have got a huge task, an
ongoing task ahead of you, and it is not going to get any
easier. And so I hope you pay attention there.
Let me finalize this round by just saying something else.
Both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Mollohan remember that a few years ago,
Puerto Rican communities throughout the United States and in
Puerto Rico fought this battle which they won after 62, 64
years of getting the Navy to stop bombing the Island of
Vieques. This beautiful island that could be built up was used
as a bombing range. The Navy left.
Someone last week suggested in the Senate that the military
look at Vieques again as a way of fighting the war on drugs. So
needless to say, throughout the 50 states and in Puerto Rico,
everybody is having a heart attack because the idea of the
military returning to Vieques, even if it is to plant tomatoes
or mangos, nobody is happy about.
So I would hope, and just to show you that I support DEA
notwithstanding the question I asked you about espionage and
other things, I would hope when folks from DEA sit around the
Administration, if the idea of bringing the military to fight
that war using Vieques, that you guys would simply look across
the table and say we can handle that, you know, and we are
going to have more support from the people, good will, because
it is not the military that left after 62 years.
Ms. Leonhart. And I can respond that I have never heard
that and I will remember our conversation if I do hear that.
Mr. Serrano. It was in Senate testimony. A member of the,
what is it, the South Command, said that they would look at
Vieques again as a base, but this time, they said not for
military training. They said to fight the war on drugs. And
folks just do not want the military to return in that way.
There are plenty of other places they could practice in Puerto
Rico and they do practice, you know, military training.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOUTHWEST BORDER POLICIES
Mr. Mollohan. Well, just a final question on our southwest
border policies. The President recently came out with an
initiative. Would you please give us your description of that
initiative, what you think it entails and what you intend to
accomplish under it.
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I believe with President Calderon's
unprecedented level of support and commitment to make radical
reform, he does need our help. He is going to stay the course
and we stand behind him in his fight. And we need to do
whatever we can to help him.
And the Merida Initiative, as it is called, provides him a
package that will help do some of the things that are badly
needed in that country, that at the end of the day will not
only help drug enforcement, but will also help with the
violence and help stabilize Mexico so that they can return the
cartel problem back to a law enforcement problem and he will no
longer need troops to patrol his streets.
So we stand behind that. We support that. And there are
things that Mexico is in dire need of and Merida funding will
help them get that.
AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
What percentage of drugs produced in Afghanistan end up in
our domestic market?
Ms. Leonhart. When I was here last year, I told you it was
less than ten percent. We have taken a look at some numbers and
it is even lower than that. We think it is probably four or
five percent of Afghan heroin or opium making its way to the
United States.
Mr. Mollohan. What triggers DEA's involvement in other
countries, in producing areas outside the United States?
Ms. Leonhart. I am sorry. Can you----
Mr. Mollohan. What triggers your interest? How do you
prioritize your resources across the world? Part of it, I
suppose, is the percentage of illicit drugs that come from that
area. I am just wondering is four percent a lot? Does that
trigger your interest in an area, or does it take a larger
percentage of drugs consumed in this country coming from that
area for you to really want to get involved overseas in those
production areas?
Ms. Leonhart. The trigger for us is really about what
happened in history because at one time, most of the heroin in
our country came from Afghanistan. And if we do not put
measures in place to contain them, [1] and we actually have an
operation called Operation Containment that is made up of 19
countries that are making sure that we can do what we can to
keep drugs from coming out and keep chemicals from going in
[1], we could return to our history not too long ago where our
streets were flooded with Afghan heroin. So that is one thing.
But then you also have to look at we have got U.S. troops
and coalition forces in that country. And we know that the
Taliban earns between $50 million and $70 million annually just
from taxing opium. So we know that drug trafficking is funding
the insurgency in Afghanistan. And we feel a responsibility
because we have our troops over there. And we have a wonderful
set of informants and measures in place there to help our
military and to help our coalition forces.
Since December of 2005, on at least nineteen occasions, and
it is probably now twenty-one or twenty-two, DEA doing drug
work in Afghanistan with informants was able to get information
from these informants, turn it around, get it to the special
forces. And on those nineteen occasions that I am aware of DEA
was able to move personnel out of the way and move officials
out of buildings. And there were rockets that were launched. So
we play a role not only to make sure that they do not return as
the primary source for heroin in this country, but also to help
stabilize the Afghan government. You cannot stabilize
Afghanistan without doing something about the drug trade.
Mr. Mollohan. What is our mission in Afghanistan? How would
you define success?
Ms. Leonhart. We define success the way we define it in
Mexico, and the way we define it in Colombia, and other
countries. It is our role in Afghanistan to go after the
kingpins and to go after the biggest and the baddest. Our
mission there is to develop the Afghan National Police. Develop
them so that they can become experts in drug law enforcement
and become the future DEA of Afghanistan so we no longer have
to be there. So it is building their capacity and helping with
the rule of law in Afghanistan, and we do that with a five-year
plan on how to stand up, technically, the DEA of Afghanistan.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that your main mission in Afghanistan? To
teach the Afghans how to fight drug production and the misuse
of drugs? Is that your main mission in Afghanistan?
Ms. Leonhart. Our main mission is to go after the high
value targets, the kingpins, and the drug lords controlling
heroin and opium in that country. And in doing that, we are
developing the Afghan National Police, specifically the
National Interdiction Unit, to be able to work jointly on those
operations. And they are to the point now where they are doing
their own search warrants, they are bringing cases to the
narcotics tribunal. Just a few years ago there was no mechanism
to do that. So it is really on the drug part, it is really a
success story to see how far they have come.
Now, there is still a lot to do with them. But at the same
time we are doing that we have taken out some major drug lords
in that country. And they have been extradited to the United
States. A couple have been convicted. There are some in New
York awaiting trial. And we are very excited about that in the
same way we were excited about Viktor Bout.
Mr. Mollohan. Give us a brief overview of your capabilities
in Afghanistan.
Ms. Leonhart. Well after September 11th, we had no one in
that country. We had been in Afghanistan years ago and then had
not been there for twelve or thirteen years. So we started slow
with sending three agents over originally. We have built up now
to the point where we have thirteen authorized positions in
country. We have three pilots in country. And we have developed
a program called the FAST team, Foreign-deployed Advisory
Support Teams. And at any one time we have one of our teams in
Afghanistan.
So we are becoming more and more self-sufficient. It is
dangerous in a war zone conducting drug operations. But we have
developed relationships with the U.S. military and with NATO
forces. And we are now at the point, where by the end of the
year, we are going to be increasing our presence in Afghanistan
by fifty-five positions. And that will allow us to bring the
NIU and bring the Afghan National Police out to those
provinces, out to those regional command----
Mr. Mollohan. So you very much are involved in enhancing
the capability of the Afghans themselves to fight illicit
drugs?
Ms. Leonhart. That is correct.
2010 BUDGET
Mr. Mollohan. In your 2010 budget request how will those
capabilities increase?
Ms. Leonhart. I am not allowed to talk about the 2010.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, do not give us numbers. Can you talk to
us about----
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I can tell you that we have----
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Increases in personnel?
Increases in equipment?
Ms. Leonhart. We have in the 2008-2009 GWOT, I guess in the
2008 GWOT that we will be using in 2009, we have the money for
those fifty-five positions. And they should be in place by
September 30th. Beyond that, we will need money in the 2010, or
some other funding source, to keep them there. But right now we
do have the money to deploy.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are going to at least have a request
to increase funding to support an increase of fifty-five
personnel, is that correct?
Ms. Leonhart. We would need money to sustain our fifty-five
people in country beyond September 30th.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Now, we have heard that the
Administration is thinking about consolidating the non-military
Afghan funding within the State Department, who would then
distribute those funds out to various agencies that are
operating in Afghanistan. That raises a lot of questions,
including control questions and funding questions. What can you
tell us about this proposal?
Ms. Leonhart. I do not know that any decisions have been
made for the 2010 budget. I believe that is all still being
worked out.
Mr. Mollohan. Have you heard about it? The State Department
managing the funding for the agencies in Afghanistan, including
DEA?
Ms. Leonhart. I am not able to talk about the 2010 budget.
And what I do know about the 2010 budget would be so minimal. I
would be glad, once we know something, to talk to you about it.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we will look forward to that. Mr.
Wolf.
CHALLENGES IN AFGHANISTAN
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a lot of questions
I wanted to ask you about this, but the Chairman's questions
raised some other questions. I was the first member, with
Congressmen Hall and Pitts, to go to Afghanistan shortly after
the fighting broke out, and went back. And now the conditions
are much worse. I mean, your people must be having a difficult
time moving around the country. Can you tell us how difficult?
I mean, do they move without military support?
Ms. Leonhart. I can tell you that that has been a
challenge. It has gotten better. And it has gotten better
because of the partnerships we have developed. There were times
when we were not sure that we were going to be able to get a
U.S. military lift to go out on an operation. We did not have
our own mechanisms. But now we do have the capacity to move our
people around. Again, everything we do is coordinated with the
U.S. military. We have developed a very good relationship with
INL. And INL, where they can help us they do. We have developed
relationships with the Germans, the Dutch, the British.
Mr. Wolf. Well since most of this, that was the next
question, since most of this does not go to the U.S., it goes
to Europe and places like that, if we are going to have fifty-
five how many people do the Dutch, the Brits, the Germans have?
I mean, going to have. I mean, they should be carrying the
overwhelming burden on this. I mean, this should not be the
United States government. We are carrying most of the burden
with regard to the military. And since most of the drugs are
going to Europe and places like that it would appear to me that
from a responsibility point of view they should be carrying the
overwhelming burden. So one, is it accurate that most of this
is going to, say, Great Britain and Germany, and places like
that? Is that fair to say?
Ms. Leonhart. The trafficking patterns for the opium and
heroin out of Afghanistan have changed a little bit. But it is
primarily----
Mr. Wolf. And go to what three countries?
Ms. Leonhart. It is primarily Europe, Russia, and now we
see it going to Iran, Central Asia, and more recently China.
Mr. Wolf. So how many supporters do we have in the drug
enforcement area from, I am sure China does not have anybody
there. They may, but that would shock me if they did. But how
many non-American, Western Europeans, whatever, are actively
working in the drug area compared to our, if we get to fifty-
five? We are thirteen now, we get to fifty-five, what will the
Europeans have?
Ms. Leonhart. The other countries that we are working with,
they are there in a military status.
Mr. Wolf. Well, but should they not be there on, should the
British, and I do not know how Britain fights drugs. But should
not the British DEA be there? Should not the French DEA be
there? Should not the Spanish DEA be there? Should not the
German DEA, and if there is such a corresponding, should they
not be there? And should not our administration be asking them?
Since they are not participating as aggressively in the
military area, and they are not going out in some of the combat
areas? Some of them are. But some are not. Is that not a fair
burden? That we should say, ``This is your responsibility.'' I
am not suggesting that we withdraw from this area. But the
overwhelming burden be carried by them?
Ms. Leonhart. We would welcome any partners in the drug
mission.
Mr. Wolf. But are we asking? Do you know? Are we asking
them?
Ms. Leonhart. I know that we have on occasion been asked to
brief on what we are doing in country. DEA is the only drug law
enforcement there. Everybody else is military, or contractors.
Mr. Wolf. But are there military involved with your DEA
people? Are the German military involved with your DEA people?
Ms. Leonhart. Yes. To get out of Kabul and to get into the
provinces, and to get to the regional commands, that is when we
are working with the Germans, and we are working with the
British, and we are working with the Dutch.
Mr. Wolf. Do those three countries have a problem with
things coming from Afghanistan?
Ms. Leonhart. Europe has a problem with heroin.
Mr. Wolf. Well then, should we then not ask them? Should
the State Department, or the Justice Department, not be asking
them to take a heavier lift here?
Ms. Leonhart. I would assume that the State Department has
asked for assistance.
Mr. Wolf. Could you let us know if they have? And we can
then check.
Ms. Leonhart. Yes.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
TALIBAN INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG BUSINESS
Mr. Wolf. Is the Taliban directly involved in the drug
business in Afghanistan? And does the money help furnish the
Taliban?
Ms. Leonhart. Without a doubt, they are involved. And when
we first arrived in about 2003 in Afghanistan, there was a
question about, you know, what is the Taliban doing? What is
their role? What is the role of narcotics in funding terrorism?
Those questions have all been answered. And the UNODC estimates
that the Taliban makes about $50 million to $70 million just by
taxing the opium, the poppy farmers, and another $200 million
to $400 million from the processing and trafficking of opiates.
So they are very involved at all levels. They are making a lot
of money. And they are assisting in funding the insurgency in
Afghanistan.
Mr. Wolf. Are they the dominant participants in the drug
trade, the Taliban?
Ms. Leonhart. They are associated and have working
relationships with the drug lords that we have been targeting.
And they will, for instance, work together on protecting labs
and protecting crops, and they have a working relationship that
benefits each other. That is primarily their involvement.
Mr. Wolf. Do you coordinate everything, and talk to General
Petraeus and the people who are involved in fashioning any of
our policy in Afghanistan?
Ms. Leonhart. We have very good access to the U.S. military
commanders in Afghanistan. For instance, General McKiernan has
actually met with us and been out on an operation. We have
briefed the commanders that were there prior to him. We at one
point worked with General Eikenberry when he had Afghanistan.
And it is a very good relationship, and we are learning a lot
from them, and they are learning a lot from us.
Mr. Wolf. Well, but as I leave it I want to ask you about
the drug issue. But my own sense is, and this is my own
feeling, is that, and this is not meant as criticism of the
Obama administration because they are just coming in. But I
think we have taken our eye off of the ball. And Afghanistan is
more difficult. If you look at the history of Afghanistan, from
back from the British, and it is a very difficult place. And I
know that last, was it Tuesday night? At the press conference,
not one question dealt with international affairs, and not one
question dealt with the issue of Afghanistan or Iraq. And yet
we have many American men and women who are sacrificing
tremendously, and their families are sacrificing tremendously.
And I have had people from my district who were killed in
Afghanistan. And we see the death total going up there. And
yet, there was not one question. And I just think there needs
to be a greater attention. There is not a lot of interest here
in the Congress on this issue, either. I do not hear the word
Afghanistan come up very, very much.
And so one question with regard to the charts. They are
very impressive numbers. But my question was, in comparison to
what, though? I mean, if drug use is raging and it drops 35
percent, and it is at the all time high it has ever been here,
compared to 1912, I am making this up, 1938, there was almost
no drug use. So everything is, these numbers are impressive,
and in comparison to what though? Are they compared to the
fifties they are great? The sixties they are great? The
seventies they are great? The eighties they are great? The
nineties? You follow the question? I mean, they are good based
on where we are. But is this still at an all time high? Or is
it really that we are kind of coming down into our low period
for the country in modern times?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I can tell you the methodology and the
way we are doing it. We could only go back to April of 2005 as
a starting point. But when you look at, having been a drug
agent for twenty-eight years, and to know that we are back to a
$24,000 to $43,000 a kilo in New York, which we had not seen
since I was a baby agent, that tells you something. When for
many years when I was undercover the price of cocaine in L.A.
was $12,000 to $13,000 for years. And to know that it is up to
about $26,000 or $27,000 a kilo. It has been over a long period
of time. I just do not have the data to tell you exactly when
the last time the price would have been, where that is.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I do not know what Secretary Clinton said
yesterday. I just saw the headlines. And I think the concern
is, and I think we ought to have greater emphasis on drug
rehabilitation and treatment. And diminishing the use. Because,
again, I just read the headline. I left early. But I thought
what she may have been saying was that the fact that there is
use in the United States, that has created the market. And I
did not read the whole story, so maybe the Chairman did because
he had a lot of questions based on that. But I think anything
we can do here in the United States to diminish the use, both
in rehabilitation, and also in the initial use. I remember
reading the story that they gunned down the bishop in Tijuana,
Archbishop, when was the Archbishop killed in Tijuana?
Ms. Leonhart. I believe that was in the late nineties.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, late nineties. I thought it was early 2000.
But anyway, whenever it was, in essence, and I do not know if
Secretary Clinton was saying this, the fact that there is a
market here in the United States is creating the difficulty
down in Mexico. So every time there is any flourishing here, we
are somewhat responsible, in a sense. So the great effort we
make in prohibiting, stopping the use of the drug, and also
aggressively involved in rehabilitation. We had the hearings
the other day, there are people in the federal prisons who do
not have access to drug rehabilitation. There are many people
in the state and local prisons who are there for drug use who
do not have the ability. So while I have great respect for the
law enforcement, my dad was a policeman and I have always been
very sympathetic, I think it has to be aggressively on reducing
the demand as well as the supply. And if we just stress the
supply then I think we create, you know, a problem.
So I hope there is coordination in the administration in
both rehabilitation and reducing the demand in the United
States so that people are not using drugs. You know, in high
schools, and colleges, and wherever the case may be. That we
move to be a drug free nation, if you will. So that is a
thought. And if you have any comments about that I would like
to hear them. And as you do comment, and I hope you will
comment, if you could sort of give me a parallel from your
experiences. How do you think drug use is in the United States,
what those figures are, compared to how it was in the sixties?
When we would have, you remember that Frank Sinatra movie, The
Man with the Golden Arm, or whatever it was. How do we compare
now and what are your comments about rehabilitation and
education in addition to the law enforcement aspect of it?
Ms. Leonhart. Let me comment first, sir, on prevention and
treatment. Law enforcement officers, especially narcotics
agents, have always felt that if we could have a comprehensive
approach, with the prevention, the treatment, and enforcement,
that that is the perfect solution to make sure that all three
areas are looked at. And I, with a bit of optimism, I know
there has been a nomination for the new drug czar. And I have
worked with him. And I know that he is very interested in
treatment and prevention. And I look forward, if he is
confirmed, to talking to him about those issues.
We in the DEA feel very strongly about this. Because we
know if there is supply, then demand goes up. And we feel we
have our place. We have our place because half the people in
treatment are in treatment because of enforcement. And so there
has got to be a way that everybody doing their job, us doing
our job, that there are ways to look at getting more treatment,
better treatment. I just had a presentation on, it is called
Operation Hope, in Hawaii. And it was amazing. It was how to
get people on probation, how to have measured sanctions if they
screwed up. And it is amazing, it is like a pilot, but it has
got amazing results. So looking at those, and I am a fan of the
drug courts. I have been to graduations. I have met with people
who have graduated. And I am all for that. And I think you
cannot have one without the other. And it is everybody staying
in their lane, and everybody doing what they need to do. So
that if prevention does not work, you have enforcement that
then gets people into treatment. And we hope for the day that
we do not need that.
But we have got, still, a number of drug users in the
country. But it is also very promising to see our progress,
especially with our teens. 900,000 fewer teens are using
illegal drugs now. That is the population of Detroit. That is a
major step. You asked about the sixties. Well, I graduated from
high school in the seventies. And I can tell you that was the
highest amount of drug usage our country has ever had, in the
seventies. So we are nowhere close to that drug usage. And we
continue to make inroads in drug usage, and we are hoping that
now these teens will move into adult life and be non-drug
users.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. You were doing very well until you reminded
all three panel members how much younger than us you are, by
graduating in the seventies.
Mr. Mollohan. I let that pass.
Mr. Serrano. You did? But I noticed you quickly grabbed for
the gavel.
Mr. Mollohan. Yeah, I flinched.
DEA AROUND THE WORLD
Mr. Serrano. He usually does not gavel witnesses out of
order, but I kind of saw that. Once again, our colleague, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Wolf shows his courage. It is very easy to say
that folks are sending us drugs and we should do everything we
can to stop them. But it takes a lot of courage to admit that
we are the number one consumers of those drugs. And it has to
be a two-pronged attack. One is to stop the drug from coming
in, and the other to stop the market from being here. And that
is an age old fight.
And he did mention, to my joy, The Man with the Golden Arm.
Otto Preminger, and a great performance by Arnold Stang. And it
was a groundbreaking movie because it touched on going cold
turkey for drug addiction, which was totally a taboo subject.
And the character's name was Dealer, not because he was a drug
dealer but because he dealt cards at illicit poker games. But
anyway, that is the other side of me.
Members of Congress get a lot of information from federal
agencies. And most of us, a lot of us, and I am guilty more
than anyone else, do not delve into, ``Well, how does this
really happen?'' We just know that you have agents all over the
world, but we do not know how that really happens. So without,
obviously, getting into areas that you cannot get into, not
that you would even attempt to get into them, given the
information that we do not need to have in public, how does DEA
approach a country? Pick a country in, you know, Latin America
and say, ``We know you have a problem and we want to work with
you.'' Or is that at the State Department level, at that level?
Once that happens, usually where do these agents go? Do they
work under local law enforcement supervision? Or do they kind
of run their own shop? You know, I am not asking you to tell me
where they are housed. But is it military housing? Is it
separate, civilian housing? Are they all undercover, or do many
of them operate with the jackets, you know, that say DEA on the
back and so on?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, let us take Africa. Because Africa
worries us very deeply right now. There are very few law
enforcement partners to work with in Africa. So what we have
done is we have opened a new office in Accra, Ghana. We have
another office opening by the end of the year in Nairobi. And
we were able to open those offices because we were able to
build partnerships, and we do this a lot with the State
Department, with INL, and with other agencies. We saw what is
happening to Africa----
Mr. Serrano. But who initiated this desire to go into that
area? You did?
Ms. Leonhart. We do. We see that it is being used as a
transshipment point. And we know that the same organizations in
Colombia who are shipping cocaine to Europe are using Africa.
And there are no, it is like Afghanistan was. There are no law
enforcement partners. There is no end game. There is no one to
interdict anything. It is just a void. So what we did, a couple
of years ago when we saw this happening, we sponsored with our
partners a chemical conference. Just so we could find out who
are the law enforcement officials in Africa. Who could we start
developing relationships with? And in a two-year period, I am
telling you, we actually have people to work with now.
And we have done that in a number of countries. Afghanistan
is the perfect example. You go in and you educate on what the
problem is, educate them on why it is important that there is
action taken. We bring in training and we train them. A lot of
times some of these small countries, that is all they need.
They want to help. They just do not have the capacity to help.
So we, with the State Department and others----
Mr. Serrano. And are they under local jurisdiction? Are
they under that? Or do they work with the local law enforcement
and take their orders from them, so to speak? I mean, who is in
charge?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, in country, the people from that
country are in charge. We are there to partner with them. And,
you know, if there are arrests to be made, and there is action
to be taken, it will be them that takes it. But we really are
there to enlighten them on trends that are headed their way.
And to develop those relationships and provide them training
and equipment. And similar to how the Colombians right now have
gone to Africa to meet with the law enforcement officials,
because they see what is happening. The Colombians are----
Mr. Serrano. The Colombian government?
Ms. Leonhart. The Colombian National Police----
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. Has gone to help. In the same
way that the Colombian National Police and DEA came in to meet
with Mexico to offer, you know, ``Here is what happened in
Colombia. Maybe that can be replicated in Mexico.'' So we feel
as the Drug Enforcement Administration, which is the only
single mission agency, and we are in over sixty-two countries,
that we----
Mr. Serrano. Sixty-two countries? And do we know how many
agents we have outside of the U.S. and its territories?
Ms. Leonhart. I can tell you that 9 percent of our special
agent workforce is overseas.
Mr. Serrano. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart. And we are careful on talking about how
many----
Mr. Serrano. Of course.
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. How many actual people are in
certain countries. But we do that capacity building with them.
And that has been DEA's history for thirty-five years. That is
why today we are in sixty-three countries. Why we have over
eighty offices. Why we can go and stand up two new offices in
Africa. And that is how we cover the world.
Mr. Serrano. A somewhat improper question. But do these
officers, agents get special pay as our military does when they
are in certain dangerous zones, and so on?
Ms. Leonhart. There are certain benefits. There is danger
pay. There are different incentives, like cost of living
increases, that differ from country to country. But there are
benefits for them because it is quite difficult, especially in
those countries where they bring their families.
Mr. Serrano. Right. And last question, of course some of
them are undercover and some are not?
Ms. Leonhart. All have the potential to be undercover. It
will depend on what country they go to and what the need is. We
still call it the old-fashioned way. Undercover is still a very
good way to take down traffickers. Mr. Bout, Mr. Al Kassar,
were taken down by undercover operatives. So we do that. But a
lot of it is you are undercover one day, and you may be
training your law enforcement partners the next day.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Dangerous work.
Ms. Leonhart. It is.
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
Mr. Mollohan. There are a number of agencies in the federal
government who have drug enforcement authority, either directly
or delegated by DEA. Is that correct?
Ms. Leonhart. Are you talking about the Title 21
authorities?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, I am getting to that.
Ms. Leonhart. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you believe it makes good policy sense for
drug enforcement authorities to be spread widely at the federal
level?
Ms. Leonhart. I think it depends on what the authorities
are, what the crimes are or the activities that the authorities
are in charge of. Some crimes, like drug enforcement, require
coordination and deconfliction. I gave a set of photos that you
have. These cases are tremendous. These cases, these two, take
more than fifty or sixty different cases going on all around
the country. Some with other agencies, some with task forces.
And there has got to be this deconfliction and coordination to
make sure we are not stepping on each other, we are not going
after the same traffickers, we are not, we call it blue on
blue. We are not reversing or going undercover with another law
enforcement person.
So in drug enforcement, to be the most effective, when they
stood up DEA they really had it right. Because they wanted in
1973 to have an agency that would be the single focus, single
mission, and single point of contact overseas, which is very
important, and why we have the largest law enforcement presence
overseas. So that they could ensure that there was always this
coordination and deconfliction, and systematic intelligence
sharing. And all the buzzwords you hear today were really
thought about in 1973 when they stood up DEA.
And we have a lot of partners. We run a lot of task forces.
We do a lot of things with every agency imaginable. And without
them, we could not do our job sufficiently in the cases. Our
rule is do what is best for the case. Turf does not matter,
forget about turf. Do what is best for the case. And to do
that, we respect other's turf, for instance, with weapons. We
seize weapons all the time on a drug case. We respect ATF. We
respect the local police. We get them involved. We bring them
in so that they can do that case. We share the intelligence so
they can use their authorities and their expertise to do their
case. Is that what you were asking me about? I feel very
strongly----
Mr. Mollohan. Well ICE, for example, is what I was asking
you about. ICE has drug enforcement authority to the extent it
is delegated by DEA; is that correct?
Ms. Leonhart. Not quite. There are a lot of
misunderstandings there.
I heard from some testimony the other day, ICE can make
drug arrests on the border. They were given that authority when
they stood up the DEA, they were given that authority so they
can seize drugs, they can make arrests, they have the Title 21
authority at the border to do what they need to do to get their
job done.
It is moving off the border and developing these
investigations like Operation Xcelerator and Project Reckoning
and doing these other investigations that are away from the
border where it is very important that we all coordinate and
deconflict. And that is why it was set up that through the
Attorney General who delegates it to DEA, to ensure that
everybody is playing by the same rules and that everything is
coordinated. And there is a way for DEA to then give other
agencies Title 21 authority, which we do.
Mr. Mollohan. On a case by case basis? On a subject matter
basis?
Ms. Leonhart. We have the flexibility to give it on a case
by case basis. Maybe you are working an operation together for
two weeks. But we also have it with our task forces where we
have people who have had Title 21 authority working. They were
Customs and now ICE and they have worked with DEA on task
forces for 20 years.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we understand ICE is trying to
get this title 21 authority independent of DEA, and that the
Department of Justice, strongly opposes this.
Do you have concerns with ICE exercising independent drug
enforcement authorities, and what is your opinion about their
attempt to get it?
Ms. Leonhart. Well again, they have the authority to make
arrests at the border and seize drugs.
Mr. Mollohan. Are they attempting to expand the scope of
their authorities under Title 21?
Ms. Leonhart. When they ask for independent Title 21----
Mr. Mollohan. All right.
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. What they are asking for is the
authority to go do it on their own.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. That is my question.
Ms. Leonhart. And that is not good drug enforcement.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart. So DEA, since 2003, has proposed and been
very flexible on ways to expand what ICE wants to do, expand
it, yet still have coordination and deconfliction.
And years back, an agreement between Customs and DEA set a
cap--a particular cap and ICE has never come up to that cap.
Mr. Mollohan. What does that mean, a cap? You set a certain
cap, and ICE has never come up to that cap--what does that
mean?
Ms. Leonhart. Between the agencies, way back, they set a
cap, right now it is at 1,400 and something, I think. 1,460
something--1,475 and right now----
Mr. Mollohan. That is a cap on what, Ms. Leonhart?
Ms. Leonhart. The agencies agreed----
Mr. Mollohan. Cap on the number of agents?
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. To cap the number of Customs,
now ICE agents, that would get Title 21.
Mr. Mollohan. I see.
Ms. Leonhart. It was a cap for years. So we threw on the
table not too long ago, 2003/2004, why does there need to be a
cap if we are coordinating and deconflicting? And why, for
agents at the Border, agents that are going to be working drug
cases with us, why have a cap? And we offered that. And we even
have a draft agreement that has no cap.
So this is really about deconfliction and coordination, and
about doing synchronized drug enforcement so we are not
stepping on each other. And this is respecting each other's
authorities and using the best of each other's talents and
abilities.
DEA comes across weapons traffickers and human smugglers,
and we aren't asking for those kinds of authorities, because we
know that we have the authorities to do something--crimes that
take place in front of a federal agent, you have authorities to
do what you have to do. And we know that it makes a better
case, it is better for the country, it is a better use of
resources to do it together and do it coordinated.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we are in a new administration, a
period of transition, that always makes possible shuffling of
responsibilities, reconsideration of missions, roles. So this
would seem to be a period where these issues might be more
prevalently debated.
In that process, we just encourage you to be instructive
about your role and what it should be and to participate in
this process aggressively.
It sounds like you have a really good handle on how those
relationships are, have been and should be defined.
I want to go back to this question of jurisdiction as it
relates to control and funding, because there are proposals out
there--or at least we are hearing that there are--to have
control and management of some of your activities outside the
Justice Department.
So instead of speaking specifically to those proposals, I
would like for you to talk about your experience with that in
other situations.
Does that occur? Where you are either being managed by
other agencies or funded by other agencies? How is that
successful, and what are the problems associated with it?
Ms. Leonhart. We have people detailed to other agencies, we
have people who go on other people's task forces. Over the
years, agencies have shared personnel, depending on what the
mission of the task force or what the trafficking situation
was.
So we have had people who have--for instance we have people
assigned to ICE's BEST teams, and they operate under the rules
of the leader of that task force. And we have ICE agents who
are in our task forces. And the same goes for ATF and IRS and
everybody else. So that is not a problem.
And in fact, we are looking forward to new leadership at
ICE so we can sit down and we can talk about some of the things
we could do to better coordinate and deconflict together.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Prescription drug abuse.
The 2006 National Synthetic Drug Control Strategy set a
goal to reduce the abuse of prescription drugs by 15 percent
over three years, with 2005 serving as the base year. Do you
have an assessment of our progress in meeting that goal?
Ms. Leonhart. I don't specifically for that goal.
I can tell you that our challenge is prescription drugs for
teen use. When every other drug category has been going down,
it is prescription drug use that has gone up. In fact, use went
up, I believe, a 13 percent increase since 2004.
Mr. Mollohan. What is the major source of illegal
prescription drugs?
Ms. Leonhart. Several, and it really depends on the age of
the teen versus adult. But illegal prescribing, prescription
forgery, doctor shopping, and more recently, and what worries
us, is the Internet.
Mr. Mollohan. How are you addressing those challenges?
Ms. Leonhart. We address all of them, with thanks to this
Committee for a reprogramming a couple years ago, with 108
diversion investigators that were reprogrammed as special
agents. We believe the task force concept is the best way to
address the pharmaceutical problem.
For too many years we thought that the answer was to kind
of stovepipe it within our agency and have diversion
investigators do regulatory cases and do criminal cases.
And what we found works best, especially with the new
Internet cases and how some of these illegal prescribers, or
these practitioners that are selling scripts for money, they
need to be investigated and they need to be worked just like a
drug dealer.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, how are we doing with regard to illicit
prescription drugs?
Ms. Leonhart. Use is up by teens. Use is up by adults. But
what we are able to do is take down rogue pharmacies, we have
been taking down the doctor shopper prescription mills.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart. We have a lot of successes----
Mr. Mollohan. Excuse me, go ahead, Ms. Leonhart.
Ms. Leonhart. We have set some records for these type of
cases.
And most notably, we have not only gone after the drug
dealer who is selling pharmaceuticals, the doctors who are
illegally selling pharmaceuticals, but we have also gone after
the wholesalers who are selling to these rogue pharmacies.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I am sure you are going after all of
them.
Can you give us some statistics to give us a handle on the
trend lines where we are having problems, and how successfully
we are addressing them?
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Your chart here, is a very positive report on
cocaine availability and use. What about prescription drugs, do
you have a similar statistic?
Ms. Leonhart. There are 6.9 million users, past month users
of prescription drugs for non-medical reasons. That is a 13
percent increase from 2004.
Painkillers now, this worries me, for the first time we
have seen this, painkillers for brand new drug users is at the
same rate that marijuana is. So in other words, a first----
Mr. Mollohan. You mean new users?
Ms. Leonhart. A first time drug user is just as often going
to pick painkillers or pharmaceutical drugs as they are
marijuana as their first drug to try. So that does worry us.
One of the things we are trying to do is educate the
public. And I am sure everybody has seen the ads over the last
couple of years, just to make parents aware of, you know, what
do you have in your medicine cabinet? That has been effective
in getting people to understand that they are going to have to
secure the drugs that they have in their own home. We----
Mr. Mollohan. Go ahead.
Ms. Leonhart. Because the Internet now is playing a role,
it is like having a drug dealer in your kid's bedroom.
And we have done a number of things, like worked with
Google and Yahoo and AOL to come up with banners so that when
people go online to try to go into a rogue pharmacy that they
will have a banner that will warn them and send them to other
web sites to learn about prescription drugs.
Mr. Mollohan. This is a growing problem.
Ms. Leonhart. Growing problem and our challenge for the
future.
Mr. Mollohan. How are you addressing it in terms of
manpower, resources, and strategy?
Ms. Leonhart. The strategy is to make task forces.
Our state and local officers are raising this as a problem
now. Not only are they making the cocaine seizures, but with
the cocaine seizures they are now finding pills.
So we have taken our resources, we converted the 108
diversion investigators into agents, and now we have teams,
about 30--I think we are going to have 36 or 37 of them--all
over the country that are diversion investigators, special
agents, and intelligence analysts so that the same kind of
cases that we work on the illegal side can be worked towards
the pharmaceuticals. And we have got five of those set up now
with about 30 more to go.
Mr. Mollohan. Are we making progress?
Ms. Leonhart. We are making progress.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you measure that?
Ms. Leonhart. In different ways. Again, the drug use
statistics are not promising right now with teens, and that is
why we spent a lot of time on the education part. We set up a
web site. It is called Just Think Twice and it is a teen web
site. And last month I announced another web site which is the
bookend of that and that is for parents.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart. And a lot of it is about pharmaceutical drugs
and what to look for and how to get help. So we are looking at
that education piece.
We have gone out, like I said, with Google, Yahoo, AOL
helping us on the Internet with banners. We have gone out to
the wholesalers and--we are educating them about making sure
that they know that they are actually supplying a brick and
mortar store.
Mr. Mollohan. I am looking for some sort of statistics,
which maybe I should ask for you to submit for the record. I
know it is always a balance between being oppressive with
regard to the medical community, and we have heard complaints
about that, and trying to identify those who are abusing
authority. Why don't you submit for the record the number of
arrests you've made in the medical community.
Ms. Leonhart. We will do that.
[The information follows:]
How many arrests of the medical community--I don't know what kind
of a measurement this is, but I am looking for some sort of statistics
which maybe I should ask for you to submit for the record.
Answer. The total number of doctors arrested by DEA in an average
year amounts to less than one-tenth of one percent of all registered
doctors. Annually, there are more than one million DEA registered
medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy. Of those registered, DEA
arrested the following number per calendar year: 2006--72; 2007--85;
and 2008--80.
DEA does not initiate any investigations based on a specific
category of the registrant population. Our investigations are often
initiated based upon information received from the state medical board,
state pharmacy board, state and local law enforcement, an employee of
the registrant, or a patient. DEA maintains a list of actions taken
against doctors on its website.
Mr. Mollohan. We are going to try to keep the hearing
going, but we have a lot of five minutes votes here, so we may
end up being in recess during that period.
I will go down and vote. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
A couple questions, and maybe there will be faster answers.
Is drug use a problem in Afghanistan among the Afghans?
Ms. Leonhart. It is, yes. They have got their own heroin
problem.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Has it always been a problem, or is it now just a
problem?
Ms. Leonhart. I don't know that.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart. Because we were not in the country until
recently, I can't say that.
MORALE AT THE DEA
Mr. Wolf. Tell me, how significant and what was the impact
on morale, both of DEA and others, when the U.S. attorney in
Texas prosecuted the border agents? That seemed to be an abuse
to the point that if you were in law enforcement you would say,
my goodness.
Not knowing the full details of the case, but that person
coming across the border had drugs, and it seemed the U.S.
attorney down there was almost geared against the border--our
border patrol people. Did that have any impact?
And from my own perspective, almost regardless of what you
say, I would think it would. It just seems to me that if you
are in law enforcement and you see those two agents going to
jail--one got beat up in jail I think--but has that had any
impact on the morale of the people?
Or second, you know, just don't step out so quick, be a
little careful because you know, I don't want to go to jail?
Ms. Leonhart. I don't know that that has had an impact on
morale, and I don't believe that that has caused our agents to
second guess or think twice about taking action.
I have talked to a number of our agents about this
situation, and I think they are actually a little mixed about
how they see the issue. But I don't think it has affected
morale. I think if anything, they feel sorry for the families.
MS-13 AND GANGS
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Thirdly, is MS-13 connected--MS-13 that operators here in
the United States connected growing impact involvement with
drugs? What are you seeing with regard to MS-13?
Ms. Leonhart. MS-13 we have kept an eye on, because you
would almost expect that we would see them taking a bigger role
in drug trafficking. But actually we don't see it as much as we
would expect----
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Leonhart [continuing]. At a lower level.
But that being said, we in 2009, we have opened 32 cases
around the country on MS-13. Fourteen are actively being
pursued now. So there is some activity out there because those
are called priority target cases. So we must have cases on a
higher echelon or the higher level of MS-13.
Having worked in Los Angeles, I know that they had probably
a larger role in street dealing in Los Angeles than maybe they
do in some other places, but it differs around the country.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
POPULAR LEGAL DRUG ABUSE
I have two last questions. One is on the question of Oxy.
It was incredible that company just operated. They were
convicted I think in a civil case. I know your people did a lot
of work and everything else.
But the Chairman was asking about convictions in other
areas. That was amazing that they were able to kind of allow
Oxycontin to spread the way it did.
How is Oxycontin now? Has their conviction made a
difference? And have there been any successes on rehabilitation
and treatment of people involved in Oxycontin?
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I won't say that there have been
rehabilitation successes.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Ms. Leonhart. I would say that people have maybe changed
the drugs that they are using. Because where a few years back
Oxy, Oxy looked like it was going to be the prescription drug
of choice. It is no longer.
Mr. Wolf. Did the conviction have a bearing on that or was
that before the conviction?
Ms. Leonhart. It started to change before the conviction,
and I think it changed, because now the most popular legal drug
is Hydrocodone, which is Vicodin. About 30 percent of the
prescriptions written are controlled substance prescriptions
for Hydrocodone. And what worries me--where we had a number of
Oxycodone users years back--now it is estimated that one in ten
high school seniors has abused Hydrocodone, which is Vicodin.
Mr. Wolf. And where does that come from?
Ms. Leonhart. The statistic?
Mr. Wolf. No, the drug. Does it come from a legitimate
manufactured company? And is there a parallel developing in
this area that there was when that company that just, they
pretty much promoted this to a certain extent. But tell me
where it comes from and is there a parallel?
Ms. Leonhart. I don't think it is a parallel. I think it is
just heavily prescribed.
Mr. Wolf. By?
Ms. Leonhart. By doctors. It is a painkiller.
Mr. Wolf. And do the doctors know that this is an
increasing problem with regard to one and ten young people?
Ms. Leonhart. I think that there has been a lot of
education out there for doctors to--I believe they are aware.
Mr. Wolf. And what company manufactures it?
Ms. Leonhart. I don't know who has Hydrocodone. I believe
that there are a lot of companies that produce Hydrocodone.
Mr. Wolf. And where----
Ms. Leonhart. By different brands.
Mr. Wolf. Where are the kids getting it from?
Ms. Leonhart. Primarily prescription forgery, doctor
shopping, the Internet and----
Mr. Wolf. So it is almost like Oxycontin, I mean it is just
shifted from Oxycontin to this?
Ms. Leonhart. There was more street dealing with Oxy. This,
it is in their parent's medicine cabinet. When they go babysit.
It is a very, very widely prescribed drug. More prescriptions
are written for Hydrocodone than blood pressure medicine.
Mr. Wolf. Wow. And you have a major program with regard to
this now? I haven't seen anything in the paper about it, maybe
I have missed it, but I----
Ms. Leonhart. We----
Mr. Wolf. Are you putting conferences on? Are you----
Ms. Leonhart. We have had those ongoing for quite some
time, and we really believe that it needs to be looked at, and
we are hoping with new leadership at HHS----
Mr. Wolf. Do you feel any pressure from the drug companies?
Ms. Leonhart. No.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, they hired some pretty big lobbyists the
last time on the Oxycontin thing.
Ms. Leonhart. No. We want them to look at this. DEA
believes that that drug should be considered for Schedule 2.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
The last question because we have done a second vote and I
know the Chairman may have.
Will you just put a statement in the record or tell me. I
am opposed to legalization, but I want to hear what you think
about legalization on drugs. I am opposed so the record shows,
but tell me what you think what that would mean to us. And if
you want to just say it in five sentences and submit a detailed
response I would like to see it.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Leonhart. I would be glad to submit a detailed
response, but for the record right now that is just a losing,
losing solution, especially when you saw the rates here of
illegal drug use drop. Twenty-five percent drop since 2001.
Mr. Wolf. Well, if you could put that in writing that we
could have for the record here, but I could also have, because
I have been getting mail, and I make it very, very clear that I
am opposed to it, but I think it would be helpful to put some
authoritative comments in more than just my own opinions.
Ms. Leonhart. Absolutely. We will respond.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TARGETING DOCTORS
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Some patients and advocacy groups claim that DEA's attempts
to reduce prescription drug abuse are unfairly targeting
doctors, especially those who specialize in pain management.
They argue this targeting makes doctors reluctant to prescribe
controlled substances when needed.
Is there any substance to that argument? Is DEA targeting
doctors in any way?
Ms. Leonhart. DEA does not target doctors, and we don't
initiate investigations based on what kind of doctor they are.
We have done a lot of work with the medical community over
the last couple of years, and I don't see as many complaints or
questions.
We put up a web site, and we now list the doctors and
situations that we take action on. And I think that helped the
medical community understand that first of all, we arrest less
than one-tenth of one percent of the practitioners every year.
It is very low. And when they look at the web site and see the
types of doctors that we have arrested, these doctors are
selling prescriptions for money, for sex, for drugs. They are
egregious violations, and I think that that has helped.
We have a very good working relationship with the medical
community. We have helped teach at some of their association
seminars, and I think people now also understand that we are
concerned about those rising numbers of kids and young adults
using prescription drugs. And I think they are more committed
to helping us and partnering with us to do something about the
problem.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
I am going to go vote, and I am going to keep you here a
little longer. There are a couple other questions I would like
to get on the record.
Thank you.
Ms. Leonhart. Uh-huh.
SMURFING
Mr. Wolf. One final question, Mr. Chairman.
Would you describe for me and also for the record, what is
smurfing exactly? And I think the staff just told me what they
thought it was.
And then how would you recommend that it be dealt with?
Ms. Leonhart. Picture number seven, this is a smurfing
operation. It is where these meth dealers hire a number of
people to go out all day long and buy pseudo ephedrine. They
will go into like 20 or 30 stores and buy Pseudoephedrine, the
cold tablets, and they will sign the logbook, but they will
just go from store to store to store, and then an hour later
someone else will go in and buy Pseudoephedrine.
So you get to the point where meth dealers, it is more time
consuming than when they used to buy the bulk Pseudoephedrine,
but they will pay these smurfers to go and get the tablets and
then it will come back to a lab site and then that is how they
are making methamphetamine, and that takes a lot of tabs.
So most of these, these are not necessarily going to be
your super labs, but this is how--this is why we are having lab
increases around the country.
There is another reason why we are having it though, that
if you are interested in smurfing you may want to hear about.
Mr. Wolf. Well maybe when you come by.
I am going to go down to vote.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing. It is a very good
hearing. And I will come back, but it will be before I leave.
Thank you and your people for the job you do.
Mr. Mollohan. Well why don't you just go ahead and tell us,
we are interested in smurfing. What else?
METH USERS
Ms. Leonhart. This is new to me, but one of the things--one
of the reasons why we might be seeing the lab numbers go up is
that the meth user, it is not the most efficient method, but
there is something now called the one pot method.
And what you do is you take a two liter Coke bottle and you
wrap it with masking tape. You put ammonium nitrate that you
get from the ice packs, if you hurt your back or your neck,
they take the ammonium nitrate out of that, throw it into the
Coke bottle, throw the Ephedrine that they have smurfed, throw
the Ephedrine in there--Pseudoephedrine in there, and then they
take lithium strips from batteries, put it in there, shake it
up--oh and lye--shake it up, and about every ten minutes vent
it. And after an hour they have a substance, that although it
only is making about a gram of methamphetamine, they pour it
out and they synthesize it, and they have got their fix. And we
are seeing more and more of that.
And those are, even though it is just in this one two liter
Coke bottle, those are still dangerous. They have to vent it
because they can blow up. After it is discarded kids might be
playing with it and touching it, so it is a new problem.
I have just learned about it. And I think it is been around
probably a couple, maybe four or five months, but more and more
now they are starting to see those. And that is primarily the
meth user, not necessarily the meth distributor. But that is
how desperate they are to get their meth.
Mr. Mollohan. Where does something like this start?
Ms. Leonhart. Well there used to be something called the
Nazi method that started in the Midwest, and I would suspect
that this probably started there as well. I think it is in the
Midwest and towards the Southeast.
Mr. Mollohan. Clever.
I would like for you to talk a little bit about your role
versus the roles of INL or DODCN's programs.
How does DEA's overseas role compare to the roles filled by
INL, DODCN or other participating agencies?
Ms. Leonhart. Well we have different missions. Ours is an
enforcement mission, and INL is more of an assistance and
training mission.
So actually we work very well with INL in the different
countries we are in. We depend on them. We depend on NAS
funding sometimes for equipment for our in-country partners.
Mr. Mollohan. What kind of activities are they willing to
fund for you?
Ms. Leonhart. It is not so much funding for us, it is
funding to make sure that our partners get things.
INL will, if there are things that will help the in-country
team, INL can fund it. But I believe most of the time the
funding is going directly to the in-country police
organization.
INL has flown missions for us. INL has done training for
us. INL has bought computers and equipment for our in-country
partners. That is usually the relationship.
And like in Bolivia, they are still there. We are gone,
they are there. They will be probably the only narcotics--U.S.
government narcotics people there, so they may take on a bigger
role there. More training, more advising. But it kind of
differs from office to office.
TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Mollohan. Let me ask you some questions about
technologies, and technologies that drug dealers have compared
to technology you have.
Most of DEA's biggest, highest impact investigations hinge
on your ability to effectively intercept and exploit
communications between traffickers. We had a little bit of that
testimony the other day.
The pace of change in the telecommunications field,
however, is extraordinary, and technologies that you may have
successfully exploited in the past are not effective or might
even be obsolete today.
What kind of changes have you noticed over time in the
trafficker's choice of communication technologies? How do you
adjust to that? Where are you in relative terms from a
technology standpoint with the people that you are
investigating?
Ms. Leonhart. I will have to be careful here, because if
the traffickers know what troubles us, they would all go to
that, so I will be careful.
But I will say that our bread and butter, and the only way
that we can do some of these cases where we have got the major
seizures and can do the most damage to the organizations, are
by way of our Title Three intercepts, our wiretaps. DEA has
perfected it.
Mr. Mollohan. I don't want to go into anything that might
even touch on anything that would be sensitive or could impact
your investigations, but what are your technology needs? Maybe
your interoperable technology needs. To the extent you can talk
about that, please help the Committee understand it.
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I believe you actually have helped us
on that. We have had radio problems. On average our radios are
14 years old and we have 28 percent of them that are more than
18 years old. But I believe in the '09 omnibus there is money
that will be going to DOJ that will come to us and we can start
replacing those radios.
A year ago that was a major issue for us. Now we see light
at the end of the tunnel. It is not going to be 100 percent.
There won't be enough to complete it, but it is enough for us
to get started. And we are the only agency still on UHF, so we
need to move quickly and get off that.
I believe about $9.5 million is going to DEA to start to
address our radio issues.
AFGHANISTAN FUNDING
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. I think Mr. Wolf is going to be coming
back, and if he has anymore questions we will proceed. Until he
does return, let me go back to this Afghanistan and this
proposal relating to the State Department to see if you can
answer it this way.
What would you consider be the pros and cons of receiving
your Afghanistan funds through the State Department? Just what
are the pros and what are the cons.
Ms. Leonhart. Well, I think any time that you can control
your own budget there are better efficiencies. You can plan
better. You know more of what you have in your account and how
best to spend it. If you have your own money then you are most
likely doing your own procuring as well and getting the actual
equipment that you need, not that someone else has determined
that you might need.
Mr. Mollohan. You know, a lot of the concern, particularly
the early days in Iraq, was the lack of coordination of the
various entities that are operating there. There was a lot of
freelancing.
So wouldn't there be an argument that if you had one agency
that was providing coordination that it would enhance
efficiency and effectiveness?
This is just for purposes of getting you to answer the
question. Wouldn't State Department managing the coordination,
and perhaps even the funds, create that better efficiency and
perhaps give us better results?
Ms. Leonhart. I, as an agency head, would always say it is
better if the agency gets funding. However, the State
Department does coordinate a number of things.
I just wanted to continue that if we have the expertise in
that area then of course we would want the money to be coming
to us and there would be more efficiencies with that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I cut in at the end of the Chairman's
question, but I think the point he was trying to make and I am
sympathetic to a certain degree.
The coordination, you used a word I had never heard before
in government, deconflicting, and of course you can have an
administration for deconflicting an agency, because there is
confliction all over the government. I worked at Interior, and
on coastal zone management this agency wanted it, Interior
wanted it, CEQ wanted it, NOWA wanted it, and the only
deconflictor was the secretary, who eventually went over to the
White House, and so I think you are going to have those things.
I think there is some merit for not robbing people's
authority, because you certainly know more than anybody else in
your area. But in anything, the more coordination you have, and
in Iraq there was not a lot of coordination. I think part of
the problem that we had in Iraq that Congress was sort of
absent too. I mean the Congress, there was not that much
oversight and you almost had operations going that no one knew
about.
And so I think when there is one person or one--not to use
the word czar--but one place that coordinates to make sure that
everything fits in with everything else that is going on, I
think it, you know, it makes a lot of sense.
But I think that is what he was referring to when he
actually left. I don't know if you have any comments about
that.
Who was the deconflictor? Is it Eric Holder or is it
President Obama who is to deconflict?
Ms. Leonhart. I am sorry, because I didn't know exactly
what he----
Mr. Wolf. Well maybe I am wrong in what he meant, but I
think that is what he meant.
Ms. Leonhart. I think he was talking about funding and
controlling money, is what I took it as.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well maybe I didn't really connect on it.
Coordination has always been a very important point.
We had the whole situation with regard to 9/11. For a
period of time certain agencies were not talking to each other.
There are some people who believe that had all the agencies
been talking to each other that maybe 9/11 may not have taken
place. I mean, so I think that is part of what I would be
concerned about.
Ms. Leonhart. If that was what he was talking about,
actually DEA and the interagency when it comes to narcotics is
a success story.
We have a mechanism, and would love you to visit the
Special Operations Division.
Mr. Wolf. Is that out in my area?
Ms. Leonhart. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. I was out there once. Well maybe some time I will
do that.
Let me just say. The Chairman's here, I am going to turn it
back.
There are some other questions, some I wouldn't want to ask
you on the record in public, so when you come to tell me about
Victor Bout or whoever is going to come by, we can just cover
those.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Leonhart. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf, I plan to end the hearing. Have you
finished all your questions?
Ms. Leonhart, thank you very much for appearing today. You
have worn us out running up and down the steps, so we are going
to submit the rest of the questions for the record. We are
getting in good shape though.
Thank you very much for being here. And let me repeat the
sentiment everybody on the Subcommittee shares, that we very
much appreciate the nature of your work and the danger that the
agents are exposed to as they are working it. It's an
incredible job you do for the nation, and we are very cognizant
of that and appreciative of it.
Thank you personally for your good service to the agency
these past months. It is very appreciated and we thank you for
the cooperation you have had with this Committee. We look
forward to working with you and trying to empower DEA as best
we can with the resources necessary to perform its mission.
Thank you for your appearance here today.
Ms. Leonhart. Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 1, 2009.
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
WITNESSES
HELAINE BARNETT, PRESIDENT, LSC
LILLIAN BEVIER, VICE-CHAIR, LSC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Opening Statement of Chairman Mollohan
Well, good morning. The Subcommittee would like to welcome
Helaine Barnett, President of the Legal Services Corporation,
and Lillian BeVier, Vice-Chairman of the LSC Board, to discuss
civil legal aid for the low-income community. We are pleased to
have you both and thank you for your time.
I would like to add that we are appreciative of the good
work you do. In this economy, I can only imagine that your
workload has increased significantly, and I know that there
have been some challenges with regard to funding from various
sources.
Being able to pull that together and provide the services
to those in our communities that need it desperately and do not
have access is a wonderful service to the community and you are
to be commended for that service.
We are fortunate to have already seen your fiscal year 2010
budget request, which many other agencies will not be
delivering until later this spring. That means that this
hearing will be able to address both thematic and budgetary
issues and there is plenty of ground to cover.
Your budget request proposes a funding level of $485
million which is nearly a $100 million increase over fiscal
year 2009. Although the President's budget will propose a
smaller increase, this is the first time in many years that LSC
and the Administration have both agreed that additional funds
for legal services are needed. I certainly share that sentiment
and, in fact, believe that it could not be more timely because
of these conditions.
The recession is driving more and more Americans below the
poverty thresholds that establish eligibility for legal aid
services. This growing population of eligible clients is
confronted with legal needs that are increasing in both number
and complexity. Many clients face the prospect of foreclosure
or foreclosure-related eviction.
With job losses increasing, there are more clients needing
assistance gaining access to food stamp benefits, unemployment
compensation, or Medicare services.
There is also substantial evidence that economic distress
increases family distress, including divorce and unfortunately
domestic violence.
All these factors are driving up demand for legal aid
services at precisely the same time that the supply of those
services is threatened.
Legal aid providers across the country have been forced to
make significant budget cuts due to state government deficits
and diminishing charitable and private support. For many legal
aid programs, federal assistance through this bill is the only
thing that will keep them going.
This morning's hearing will give us an opportunity to
examine these issues in more detail. We will look at how LSC
and its partner service providers around the country are both
impacted by and responding to the current financial crisis.
Within that context, we will discuss your proposed budget
and your ideas for how you can make the best and most
responsible use of these funds.
Before we invite you to begin your remarks, and your
written statements will be made a part of the record, I would
like to call on Mr. Culberson for any comments that he might
have.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Statement of Mr. Culberson
On behalf of Mr. Wolf, I would welcome you to the hearing
this morning and especially appreciate the fact that there is
under the statute that created the Legal Services Corporation
that you are given pass-through budget authority which is a
unique and very special privilege because of the unique and
very special services that you provide to the poor in this
country.
And the whole concept of a pass-through budget authority,
Mr. Chairman, that bypasses OMB is something I think we ought
to seriously consider for NASA and the National Science
Foundation and our science funding, which is such an essential
part of our nation's long-term security, so they do not have to
go through OMB. I am charmed of the whole idea.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
We will start with Ms. BeVier.
Ms. BeVier. Thank you.
Opening Statement of Vice Chair Lillian BeVier
Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Culberson, Congressman
Serrano, I am Professor Lillian BeVier, Vice-Chairman of the
Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. The Legal
Services Corporation is on the front lines of ensuring equal
justice under law in this country and it is an honor to serve
on its board.
I bring you greetings today from Chairman Frank Strickland
and from our entire bipartisan board. Each board member is
eager to do the right thing by the people we serve. We listen
to and respect one another's viewpoints about how best to
fulfill LSC's mission.
Providing civil legal assistance to individual indigent
clients has never been more important. Equally important, of
course, is the proper use of the funds that this Subcommittee
has entrusted to our stewardship. That stewardship is the
central mission of the board and of the corporation.
And before President Barnett speaks about our appropriation
request for fiscal year 2010, let me say a few words about what
our board and the corporation have done to improve our
stewardship and ensure that we fulfill our responsibilities.
Prompted by two GAO reports, the board and LSC's management
made concentrated efforts over the last two years to bring our
board governance practices into alignment with Sarbanes-Oxley
requirements, to improve the board's oversight of the
corporation's financial and compliance responsibilities, and to
focus the corporation's attention on improved internal
cooperation and good management practices. In making these
efforts, the board has had assistance from and cooperation of
the corporation's management.
My full statement provides a listing of our
accomplishments, so I will mention only a few.
The board adopted a Code of Ethics in Conduct for
directors, officers, and employees of the corporation in March
2008. The corporation has now conducted training for all
employees, officers, and directors. In addition, training and
compliance with the Code is now an important part of new
employee orientation.
The board has added a separate Audit Committee, has
reconstituted the Governance and Performance Review Committee,
and has approved charters for all permanent board committees.
LSC worked with an ad hoc Committee of the board to clarify the
rules and responsibilities of the various oversight activities
within the corporation.
In addition, LSC has revised and updated written guidelines
for the fiscal component of the corporation's on-site grantee
program reviews. Management is conducting expanded financial
reviews that are designed specifically to address issues raised
by GAO.
I am pleased to report that for the fifth consecutive year,
LSC received an opinion from outside auditors that the
corporation's financial statements present fairly in all
material respects the financial position of LSC.
Management has this year established a rigorous and formal
risk management program at the corporation. The risk management
plan includes a full listing of the risks to LSC's strategic
objectives, a delineation of strategies to be followed to
mitigate these risks, a list of the offices responsible within
the corporation for implementing each of these strategies, and
dates for annual review.
Oversight and emphasis on compliance with proper financial
management practices and provisions of law and regulation will
continue to be a priority of the board this year.
President Barnett issued an advisory letter to all grantees
in December on the subject of compliance guidance and indicated
that this will be an annual alert on issues that have surfaced
in the year's compliance reviews.
Finally, as a board, we are making board training and
transition a priority for 2009. We want to do what we can to
facilitate a fully oriented and fully functioning board in the
shortest possible interval after the President appoints and the
Senate confirms the new board members.
To ensure that our efforts to improve board governance are
sustained, future boards need to know not only the written
rules and procedures that we put in place but also the
background and history of our actions and the benefits that the
new policies and procedures provide in fulfilling the mission
of LSC.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me say again what an honor it
has been and is to work with my board colleagues to support the
mission of the Legal Services Corporation.
And I want to emphasize that the corporation's management,
President Barnett, and her able management team have the
confidence and support of the board.
My career has been devoted to training people to provide
the best legal services possible to any client who needs them.
The point of my professional life has been to preserve and
maintain the rule of law, but the rule of law means little if
access to justice is not maintained and available to all.
The Legal Services Corporation embodies that principle, and
I thank you for your continued support for this worthy
endeavor. I will be happy to answer any questions that you
might have at the appropriate time.
Thank you.
[Testimony of Vice Chair Lillian BeVier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Ms. BeVier.
President Barnett.
Ms. Barnett. Thank you.
Opening Statement of President Helaine Barnett
Chairman Mollohan, Congressman Culberson, Congressman
Serrano, thank you very much for holding this hearing and for
giving me the opportunity to testify on the fiscal 2010 budget
request for the Legal Services Corporation.
I also want to thank the Subcommittee for its bipartisan
support for LSC's mission of ensuring equal access to justice
and the delivery of high-quality legal services to low-income
Americans.
Because of this Subcommittee, funding for LSC has increased
for each of the last three years and your efforts are greatly
appreciated throughout the legal services community.
Let me also thank board Vice-Chairman, Lillian BeVier,
board Chairman, Frank Strickland, and the entire board for
their hard work on improving the governance and operations of
the corporation.
We will continue to build on these improvements as we carry
out our important stewardship and oversight responsibilities.
Our challenge is large. The nation is in a recession and
this downward shift in the economy means that the number of
low-income Americans eligible for LSC-funded services will
continue to increase.
As you are well aware, in an economic downturn, the poor
are the first to feel the effects and the last to recover. In
addition, millions of Americans for the first time are or will
be finding themselves facing poverty.
Many LSC-funded programs have reported a dramatic increase
in requests for help because of the economic downturn,
especially because of foreclosure actions threatening the loss
of homes, including actions that affect renters.
The rash of natural disasters across the country has added
a new dimension to our caseload, creating legal problems for
clients that can continue for years.
In addition to the increased demand, unfortunately, many
states are confronted by significantly reduced revenues because
of the recession and cannot be counted on for additional
funding of legal aid.
In particular, an important source of nonfederal funding,
interest on lawyers' trust accounts or IOLTA, is dropping
because interest rates have plummeted.
Some programs are reducing services and laying off
attorneys because IOLTA funders have cut back grants or
announced they intend to cut grants.
My entire legal career has been devoted to providing legal
assistance to low-income persons. I know firsthand what a
meaningful difference legal assistance makes in the lives of
our clients. Allow me to briefly summarize two cases.
Imagine returning to Virginia from the Iraq War and being
told that you, your wife, who suffers from epilepsy and severe
depression, and three children, one of whom is disabled, are
facing foreclosure and eviction after missing mortgage payments
because you cannot find a job.
Blue Ridge Legal Services helped the family avert
foreclosure which was triggered by a default provision in the
financing agreement through which the veteran had invested all
$30,000 of his life savings. A legal aid attorney negotiated a
new payment plan for the mortgage so that the family did not
become homeless.
Imagine that you are a mother of two and married to a man
who has physically abused you for seven years. You finally seek
help from a legal aid program, secure a protective order and
begin divorce proceedings. And then it comes to light that your
husband has been married several times and has other wives in
four states.
Legal aid of West Virginia helped this woman win freedom
from her abusive husband and appealed a Social Security
overpayment claim of more than $20,000 caused by her ex-
husband's improper actions. This direct quote says it all.
``Legal aid has given my girls and me our life back. I thank
God every day for you.''
At a time when the demand is increasing from people who
need civil legal assistance, at a time when major nonfederal
funding sources are declining, it is more important than ever
that Congress recognize the federal government's responsibility
under the LSC Act, reaffirm the nation's bedrock principle of
equal justice for all, and increase appropriations for LSC.
With respect to fiscal year 2010, LSC requests an
appropriation of $485.8 million. Of that, 95 percent, $460
million, would be distributed to programs as basic field grants
for the provision of civil legal assistance to low-income
individuals and families.
We are also seeking $3 million for technology grants, $1
million for LSC's education loan repayment program, and
increased funding for management and grants oversight to ensure
improved grantee accountability and compliance.
In adopting this budget request, the LSC Board of Directors
recognized the increased need for assistance and took into
account the difficult fiscal demands weighing on the Congress,
but remained faithful to its goal of closing the justice gap.
We urge you to support this budget request.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Culberson, Congressman Serrano,
and Congressman Honda, you have provided crucial support for
civil legal aid in past years and we want to thank you for that
support. Through your efforts, we are closer to fulfilling the
promise of our Constitution, equal justice under law.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer your questions.
[Testimony of President Helaine Barnett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Madam President.
DEFINING THE JUSTICE GAP
A few questions with regard to the gap. For some years now
we have talked about the gap through a number of different
hearings.
How do you measure adequate legal service? Should we
provide legal service to every single person who needs it?
Should we provide some ratio, the availability of lawyers to
the nonlegal service community versus the availability of
lawyers to those who would be eligible for legal services? How
should we think about that in the broadest terms?
Ms. Barnett. Mr. Chairman, as you know, in 2005, LSC
conducted the first national statistical study, the unable to
serve study, from all 137 LSC-funded programs and at that time
concluded that for every one eligible client that we were able
to help, one eligible applicant who actually came to our
offices, who actually fell within our office's priorities and
were eligible for our services had to be turned away because of
a lack of resources.
Mr. Mollohan. So at one time you were able to serve 50
percent of the demand?
Ms. Barnett. That is correct. And even then, we knew that
was an undercount. We know many people do not know they have a
legal problem. We know many people do not know they can go to
legal aid and they can help them with a problem and perhaps
even many heard that LSC programs were turning away applicants.
Since that time, there have been at least ten state studies
of civil legal needs that have demonstrated that it is much
closer to 80 percent of the need not being met.
Mr. Mollohan. Does that mean it has grown from the first
study, or the first study just undercounts it? What is the
trend line?
Ms. Barnett. I think the trend line certainly is going up
or down depending the way you frame the answer to the question.
I want to share with you that we are currently updating our
justice gap report. As we speak, as a matter of fact, beginning
March 16th, we have asked all our LSC-funded programs to once
again with uniform instructions capture those eligible
applicants they are unable to serve. And we expect to get the
data sometime over the summer and issue an updated justice gap
report in September of 2009.
We sincerely believe that we are going to see a greater
number of people, especially because of the economic
depression, especially because millions more Americans for the
first time are qualifying for legal aid assistance because of
the loss of jobs, so that we expect that there will be,
although we await the document, that the need is just
increasing.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, it appears your budget is anticipating
an increase, so even before you get the results of your latest
study, describe for the Committee how your budget is addressing
the gap issue and the anticipated gap into the future.
Ms. Barnett. Well, in 2007, the census data indicated there
were 51 million Americans that qualified for LSC-funded
assistance. We are estimating by the end of this year that
there will be 62 million and we are basing that on an analysis
of the unemployment rate in times of previous recessions and
the spike in poverty at that time.
In addition to the need that is being caused by the ongoing
foreclosure crisis and the apparently recurring natural
disasters, non-LSC funding is declining.
The most significant source is IOLTA funding and the IOLTA
funding, we are estimating a drop in 2009 of 21 percent. It is
uneven throughout the country, but that is our projection of
what the decline will be. In the past, IOLTA funding has
provided 21 percent of the funding to our program.
In addition, state budgets are facing deficits, as we all
know, and private funding is down because of the recession and
the stock market decline.
So a combination of the increased need and the decrease in
nonfederal funding makes it imperative that the federal
government step up to address the gap.
Now, in addressing the gap----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we are addressing two things now. We
are addressing the gap and your decrease in funding, as you
have just described.
Ms. Barnett. Yes. But our justice gap report actually
concluded in 2005 that we would have to double both federal and
nonfederal funding to close the gap.
Mr. Mollohan. Does your budget request this year and your
budget projections for the next four or five years anticipate
not only closing the gap but making up for decreased funding
from other sources?
Ms. Barnett. Well, I am not sure it makes up for the
decreased funding from other sources. But on the federal side,
in 2005, the basic field grant was $312 million. And the
conclusion was it would have to go to $624 million.
Our board----
Mr. Mollohan. Six hundred and twenty to achieve a closing
of the----
Ms. Barnett. Of the gap--
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. Anticipated gap?
Ms. Barnett [continuing]. In 2005.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes.
Ms. Barnett. What our board decided in making its budget
request for fiscal year 2010 was that they would ask for $460
million in basic field and look to close it in a four-year
cycle.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Ms. Barnett. So that is the basis for the board's request
in fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. But the reality is that you are
experiencing a decrease in funding from other sources and that
the faster you run, the further you are getting behind, is that
correct? Is that a fair assessment? And I want to hear you talk
about that.
Ms. Barnett. I think it is a very fair assessment that we
ask our programs and encourage them to leverage the federal
dollars and they have done a very good job in the past. The
total in 2008 was something like $526 million of nonfederal
funds. We anticipate another drop of 21 percent to $505 million
for this year.
So you are quite right. The demand is increasing and non-
federal funding is decreasing and I do not know whether the
plan of getting to $624 million in four years will in effect
take all of that into account.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you are either going to have to have a
bigger request in each of the next four years or you are going
to have to develop some strategy for increasing the nonfederal
contribution. How are you dealing with that? I mean, it seems
to be a really fundamental issue given the drying up, or maybe
not drying up, but the decrease in nonfederal funds, as I
understand your testimony. Am I right about that, and how are
you going to address if it I am?
Ms. Barnett. Well, I do not think we can do very much about
the nonfederal funding and it may very well impel us to----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, Ms. BeVier, do you have a comment on
that?
Ms. BeVier. Well, I do think that----
Mr. Mollohan. Is the board dealing with this?
Ms. BeVier [continuing]. One of the things that the board
has concentrated on and tried to get information about is how
to leverage pro bono activity. And I think that initiatives
along those lines are possible. In particular, it strikes me
that it is possible to think about the fact that there are a
lot of unemployed lawyers out there and they could be helpful
in this particular time.
Mr. Mollohan. No.
Ms. BeVier. Now.
Mr. Mollohan. That is the worst testimony we have had this
whole year.
Ms. BeVier. Oh, I would think you would take it as a very
good sign.
Mr. Mollohan. No. I am a lawyer.
Ms. BeVier. Yeah, right. But you are employed.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, my point is, and I am going to go on,
that with your plan four years from now and with the decrease
in nonfederal funding, it does not look like you are going to
achieve your objective. And so maybe we will talk about that a
little more as the hearing goes on.
Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FINDING FEES OR OTHER SOURCES OF OUTSIDE FUNDING
Let me stipulate for the record I am an attorney as well
and came out of the State House in Texas. And I know many of my
colleagues also came out of State Legislatures and remember as
a legislature that the licensed professions in Texas are self-
supporting because of license fees.
And it occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, listening to the
testimony and the problem that the Legal Services Corporation
faces, that one thing we should certainly, I think, consider
very seriously is, for example, I do not know why there is not
a fee attached to my annual renewal of my license, because I
renew it, it is inactive. My license as an attorney in Texas, I
pay dues to the State Bar. I know I set aside some, you know,
make a contribution to the IOLTA, I-O-L-T-A, account.
But being a lawyer is a privilege. I do not know why there
is not a fee tacked on to my annual Bar dues. Why isn't there,
for example, a fee attached to the license to practice in
Federal District Court, in Federal Appellate Court, in the
Supreme Court that would go to help fund the Legal Services
Corporation?
And then finally, why isn't there a fee attached to filing
civil court documents? Any time you go down to--I mean, there
are all kinds of fees that are attached to the filing in State
Civil Court.
And I wanted to throw that out as a suggestion because as a
fiscal conservative--and I particularly admire the fact that
you come from University of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson is my
hero, and I do my very best to follow Jeffersonian principles
in everything that I do. I describe myself often as a
Jeffersonian Libertarian Republican at heart. And I really am.
And Mr. Jefferson was right. You apply core Republican
principles with a small ``r'', the knot will always untie
itself.
And what would you recommend? If a fee were to be created
at those different levels, could you go back and look and tell
us how much would the fee need to be? What would you recommend
it be attached to and, you know, what level would the fee need
to be in order for Legal Services Corporation to be self-
supporting, in particular, since the federal government is
facing one of the biggest deficits, an era of record debt,
record deficit, a particularly scary time because the amount of
unfunded liabilities of the United States is accelerating?
And the Comptroller actually told us that in about 12
years, if we are not careful and do not quit growing the
federal budget and quit deficit spending, the Comptroller
notified us last year that in 12 years, Treasury bonds could be
graded as junk bonds. So we need to find ways, creative ways to
think outside the box.
And I would like to, if I could, ask you to think about
what kind of fee and how much would be necessary to make legal
services largely self-supporting, Mr. Chairman, as our state
licensing boards are in West Virginia and New York and
California and in Texas, for example.
What do you think about that concept, number one, and are
there other--because it certainly is a privilege for a lawyer
to practice law and this is an essential part of our job, to
provide legal services for the poor, and what do you think of
the concept and what sort of fee would be necessary, to get
away from federal appropriations because we have just got to
find ways to save money at the federal level?
Ms. BeVier. It is a very interesting idea, and I think that
many State Bar associations have considered something like that
with respect to their dues--their annual dues--a checkoff or a
mandatory checkoff and you opt into it or you opt out of it.
Issues like that have arisen at the state level.
There is a question of federal versus state regulation of
the practice of law, so to the extent that that is true, we
could certainly encourage State Bars to consider something in
the nature of your suggestion in terms of Bar licensing.
Mr. Culberson. I agree with you on the Bar fees. I had not
thought about the--and I notice you are a member of the
Federalist Society.
Ms. BeVier. Right.
Mr. Culberson. It is a great organization. I appreciate
your recognition of the 10th Amendment.
Ms. BeVier. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson. What about filing in Federal Court?
Ms. BeVier. Well, that is a different issue and I do not
know the answer to that.
Mr. Culberson. Practice in Federal Court.
Ms. BeVier. Right. There are certainly filing fees, but I
am not familiar with those. And I am sure we can get some
information about that.
Mr. Culberson. What is your recommendation? What would be
necessary? What level of fee would be necessary because when I
go practice--I know the Chairman is probably licensed and any
other members who--I know my good friend, Adam Schiff from
California, was a federal prosecutor and to have the privilege
of practicing in Federal Court, there is a fee. You have to go
down and take a course to practice in the southern district and
the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and then the U.S. Supreme
Court.
I really would like you to tell us what level of fee would
be necessary to practice in each of the District Courts,
Federal Appellate Courts, Supreme Court, and then finally what
kind of a filing fee on civil documents, civil cases would be
necessary, and Federal Court, because, Professor, you are
exactly right. We have got to respect the 10th Amendment and
that is up to the states to license attorneys. What would be
necessary?
Ms. Barnett. We would be pleased to get back to you,
Congressman. I do believe there are some states that have
filing fees already supporting the civil legal aid programs in
those states. So we would like to gather the information----
Mr. Culberson. State fees?
Ms. Barnett. State fees. I am not sure on the Federal Court
fees that you raise. But we would like to look into that and
with your permission get back to you.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, because, again, as everyone
knows, those fees are recoverable. I mean, if it is a plaintiff
case, you typically can recover those fees as part of your
costs of court.
But you do provide an absolutely essential service and one
we need to continue to fund. And I just hope we can find
creative ways thinking outside of the box to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RESTRICTION ON SERVING IMMIGRANT CLIENTS
It is a pleasure and honor to see both of you here. I have
always been, as you well know, a big fan in every capacity I
have been on this Committee of the Legal Services Corporation.
It strikes right, I believe, at the center of our
democracy, the ability for people of lower income and no
financial means at times to be able to get legal
representation. So with that in mind, I am part of that group
that continues to want to be very supportive even during very
difficult times.
I am worried, however, at the fact that during another
party's Administration in the House, very serious restrictions
were placed on what you could do. Certainly you were not
allowed to defend certain people and you were not allowed to
ask for certain remedies.
And I am wondering at this point how much that has hampered
you. While I know you do not take sides, you simply follow the
law, you know, what you could tell us about where you would
want to go with that.
And in the specific case of immigrants, do current LSC
grant recipients have restrictions for representing--what
problems do they have representing immigrants who are involved
in immigration, deportation, or citizenship process? Are the
LSC grant recipients able to represent families of mixed
immigration status? That is, with some family members who are
documented or citizens and some who are not. Surely we are
missing a large class of low-income individuals if LSC grant
recipients cannot represent these types of families.
So in the time that I have, I would like to know if you
know just how much the corporation has been held back in being
able to help people in general over the last few years and what
specific problems you face when dealing with immigrants.
Ms. Barnett. As you know, it is the corporation's
responsibility to carry out the will of Congress. We enforce
the mandate of Congress. Our programs abide by it. And, in
fact, we are defending in court two actions as we speak.
Our programs, as you know, currently are unable to meet the
need. We are turning away, as I indicated earlier, one, at
least one, at least one eligible person for every one that we
are able to handle.
So we are clearly not meeting the need and have a great
need for the additional resources accordingly.
Mr. Serrano. Well, this is based on resources. And I know
what you are telling me, that you follow the will of Congress,
but if Congress had not imposed these restrictions on you, let
us do it this way, how many other folks would you have been
able to serve?
Ms. Barnett. I do not think I am in a position to answer
that question, Congressman. I can only tell you the number of
cases we currently handle and are turning away with the given
restrictions that are the law today.
Mr. Serrano. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious, and my
colleague said, that I could have put them in a very difficult
situation and I do not want to do that, to answer questions
that appear like they are disagreeing with Congress.
But I think we have to revisit the fact that some years
ago, Congress did impose very serious restrictions on who they
could represent. And it was done purely for philosophical
reasons, what you think public money should be used for. It is
the same argument that we have had in terms of arts programs
throughout the nation, what kind of art do we support, what
kind of art do we not support.
It is the same as what we have in my Subcommittee that I am
trying to get rid of with the District of Columbia of testing
every issue we have throughout the country in D.C., you know,
be it vouchers or gay marriage or whatever. What we do not like
in our districts, then we do not do in our districts. But we do
it in D.C. just to test it.
So all I would like to say is that this is one of the
greatest programs in our federal budget and this one strikes at
the essence of who we are as a country, the ability of all
people to have representation.
Some folks who did not like the program in general and did
not care about some of the services in particular decided to
put some restrictions that I think we should revisit. And
little by little, I believe we should revisit those
restrictions and wherever possible, use whatever power we have
to undo them so that people can be serviced fully and so that
next time, they will not be so uneasy when I ask a question
like that, although it was not my intent.
You know my record is as being a friend of the Corporation.
It is not my intent to make it difficult for you. I just
thought you could tell us, well, we could have served a lot
more people if we did not have the restrictions. But you are
not going to say that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
IMPACT OF RESTRICTIONS ON PREDATORY LENDING AND MORTGAGE FRAUD CASES
I would like to associate myself also with the words of Mr.
Serrano. I think he is entirely correct.
I am not an attorney, but I am a classroom teacher and it
seems to me that--I was taught that justice was blind but not
gagged. And so this is what it feels like. And I am not sure
whether the restrictions that are placed upon LSC are
constitutional.
But not being a lawyer, this is a question that I would
pose to you, and in addition to understanding that this kind of
restriction also keeps you from being able to provide services
to low income people who are victims of predatory lending and
mortgage fraud and being victims of the economy, I was curious
what your position was on, if it is an appropriate question,
this constitutionality, and then the impact that this
restriction has had on the folks that are out there suffering
from predatory lending.
Ms. Barnett. Let me tell you what our programs are doing
with regard to predatory lending and foreclosure actions.
I think we actually are taking a leadership position in
trying to bring together national organizations and legal
service programs, to identify the gaps, and the need for
information sharing. There are a tremendous number of resources
that we are sharing with our programs.
Our programs are doing a tremendous amount of work in
renegotiating the terms of the mortgage, whether it is reducing
the interest rate, reducing the principal, whether asserting
truth in lending protections in court, whether seeking
bankruptcy, whether filing objections in court after the sale.
So our programs are doing a tremendous amount of work in
representing poor, minority, elderly, persons who have been the
victim of predatory lending practices and the subprime mortgage
debacle.
Of course, if we have more funding, we could do more work
in that area.
Mr. Honda. If the restrictions were removed on things such
as these class-action suits and collecting attorneys' fees,
would that in some way benefit the clients that you are
representing and also make litigation processes shorter?
Ms. Barnett. I hope you understand that our position at the
corporation is that we enforce the will of Congress. The will
of Congress currently is reflected in the restrictions that are
in place. Our programs abide by them. And as I indicated
earlier, we are defending them in two actions at the moment on
both coasts.
Mr. Honda. Defending?
Ms. Barnett. Defending the validity and constitutionality
of the restrictions in two actions, one in the State of New
York and one in the State of Oregon currently.
Mr. Honda. I see.
Mr. Culberson. Because you have no choice.
Mr. Honda. God created us and he created free will. And I
think God is probably a higher being than Congress.
Thank you. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Schiff.
RESTRICTION ON COLLECTING ATTORNEYS' FEES
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome. It is nice to see you and I appreciate your
coming and the fine work that you do.
Mr. Serrano. And he is a lawyer.
Mr. Schiff. Yes, I am a lawyer.
That reminds me of, a short digression, when I was first
running for the State Legislature, I knocked on someone's door
and told them about my background as a prosecutor. And, Mr.
Chairman, they said prosecutor, does that mean you are a
lawyer. I said, yes, it does. And he said, well, then I am not
going to vote for you. Are you kidding, vote for a lawyer,
which I responded in the only way I could under the
circumstances, by saying, well, you know, my opponent is also a
lawyer, to which the potential constituent responded, surely
there is a third-party candidate. And I said actually there is.
He is an insurance salesman. And he said that is who I am
voting for. So just to tell you where we fit in the pecking
order.
I want to join my colleagues in expressing my concern about
the restrictions that you have operated under. And in
particular, I want to focus attention drawing on my colleague's
question about finding additional revenue sources in difficult
times.
The restriction that you have in seeking attorneys' fees
for the work you do, and I want to make sure that I understand
the restriction correctly, but if Mr. Serrano and I were
counsel representing two tenants being wrongly evicted and Mr.
Serrano was a private attorney and I was a legal services
attorney and we filed a case against the landlord, we had
evidence that the landlord was taking this action knowing that
it was improper and there were bases for the award of punitive
damages or the award of attorneys' fees, my understanding is
that Mr. Serrano on behalf of his client could make a claim for
his attorneys' fees, but as a legal services attorney, I could
not.
And as I understand it, that has two consequences. One is
that if I were successful in that claim and I obtained
attorneys' fees, that would mean I would need less money from
the government because I would have the attorneys' fees.
But more than that, if we were both going to settle the
case, the landlord would be looking at Mr. Serrano and saying
if I lose this case to Mr. Serrano and his client, I am going
to have to pay Mr. Serrano's attorneys' fees and he is an
expensive attorney, I am going to settle the case.
And that ends up being good for Mr. Serrano's client. In my
case, attorney's fees are not on the table. There is a lot less
reason for the defendant to settle because there is no worry
that you are going to have to pay my attorneys' fees.
Do I understand that correctly? Is that one of the
restrictions that you operate under?
Ms. Barnett. I believe you are correct in your assessment.
Mr. Culberson. Will the gentleman yield for a quick
question?
Mr. Schiff. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. What if the state statute under which Mr.
Schiff is suing on behalf of the tenant entitles the prevailing
attorney or the prevailing side to attorneys' fees by a statute
and Mr. Schiff is a Legal Services Corporation attorney?
Mr. Schiff. You know, my guess, and maybe you can correct
me if I am wrong, is that we would not be able to collect
attorneys' fees if legal services is prohibited from doing so.
Ms. Barnett. They cannot accept it. I am being informed by
my General Counsel.
Ms. BeVier. Could not accept the case, so----
Mr. Schiff. Could not accept the case? Well, is it that you
could not accept the case----
Ms. Barnett. Is that right?
Mr. Schiff. Yeah, I would think you could accept the case,
but----
Ms. Barnett. The fee.
Mr. Schiff [continuing]. You could not accept the fees.
Ms. Barnett. The fee, just the fee.
Ms. BeVier. Excuse me.
Ms. Barnett. They could take the case, but they would not
be entitled to the fee.
Mr. Schiff. Yeah. Well, I mean, this is something that
given our, you know, financial times is probably not--it may
not have been a good policy to begin with, but now it is even
more financially insupportable. So that is something I really
think we should change.
I also think, you know, that in terms of the issues that
Mr. Serrano mentioned, as I understand it, you are not only
restricted from handling certain cases that involve issues that
are very difficult here for the Congress to deal with, you are
precluded from using public funds to do it, but you are also
precluded from using private funds to do it.
So if there is a case that you are barred from using public
funds to handle, you also cannot raise private funds for that
and that inhibits your private fundraising, and as I understand
it, because the private parties are not going to give you money
if you are under those restrictions.
So that, I think, has a financial consequence as well.
That, you know, I think is another reason why we need to
revisit and I hope repeal some of the restrictions that you are
operating under.
Now, I know that you both operate under the restrictions
that the Congress sets and you are not here to lobby to change
those restrictions. And you can testify as to the impact on
you, but you are not here to advocate one way or another. But I
am using my five minutes to at least express my view on the
subject.
So I would hope that we can make some of these changes. And
I think that will alleviate some of the financial difficulty
you are facing. I think it is the right policy for us to
undertake as well.
And, you know, I think my colleagues have acknowledged that
you are facing what a lot of other nonprofits are facing right
now, which is a greater demand than ever for your services and
small revenues coming in from the charitable givers than ever.
So it is sort of you are getting it in both directions.
In any event, this is all to say that I appreciate the work
you are doing. And I have got one of, I think, your best
grantees in my district, Neighborhood Legal Services.
And I just want to share one case and I will close. And
this is sort of not uncommon. This was reported in the LA Times
about a couple who always paid their rent on time, were good
tenants, even as the conditions in their unit deteriorated.
Their landlord was forced into foreclosure. And this is a
sort of below-the-radar problem. We have people that are being
foreclosed upon in their homes, the homes that they own and
being forced out, but then we have a lot of renters whose
owners are being foreclosed upon and they are being evicted
because their--even though they made their rent payment every
month on time, full amount, their owners are being foreclosed
upon and so they are losing their homes.
So this couple had their landlord forced into foreclosure.
The bank holding the mortgage tried to evict the family.
Someone who promised to help with the eviction ran off with
$1,400 of this couple's money. This is another scam going on.
And a legal aid group took the case, prevented the eviction,
got the family's money back from the scammer.
But this was only one couple and I guess the--in Orange
County, California, which is a fairly wealthy county compared
to many others, the wait times for the Legal Aid Society
hotline have jumped from eight minutes to 45 minutes. And in an
average year, we are seeing a million cases turned down, turned
away due to funding shortages.
So there is a lot of need out there. And we appreciate what
you are doing. We will try to help.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the important
increase the Committee made last year and really appreciate
your leadership.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
Ms. Barnett. If I might for one moment, Congressman Schiff,
thank you very much for pointing out a third of the problems in
foreclosures affect renters and they are often the last to
know. So thank you for sharing that story.
Mr. Mollohan. And that is the growing area, is it not, or
what is the area of issues that is growing fastest now?
Ms. Barnett. It depends on the part of the country, but it
is both the home buyers and the renters.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay.
Mr. Wolf.
RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY
Mr. Wolf. Has Mr. Culberson----
Mr. Culberson. I did. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. I did not want to jump ahead of Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Mollohan. I would not let that happen.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. I am sorry. I was----
Mr. Serrano. We already heard from him.
Mr. Wolf. I was at an event. Well, I was at an event in my
district and so I am sorry.
Let me say something, and I am going to ask the staff to
look at some of these things, for the record here. I think this
was a Republican initiative proposal to set up legal services,
a Congressman I used to work for, Congressman Pete Petster and
Tom Ralesback. I am having my staff get all the history so that
we can submit it for the record to make sure that it is
accurate.
Secondly, I have always--I am going to differ with some of
the things that are said, but I think--I have always been
supportive of legal services. And I think the Committee has to
be careful because you are coming to a very slippery slope. The
Democrats will not always control this Congress. And if this
thing slips back in to where it was, I think there is going to
be a serious problem.
I believe deeply in legal services. The poor ought to have
the help and they need it. But the legal services got involved
in some very aggressive political activity. There was actually
a tape, and I heard the tape, if you can go back in your files
and find that, where legal services were meeting down somewhere
in the south, I forget where, and naming members of Congress
that they wanted to defeat.
Can you go ask your archives to find that for us and submit
it for the record so we can play it here or also put it in?
Just so the Committee knows, John Erlenborn, may he rest in
peace, who you knew very well, served in this House and was
brought back to clean up the controversy. There was great
controversy and politicizing and John Erlenborn, who was the
Ranking Republican on the Labor Committee and was a
conservative member of the Congress, I think you would agree
did an outstanding job. Do you agree?
And so I hear some of the comments from my colleagues and
some of these things dealt with lobby and political advocacy.
And I believe that if these restrictions are lifted, it will be
the beginning of the destruction of legal services because I do
not believe people on the other side will stand by.
Now, I used to always oppose, and I hope I am not wrong, if
I do, we can be corrected, the cuts that would come--I think,
Mr. Serrano, we were on together at that time--and I always
would defend legal services, tell my side and other sides that
this is not a good thing that we cut it.
So I tell you you are ready to get on a very slippery slope
and I am not going to kind of have the rug pulled out twice.
And so if I see something wrong, I am going to start speaking
out because once you make a mistake, you say, okay, the second
time--so I would ask you, one, if you would search your
archives and find the tape whereby--you both remember that
case? You remember hearing about it?
Ms. Barnett. Personally I do not.
Mr. Wolf. Is there anybody here who remembers it? It was in
the early 1980s. That is one of the arguments against term
limits as someone around who kind of remembers. But I would
like you to go back into the archives and dig it out.
And also if you would submit for the record some of the
stories and I will ask CRS in my office to do the same, to get
some of the stories about the politicalization of the legal
services.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I had a number of questions. I just wanted to put that out.
And I will just ask two other questions. But be careful because
even if I am the only one on the floor that will talk about it
from here on in, I will talk about it because I remember what
happened.
And I think it is important to protect this program and
keep it out of the political process where it becomes a
lobbying effort, a political activity effort because then I
think in essence those who want to help the poor will be in
essence doing something that will, I think, do more to hurt the
poor. And so we can submit that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will ask CRS to pull some of those
articles together and we will submit them for the record. And I
would ask the corporation, if you can go back and dig in your
archives and have somebody come up and sit down with my staff
so that when this comes up, we have everything on the record.
If I can recall the tape that I did hear, just remember, I
actually heard in the voice on the tape naming members of
Congress that legal services wanted to defeat.
And does anyone here out there remember that? I saw one or
two of you shaking your heads, but I will not call on you.
INTERACTION OF LSC AND THE LSC INSPECTOR GENERAL
Second issue, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask this question
and another one after that, your appropriation bill language
carries restrictions on the activities that can be conducted by
LSC grantees such as prohibition on class action and collection
of attorneys' fees.
We talked about general oversight that you have been asking
for, I am sure a question, but how does, and compliance, how
does the LSC and your IG specifically monitor grantees'
compliance with these restrictions and are you confident that
all grantees are in compliance with the law? That is the first
question.
The second one is I remember when during Mr. Erlenborn's
time, we came in and they worked out the differences. And if
you recall, there was a problem on the IG. If you will explain
how your IG reports to you. I think IGs to be truly effective
ought to be totally and completely independent of--for
instance, at the Justice Department, the IG there is not under
the Attorney General. That individual can go anywhere. The IG
that the President has appointed for the stimulus package is
not working for anyone. He and his office can go wherever they
believe.
The first question is here on monitoring and, second, if
you would just explain for the members how your IG differs and
why you think that is good or should that be changed whereby
your IG can be truly independent.
And I think, Ms. Barnett, has the IG that had the
controversy, has he left?
Ms. Barnett. We have a new IG and I thought I would ask
Professor BeVier to talk about the relationship with the IG.
And I am happy to talk about my relationship as well.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Barnett. The new IG just happens to be here. He is
Jeffrey Schanz formerly from the Department of Justice.
Mr. Wolf. But they are the three questions.
Ms. BeVier. The board hires the IG and as it presently
stands, the board can fire the IG. The board has not exercised
that authority, but we do have a general----
Mr. Wolf. If I may interrupt.
Ms. BeVier. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. Authority not exercised that may very well be is
tremendous authority. It would appear to me--has there been any
consideration of having a totally completely independent IG
like the Interior has or something?
Ms. BeVier. I think there has been some consideration of
that, but I do not think that that legislation has passed. At
least if it has, we have not been informed of it.
You are completely right, Congressman Wolf. We hire and we
review the performance. At the same time, the board is
extraordinarily conscious and aware of and respectful of the
nature of the IG to be independent in terms of what he chooses
to investigate, how he chooses to investigate, what he reports
to Congress, and that his job is indeed to monitor and to
ensure that we comply and that to investigate complaints
without us telling him what he should and should not
investigate.
And as much as you can promise that that is true and you
can believe us, I believe that is the case. I think the board
is extraordinarily sensitive to the need to keep the IG
independent. Indeed, the board's view is that the IG helps us
and helps the corporation.
Mr. Wolf. If I may, pardon me, but the last IG was driven
out.
Ms. BeVier. The last I----
Mr. Wolf. The IG used to come by the Committee and explain
that he felt that he was being pressured by the board.
Ms. BeVier. Well, as a member of the board----
Mr. Wolf. Was that accurate or----
Ms. BeVier. As a member of the board, I think that I would
probably describe our actions with respect to the last IG in a
very different way. And he was not pressed out. He had a very
lucrative offer from a private firm. So that is----
Mr. Wolf. But do you deny that there was great controversy?
Ms. BeVier. No, I do not deny that there was tension.
Mr. Wolf. If I could, Mr. Chairman, submit for the record
any articles about that because there was great tension. The IG
would come up and express differences with regard to the fact
that he was being ignored and felt great pressure by the board.
You can shrug your shoulders----
Ms. BeVier. Well, no. What I--I am not----
Mr. Wolf. The reality was I had the conversation with him.
Would it not be better to have it totally and completely--if
you have nothing to be concerned about, I think the IG has
worked well--would it not be better to have a truly totally
independent----
Ms. BeVier. It might be better, Congressman. That is not an
issue to which the board has given any focused attention. What
we basically have--what we are trying to do now is abide by
what our responsibilities are now and what our limitations are
now and what the IG has to do now.
It is very awkward, I hope you appreciate, with respect to
a particular individual who engaged in particular activities,
to go into the board's engagement with that individual, to go
into particulars at a hearing like this.
I understand that he had concerns and all I will say is
that from the board's perspective, the situation could have
been looked at in a different way.
But as we speak now and the present IG, we started with an
understanding with him that he is independent and that we
respect his independence totally and completely. And that is
the understanding that we began with.
So I think it has clarified the IG's role for us to begin
with this new IG and to make sure that we understand what the
IG's role is.
Mr. Wolf. But if there were a conflict, who has the
ultimate decision making, the IG or the board?
Ms. BeVier. If it is a conflict about what to investigate,
it is the IG, absolutely, completely.
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is not quite the answer. Who has the
ultimate authority, the board or the IG?
Ms. BeVier. With respect to what he investigates, the IG
has complete authority over that. So the board has authority
with respect, for example, to issues of the IG's employment
practices and if there are issues with respect to whether the
IG is treating his own employees fairly and that sort of thing
because the board does review his performance annually.
Mr. Wolf. So the board can fire the IG?
Ms. BeVier. Yes. The board can fire the guy.
Mr. Wolf. I rest my case.
Ms. BeVier. Okay.
MONITORING GRANTEE COMPLIANCE
Mr. Wolf. The last issue is, how do you monitor the
grantees' compliance with the restrictions and are you
confident that all grantees are in compliance with the law?
Ms. BeVier. I think I am going to turn that one over to
President Barnett.
I will tell you before I do so, however, that compliance
has been increasingly an issue that the board has felt strongly
about and has attempted to assure takes place.
In particular, with respect to our response to the GAO
report which enabled us to take a close look at particular
compliance issues has, our response to that has strengthened
both the board's own governance and the internal compliance
procedures that management follows.
And I will turn that one over to the President and she can
tell you a little bit more specifically perhaps how that has
worked.
Ms. Barnett. I think as a result of the GAO recommendations
with regard to grant oversight and management, we have
strengthened our ability to provide oversight and ensure
compliance and ensure high quality legal services. Our
procedures are in writing today. We have risk factors that we
use in determining when to make a program visit. We also
consult with the Office of the Inspector General in making
those decisions.
We do program visits and, in fact, our budget request is
for additional staff, the vast majority of whom would be staff
that would go out to program visits and provide the oversight
review. We are looking for 13 additional positions that would
help us go from 57 site visits to 84 in 2010.
GAO found problems in nine of our programs. We referred
eight of them to the Office of Inspector General. They have
given us the reports. The last one we got yesterday afternoon,
so I cannot refer to that one, but the other seven we have
followed up with and there is only one program which we are
still in the process of following up with with an issue.
The ninth program we kept for ourselves which was the
Nevada program and I think there were definitely issues there.
We have worked closely with the program that now has a new
board chair and has a new Executive Director and, in fact, is
now on two-month funding and we are very pleased with the
progress that they have made.
I think our programs want to comply. I sent two advisories
to all the programs, one in March of 2008 where I reminded them
of the need to have supporting documentation, of what
expenditures cannot be used with federal funds such as the
purchase of alcohol and lobbying, to remind them of the
regulation governing derivative income, to remind them if they
have salary advances, they have to have written policies.
And then in December of 2008, I sent a reminder to all the
programs where we highlighted issues that we found in our
visits during the course of the year as a reminder. We think
all the programs are following them, but we wanted to remind
them of the need for certain procedures--to have
reconciliations on a monthly basis, to have separation and
segregation of duties, and we outlined a number of procedures
just to remind the programs to be alert to these issues.
So I think we are taking a very proactive role in trying to
ensure that our programs are complying with all the rules,
regulations, and LSC Act requirements. And I think that we feel
quite confident that the vast majority of our programs surely
are doing so.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Fattah.
LSC SERVICES TO VETERANS
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank the Chairman. We worked very hard in the
last budget to provide an increase for legal services and it
was needed, but obviously there is still a very significant
justice gap, if you would.
And I would like to thank the Vice-Chair for her testimony
and your service on the board.
But I wanted to ask a question. I really want to talk about
two things. One is support and help for veterans, returning
veterans. I note that a number of your programs in California,
Tennessee, and other places are now working aggressively with
veterans, particularly those returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan, on a host of legal issues.
And I wonder whether or not in this appropriations request
you foresee that those services could be provided in other
locations, in other states. So if you could talk a little bit
about that.
Ms. Barnett. There is no question that we are seeing an
increased need of returning military personnel from Iraq and
Afghanistan, not just with veteran benefits problems and we do
have a veterans' pro bono consortium that works on veterans'
benefits at the U.S. Court of Claims for Veterans, but housing
matters, family law matters, debt-related matters such as
evictions, foreclosure, unemployment insurance problems.
We do not feel that we are actually, Congressman Fattah,
capturing the full range of services and we are looking at ways
in which we can better capture so we can tell you more
accurately how many cases we are handling that involve
returning veterans.
Also, you should know that with our technology initiative
grants program for 2010, we indicated a particular area of
interest that we would make grants in is if they concentrated
on ways in which we can help veterans, either help themselves,
help advocates who are representing them, or pro bono attorneys
who want to represent them.
So in this round of TIG grants, we will be making specific
grants to programs that focus on meeting the needs of veterans.
Mr. Fattah. And, secondly, the foreclosure challenges which
are gripping the nation--I am later in the day participating in
an activity where we are looking at what we have done in
Philadelphia in terms of mandatory mediation efforts and
looking at whether that is applicable in other places.
But I know that a lot of your grantees have been working
very hard, but you are still not able to provide--there is a
significant gap in terms of the services needed and services
being provided to help families cope with the foreclosure
crisis nationwide.
Would part of this request help you better respond to that?
Ms. Barnett. Clearly that is part of the increased need
upon which we are basing this request without a question of a
doubt, that the foreclosure crisis is affecting families, home
buyers and renters in properties that are being foreclosed. And
we are not able to meet the increased need which has been
documented practically across the country.
I will just tell you I visited our Cleveland program last
week. One out of thirteen homes are vacant. They get more than
six calls a day. They are turning away 40 percent of those that
are seeking their relief and it is two and a half times as many
requests as last year just as an example.
Mr. Fattah. Well, now, if we were able to meet this
request, where would that put you relative to, guess the last
ten years in terms of your overall financial capacity as an
entity?
Ms. Barnett. Well, if I could just make a small comparison
to put things in perspective, our request is $485.8 million. In
1995, LSC received its largest appropriation which was $400
million. In inflation adjusted dollars today, that would be
$550 million.
If we went back to 1981 where the appropriation was $312
million, where it was thought that was to meet the need, today
in inflation adjusted dollars would be $770 million just to put
our request in perspective over the last at least ten years.
Mr. Fattah. And let me return to this issue of veterans.
For active-duty military, Congressman Murtha was talking
yesterday about a young lady from his district who faced a
child support procedure back home in Pennsylvania while she was
on duty in Iraq and was not represented. And there was in the
Congressman's mind significant injustice to the entire process.
Do your grantees also provide services not just like your
California or Tennessee veterans but to active-duty military?
Ms. Barnett. To their family----
Mr. Fattah. If they have----
Ms. Barnett. If they have a family problem----
Mr. Fattah. Right.
Ms. Barnett [continuing]. Here, I am sure that they do and
we just are not capturing that sufficiently to be able to
report the numbers to you. But I am hoping next year at this
time, we will be in a position to do so.
Mr. Fattah. But in 40 or 50 percent of the cases, no matter
a veteran or not, you are just not in a position to----
Ms. Barnett. Exactly.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. To respond to the need?
Ms. Barnett. Exactly. We are turning away as--in 2005, we
documented 50 percent of those that come to us. And as I
indicated prior to your joining us, we are updating that
justice gap report right now and hope to reissue the report in
September of 2009. And we expect that we will be turning away
far more than we did in 2005.
Mr. Fattah. And the veterans initiative, particularly in
California, focus on reemployment issues, family issues,
housing. We have seen reports that one out of three veterans
are homeless. So the issues of your support for veterans and
some of these legal challenges is critical. And I think that
the Committee should appropriately take that into
consideration.
I thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Barnett. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
IMPACT OF FEDERAL AND NONFEDERAL FUNDING TRENDS
Well, there are a number of bottom lines here. There is the
bottom line that you request. There is the bottom line of how
much nonfederal funding you receive. And then there is the
bottom line of how many eligible and needy clients you serve.
It is clear that the bottom line that you are requesting
from the Committee and even your projections over four years
are not going to achieve the bottom line we should achieve with
regard to servicing clients.
So picking up where I had left off in my questioning and
talking about how we can improve the bottom line of eligible
clients needing to be served, given the constraints on the
federal budget and the declining funding from outside federal
sources, I would like to explore how you all are thinking about
it.
First, I would like to ask Ms. BeVier if I could get
insights on how the board is dealing with this problem. What
are your goals in the future, recognizing that the federal
budget cannot close this gap all by itself?
Ms. BeVier. The board----
Mr. Mollohan. Speaking strategically here.
Ms. BeVier. Yes. I understand that, Congressman, and I
appreciate it.
What the board has established as its goal to close the
justice gap that we have discovered within four years. Now, our
requests, our budget requests have never completely matched
what Congress was willing to appropriate.
But in terms more of your question for the future----
Mr. Mollohan. Can I just say something? I mean, it does not
close the gap, your plan. I mean, tell me. To say closing the
gap within four years, your plan does not do that. Am I wrong
about that?
Ms. BeVier. I do not think you are wrong about that, no.
What----
Mr. Mollohan. So how should we be talking? In what terms?
Are we starting to close the gap to 40 percent or 60 percent,
to get real about this for the Committee?
This Committee is going to be committed to closing it as
much as possible. I can tell you that. But it is a reality. We
are not going to be able to come up with the dollars to close
it completely. So talking about closing the gap is almost happy
talk.
I just want to get real here and see what you all can do on
the outside incentivizing pro bono and law graduates or law
school students or however you can increase participation from
whatever source. You are dealing more closely, far more
closely, with it than we are. But let us talk about the gap as
realistically here as possible.
Ms. BeVier. Well, I think that in terms of the funding
source, our funding does come from Congress and so we look at
that funding as being our major funding source.
We have attempted during the course of my service on the
board to be proactive with respect to pro bono, to really try
to see what initiatives can be taken with respect to pro bono.
PRIVATE ATTORNEY INVOLVEMENT
Mr. Mollohan. But private attorney participation decreased
instead of increased.
Ms. BeVier. That is a fact. I wish it were a different
fact.
We have been working with State Justice Commissions to
attempt to encourage state courts and at the state level to get
their Bar associations involved. There is only so much that the
board of the Legal Services Corporation can do. But certainly
in terms of engaging attorneys and State Bar associations and
State Supreme Courts, we have made a real effort to engage them
and to prod them into more active involvement with the
provision of legal services.
And we have talked about the possibility of private
fundraising, but that, I think, is an issue that we have not
really undertaken ourselves, to engage the activity of trying
to go out and raise money ourselves from private sources.
Mr. Mollohan. President Barnett, you know, we talked about
this with Chairman Strickland, I think, last year, did we not?
He is very active in the Bar, right?
Ms. Barnett. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. What progress has been made since our
discussions last year with regard to the Bar Association? For
example, trying to encourage its membership to participate more
actively in legal services?
Ms. Barnett. Perhaps a better way to talk about the justice
gap in light of your very real comments is to address the
justice gap. I am not sure myself what actually would it take
to close the justice gap since I think the gap is widening as
we speak rather than being narrowed.
But I think certainly private attorney involvement. We
have----
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry to interrupt you. Please forgive
me for doing it--but it is going to be really disappointing
when we sit here and talk about increased funding, closing the
justice gap and having all that talk here today, and one year
from now when you all come up, and I know you are working hard,
you are doing everything, you are doing a terrific job, you and
the board both, but when you come up here next year and it is
the same situation. We really have not closed the gap.
So if we are serious about doing it, I think we have to get
serious about what all the resources are that can be brought to
bear. It seems to me the American Bar Association ought to be
standing up or leaning forward considerably more than they are.
These are all smart men and women in every community. They
ought to be able to figure this out in their own community.
I am sorry to interrupt you and make a speech on that, but
please go ahead.
Ms. Barnett. I certainly respect the point that you made.
Private attorney involvement, we are working with the
American Bar Association right now on the deferred lawyers,
seeing if they would work in our programs.
I was just up at Yale Law School talking to those involved
in the clinical programs and suggesting adopting a local legal
services program in the community and instilling a pro bono
ethic no matter how students choose to practice in their
careers.
I think we are very much involved with state access to
justice commissions. They are proliferating in states now. They
have the involvement not only of the Judiciary, the State Bar
leaders, the business community, and we are actively involved
in those efforts trying to raise additional funds, to leverage
the federal dollars, to increase pro bono, to increase self-
help initiatives.
That is another thing we are working on and with the court
system and our technology grants and web sites to provide
information so that people who are unable to get our assistance
can hopefully in those areas that it is appropriate handle it
themselves with pro se initiatives being supported by the court
system.
So we are working on the court level. We are working with
the private Bar. We are working with the access to state
justice commissions throughout the states, looking to establish
them where they are not and working with those that are there,
all looking at ways in which to leverage the federal dollars,
recognizing that it is the federal government that is the heart
of it. We are happy to look at other sources of state and local
government initiatives, whether it is the filing fees in
federal court, and see if there can not be a comprehensive
package of initiatives to pursue to leverage the federal
dollars as we go forward.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, there is no question the Committee is
going to be increasingly interested in funding LSC. We are also
increasingly interested in achieving the goals which you are
talking about in terms of closing the gap.
But as we increase our commitment, which will surely
happen, I think we need to work with you in real time
throughout the year with our staffs and with members in
understanding how you are really going to enhance funding
outside the federal government. We will have push-back on some
of these things.
But I think there is a lot of sentiment on a bipartisan
basis to fund the basic core functions of legal services. So I
think that is going to happen. Repeating myself, we want to
work with you on that.
OUTREACH
Now, there are two parts of this. One is serving indigent
folks, or those who are eligible for legal services. Obviously
resources and funding is part of that. The other part that
disturbs me, and one of the witnesses alluded to it or
mentioned it in their testimony, is the lack of knowledge of
those who would be eligible for legal services about the fact
that they do have eligibility.
Now, you have got a restriction against soliciting and I
would like for you to talk about that in terms of making people
aware of their eligibility. I would call it advertising. That
may be the wrong word in the legal community, although I notice
it is happening a lot more since I graduated.
What is the difference between soliciting and informing
people that they have eligibility? Is there a difference and
how do you go about telling people that there are folks out
here that can help you with foreclosures, can help you with
being battered and can help you with all these problems? How do
you inform people, or do you? Does this soliciting restriction
keep you from doing that?
Ms. Barnett. No, no. Certainly we have statewide web sites
that have information for people needing assistance on it. In
our offices, there is information in the waiting rooms on the
kind of services that can be provided. We can go to community
education trainings and do sessions on know your rights.
What we cannot do is then take a client, solicit a client
to come to us who has a particular issue that we want to raise.
But we certainly want to let it be well known, and I think it
probably is fairly well known, our existence in so many areas
of the country have been for so many years and the programs
have such a wonderful----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, it was your reference that there are
those out there who do not know. I do not----
Ms. Barnett. It was.
Mr. Mollohan. Was it President----
Ms. Barnett. I definitely said it was an undercount because
we are sure everybody who--not everybody who comes to an
office--anybody who does not come to an office does not mean
they do not have a problem.
Mr. Mollohan. Is advertising a bad word? Can you advertise?
Can you put an advertisement in the paper saying that if you
can not afford a lawyer and are you having foreclosure
problems----
Ms. Barnett. Actually, we have on Google, if you Google I
need a lawyer----
Mr. Mollohan. How many poor people Google ``I need a
lawyer''?
Ms. Barnett. Well, you would be surprised.
Mr. Mollohan. A lot?
Ms. Barnett. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. All right.
Ms. Barnett. You would be surprised at the number of----
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Maybe it is just because that would
probably be the last thing I would be able to do.
Mr. Serrano. But you do make a point, Mr. Chairman, still a
big issue in this country.
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, it is bound to be. Well, do we have a
problem in this area?
Ms. Barnett. You know, we are----
Mr. Mollohan. Are we getting to everybody----
Ms. Barnett. We are not.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. And letting them know?
Ms. Barnett. We are not getting to everybody.
Mr. Mollohan. How can we do it better?
Ms. Barnett. We can do it better by what some of the
programs are talking about, going out to where potential
clients will be, going to schools and meeting with parents
there who might have problems with school suspension or special
legal ed needs or going to health centers. Forty of our
programs are partnering in medical/legal partnerships.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you advertise in community newspapers, or
with Spanish community? Do you advertise in newspapers for
legal aid?
Ms. Barnett. What is being shared with me is not an
advertisement, but news stories in newspapers every day on what
legal aid has done to help a particular client with a
particular problem. And as I said, we do community know your
rights sessions. I believe all our programs are in engaged in
community outreach and training sessions trying to get the word
out that you have certain rights if these conditions occur and
we can help you if we have available resources.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, people out there are alone and
desperate in many cases and they need to know they have this
resource available. Nothing is better than a good lawyer.
Mr. Serrano, you believe that; do you not?
Mr. Serrano. Yes. I am not a lawyer. I played a judge once
on Law and Order, but I am not a lawyer. I did really.
When they called me up, they said we have this role, here,
you want to play. On our show, we have a role for you, but
there is a problem with it. I said, oh no. They said you are
going to play a Hispanic judge, but there is a problem with it.
I said, oh, God. I said I do not want to play a drug dealing,
corrupt Hispanic judge. He said, no, this guy is very liberal.
I said, oh. The part was written for me.
SUPPORT FOR LSC IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
Mr. Chairman, I want to use my time not to ask a question,
but rather continue my comments in support of this organization
and to do a little clarification on the presentation by Mr.
Wolf.
You know, I was Ranking Member under Frank Wolf and he did
something that I think is one of the best things that ever
happened to the Legal Services Corporation. He may not remember
that he did it. He may not take credit for it, but he did.
Legal Services Corporation used to leave Subcommittee when
I was Ranking Member sort of having been tinkered with but not
dealing with full funding of it with a full understanding that
the minute it got to the House floor, Mr. Ramstad from
Minnesota and other members would team up, remind the world
what a great program it was and honestly, remind Republicans
that it was Richard Nixon's baby, President Nixon's baby, and
it would be amended on the floor by millions of dollars, you
remember that, by millions of dollars to reach the goal.
And that just did not make sense and it was dangerous to
send it on the floor that way. Well, he changed that. Frank
Wolf changed that and it would leave Committee with the funding
that it was supposed to get. If it got more funding on the
floor, so be it.
But he brings up an interesting point that may turn out to
be an issue again and that is as we return to regular order and
for those in the audience, I know I am not supposed to direct
any comments to those in the audience, who do not know what
regular order means, that means this bill will be debated on
the House floor as a bill by itself with opportunities for
people to amend and get rid of programs and so on.
And he may be alerting us to the fact that some folks still
have some issues with Legal Services Corporation that will be
debated on the floor. And while he may be right, that some
people felt that the Corporation had engaged in some activities
that are political in nature, that some of the restrictions
that were placed on them were political statements also about
abortion, about the census, about redistricting, and some other
issues. And people used that opportunity. So perhaps at that
point, both sides had some explaining to do.
The restrictions are in place. In my opinion, the
restrictions have to be modified. We have to be ready to defend
Legal Services Corporation during a difficult budget period on
the House floor. It will be an easy target for people who want
to put money elsewhere. And you can make an argument within our
bill in this Committee to put money elsewhere. You can make
that argument in any bill.
But I wanted to make two points, the one I made that Frank
Wolf appeared to be very strong in his comments and he
certainly is, but he is also a fair man. And I remember when he
did a lot to put this corporation's funding where it should be.
And, secondly, I really think that in reviewing the
restrictions, we should just look at it in terms of what it is
that the Corporation is supposed to do, what poor people are
supposed to get in services, and begin to discuss the issues
that I brought up, the issue of immigrants, which immigrant can
you-- okay.
So a person that is in this country and is not a citizen
yet, but that person is still protected by our Constitution. In
fact, I would argue much to the dismay of Lou Dobbs and others
that a person who is in this country not documented still has
the protection of our Constitution. If you assault an
undocumented alien, the court does not look the other way and
say, well, the guy is not a citizen or he is not here legally.
Therefore, people who need services should be looked at as
people living within the country. I do not think the idea of
you do not get that service because you are not here legally,
that is a question, you know. There is an immigration issue. I
do not call it a problem, but there is an immigration issue.
Once that person is inside our borders, I think there are
other issues you deal with and that is do you allow that person
to be sick and not to go to an emergency room in a hospital? Do
you tell the children of undocumented parents that the child
cannot attend school? Do you not give them the ability to have
a lawyer?
So that is what we have to look at. And I think we have to
be ready for what could be an assault on the Corporation, not
for any of the issues that we have discussed now, but certainly
it is a very difficult budget period. It may not be one of
those that has a lot of constituents on the floor, although it
did in the past and we have to be careful.
And I will continue to be as you are and most members here
are, all members are advocates because, again, it is at the
essence of who we are as a country, the ability to have a
lawyer even though you do not have the money to hire a private
lawyer with a lot of money.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. I have no questions.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. No further questions.
Mr. Serrano. Gee, did I leave some silence in this?
Mr. Mollohan. I do not know. You may have gotten us to an
end point though.
closing remarks
If there are no more questions by members of the Committee,
I would like to give the witnesses an opportunity to make
whatever concluding comments they would like to make.
Ms. Barnett. I would just like to emphasize that we believe
providing civil legal assistance to low-income individuals and
families is part of the solution to the problems facing this
country in an economic downturn.
When we help someone stay in their home, we are preventing
them from becoming homeless.
When we help families stay together and children stay with
their families, we are preventing them going into the foster
care system.
When we help somebody get access to needed medical care, we
are avoiding costly hospitalization.
When we help somebody get disability benefits to which they
are entitled or food stamps to which they are entitled, we are
helping to make them more productive workers in our society.
So we believe very strongly that we are the front line,
first responders for many low-income individuals and that they
have nowhere else to turn and that we are really part of the
solution and not the problem.
Mr. Mollohan. Vice-Chair BeVier.
Ms. BeVier. I echo President Barnett's comments.
And I appreciate what I took to be your sort of prodding
the board to be a little bit more proactive with respect to
marshaling other resources that we might do.
And I appreciate President Barnett describing some of the
things that are done already. And I think it is quite true that
we can be doing more going into the future. I hope that we will
be.
So I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we look forward to working with you in
that regard to really do as much as we can to close the gap.
Let me again, on behalf of myself and the Committee, thank
you both and the very fine organization that you represent for
the good work that you do. We look forward to working with you
and supporting you as best we can.
Thank you.
Ms. Barnett. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, April 23, 2009.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WITNESS
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
Opening Statement of Chairman Obey
Mr. Obey. The room will please come to order.
This afternoon we will hear from the Attorney General,
testifying on behalf of his budget for the coming year. Before
we begin, let me simply say that, as always, the committee
welcomes everyone in attendance at this hearing. We expect only
one thing, and that is that people respect the prerogatives and
needs of this committee. People are obviously in a free
country. They are perfectly within their rights to make their
views known, but they are not within their rights to disrupt
any hearing of this committee. So we will conduct this hearing
accordingly.
Mr. Attorney General, we welcome you to the committee. I
frankly do not know where to begin. I do not know which Cabinet
offices people regard as being the premier Cabinet offices in
the country. I know that there are some who feel that Secretary
of State is the top dog, so to speak, and others may feel
Secretary of Defense or some other. To me, the most important
job in the Cabinet is that of the Attorney General, because he
is the number one person in the Department of Justice for the
United States of America.
The Defense Department defends the country, the Education
Department helps to educate our children, and that is all
important. But the most important thing that any government
official can do is to defend the Constitution, to defend the
liberty of each and every citizen, and to do their damndest to
deliver justice to every citizen.
I know that today Members will focus largely on the news
reports about the interrogation reports that were released
recently, but I hope you will forgive me if I, in my
introductory remarks, tell you what I am focused on today. It
is not that I do not think those other issues are important. I
think they are excruciatingly important. But I just want to
tell you a little story about something that happened in my
State so that you understand what my focus is.
There is a woman in the State of Wisconsin by the name of
Georgia Thompson, who was a low-level, nonpolitical civil
servant at the Wisconsin Department of Administration and had
never met our Governor in her life. She was hired by the State
civil service during a prior Republican administration. She was
one of those whose job it was to determine who had the State
contract for State employee travel. As I understand events,
that body wound up accepting the bid of the party that turned
out to be the low bidder, but somehow allegations began to
arise that she had done something improper in deciding who was
going to get that contract.
The State Republican Party put out press releases demanding
that the U.S. Attorney investigate the situation. The U.S.
Attorney had a public press conference announcing that he was
going to undertake an investigation of that item. My
understanding is that it was counter to Justice Department
policy to have a press conference on something like that. To
make a long story short, she was called before the grand jury
and eventually, despite the fact that she testified that she
had no political dealings whatsoever with Wisconsin's Governor,
she was convicted and sent to prison.
The case was then appealed, and when it went to the three-
judge court of appeals, something extraordinary happened.
Before the court was even finished with the hearing, they
decided that the case was so flimsy that they threw it out, and
they ordered her released immediately from prison. From the
bench one of the judges told the prosecutor that his case was
worse than flimsy and questioned why on Earth they would even
bring that case.
She spent over $300,000 defending herself. She lost her
home. She lost her reputation. The Court restored her good
name, but it was still soiled, in her eyes, by events.
It later came to light that that Federal attorney had
initially been on the infamous list of prosecutors who should
be considered for firing because they were not sufficiently
aggressive to suit the higher-ups in the administration. So I
think it raises an interesting question as to whether or not
that attorney felt pressured to go after a case that he
certainly should not have gone after.
What makes this even more insidious is that immediately
after she was convicted, the opponent of Wisconsin's Governor
in the next election spent almost $4 million on television ads
attacking the Governor as being corrupt, citing this case as
illustration number one of why he was unfit for public office.
It was a scurrilous smear.
When your predecessor was before this subcommittee a year
ago, I asked him whether or not Justice was looking into this.
I presume they are. I hope they are. Obviously I am not
qualified in any way to determine what the outcome ought to be.
But I think you have a special responsibility, given some of
the things that have happened in the Department, to dig into
cases like this and to make crystal clear to the country that
at the Justice Department politics is out and justice is back.
That, to me, is the most important thing that any government
official, from the President on down, can do.
Every American citizen has to know that whether you are a
humble civil servant, or if you are a very visible politician,
you are going to get justice. In that regard, I simply want to
congratulate you for the action that you took in the case
involving Senator Stevens. Now, Ted and I agreed with each
other about once a century. He fought everything that I
believed in, and I fought a lot of things that he believed in.
I have no idea what the facts are in his case, but it was
appalling to see revealed the actions and missteps of those who
were prosecuting that case. While I have no idea what the
outcome would have been had there been a fair prosecution, I
want to thank you for standing up for due process and for
recognizing that the job of prosecutors in this country is not
to win a high conviction rate, it is to do justice, whether
that means that you win the case or not. So I want to thank you
for what you have done so far.
I apologize to the committee for taking this much time, but
ain't nothing more important than justice. And I personally am
glad to see a person of your integrity in that chair.
With that, let me turn to Mr. Wolf for any comments he
might have before we take your testimony.
Opening Statement of Ranking Member Wolf
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Holder, we welcome you to the committee, and I
thank you for your appearance today. I understand, I hope I do,
I think I do, the difficulty of the tasks you have been
assigned to complete by the President, especially your
assignment to deal with the closing of the Guantanamo Bay
facility and the issues connected with the recent memos on the
interrogation methods.
These are very dangerous detainees at Guantanamo Bay,
including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who masterminded the 9/11
attacks that took the lives of 3,000 people, 30 people from my
congressional district, and brutally beheaded journalist Daniel
Pearl.
I am extremely concerned that the hard lessons from the
first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the U.S. embassy
bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole attack, and the 9/
11 atrocities could be ignored, which could put our country at
risk of another attack, which I sent you a letter, I do not
know if you saw it the other day, recommending you read the
book called The Seven Deadly Scenarios. Did you get the letter?
Attorney General Holder. I am not sure I have seen it yet.
Mr. Wolf. I sent it. And if not, we can get you another
copy. Potentially other nuclear, chemical, or biological
weapons.
Shortly after I returned from a trip to Algeria in 1998--
and, Mr. Secretary, in Algeria about 150,000 people have been
killed from terrorist activities. We then went to Egypt, and as
I landed the plane, we then found that the bombings had taken
place in the two embassies in both Tanzania and in Nairobi,
where 267 people were killed, including one from my
congressional district, a person that lived in McLean. And as
you know, more than 5,000 were injured.
I then authored--and was ridiculed by, quite frankly, both
sides of the aisle--the bill to set up the National Commission
on Terror. In fact, as many Members on both sides said, what is
this about terror? When I put the bill in, I mentioned Osama
bin Laden. We passed the bill. And the Commission report came
out in the year 2000, provided evidence of a growing threat of
international terrorism and the steps needed to combat it.
I was disappointed that both the Clinton administration,
where you had served in the Justice Department, and the Bush
administration, both administrations, the Clinton
administration and the Bush administration ignored it and did
not take seriously the recommendations that were in the
terrorist commission report.
What followed were the devastating attacks on September
11th of 2001. Thirty, as I said, of my constituents died in the
attack on the Pentagon. On that day I left the Capitol and went
out to the Pentagon and sat up on the hill and watched the
scene of what took place. The first person that was killed,
American employee, American citizen that was killed in
Afghanistan, was a CIA employee of mine that lived in Manassas
Park.
Now our country could be faced with the real prospects that
those associated with the terrorist attacks on our country
could very well be brought to a large urban center in eye's
view of where a commercial jet turned into a missile exploded
into the Pentagon on 9/11. On March 13, I sent a letter to you
asking a series of questions regarding the security and
logistical concerns associated with transferring Guantanamo Bay
detainees to the jail and courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia.
And I met with your team yesterday, and they tell me you are
still working on the letter, and I appreciate that, but we look
forward to receiving the response.
As you know, the Zacharias Moussaoui trial in Alexandria
took over 4 years, at a public expense in multimillion dollars,
represented a nightmare scenario. An equally difficult
situation would exist in the Southern District of New York if
trials were to occur there.
Today we are going to be giving you a second letter asking
additional questions on the possible dangers the administration
should consider if you decide to transfer Guantanamo detainees
to population centers, and also the ramifications of granting
these individuals access to civilian courts. I am also
submitting both letters for the committee record, and would ask
as you submit the response to me, you could also send the
answers to the committee.
As you move forward in responding to the President's
Executive Order and present policy options for the release or
transfer of the prosecution of detainees, I believe there are
serious issues involving the safety and the security of a lot
of people in urban and metropolitan and other districts that
really have to be addressed.
Before making your decisions, I would ask and respectfully
urge, and it is in the letter, but I wanted to say it, that the
Justice Department and even you, if possible, should meet with
those whose loved ones were killed in the 9/11 attacks both in
New York and in the other localities, and here and
Pennsylvania, and I know you knew people that were on those
planes, too, including the families of our military members
killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ask their perspective on
the fate of these detainees, especially the detainees who
played a lead role in carrying out the attacks.
I read the memorandum on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, what he
said brutally with regard to Daniel Pearl. You should probably
meet with Daniel Pearl's family, too.
It is troubling to me that an option of transferring
detainees to Federal court sites in urban areas such as
Alexandria would even be considered. I went to Alexandria this
past Tuesday. We parked the car. I walked out from the
courthouse across the street to the Westin and off to the hotel
on the other side and the apartment. You know the location as
well as I do. And since that time, having been down there
during the Moussaoui trial, the Patent and Trademark Office is
now there, the Westin hotel is now there, the apartments are
there now, and there is also a ramp as you come down off of the
Beltway.
So there are a number of issues like this we would like to
raise with you both at the hearing here today and, equally
important, in the letter that I am sending. And before you make
any of these decisions, I would appreciate having the
opportunity to talk to you about it.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Obey. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. I will wait for questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Obey. All right.
Mr. Attorney General, I forgot to mention one thing in my
comments. The head of the Wisconsin Employees Union, in
commenting on the Thompson case, simply said the following:
Prosecution of innocent civil servants to win elections should
not become the standard in this State or this country. If this
conviction had been upheld, no State employee exercising
discretion would have felt secure from Federal criminal
prosecution. This was an innocent woman put in prison for doing
her job. She lost her income, her house, her reputation, and 4
months of her life.
I just want to put that in for a sense of perspective. With
that, please proceed with your testimony.
Attorney General Holder's Opening Remarks
Attorney General Holder. Good afternoon, Chairman Obey,
Ranking Member Wolf, other members of the subcommittee. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to come before you and
testify today.
Before I get into my remarks concerning the fiscal year
2010 budget, let me just say that with regard to the matter
that you have raised, Mr. Chairman, there is, in fact, a
Justice Department investigation under way. It is being
conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility. It was
begun by my predecessors. I expect that investigation should be
completed relatively soon, and it is my hope that we will be in
a position to share the results of that investigation.
One of the things I want to do with the Office of
Professional Responsibility, is to make more transparent the
work that it does so that the people of the United States will
see in the vast majority of cases how our lawyers conduct
themselves, I think, in appropriate ways; but to the extent
that we make mistakes, that we own up to them and make clear to
the people that we have made those mistakes, and then take
actions that I think are appropriate, as I did in the Stevens
case.
But getting back to that which has brought me here today,
due to the Presidential transition, the fiscal year 2010 budget
request is being released in two parts. In February, the
administration announced the top-line request for each agency,
including the Department of Justice. Once released, the full
submission will provide detailed budget proposals and the
traditional congressional justification materials necessary for
your committee to do its very important work. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to highlight certain
aspects of our current submission and further discuss key
priorities for the Department of Justice.
The President promised that from the day he took office,
America will have a Justice Department that is truly dedicated
to justice. The fiscal year 2010 budget that will be
transmitted soon supports this vital task by investing a total
of $26.7 billion in our critical law enforcement mission,
including protecting Americans from terrorism, fighting
financial and mortgage fraud, getting more police officers on
the beat, reinvigorating civil rights enforcement, and
providing essential resources for our prisons.
As I testified during my confirmation hearing earlier this
year, I will also pursue a very specific set of priorities.
First, I will work to strengthen the activities of the Federal
Government that protect the American people from terrorism. I
will use every available tactic to defeat our adversaries, and
I will do so within the letter and the spirit of our
Constitution. Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security
by depriving terrorist organizations of one of their prime
recruiting tools. America must be a beacon to the world. We
will lead by strength, we will lead by wisdom, and we will lead
by example.
Second, I will ensure that law enforcement decisions and
personnel actions are untainted by partisanship.
Third, I will revive the traditional missions of the
Department of Justice. Without ever relaxing our guard in the
fight against global terrorism, the Department must also
embrace its historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil
rights, preserving the environment, and ensuring fairness in
the marketplace.
The Department's work does not end with these priorities.
On January the 22nd, President Obama issued three Executive
Orders and a Presidential memorandum that gave significant
responsibility to the Department of Justice. These orders
require immediate agency action regarding Guantanamo Bay
detainees, specifically to review the appropriate disposition
of individuals currently detained there, to develop policies
for handling individuals captured or apprehended in connection
with armed conflicts and terrorist activities, and also to
evaluate current interrogation practices and make
recommendations as necessary.
While implementing these orders, the Department will take
necessary precautions to ensure decisions regarding Guantanamo
Bay detainees account for safety concerns of all Americans.
Executing these orders will have a significant workload and
cost impact on the Department, and this budget reflects that
need.
Earlier this month, I, along with other U.S. Government
officials, attended the Mexico-United States Arms Trafficking
Conference in Mexico. This was my first foreign trip as
Attorney General. My attendance at this conference reflects my
commitment to continuing the fight against the drug cartels.
The United States shares responsibility to find solutions to
this problem, and we will join with our very courageous Mexican
counterparts in every step of that fight.
$26.7 billion is a significant amount of money that comes
with a commensurate amount of responsibility. We will use these
funds wisely and with transparency. Our internal efforts, which
range from implementing the Department's new United Financial
Management System to establishing internal controls to ensure
the proper expenditure of Recovery Act funds, will demonstrate
our commitment to accountability at the highest level.
Chairman Obey, Congressman Wolf, and members of the
subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the Department's priorities and for your support of our
programs. I appreciate your recognition of the Department's
mission and the important work that we do. I look forward to
working in partnership with this subcommittee and with the
Congress as a whole. I am pleased to answer any questions that
you might have.
Mr. Obey. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES
Mr. Obey. A week ago today, the Department released the
full text of four Bush-era OLC memoranda that provided the
legal justifications for the use of interrogation techniques
that many consider torture. I certainly do. The question arises
whether or not the Department of Justice lawyers who wrote the
memos could be subject to some kind of sanction for their role
in the interrogation program. President Obama indicated that
decisions about the fate of those lawyers would ultimately be
made by you as the chief law enforcement officer of the
country.
I have got a series of questions for you, and I do not
expect you to answer all of them today. I would expect you to
make a comment when I have finished with the questions, because
I would like you to respond after you have had a chance to
think through carefully what your plans are. But these are
roughly the questions that I am sure everybody is asking.
What will your policy be with respect to sanctions or
prosecution for those individuals who offered those memos? What
is the status of the Office of Professional Responsibility
review of the authors of those memos? When do you expect this
review to be completed, and will the results be made public?
While the President has repeatedly said that CIA employees who
followed the legal advice provided by DOJ will not be
prosecuted, will you proactively pursue investigations of
individuals who acted prior to the issuance of DOJ's memos or
who deviated from the specific tactics and methods approved by
DOJ? Lastly, a DOJ-led task force has been formed to craft a
new comprehensive policy on interrogation methods and
rendition. Can you tell us anything at this stage about the
work of this task force, when its work might be concluded, and
whether its findings will be shared with the Congress?
Attorney General Holder. Mr. Chairman. I am not sure where
to start. With regard to the task forces that the President
placed me in charge of, we are charged with making
individualized determinations about how the current detainees
held at Guantanamo are to be treated. We expect that some
people will be released, when determinations are made that they
can be sent to other countries. With regard to a second group,
we expect that we will be trying them in Article 3 courts, in
Federal courts, perhaps also in military courts, and perhaps
also under military tribunals that have significant changes
made to the manner in which they would be conducted.
With regard to the second task force, we are also looking
at interrogation policy and coming up with what we think are
the best interrogation policies, that are consistent with our
values, and yet effective in getting information from those who
would do harm to this Nation.
With regard to that first task force, our responsibility is
to report by next January. With regard to the question of
interrogation, we are to report by July. And with regard to a
third task force that has to deal with detention policies and
how people are to be detained who are presently in Guantanamo,
or people who might be apprehended on the battlefields around
this world, that task force is due to make a response in July
of this year as well. So we have two that have a 6-month
reporting time, and one that has the full year to make its
determinations.
Mr. Obey. What is the process you will go through to make
those determinations, who would be consulted, and who would
play a role in making those eventual decisions?
Attorney General Holder. All three efforts are interagency
efforts that involve the CIA, the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, the Director of National Intelligence, the
Justice Department, various members of the National Security
Council. There are representatives from all of those
organizations who are on a working group level. They report to
a larger group, who ultimately report to a principals group. We
have had two principals meetings thus far with regard to the
work of the task forces.
And so it is truly an interagency effort that will draw on
the expertise of various agencies so that we can make the
decisions that we think are in the best interests of this
country and consistent, as I said, with the values that have
always made this Nation great.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS
Mr. Obey raised a couple of the issues, but I will come at
them perhaps in a little different way.
President Obama has stated that he will defer to you, as
the Chairman said, in determining whether or not to prosecute
Federal officials. I think this represents, most Americans
believe it represents, a dramatic shift from the President and
his Chief of Staff's earlier statements that I worry will have
a chilling effect on current and future administration
officials and our Federal workforce.
I personally agree with the statement of Senators McCain
and Lieberman and Graham that, quote, and they said, pursuing
such prosecutions would have serious and negative effects on
the candor with which officials in any administration provide
their best advice, and would take our country in a backward-
looking direction at a time when our detainee-related
challenges demand that we look forward.
Insofar as that, the questions are several, and one, will
you pursue the prosecutions? And can you tell us what the
criteria will be? And if you have anything you can tell us now,
and we can wait for what you tell the Chairman.
Secondly, is it true that there were additional memos or
documents that have not been released that show that the
interrogations resulted in invaluable intelligence, perhaps
saving lives? I think if there are other ones, and the first
ones were released, the second ones should be released. And
with regard to that, can you just comment?
Attorney General Holder. First, I will reiterate what I
said, last week, and it is consistent with what the President
has said as well. Those Intelligence Community officials who
acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on
Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted.
It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions.
But I also want to be clear that I will not permit the
criminalization of policy differences. However, it is my
responsibility, as the Attorney General, to enforce the law. It
is my duty to enforce the law. If I see evidence of wrongdoing,
I will pursue it to the full extent of the law, and I will do
that in an appropriate way. As I think I have shown throughout
my career, I am prepared to make tough decisions that are, in
fact, fair decisions.
I want to end this response with where I started. With
regard to those members of the Intelligence Community who acted
in good faith and on reliance of Justice Department opinions
that were shared with them, it is not our intention to
prosecute those individuals.
Mr. Wolf. And the second part, of the other memos that have
not been released.
RELEASE OF OLC MEMORANDA
Attorney General Holder. There are other Office of Legal
Counsel memoranda and opinions that have not been released. It
has been my hope that as this process goes on, we can make
those opinions, those memoranda, available, and make OLC a much
more transparent place, consistent with our need to protect
national security and to protect the ability of the President
to have unfettered, unchilled communication with members of
that office.
Mr. Wolf. But with regard to any results of the
interrogations. That is the question that I was asking.
Attorney General Holder. I am not familiar with those
memos. I have heard Vice President Cheney indicated such memos
exist. I, frankly, have not seen them. I do not know if they
exist. But I will say that generally my hope is we will make
available to the American people the opinions of OLC so that
they will have a full understanding of what the Justice
Department thought about the questions that were put to it.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. So if there are, that information will be
released?
Attorney General Holder. Again, as I said, I would hope
that we would be able to be in a position to release all of the
material that I have described, these OLC memoranda.
Mr. Wolf. See, pardon me, I am not aware if that is OLC. I
do not know that. So I am just saying the other memos. I think
once a decision was made to release the existing memos--and I
saw today Secretary Gates favored it, and I have great
admiration for Secretary Gates, he was on the Iraq Study Group
that we helped put together, and I admire him--but I think once
you have taken that step, I think all of the memos--and, of
course, those of us who are not on the Intelligence Committee,
I just read today Pete Hoekstra had an article in the Wall
Street Journal--there are things like that that go on in the
Intelligence Committee that many Members do not know about. So
there may be memos.
I would not want to get in a situation where I am asking
you and you say, well, Wolf, you just said Office of
Legislative, and it was really there, but you didn't ask me
there. I just think in fairness to the American people, once
you made a decision, once the administration made a decision to
release the existing memos that you put out, then I think you
have an obligation to release the rest of the memos. That is
the point I am trying to make.
The question that I wanted to ask----
Attorney General Holder. Well, Congressman, with regard to
that, I am the Attorney General, and I do not control many of
the memos that you might be talking about. I was referring to
those memos that originated in the Justice Department. Now, to
the extent that they do, as I said before, my hope would be to
make those available, again consistent with our national
security interests.
Mr. Wolf. Well, the time is up, and I will not abuse my
time, but I think in fairness everyone has to know, and just to
say if it is not in this building, it may be in another
building, so therefore that building, I think this is a
decision, quite frankly, that not only you are responsible for,
but whatever decision is made is really the decision of the
President of the United States. Harry Truman had a sign on his
desk that said ``The Buck Stops Here.'' So the President is
over all of the agencies. So whatever you do, it cannot just be
it is not in this building, it may be in another building, and
I do not control that building.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Holder. Let me just say this: It is
certainly the intention of this administration not to play hide
and seek or not to release certain things in a way that is not
consistent with other things. It is not our intention to try to
advance a political agenda or to hide things from the American
people.
There has been much said, I guess, in the last couple of
days about the effectiveness of these enhanced interrogation
techniques. I have also seen articles written by people who
were involved in the use of these techniques who say those
techniques, in fact, were not particularly effective, that the
information could have been gotten by more traditional means.
So that is something I guess we will have to debate.
One of the things that I think this administration wants to
do, though, is to put in front of the American people as much
of this information as we can so that a good, healthy debate
can ensue, and we can come up with interrogation policies,
among other things, that are consistent with our values and
that can be supported by the American people.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And let me welcome the Attorney
General.
I want to go for a minute to the substance of what brings
you here, which is your appropriations process for this year.
So the top line is $26.7 billion, and that would include $7.9
billion for the FBI, and then there is 50,000 additional cops
on the street, and $145 million for civil rights. There is
border enforcement and immigration enforcement. And then we
come down to Federal prisons. There seems to be $7.5 billion
for Federal prisons and only $75 million for reentry.
I am interested in whether or not you think we might ought
to be investing a little bit more in reentry programs, given
$7.5 billion spent on incarceration. And we know about some of
the challenges on reentry.
But before I go to that, I noticed that you are going to
invest more effort in going after mortgage fraud. I sent a
letter to the Department under its previous leadership in
August of last year challenging why more resources were not
made available to go after mortgage fraud since it was apparent
that the FBI knew, or was informed about, some significant
widespread mortgage fraud. This is not under your watch, I am
not asking you to take responsibility. I am pleased that in the
budget request before the committee that you are going to
invest considerable resources. And I note your public
statements on the matter.
So, welcome. I am interested in those two issues, and I
appreciate an opportunity to hear you comment.
MORTGAGE FRAUD
Attorney General Holder. We are committed to dealing with
the problem of mortgage fraud. The FBI has dedicated fairly
significant resources in that regard, and has opened a mortgage
fraud task force that is headquartered in Washington. I believe
that there are about 2,100 cases that are presently being
examined. We have asked for additional funds to look at that
very important criminal justice topic not only from a criminal
perspective, but also from a civil rights perspective. And to
the extent that this fraud was perpetrated in particular
communities, having the effect of destabilizing those
communities--and I am talking about communities that contain
people who are poor or people of color--that is something of
great concern to us.
So our look at the mortgage problem is really twofold: One,
to detect fraud to the extent possible, and then to look at the
discriminatory impact of that fraudulent activity. We are going
to be talking very soon about a financial fraud task force that
will look at a variety of things given the situation in which
our Nation finds itself and the fraudulent activity we have
been talking about. I think there needs to be a more
comprehensive view of this. We need to look at this with our
State and local partners, and a key component of that effort
will involve the mortgage industry.
Mr. Fattah. Well, as a member of the subcommittee, you
know, obviously, whatever additional resources that need to be
put into place. I mean, there are problems with this warranty
scam that is going on. You have, you know, the mortgage fraud
issues. There are a lot of problems in this whole financial
fraud area that have not gotten a great deal of attention, or
at least not the appropriate level of attention from the
Justice Department, FBI in particular. And I am happy to see
that you are going to go at that.
SECOND CHANCE ACT
I would like you to comment on the commitment that the
Department is going to pursue, given your budget request on
reentry. I know that Ranking Member Wolf and others have had
similar concerns that we do as much as we possibly can inasmuch
as we incarcerate a great many people, almost all of whom are
going to be returned to these communities at some point, to
make sure that we do not create more problems than we are
solving.
Attorney General Holder. Right. We are fully in support of
the Second Chance Act, to try to give people who are coming out
of prisons an opportunity to become productive citizens once
again. And we are also going to be dedicating attention,
through our Office of Justice Programs, to ways in which we can
deal with that whole reentry problem.
But I think we have to look at this whole crime problem in
a holistic way, and that is to see if there are ways in which
we can prevent people from becoming involved in the criminal
justice system. It is not a coincidence that we see the
greatest amount of violent crime where we see schools that do
not educate, where we see the highest levels of unemployment,
and where we see men who are not meaningfully engaged in the
raising of their children. We have to deal with those social
conditions. Those are crime issues in addition to social
issues.
We also have to make sure that those people who are
incarcerated are simply not warehoused; that somehow we are
able to make them better than when they came in through
educational opportunities, vocational opportunities; and then
to come up with ways in which we make the reentry of those
people from prisons into regular society more successful than
it has been in the past. Substantial numbers of people are
recidivists. I think two-thirds or so is the number that you
see within 3 to 5 years. And I think that is an indication that
the system that we now have in place is failing in many ways.
I think it is time for us to ask really tough questions of
ourselves when we look at this criminal justice system that we
have, and challenge some of the assumptions that we have made.
It does not mean we are not going to be tough against people
who would do harm to citizens who only want the things that we
all do, but I think we have to be smart as well. And so I hope
that as Attorney General I will lead a Justice Department,
working with members of this committee, that will ask those
tough questions and come up with some different solutions.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Lewis.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Holder, welcome.
Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis. I reviewed pretty carefully your background and
the experience that you have had in the Department. I am very
comfortable with the direction and the leadership, I believe,
that you will provide for us.
DRUG COURTS
Two subject areas of interest. You may not be aware that a
program called Drug Court, one of the first drug courts in the
country, was developed in San Bernardino County and sponsored
by then-Judge Pat Morris, who is now the mayor of San
Bernardino. I think he probably felt much more comfortable in
that other frying pan than the one he is in right now. But in
the meantime his work is being carried forward by Judge Stephen
Manley. And they are doing a fabulous job in our State, where
we have sizable--the country has, but we especially have
sizable numbers of men and women, especially young people, who
need a way to find a different path for their life. And Drug
Court is having a tremendous impact. I have had some indication
of support from the administration for the Drug Court model,
and I am presuming we might even enjoy some increased funding
there. Could you comment on that?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. There is contained in the
budget a very substantial increase to support the Drug Court
effort. Congressman, I think you are 100 percent right that
that is one of those novel approaches that we need to start
thinking about. We had a drug court here in Washington, D.C.,
when I was the United States Attorney, patterned after the one
that you have described. We tried a three-track system here,
found that one of the tracks actually worked better than the
other two, and that was the one that held the possibility of
incarceration over somebody's head if they did not stay off
drugs.
But the recidivism rate of people who go through drug
courts is substantially lower than it is for people who simply
are incarcerated, and our administration has given substantial
resources for the expansion of that program. So I totally agree
with you.
STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that very much.
The other area of questioning I may not get exactly the
same kind of response, but I have an interest in, and my State
has a great interest in, the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, SCAAP. In the 2009 package there was a reduction of
about $10 million in that programming. I do not have any idea
what your thoughts are or the plans you may have for the fiscal
year ahead of us. I would like to hear from you if you intend
to see SCAAP funding either reduced significantly or
terminated, and if so, why.
Attorney General Holder. I think that on this one we may
have a slightly different view. The program is one that I do
not think we are intending to support to the extent I think
that you would--and we are talking about the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program?
Mr. Lewis. Yes.
Attorney General Holder. I do not think we are looking at
that with the degree of support that you might want. One of our
top priorities is to secure our borders and address threats
that are posed by criminal aliens. It is our thought that money
that we have coming from our JAG grants, our Byrne grants, can
actually be more effective in dealing with the issues than the
SCAAP program. The budget that we are proposing eliminates
funding for a program that we think does not help communities
directly address crime in the way that the JAG-Byrne grants do.
I think our aim is the same. I think we have different view
as to what can be most effective. But I am always open to
hearing a different view. And to the extent that you think that
our view of this program is not necessarily a correct one, I
would be more than glad to speak with you about it.
Mr. Lewis. Attorney General Holder, I very much appreciate
that. The border States that have lots of impact from people
who are here illegally, may have been involved in violations of
the law, puts pressure on our budgets.
I must share with you that I really asked that question
because of the priority given to it by our Governor in
California. It is not the highest priority that I have in these
things, and there could be better approaches to deal with this
circumstance. But in the meantime, I may very well get
communication from the Governor's office and share that with
your people.
Attorney General Holder. I would be glad to talk to you
about that, Congressman.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, it is a great privilege to have you
here. I spent 6 years in the Department, and I have a great
fondness for it, and it broke my heart to see what the
Department went through under the leadership of Mr. Gonzales. I
think your immediate predecessor Mr. Mukasey did an admirable
job turning around the management and morale of the Department,
but nevertheless, there is quite a mess left to be cleaned up,
and it is your unhappy task to do it. But I cannot imagine
anyone more capable, and it gives me great confidence to have
someone of your intellect at the job.
TORTURE
I want to raise two issues with you, the first that my
colleagues have already touched on, and that is the torture
issue. If we start out with your testimony in the Senate, and I
start off from the same place, that waterboarding is torture,
we know that waterboarding occurred, we therefore know that
torture occurred. I don't think we can have a policy in this
country that, notwithstanding the knowledge that people have
been tortured, that it is impossible to hold anyone
accountable. You cannot hold accountable people who follow
legal opinions, you cannot hold accountable people who wrote
legal opinions, so we have people torture, but no one is
responsible.
I do not think that is good policy. I do not think that
lives up to our ideals and values as a Nation. What I would
hope we would do is do a thorough investigation of exactly what
happened, what laws were violated. Before we make any decision
about prosecuting or not prosecuting, determine what the
culpability is and what the legal avenues are. And then you
have the tough decision to make do we decide not to prosecute
because of the mitigating factors, people operated in good
faith on a legal opinion, or maybe they did not have the mens
rea.
But particularly in the case of the attorneys who wrote
these memos, the fact that they have a law degree should not
immunize them. And if there is evidence that these attorneys
knew what they were writing were flawed opinions, that they
merely sought to give a legal patina to conduct which they knew
to be violative of the criminal laws, they should not be held
immune from prosecution.
I think part of the problem--and this gets me to my first
question--part of the problem is that the last administration
had an attitude that if the Commander in Chief felt something
was necessary in the war on terror, his authority as Commander
in Chief overrode everything else. And this idea is embodied, I
think, most graphically in the March 2003 OLC opinion when the
author wrote, even if an interrogation method arguably were to
violate a criminal statute, the Justice Department could not
bring a prosecution because the statute would be
unconstitutional as applied in this context. So we can violate
criminal laws, the former administration seemed to say, as long
as it is pursuant to our authority as Commander in Chief.
And I would ask you today if you are able to disavow that
view, because that view not only affected the interrogation
issue, it also infected the surveillance issue. We heard the
same argument on surveillance. If the President says we need to
surveil people, notwithstanding what FISA says, he has the
authority as Commander in Chief. And if there is a conflict
between what he says and the laws as passed by Congress, the
laws must be unconstitutional. Can you tell us today that you
disavow that point of view?
Attorney General Holder. It is the Administration's view,
consistent with Justice Jackson's, concurring opinion in the
Youngstown Steel cases, that the President's power is at his
greatest when he is acting in a manner that is consistent with
congressional authorizations. To the extent that there is an
existing law, FISA, as you indicated, it is incumbent, in our
view, for the President to conform his conduct to that statute
unless the statute is unconstitutional. There is no basis, from
my perspective and from President Obama's perspective, to view
the FISA statute as one that was unconstitutional. And so
programs that were designed to deal with the issues that FISA
specifically was passed by Congress to deal with, efforts by
the Administration, should conform themselves to the law that
is passed by Congress.
Mr. Schiff. Would you agree that that is also more true
than ever in the context of interrogation in that if Congress
prohibits conduct which it defines as torture, the President is
not entitled to disregard that law because the President
believes that as Commander in Chief he must engage in torture,
and therefore Congress cannot prohibit it?
Attorney General Holder. It is our view that the expansive
view that the prior Administration took of the Commander in
Chief's authority is one that we will not embrace when it comes
to the question of interrogation techniques. That is one of the
reasons why the President has put me in charge of this
interrogation policy group. We will share those results with
the Members of Congress with the hope that we can come up with
techniques that are both effective, consistent with our values,
and supported by Congress. Because when that happens, the
President, the Administration, is acting with its greatest
authority.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, thank you for appearing before us
today.
PROSECUTION OF INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS
I want a quick clarification, if I could. I understood you
to testify earlier in response to Mr. Wolf's question that
essentially the Department will prosecute DOJ employees if you
determine they did not act reasonably or in accordance with DOJ
policy, and that you would prosecute intelligence officers who
did not act in good faith reliance on DOJ memos.
Attorney General Holder. No, I did not say that. I put it
in the affirmative, that those people who acted in a manner
that was consistent with Department of Justice guidance, who
relied on that guidance and acted in good faith, those would be
people who we would not prosecute or investigate.
Mr. Culberson. Right. But if they did not act in good
faith, the flip side of that is they are open to investigation
and prosecution.
Attorney General Holder. Well, there is always
prosecutorial discretion. And one has to look at the particular
facts.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. I just wanted to make sure I
understood, because what is reasonable and what is good faith
are subjective terms. And you will make that determination as
to what is reasonable and what is good faith.
Attorney General Holder. I will try to apply the law and
the facts as best I can, working with the career prosecutors
and men and women in the Justice Department in making those
kinds of determinations.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I
understood that. So you have left that door open.
DHS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT
I also wanted to ask, Mr. Holder, if I could, you work, I
know, very closely with the Department of Homeland Security. It
is essential that the Department of Justice work very closely
with the Department of Homeland Security. I serve on the
Homeland Security Subcommittee. And DOJ works arm in arm, your
law enforcement officers, with the Homeland Security officials
in attempting to identify potential threats to the people of
the United States and to our government. And I wanted to ask,
if I could, to the extent you agree or disagree with the
intelligence assessment that the Department of Homeland
Security has just put out that to attempt to identify and to
quote from--this is--as all intelligence assessments, this is
designed to help Federal, State, and--Federal, State, and local
law enforcement officials identify potential terrorist threats
and effectively deter, prevent, preempt or respond to terrorist
attacks. And in this Department of Homeland Security
intelligence assessment on right-wing extremists, the memo
identifies right-wing extremists as groups or individuals--
adherents, rather, that are mainly antigovernment, who reject
Federal authority in favor of State or local authority.
Do you agree or disagree that an individual who rejects
Federal authority in favor of State or local authority is a
right-wing extremist and subject to heightened scrutiny and
suspicion?
Attorney General Holder. Well, there is a spectrum of
people who, I think, could fit the category that you have
described. There are people who certainly disagree with tax
policies and think that certain parts of our tax system should
be made more fair, and more responsibility should be given to
the States. On the extreme end there are people who do not
recognize our Federal system and who think that the Federal
Government----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. Is illegitimate.
Mr. Culberson. You are familiar with the memo that I am
referring to. This Department of Homeland Security intelligence
assessment, Mr. Attorney General, goes on to even classify
returning veterans as potential problems that need to be
watched closely. People who purchase high volumes of weapons
and ammunition are a source of concern to Homeland Security.
The veterans. The people that--and even the memo, I think, even
goes on to say those people who oppose the administration are a
source of concern.
Do you agree or disagree with this memorandum? And if you
disagree with it, to what extent do you disagree with it? Do
you think the memo is too broad, goes too far? And in
particular, what is your reaction to the classification of
returning veterans as a potential threat to the security of the
United States? I find that just appalling and absolutely
unacceptable.
Attorney General Holder. In coming up with enforcement
policies, it seems to me we have to make individualized
determinations, to the extent we can, and when you start to
cast too broad a net, you end up with ineffective law
enforcement.
In some ways, it is the same thing you see with profiling.
You want to focus on people who are truly threats. And to the
extent that that memo is read as characterizing returning
veterans, people who have put their lives on the line to
protect our Nation, as threats clearly that is wrong.
I don't think that was the intention of the memo. If the
language used there was not as exact as it should have been, I
am sure that Secretary Napolitano would walk back from it.
Mr. Culberson. One last question on this line, because our
time is brief, and I have a second round. Are you aware of any
lists that are being developed by DOJ to identify what this
memo calls right-wing extremists who favor State and local
authority, returning veterans, people who disagree with the
administration--is there a list being developed of people like
that in your Department?
Attorney General Holder. No, not that I am aware of. As
long as I am Attorney General, that would not be the policy of
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your past service and
what I know will be excellent service in the future.
So much has been discussed already and should be discussed
in the future about the area of torture. I want to take you to
another subject, but prefacing my comments by saying that I
join my colleagues in saying that something has to be done
about what happened in the past. I know the President has said
let us put the past behind us, and I think in some ways there
are many issues that have to be left behind. This cannot be one
of them. And I take a different view from some people on this.
Notwithstanding some of our enemies who will always try to
hurt us, there are others who would use this behavior of ours,
if it goes unpunished or uninvestigated or undealt with, as
well as you know, as a recruiting tool to bring more people to
hate us.
Secondly, and this is not a frivolous or a funny remark,
but if we don't do something, there are some folks who will
never be able to travel out of this country because in other
countries there are people ready to arrest them and prosecute
them. And we have never had that kind of behavior put on us.
And so we have to pay attention to that seriously. I want to
just identify myself with the comments made before and put that
before you.
DEFINITION OF HATE CRIMES
Another area of concern that I have is during the last
administration civil rights groups and local groups complained
about the fact that the decline that existed in numbers of hate
crimes reported or dealt with by the Civil Rights Department
was just a bad situation. I see in the President's comments and
I see in your comments a desire to do something about the
border and about illegal immigration. So be it. But there is
another side to the immigration issue, and that is immigrants
who are being targeted for hate crimes in this country, that
even happen--and I say ``even''--in a city like New York, which
is known to traditionally be a pro-immigrant, very tolerant
city, and yet we saw people killed and abused and hurt
physically.
Will the Department, in its desire to deal with the border
and the immigration issue, also deal with the issue of hate
crimes and identifying this new community, if you will, that is
included in the hate crime category?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. In fact, one of the things
that we want to do is expand the Federal definition of hate
crimes. We unsuccessfully tried to do that during the Clinton
Administration. We are going to try to do that again during the
Obama Administration.
The focus should not be on the status of the victim, but on
the conduct of the perpetrator, and that is what I think good
law enforcement is all about. If a person is here
inappropriately and is nevertheless the victim of a crime, that
crime is just as serious as a crime committed upon somebody who
is a citizen of this country, and is worthy of the attention of
those of us in law enforcement.
To the extent people are being singled out because of their
ethnicity, their status, that is something that deserves
special attention and will get it from any Justice Department
that I lead.
Mr. Serrano. And I thank you for that comment.
WEAPONS CROSSING THE MEXICAN BORDER
I would also hope that we deal with probably the most
difficult issue to deal with here. President Calderon has made
it clear to us that he understands there is a serious problem
in his country and, therefore, a serious problem that spills
over on the border. But he has also told us that most of the
weapons used in Mexico in those crimes come from this country.
I am politically savvy enough to know that that is one of
the most difficult issues in this country. But there has got to
be a way that, through our leadership, we show that there is a
big difference between having a right to own a weapon--
constitutional right--and allowing people to just sell
indiscriminately these weapons that then come to haunt us,
because, as we all know, that violence is beginning to spill
over into the borders, and it is reaching other areas where
they are recruiting folks to join those gangs.
So what hope can we have that within what you are allowed
to do, within what the Department and the administration is
allowed to do, knowing the difficult waters that you travel,
that we can see something said and done about these weapons
that end up going somewhere else?
Attorney General Holder. With regard to the problem in
Mexico, what we have done with ATF, which is now a part of the
Justice Department--it wasn't when I left it--is move 100 ATF
agents to the border area to try to stop the flow of these
high-powered weapons into Mexico.
I had a chance to speak to President Calderon and Attorney
General Medina Mora during my visit there. I indicated to them
that we needed to get more information about the weapons that
they seize to have an ability to look at things as simple as
serial numbers so that we can trace those back to places they
may be bought in the United States and identify those dealers
of these guns who are problematic.
A lot of these purchases, from what we know, are made by
straw purchasers, people who come in who have an ability to buy
a weapon, but then transfer it to somebody who then takes it
south of the border.
I have also talked to Secretary Napolitano, who is coming
up with innovative ways in which searches can be done of cars
that are going across the border. We have asked our Mexican
counterparts to help us to inspect vehicles coming into Mexico
to a greater degree than they presently do, because we think
that is probably the main mechanism by which these weapons are
smuggled into Mexico.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for being here.
INTERROGATION GUIDELINES
The area that I want to get into again is torture, but I
want to talk about going forward and guidelines.
I happen to represent NSA in my district, and I am on the
Intelligence Committee with Mr. Schiff. When we were debating
the FISA issue, I felt, and a lot of us felt, very strongly--
and we were glad that we were able to prevail--that we needed
the court involved, the checks and balances. Our forefathers
created a great system of government, and it has worked for us
for a long time, and that is the checks and balances between
administration, judiciary, and Congress.
The issue, though, about going forward and with the
torture, though, as it relates to the CIA and NSA or any
military whatever is the front line. These are really
courageous men and women that are all over the world. They are
in all of these different countries, and their job, especially
in the CIA, as an example, is to collect and to get
information, and that information is analyzed and then goes to
the President or whatever decisionmakers are there.
They are subjected, though, to the orders and the rules and
regulations and standards from the top. It all stops at the
top.
I would hope that when you are evaluating the issue we are
talking about with torture now, that whatever you come up with,
and that you do come up with, with strict guidelines so that
the men and women in the front line know exactly what the rules
and regulations are, and they would not receive orders to do
something that they don't know.
Now, you said that you are only going to move forward with
the consent--if they are doing their job consistent with the
Department of Justice guidelines and upholding fundamental
American principles, that you are not going to move forward.
And that is your call as the Attorney General.
But I think we have to really focus on strict guidelines
now which would go into training. When our CIA people go out
into the world to protect us, they are trained, and they
receive orders, and they follow those orders. Of course, a lot
of these people or the people that work for us--thank God for
this--they are some of the best in what they do in the world,
and they are very intelligent, and they should know right and
wrong. But when it comes to the gray areas, that is where there
is a problem.
So I would hope we could work with you, those of us on the
Intelligence Committee, these different committees, Judiciary,
whatever, to make sure that those are guidelines that will
never be another Abu Ghraib, and we never have to deal with the
issue we are dealing with now.
The other thing is that we always have a change in
administrations, and the new President will bring in their
people. And we have different policies, different ways that a
President will look at governing. And the President has the
opportunity, subject to the Senate a lot, to have their own
people.
But in this situation I would hope that you would look in
your investigation, which I would hope that you could use so we
can set these guidelines in the future, the role of political
appointees. We have, as you know, in the Justice Department--I
think you have been there for a lot--we have career prosecutors
or career people that work in Justice. But then you have the
political appointees that every President does bring in. And I
would hope that you could look and see how far where it goes.
Were these political appointees involved; were they involved
and given orders to make something happen, and then that all of
a sudden, because that is where the mandate or that is the
ruling, that then that means it's open season?
Because if you look at torture, torture doesn't really get
us any more information. There could be a case or two. Most of
the time, from what we understand, is that when someone is
tortured, they will tell you whatever they want, or, in an al
Qaeda situation, they will be trained to deal with that. Abu
Ghraib set us back in terrorism for a long time.
So my point, and then I would like you to respond--I know I
am asking a long question--but how do you see your
investigation with respect to where we are now? And the end
game, I would hope, would be strict guidelines that everyone
can understand, and that we make sure that if there is a
violation of those guidelines, then there should be
retribution.
Attorney General Holder. Congressman, I think you raise a
very good point that I hope will be the outcome of the effort
with regard to those two task forces--the detention task force
as well as the interrogation task force. The interrogation task
force is looking at the Army Field Manual to make a
determination if that is sufficient to have the abilities that
we need to get information, good, useful information, from our
adversaries, or are there things beyond that that we need to
do.
Our hope would be that we will come up with some
conclusions that we will share with the Congress, and with the
American people. Undoubtedly, we would respond in a hearing
setting to what we have found, with the hope that we can come
up with good interrogation techniques that can be supported by
the Nation, that are effective, and that ultimately are the
bright lines that you talk about, so that everybody will know
these are the techniques that are acceptable; and if you go
beyond that, you do so at your peril.
We owe that, it seems to me, to the people in the field who
do these very dangerous things oftentimes--and I think the
point you make is a very good one--too often without sufficient
guidance from those of us who are the heads of their
organizations. That is one of the things that we are bound and
determined to try to end with the formation of these two task
forces, and then the sharing of the information, the findings
of those task forces.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
IMMIGRATION CASE REVIEWS
Welcome. Quite a few items have been already discussed. And
I appreciate your comments on the drug courts and the items
around legal orientation programs, and hopefully that will
continue to grow, and the training for immigration judges that
your office will look at, and engaging NGOs as part of the
training for a more precise training program.
The question I had is something that has been bothering me
for 8 or 9 years, is the folks who are caught in the
immigration system where an INS officer who was involved in
graft and corruption, giving out green cards to contractors who
were in cahoots with them, they being dealt with through the
legal system and being tried and sentenced. But when the
cardholders, who are supposedly the customers of the
contractors--in this case, I think about 250 individuals and
families--when they came back for renewals, they ended up being
put into a deportation process under this last administration,
and, through no fault of their own, they became victims again.
Is there any work and any effort being placed in reviewing
some of these cases where there may be some remediation of
administration decisions to either return them back to their
original status or review them quickly and making sure that the
9 years that they spent waiting for this process to go through
would be terminated or at least come to some finalization?
These folks have just been suffering for 8 or 9 years,
putting their lives on hold, and it just seems to be patently
unfair. And we have not been able to get a response from the
last administration. We are going to be sending a letter to you
requesting that consideration.
Is that something that your office is looking at or would
be willing to spend some time so that we can bring some justice
to some of these folks?
Attorney General Holder. Congressman, that is not something
that I am familiar with, but I would be more than glad to look
at the letter that you say you are going to send and examine
the situation. To the extent that people were acting in good
faith and were taken advantage of, I certainly want to look at
all the facts.
Mr. Honda. I would expect that.
Attorney General Holder. I would be more than glad to look
at that, and I promise you I will respond to you with what we
think we can do in that situation.
Mr. Honda. That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PRISON REFORM
If you could give me an update on prison rape. Bobby Scott
and I authored the bill on prison rape. I sense a delay in the
Justice Department. If somebody could come up and tell us what
the status of that is.
Secondly, there was a little bit of inconsistency in your
statement when you talked about--I have worked in prison
reform, and I agree with you about keeping young kids out of
prison. But this administration opposing the D.C. vouchers is
an inconsistency. Quite frankly, my daughter worked in the
Community of Hope at 14th and Belmont for 5 years. I have
talked to some of these young people who are going to these
schools. You are splitting families up, you are dividing
families. A sister may be in a school, and a young brother may
not be able to go to school.
If you really care about these young people, you will do
what the Washington Post has recommended. For this
administration to look at this--and for you, particularly you--
you live in the District of Columbia. You are a man of wealth.
You can send your children to great schools, and that is fine.
That is wonderful. My five kids went to public schools. But I
think wherever any parent wants their kids to go.
But do not negate the opportunity for these young kids that
live in the inner city. I have spoken to many of them that tell
me they have been beaten up in school. I had a daughter that
taught at Eckington Gage. And some of the life stories there.
So if you want to really make a difference to do what you
said, to keep young people out of prisons, then you have this
administration support the voucher program where young kids in
the inner city can go to private schools.
Having said that, amen. Let me ask you the question here.
Will you meet with the families of the loved ones who were
involved in 9/11, as I put in my statement?
Attorney General Holder. I am sorry, I didn't hear that.
Mr. Wolf. Will you meet with the families of those who lost
individuals, loved ones, in the 9/11 attacks, and also those
families who have lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including someone like Daniel Pearl's family----
Attorney General Holder. Sure. In fact----
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Before you make any decisions?
Attorney General Holder. Sure.
Mr. Wolf. That is enough.
Attorney General Holder. I was going to say that Daniel
Pearl's widow was represented by my law firm, and I met her in
private practice.
Mr. Wolf. I think the ones from my congressional district
and all the others. Mrs. Burlingame. All of them, I think. I
appreciate that.
Attorney General Holder. That is fair. That is fine.
GUANTANAMO DETAINEE TRIALS
Mr. Wolf. For those who may be transferred for U.S.
prosecution, where do you think such trials will be held, and
how long do you envision the trials to go on? Moussaoui was in
Alexandria for 4 to 4\1/2\ years. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who
has said what he has done, lawyers who know tell me he could be
there for 4 to 5, to even longer perhaps.
How long do you think these trials would go, and where are
you now looking to hold the trials?
Attorney General Holder. We have not made any decisions yet
about where the trials would be held. That is part of the
process that we are going through, to first identify how large
that universe of people will be who we have to try, and then
make determinations about whether they will be tried in Article
3 courts, military courts, or in some other proceeding. But no
decisions have been made yet as to where those proceedings
would occur.
Mr. Wolf. The system of military tribunals was designed to
avoid the difficulties inherent in civilian trials. If the
military is trusted to run a system of justice good enough for
a 19-year-old service person who may have crossed the line, why
should somebody, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, get a better
opportunity than, say, a 19-year-old military person who has
crossed the line and faces it through the military system?
Attorney General Holder. I have great faith in our system
of justice and its ability to hold accountable those who have
committed the most heinous acts. My faith in that system means
that it is capable of handling in a fair way the 19-year-old
who you describe or somebody as awful as Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed.
The system and how we deal with those people, let's say
those people at different ends of that spectrum, says a lot
about who we are as Americans; and it seems to me that if we
have faith in that system, as I do, we should have confidence
that that system can handle in a fair way Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed and deal with him appropriately.
Mr. Wolf. But with due deference, that was not the
question. The question was: If you were to treat a 19-year-old
military personnel who crossed the line in a military court,
why would you then give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian
court a higher status, if you will?
Attorney General Holder. I don't necessarily agree with
that premise. I don't think that.
Mr. Wolf. Well, discovery and things like that. Are you
going to call servicemen back in off the field?
The other question was: For those who stand trial in the
U.S. courts, if they were not apprehended by law enforcement
officials, do we run the risk of having the evidence against
them deemed inadmissible? Will we release them?
I led the first delegation to Afghanistan. Our young men
and women who were there--and also in Iraq--were doing
incredible things. They were not necessarily operating under
the same Miranda standards as somebody would in the city of
Philadelphia, the city of Washington, D.C. That is kind of what
I am talking about.
So do you run the risk of having the evidence against them
deemed inadmissible, and would they be released no matter how
dangerous they are?
Attorney General Holder. The systems that I think that we
will use or have to put in place will be ones that will be
fair, that will be consistent with our notions of due process,
and that ultimately will protect the American people.
I don't want anybody to leave with the misimpression that
somehow, some way we are going to be soft on people who are
responsible for the horrors of 9/11. They are going to be held
accountable. But we will do so in a way that is consistent with
who we are as Americans.
George Washington--it was interesting. I gave a speech at
West Point, I guess, last week. He said after the Victory at
Trenton on Christmas--and I should know the year, but I don't--
he told his troops that the British soldiers who were captured
had to be treated in a certain way even though our soldiers
were not being treated in an appropriate way by the British.
So even our Founding Father, one of our greatest
Presidents, realized that what makes this country great is that
ability to do what was done back in the 1700s, and what I am
bound and determined to do in the 21st century with regard to
even people as reprehensible as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GUANTANAMO DETAINEE STATUS
I want to follow up on my colleague's question. And, Mr.
Attorney General, we had a chance to talk about the detainee
issue a couple of weeks ago. I guess I would phrase it a little
differently than my colleague, but much along the same
thinking, and that is that I think the military courts martial
are really the best venue for proceedings involving the vast
majority of the detainees. There may be some--and, ironically,
it may be some like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--who you decide to
try in a district court for other reasons, because you want an
even more public venue.
But I think for balancing the national security needs, as
well as the due process concerns, the military courts have got
a history longer than our country has been around of doing that
very well. And I like the idea, frankly, of being able to hold
up to the rest of the world and say, much as my colleague said,
but in reverse, that we are giving the same due process to
these people accused of acts of terror that we give to our own
troops who are brought up on court martial charges.
I have introduced a bill along these lines, and I would
love to share it with my colleague. And I have talked with many
of your staff about it. One of the features of it, though, in
addition to trying most of these people in military courts
martial, is a threshold question, and that is: Are you going to
be relying on the status determinations that were made under
the prior flawed regime?
There are two determinations that have to be made: One, are
they unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents; and,
two, if they are, should we prosecute them, and where?
But on that threshold question I would say that the prior
proceedings were so flawed that they need to be redone. That
threshold decision has to be remade about whether they are, in
fact, unprivileged combatants. And I think that you can use the
military courts martial and modify the UCMJ for that purpose.
And I have got a bill that accomplishes that.
My question is: Do you believe that you will have to redo
the status determinations, or do you intend to accept status
determinations made under the tribunals that were set up by the
Bush administration?
Attorney General Holder. We are actually making new
determinations. We are looking at all of the people who are at
Guantanamo, taking a fresh look. With regard to those who the
prior administration said could be released, we are looking at
those as well to make sure that in applying the standards we
think are applicable, we are being uniform in making those
determinations. And so all of the people are being examined.
Mr. Schiff. I can ask more specifically though. I know you
are doing a case-by-case determination. But in those cases
where you decide you are not going to send them elsewhere, and
that they are going to be tried, the threshold determination
that has to be made is are they an unlawful belligerent. And
will you be adopting what the Bush tribunal's conclusion was,
or will you be establishing a tribunal to make that decision de
novo?
Attorney General Holder. I think as we make the individual
determinations for that group of people who should be tried, we
will decide where they should be tried. It could be in Article
3 courts, it could be under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, a great system, or it could be under military
tribunals that would be different from those that were
previously in place--that would have, from my perspective,
greater due process components.
Mr. Schiff. Let me just take this another way, and that is
there is a separate question from where will they be tried, and
that is the question of are they unprivileged belligerents to
begin with. If they are not unprivileged belligerents--if they
are prisoners of wars, for example, they are immune from
prosecution as a prisoner of war in most circumstances. But if
they are an unprivileged combatant under the laws of war, they
can be prosecuted.
The Bush administration had tribunals that decided that
they were unlawful combatants, but they were terribly flawed.
Once they got through the tribunals, then they were brought
before military commissions, where some of them were
prosecuted, mostly without success, and overturned by the
courts. But that first decision still needs to be made. On
anyone that you don't want to send back to their home country
or release, I think the decision still has to be made: Are they
an unlawful combatant.
That is not an issue of whether it goes to--well, the
threshold question, I guess, is: Do you accept any of the
determinations made by the Bush administration? And I will just
advocate here: I would suggest that you don't.
I would suggest that on the question of whether they are
unprivileged, that that should be reviewed de novo by a more
competent tribunal. And then the decision should be made where
do they get prosecuted.
So I would just commend that to you and thank you again for
your diligence on this.
Attorney General Holder. I have tried to say that I think I
agree with what you are saying; that we will be making new
determinations, both with regard to what courts they are to be
tried in and what their status is. We are not, for instance,
using the term ``enemy combatant'' anymore. We indicated that
in a court filing a couple of weeks ago.
So that the determinations that we are making are on the
basis of a fresh look that we are taking, and based on the
evidence we can get from the various agencies that are involved
in this process. That fresh look really starts from the
beginning and goes all the way through.
I hope I answered your question.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Lewis.
DETENTION SECURITY
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think the Attorney
General has been very generous with his time. I am not going to
take any more of his time, but I believe my friend Frank Wolf
wants to use a bit of my time to clarify the same line of
questions that he was involved in earlier.
Mr. Wolf. I thank the Chairman.
This is an issue that I care deeply about, and I am not
going to let it go. We are going to stay with it. I can still
remember the people ridiculing us when we wanted to pass the
National Commission on Terror.
Let me ask you this question: I have been led to believe--
and there was a report here with regard to the other trials. It
says here, ``Earlier trials of terrorists in the U.S.
demonstrated the necessity for extraordinary security resources
that would be needed if some of those at Guantanamo are
transferred here. Newsday and the Buffalo News reported that
during the 1995 trial in New York of Omar Abdul Rahman''--
Sheikh Rahman--``mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center
bombing,'' then they go on to say, ``There were signals going
back and forth.'' And you remember his attorney was taking
information out.
Where you hold these people is very, very important. And I
wanted to ask you to tell us a little bit about that, when they
come here to the United States and after the disposition of the
trials.
Secondly, are you aware of--you remember Officer Pepe who
was stabbed in the eye? Do you remember that case? ``There were
also indications here,'' it said here, ``that in many cases
that the capturers were given word by their colleagues that
they would work to free them. In addition, during the 2000
trial of Mahmud Salim, one of the terrorists accused in the
1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, he stabbed New York
prison guard Pepe in the eye during an escape attempt.
``Al Qaeda saw the rights given to its members to meet with
counsel as an opportunity to carry out a violent escape
attempt. Mr. Salim was one of the original followers of Osama
bin Laden and the highest-ranking member held in the U.S. at
that time.''
It goes on to say, ``In addition to trying to escape from
prison, al Qaeda members have communicated with confederates
while in prison. It is my understanding that El Sayyid Nosair
was involved in plotting the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
while in custody at Attica State Prison. And, in addition,
Osama bin Laden has publicly credited Sheikh Abdul Rahman with
issuing the fatwa that approved the 9/11 attacks while he was
in Federal prison, despite the high-security confinement
conditions imposed on him.'' It emerged later that, with the
assistance of his lawyer, Rahman continued to send
instructional messages.
If you recall, on the bombing of the trains in Spain, there
was actually communication from some of the terrorists that
were in American prisons. Because I was Chairman of this
committee, and we then set up a program that you now have in
the prison department to read the mail to make sure that there
are not any communications.
So it is a long issue, and I am not going to ask you to get
into it now, but I want you to tell us how precisely this is
going to work. I met with your team the other day. Some of
them, I thought, were good. Others I left without having the
best feeling. One person didn't even know some of the most
elementary things that I thought for somebody to be head of the
team that he would have known. He didn't even know about it. I
am not going to put you in a spot.
Does al Qaeda have a policy that they will try to release
the people if they are in prison? If so, if they are in
Alexandria in an urban area, that is not very, very good.
And so there are a whole series of questions, and they are
all in the letter. And I think out of deference to you--and I
am not trying to ask you a question that you don't know--would
you look at this thing carefully? I would like to talk to you
and your team about all of these.
And I would ask you to go down to Alexandria, and I know
you have been to the courthouse. Go to the courthouse and walk
out and look around and try to get somebody to give you an
overview of how conditions were there when the Moussaoui trial
took place.
The other question that I have, if I can, is would you
update us on what the Department plans to do with growing gang
violence? I was the author of provisions setting up the
Intelligence Gang Section over at the FBI now. Can you bring us
an update on gang violence in this Nation? Do you expect MS-
13--is it growing, is it diminishing? What is the impact with
regard to gangs in the United States now, and what are your
expectations for this summer?
Attorney General Holder. With regard to the question of
where these trials might take place, as I said previously, no
decision has been made. But the concerns that you raise are
legitimate ones. You need not apologize for raising them. We
are not naive. We understand the people we are dealing with. We
understand that they are a part of a worldwide group that wants
to do us harm.
As Deputy Attorney General, I signed a number of Special
Administrative Measures to try to ensure that certain steps
were taken to minimize the possibility that a particular
prisoner could have any influence, any impact, outside of the
prison in which that person was kept. And we would obviously
take into account the danger that person presented, that
person's role in the organization, that person's ability or
desire to try to communicate with others who are maybe not in
this country, and come up with a way in which we try these
people in a way that it is safe for the environment for the
jurisdiction in which it occurs. We have to be sensitive to
that.
The questions that you have asked are the very ones that we
will be asking ourselves as we try to make this decision about
where these trials might occur; to put these trials in places
where we think we are most capable of ensuring that the
surrounding areas will be kept safe. This will be a primary
concern that we will have.
GANG VIOLENCE
Mr. Wolf. MS-13; gangs. You didn't answer. MS-13 gang
violence, what are you doing, what is your program?
Mr. Obey. Briefly, please.
Attorney General Holder. If you look at the crime rate, it
has gone down pretty dramatically over the past few years. An
exception to that is the violence that we see in a lot of
communities with regard to gangs. There are task forces that
have been set up within the Federal investigative agencies
within the Justice Department to deal with the special problems
that gangs present, and we will be giving that special
attention.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Following through on the issue of gangs,
I think a lot of what needs to be done--and we have been
working on with this committee, and Congressman Wolf has
probably been the leader in MS-13, Crips, Bloods, whatever--but
there is a new strike force concept, which seems to be a
positive concept, and a lot of things we do to fight terrorism
or crime generally.
We know there have been serious gang problems in
California. Now we have a lot of that on the east coast in the
greater Washington area. There has been established a gang
strike force from Philadelphia to North Carolina, including
West Virginia, with technology and getting real-time
information. But what has been very successful there is that it
is Federal, State and local.
I am wondering if you are aware of this, or if you could
try to prioritize, because we are having children in middle
school now being recruited for gangs. Normally, the situation
with a gang is that the gang becomes their family because their
family life isn't any better.
Attorney General Holder. The gang problem is not one that
is going to be solved by the Federal Government, alone. It is
going to have to be solved by an effort that involves our State
and local partners.
We just had a summit meeting of State and local law
enforcement at the Justice Department 3 days ago. It is part of
my attempt to reach out to our compatriots, our colleagues on
the State and local side and establish ties that, frankly, I
think have frayed in the past few years, and get back to what I
think existed in the 1990s where the relationship between those
of us here in Washington on the Federal side and our State and
local partners was seen as a more productive one.
The gang problem is something that the Federal Government
can help because we have unique tools that can be used, be they
electronic surveillance, other kinds----
Mr. Ruppersberger. And more money.
Attorney General Holder. And more money. That is true. And
the budget is there for that. But there is a knowledge base
that exists on the State and local side, especially the local
side, that is particularly useful in trying to identify what
gangs are into what activities, who are the leaders of these
gangs. There is intelligence that you can get from the local
side and from the State side that has to be a part of this
process.
States can't do it by themselves; local jurisdictions can't
do it by themselves; the Federal Government, we can't do it by
ourselves.
FBI NATIONAL SECURITY BRANCH
Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to get into another area: the
national security branch, which is basically the FBI, going
more into the intelligence business. We know the CIA does not
have jurisdiction within the United States. Again, intelligence
is sometimes the best defense against terrorism and other
crimes.
I know that the FBI is standing up a national security
branch. But the FBI for years, since the Elliott Ness days, has
been arrest, convict, and investigate. When you are in
intelligence, you are really collecting and analyzing. It is
almost a different profession.
But it has taken a while for the FBI to stand up this
national security branch. I think in the last year they have
made a lot of progress. Part of it is to have that career path,
kind of like in a fire department, where you have the
suppression side, and you have the paramedic side.
Are you working on or are you aware of the national
security branch? Where do you see it going right now? Because
they do need financial support.
Attorney General Holder. The FBI, when you are dealing with
gangs that are of national reach, MS-13, Crips, Bloods----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am also talking terrorism now, too;
more so at the national security branch with the issue of
terrorism.
Attorney General Holder. The FBI really has transformed
itself from the agency that was there when I left government,
say, in 2001. It is, I believe, in a way that it was not
before, a national security agency in that it has as a primary
mission the gathering of intelligence, the analysis of
intelligence.
I go at 8:30 every morning to meet with the FBI Director,
members of the CIA, members from other agencies, where we go
over the past 24 hours' intelligence, and that is a primary
role now.
Mr. Ruppersberger. One other thing now is JTTF, the Joint
Terrorism Task Force, which, I believe, and everyone takes
credit for not having another attack. I think one of the major
issues domestically is the Joint Terrorism Task Force, where
the FBI coordinates it basically, but you have ICE, you have
NSA, CIA, State and local not only collecting information,
getting information from the CIA on bad guys that might be
coming over into the United States, and I think as they have
grown, we have a lot more of JTTFs all over the country right
now.
I would hope you would focus on that and make sure that
they continue to get the funding that they need, because they
have been very effective.
Here is another example of what I talked about in my first
line of questioning of making sure that those collectors have
the guidelines that are necessary, and to make sure that there
are not mistakes made like the one with Napolitano or whatever,
which I am sure was just a mistake, but these are things that
really take our eye off the ball.
Attorney General Holder. I would agree with you that the
Joint Terrorism Task Forces are particularly effective and will
be supported.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPERATION STREAMLINE
Mr. Attorney General, in my 5 minutes I wanted to bring to
your attention on behalf of my colleagues in Texas that
represent the southern border a very successful program that is
a win-win that you may not be aware of. It is called Operation
Streamline. And we do need your help, the support of the
Department, in expanding it up and down the river. It is a
truly successful program supported by the local community.
It has had tremendous results in bringing down the crime
rate. In the Del Rio sector, crime rates have dropped by over
70 percent. They have had a 60 percent drop in the crime rate
in the Laredo sector. The level of illegal crossings in Laredo
and Del Rio are at the lowest level since they began to keep
records, which is astonishing. And the Val Verde County jail,
which contracts with the Marshal Service, actually has
vacancies in it. That is a result, again, that the certainty of
swift and sure punishment has led people to try to attempt to
cross the border elsewhere.
And I am working with my colleagues, Ciro Rodriguez and
Henry Cuellar, and Congressman Solomon Ortiz. We are working
with him to extend this into the Rio Grande Valley. I wanted to
be sure to bring it to your attention and work with whoever on
your staff that you could designate to help us on this
committee.
But we are working together in a bipartisan way to get this
program extended up and down the entire southern border. It is
essentially enforcing existing law, the existing criminal
statute. It is up to 6 months in jail for crossing the border
illegally. But obviously being prosecutorial discretion, law
enforcement officers using their good judgment, some folks get
a few days, some folks a few weeks, and then they are deported.
The program is very, very successful.
There is also, Mr. Attorney General, wildly different
levels of enforcement up and down the southern border. In Texas
in Del Rio and Laredo, the arrest rate is over 90 percent,
nearing 100 percent in some areas. In the Yuma sector they also
have the Operation Streamline program in place. Again, the
crime rate has plummeted. It is very successful, very popular
locally.
Right next door in the Tucson, Arizona, sector is where I
am going to really need your help. The local U.S. attorney who
was there before, and she is no longer there, refuses to
prosecute most of the cases. The Border Patrol has provided
numbers, which we can share with your staff, that 99.6 percent
of the people arrested by the Border Patrol in the Tucson
sector are never prosecuted, and they are generally home in
time for dinner, even if they are carrying a load of up to 500
pounds.
We asked the Border Patrol agents how long did it take the
smugglers to get the memo, so to speak, that if you carried
less than 500 pounds, you weren't going to be prosecuted? They
said it was about 48 hours. These guys are no dummies.
And the judges are ready to help you in that sector. We
have got the cooperation of the Border Patrol. I know the
subcommittee is ready to help. It is a bipartisan effort. We
are really going to need your help to focus the attention of
whoever the new U.S. attorney is in that sector to make sure
that the law is enforced there, obviously in accordance with
what your local capacity needs are. But, in any event, I want
to put it on your radar screen.
I look forward to working you, sir. And if you can
designate someone on your staff to work with us. And I want to
ask if you would support the expansion of that very successful
program and work with us to help in a bipartisan way to see it
is extended up and down the border.
Attorney General Holder. I have read a lot about
Streamline, and I agree with you that it has had some pretty
remarkable success. It is interesting that Streamline is
different as you go from one part of the border to another; the
same basic concept, but it really has different versions.
One of the concerns I have about it is that I don't think
we have given enough attention to the downstream impact of
Streamline in terms of detention capacity and court capacity to
try the cases that it generates.
That doesn't mean it is not a good idea, it just means if
we are really going to do it, we really ought to do it and
support it so that we can make sure that it is as successful as
it possibly can be.
Mr. Culberson. I have got a lot of information on this. I
look forward to working with you.
INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
I have just got a couple of minutes left, but I want to
tell you that there are vacancy--do I have 1 minute left?
Let me ask Mr. Holder, if I could, could you explain your
own personal position, the position of the Department of
Justice, on whether the D.C. V. Heller case was correctly
decided, and do American citizens have an individual right to
keep and bear arms under the second amendment?
Attorney General Holder. Under our system of laws, the
Supreme Court has spoken, and they indicated that the second
amendment does confer an individualized right. As a law
enforcement officer, as a lawyer, I am bound to follow what the
Supreme Court has said.
Mr. Culberson. So the Department will support that opinion
and not seek to overturn it?
Attorney General Holder. I don't think there is a basis to
try to overturn it. The Supreme Court has spoken.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TIAHRT AMENDMENT
Again, thank you for your time and your insights. I have
three questions regarding the trace data restrictions. I
applaud you and President Obama for the administration's pledge
to repeal the Tiahrt amendment, which is on your urban policy
agenda. You know that the Tiahrt amendment restricts the
ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace
information and give police officers across the Nation the
tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight illegal arms
trade.
So one question is: Can you talk about the administration's
commitment to repealing these restrictions, and will the
administration's budget recommendations include reform of the
Tiahrt amendment?
The second one is: The reason that was given not to repeal
the amendment is that the restrictions protect the identities
of Federal undercover law enforcements, and I believe that
President Obama as a Senator, when he cosponsored with Senator
Menendez, their bill had taken care of that, to allow the ATF
to withhold specific trace information if it identifies any
undercover law enforcement officer.
I was just curious whether you believe that these
protections could deal with the hypothetical risks posed by
removing these restrictions.
The third is the background check record destruction. The
third key element of the Tiahrt amendment is a requirement that
the FBI destroy firearms background check records within 24
hours of a completed transaction. I have a concern about that
short timeline. And I believe that past administrations have
maintained 180 days, reduced to about 90, and then the Tiahrt
would say within 24 hours.
Director Mueller of the FBI had testified in 2007 that he
believed that there should have been a more substantial period
of time relative to these records being kept. Do you agree with
the Director Mueller's comments, and what would be, in your
opinion, a reasonable amount of time?
Attorney General Holder. Let me go through those. The
administration is in the process of finalizing its position on
the Tiahrt amendment, and we will be setting forth the
administration's position when we submit the 2010 budget. I
think it is our view, though, that we are concerned about the
impact that the amendment has had on the ability to share
information that is needed by State and local authorities.
The second question with regard to protecting informants, I
think there are ways--if the administration decides to support
repeal--that those concerns can be dealt with so that the
information sharing does not put anybody at risk.
Then with regard to the question of records and the amount
of time that they are kept, I would agree with the Director
that the period that we now have is a little short. I am not
sure where that number ought to be set, but I think there ought
to be some period of time that would give law enforcement an
opportunity to do its job, while respecting the concerns that
people might have as a result of the second amendment.
I don't think there is necessarily a tension there, just a
question of figuring out where we set that number.
Mr. Honda. These amendments and the destruction of records
so quickly, is there a role, if any, played in the availability
of these arms being traded over the border in our efforts to
combat the drug cartels and the incidence of so many firearms?
The consul general from Mexico in my area says that these high-
powered arms are more relevant and more prevalent among the
gangsters than among law enforcement. And I was wondering
whether these kinds of information are necessary and play a
part in the inability or the difficulty of tracing these arms.
Attorney General Holder. I think that if we had a longer
period of time, we probably could be more effective in doing
that tracing. That was a particular concern as I talked to
Attorney General Mora. He indicated about 63 percent of the
guns that they are getting in Mexico now are high-powered
assault weapons, and that is going up pretty dramatically from
where it was a few years before.
And so anything that we can do to help our Mexican
counterparts in that regard I think is appropriate, although I
think it also has potential benefit for law enforcement on our
side of the border as well.
SALES OF ARMS AT GUN SHOWS
Mr. Honda. A related question relative to gun shows and the
sales of arms at gun shows, and the restrictions or the
regulations we put behind the sales of firearms at gun shows.
Are they different from the requirements that we have for
retail sources who are selling arms in the stores? If they are
the same, I would like to know that. If they are not, why not?
And is there a role that your office can play in bringing some
consistency so that it appears that these guns over the border
appear to come from particular States that have certain rules
that maybe could be more consistent?
Attorney General Holder. The rules are different with
regard to the sale of weapons by federally licensed firearms
dealers and at least some who can sell weapons at gun shows. I
think that is a question that we in law enforcement, in
conjunction with people in the advocacy community, need to talk
about and see if there are ways in which we can reach a middle
ground, something that I think will benefit those of us who are
in law enforcement trying to do a job while being respectful of
the second amendment rights that everybody in this Nation has.
It would seem to me that a dialog between many of us in law
enforcement and those, for instance, at the NRA--I am just
picking that organization--it might be a good thing to sit down
and talk about these issues and see if there is a way in which
we can resolve them, respecting the concerns that they have and
the concerns that we have. Too often there is conversation and
shouting at each other without any kind of meaningful dialog.
So I think that is at least a possibility.
Mr. Obey. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. It is an honor to have you.
Thank you for your service to our country.
REDUCING RECIDIVISM
Last year, the Urban Institute's Policy Center released a
study on drug courts titled: To Treat Or Not to Treat: Evidence
on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment to Drug-Involved
Offenders.
I know you spoke earlier a little bit about expanding the
budget for drug courts. What are your efforts going to be to
ensure proper funding for our Nation's drug courts in fiscal
2010 in order to serve the estimated 1.2 million individuals
identified in the study that the Urban Institute was citing
from their model? And, in doing so, what do you think the
Justice Department should be doing more in that effort to
reduce recidivism in the context of the Second Chance Act and
in the context of dealing with the mentally ill in our prisons,
specifically, for example, making sure that they get their
medications when they are about to be released so that they
don't end up self-medicating when they get released?
As you know, they don't even get on Medicaid when they get
released, and that forces many of them to go out and self-
medicate. It is a vicious cycle.
I would encourage you to look at that piece of legislation.
It was previously sponsored by Julia Carson out of
Indianapolis. I am proud to sponsor it today. But I would love
to get you to look at it.
DNA ANALYSIS
Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that, one of the things that
has always boggled my mind in terms of Justice is the fact that
we have this backlog of rape kits. You know, we never get
caught up in our DNA testing. You know, the American public
watches CSI, you know, Miami, CSI New York, they watch all
these things, and they assume that all of our departments and
all of our DOJ is just--you know, we got the most modern
laboratories, and we are just doing all these great tests on
forensic evidence all the time. If they only knew, if they only
knew how many crimes are going unsolved in this country simply
because these DNA tests were sitting on the shelves, but for
the lack of money to just do the test. And if we simply did the
test, we could actually solve crimes, literally solve crimes,
because we have done the DNA tests on all these other criminals
who have come into our judicial system from around the country.
Now we are requiring it for all these prisoners around the
country in their prison systems. And if at the very least we
could just match existing DNA samples with people that are
already in prison for other crimes, you would bring closure to
those victims. But what happens? We are letting them sit out
there. A lot of this material is becoming degredated so it is
not becoming useful for future testing.
How in the world can we justify the lack of funding for
these rape kits? And how can we justify lack of funding for
recidivism reduction in things like drug courts and paying for
medication for the mentally ill, which we know is going to mean
they are going to be less mentally ill coming back to prison?
Attorney General Holder. You raise a lot of good points.
And actually, I was trying to find the numbers. They have now
been shared with me. There is in this budget $150 million for
DNA analysis and related programs. And you are right, there is
a substantial amount of DNA evidence that really sits, for
instance, in the FBI that has not been analyzed.
As a D.C. resident, at least one of the things I would
point out is about a third of that comes from Washington, D.C.,
where we have been trying to get funding for our own forensic
crime lab so that we would have an ability to do that and take
that off the hands of the FBI. There is also $60 million in the
budget for drug courts for next year, an expansion of a program
that worked well here in Washington, D.C. I had personal
experience with it when I was the U.S. attorney.
And you have touched on something that I think is a really
troubling thing that I saw as a judge when I was here in D.C. I
saw substantial numbers of people who had mental issues and who
were in the criminal justice system, and they were clearly in
the wrong place. There is no dispute that they had committed
petty crimes, but they were clearly in the wrong place and not
getting the kind of treatment that they needed.
And so I think we as a Nation have to understand that and
look at who is in the jail for what reason, and expand the
resources for those who have mental issues. It is something
that, again, if we spend that money there, we will actually
save money, I think, over the long haul, and use our limited
criminal resources for people who truly deserve to be there.
JUVENILE DETENTION
Mr. Kennedy. Well, if I could, I would also like to press
you on the case of kids in jail. In Rhode Island we just put a
16-year-old into an adult corrections institution. Now, granted
it was for a murder, but, I mean, even if he committed murder,
there is no reason why anywhere in this country a child ought
to be housed with an adult, period. I do not know, what is your
opinion on that?
Attorney General Holder. Yes, there are instances, rare
instances, where the prosecution of juveniles or people less
than 18 years of age can be tried appropriately as adults. But
in terms of how they are housed in the criminal justice system
while they are awaiting trial or while they are serving
sentences, they should be kept separate. It is simply not
appropriate to mix those two populations.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, maybe we could work together on trying
to make sure that we make that stipulation to States; if they
expect to receive juvenile justice dollars, that they are not
mixing kids with adults. We know that those kids are going to
come out psychologically damaged and worse offenders if they go
in with adults at all.
And I might add, I do not know what we are doing in this
country when we have 2,500 kids who have been handed down life
without parole. That is an indictment on this country. These
are kids that have not even reached their 18th birthday. And
all neuroscientists will tell you their frontal lobe has not
even been fully developed.
And we are saying, you know, three strikes and you are out.
They are already out, and they have not even been able to get
to first base in life. It is a pretty sad indictment on our
country. I mean, I think those three strikes are on us as a
society for not coming up with a better mousetrap.
And I guarantee you when I was up in the juvenile
correction hall in my State, three-quarters of the kids, when I
asked them if their parents were in jail at the time that they
were there, they put their hands up.
This is not a mystery where these kids come from. And why
we do not think that early intervention should not make more of
a difference, and we are just waiting for a lot of these
tragedies to take place, and we know how to do better, and yet
we do not do it.
Do you think you are going to do more with the JPTA program
and JABG and juvenile justice moneys that you have in your
budget? Are you going to focus a lot on kids as Attorney
General?
Attorney General Holder. Yes. It was one of the things that
I focused on when I was Deputy Attorney General, and we focused
on a program that we started called Children Exposed to
Violence, and the impact that had on kids, and how, when they
are victimized or when they see violence, they are much more
likely to become victims of violence when they are adults,
which I thought was very interesting, and then also much more
likely to commit crimes.
And so, that is something that I really want to focus on.
It is something I hope I will leave as a legacy as Attorney
General, focusing on that prevention side----
Mr. Kennedy. Great.
Attorney General Holder [continuing]. So that we keep kids
out of the system.
Mr. Kennedy. Great. Well, I wish you luck and look forward
to working with you on that. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Chairman, 15 seconds just to add
something to the record very quickly?
Mr. Obey. Yeah.
Mr. Culberson. I just wonder if I could for the record, Mr.
Chairman, just to reiterate some sworn testimony we got from
the ATF Director, Mr. Attorney General, that over 99 percent of
the licensed gun dealers in America are following the law and
are doing their jobs.
Attorney General Holder. Oh, yeah.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. I want to make sure we get that
for the record, because it is important.
Attorney General Holder. I would not doubt that statistic
at all. The focus needs to be on that very, very, very small
number of dealers who are not following the law. But I think
you are absolutely right.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Attorney General, I know we need to get you
out of here fairly soon. I have got to ask you a few basic
questions, at least a few, which will actually be related to
the budget.
Attorney General Holder. Uh-oh.
WARRANTLESS WIRETAPS
Mr. Obey. But first let me ask you about warrantless
wiretapping. Last week the New York Times revealed some
significant problems with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping
program, including the charge that NSA illegally collected the
domestic communications of Americans. Most of those problems
were identified during a periodic review of the program by your
Department.
Some say these revelations are a sign that the system is
broken because significant violations occurred. Others say that
they are a sign the system is working because the violations
were identified.
How often does DOJ review the workings of these warrantless
wiretapping programs? If the periodic review identified
problems this severe, do you think the program would benefit
from continuous DOJ oversight?
Let me just pop the other questions at you on this subject
also. The Times article says that part of the problem is NSA's
inability to distinguish between domestic communications and
international messages passed through American communications
gateways. When the Congress passed the legislation authorizing
NSA's programs, we did so with the understanding that they had
those technical abilities. Are revisions necessary to the law
to include additional safeguards now that it appears NSA has
trouble distinguishing between these two types of messages?
I have two other questions on this point that I will submit
to you for the record.
Attorney General Holder. The Justice Department and the NSA
were conducting, I think, routine oversight of the activities
that you were describing and made the determination that there
were issues, there were problems. Those issues were brought to
the attention of the FISA court. Changes were made after
interacting with the judges, and reauthorization to use those
techniques was not sought until the judges were satisfied that
the proposed changes dealt with the problem.
But there are periodic reviews that are done by Justice and
by NSA that I could perhaps share with you by letter, or in a
different forum I could give you a better sense of exactly the
time period in which those reviews occur. But I actually think
this is an indication of where the system worked. I mean,
clearly it was a problem, but it was something that was
discovered, was reported, and was modified, and the courts are
now monitoring to make sure that the changes that have been put
in place are, in fact, being carried out.
With regard to the question about NSA having trouble making
the distinction between foreign and domestic transmissions,
that is one that I will have to get back to you on,
Congressman, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I am steeped enough
in that to speak intelligently about it.
FUNDING EARMARKS
Mr. Obey. All right. Earmarks. As you know, there have been
occasional discussions in this town about the advisability of
congressional earmarks. Congress is routinely criticized for
earmarking, even though congressionally directed projects
represent only a fraction of the funding under the executive
branch's discretion.
The Congress has taken several steps in recent years to
ensure transparency and accountability in our earmarking
process, but it is not clear that the executive branch has had
the same degree of transparency in its process for allocating
funding. This committee directed the Office of Inspector
General to review the award process for fiscal 2007 juvenile
justice grants based upon allegations that award decisions may
have circumvented the peer review process. In the omnibus
spending bill enacted in March, the committee also directed the
Department to report to this committee within 30 days on the
results of the Department's internal review of that award
process. That deadline has now passed; we do not have the
report yet.
Questions: When can the committee expect to receive the
report? In general, what is the Department's policy on the role
of peer review in the award of grants? Most specifically, under
what circumstances might the Department award a grant to an
applicant who is ranked lower according to peer review than an
applicant who does not receive an award? What level of
departmental authority is entitled to overrule a peer review
decision? For cases in which peer review is overruled, what
kind of disclosure is required to ensure that the decision is
transparent?
Attorney General Holder. Well, the way in which I would
view this is I would advise the President and develop the
Department's budget based upon the national priorities that we
have identified without falling into the earmark way of doing
things; to rely on the experts that we have in the Justice
Department to come up with identifying programs that are worthy
of funding, worthy of support. We have a lot of good people in
the Office of Justice Programs and the various components that
make up OJP, and I would rely on them so that we came up with
fair competition and good decisions about what programs the
Department would support.
Now, with regard to the request that was made of the
inspector general, of that I am not aware. I will relay to him
the concern that you have expressed about the timeliness of
that report. But the IG acts pretty independently of the
Department. But I will relay to him the concern that you had.
Mr. Obey. No, it is the report from your agency that is
overdue.
Attorney General Holder. From us?
Mr. Obey. Yes.
Attorney General Holder. All right. Well, in that case I
will look into it and see what is going on.
[The information follows:]
Overdue reports on awarding grants.
Answer:
The OJJDP Report to Congress regarding the awarding of grants is in
the final stages of clearance within the Department and should be
transmitted to the Committee by the end of May.
Mr. Obey. My point is simply that there are programs for
which the executive branch establishes criteria for funding,
and then there seem to be exceptions that are made for those
criteria. There may be perfectly legitimate reasons why there
are exceptions. But if one branch of government is going to be
held to a formulaic standard, it seems to me that we ought to
ask the other branch of government to do the same thing, which
is why I ask the question.
Mr. Wolf. Following up on the Chairman's issue, about 6 or
7 years ago we had a problem in northern Virginia with violent
gangs. They took Brenda Paz, who was in the witness protection
program, down to the Shenandoah Valley and killed her, MS-13.
The Justice Department person said--and I put an earmark in to
deal with the gang issue in this region. And if you look at the
reports, we are doing better than any other region. And yet the
Justice Department career person said there is no gang problem
in northern Virginia. And it just so happened that that person
lived in northern Virginia.
So I think what the Chairman may very well be saying, I
think sometimes you can see things from this side, and maybe
the Justice Department may not be always right in its decisions
that it is making. Had we not done this, crime would have been
rampant much more so. And on this whole issue of it, as the
gentleman from Maryland was talking about, we have in this
region now a crime antigang problem with FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshal
Service, and every local law enforcement, Arlington, Fairfax,
Loudoun, and yet the Justice Department person, along the lines
what the Chairman says, we are not going to do that because
they said it was not a problem. And we put an earmark in there,
and I think it has made a big difference and saved a lot of
lives.
Attorney General Holder. I think we have to come up with
funding schemes, resources, attention to problems that are
real. And I do not know who you talked to, but, I mean,
obviously there is a gang problem here that we have to deal
with.
I remember Jim Comey, when he was the U.S. Attorney in
Richmond, came up with an idea about something he called
Project Exile, and we found ways in which we funded that. I am
not sure if that was an earmark or not, but it was an effective
program that ultimately was replicated around the country.
So I think we want to stay away from earmarks, but we want,
to the extent we can, to identify programs that work, identify
problems that exist and programs that work, and then, working
together, fund them and support them.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Attorney General, I know you have to leave,
so let me simply say I will submit for the record a series of
questions, some of them involving the question of the FBI's
growth policy, others involving the question of staffing levels
at prisons, and especially the committee's concern about
whether or not we are sufficiently coordinating between Justice
and Homeland Security in terms of budget growth, because some
of those things intertwine.
COMMENT ON TORTURE
Mr. Obey. Then I want to simply make one last comment on
torture. I am not quite sure how to say this, but let me say we
have already had prosecution of people for interrogation. When
people ask whether or not we should have prosecutions, we have
already had it. It has just been for some low-level grunts at
Abu Ghraib. With a couple exceptions, we have not had any more.
What bothers me, in addition to the fact that it occurred
at all, is the fact that I have no question that Congress was
lied to. I absolutely know that I was lied to in several
closed-door meetings when I asked specific questions about
torture from a variety of agencies. In terms of whether
something is defined as torture or not, the Washington Post's
editorial 2 days ago indicated that 1 person was waterboarded
183 times in 1 month.
[Disturbance in the hearing room.]
Mr. Obey. With all due respect, this is a congressional
committee hearing, and I will clear the room if there are any
other comments. No editorializing.
I am told that another person was waterboarded 83 times in
1 month. Now, if that is not torture, then I am Alice in
Wonderland. I can recall after the scandals in Chile, a good
many of us in Congress wanted to have the full story told about
what happened in that government. Or Egypt, where we have
criticized their lack of human rights and the way they deal
with prisoners as well as their own political opposition.
So it seems to me that we have complained many times about
torture when it is engaged in by other countries. I have to
confess that I have been very reluctant to support the idea of
any significant widespread prosecution of people, even though I
vehemently disagree with the idea of torture, because I do not
believe in politicizing prosecutorial judgments. So I
instinctively lean over backwards in preferring that we not
have a wholesale sweep of past conduct.
But having said that, I have to say that I get increasingly
disturbed when I watch television, when I watch C-SPAN, as I
have a couple mornings this week, and I see people on the tube,
former government officials, enthusiastically defending what
they did and playing word games with the national television
audience.
So it seems to me that the important question is not
whether there is widespread prosecution of people who either
carried out or originated instructions or legal opinions. It
seems to me the important question is whether we are going to
strike the right balance between pursuing personal wrongdoing
and making sure that the country has the correct narrative
about what did happen so that we understand who did what, what
did constitute overstepping of the line, because, with this
news being out, I think we have an obligation to say to the
world what we think goes beyond the line and what does not.
So you have got a tough job to do, as do others in the
administration, in determining how to proceed with this issue.
But it is important that we get it right. I hope that in the
end we can produce a balanced, disciplined approach to this
problem. I do not want things swept under the rug. Having come
from the State of Joe McCarthy, I also do not want to see
people in their zeal to go after wrongdoing wind up catching
people in the net who really do not belong there. It requires a
great deal of discretion. I have a lot of confidence in your
ability to help find that.
Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
Mr. Obey. Mr. Wolf, I do not know if you have any other
comments.
With that, thank you very much for coming. Because we have
not yet received the President's complete budget for fiscal
2010, the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks following
the budget submission so that Members have the opportunity to
provide questions for the record related to the budget's
details.
Mr. Obey. Thanks for coming.
Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 28, 2009.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
WITNESS
GARY LOCKE, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Opening Remarks
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning, Secretary Locke. Welcome to the other
Washington. You have unique qualifications to tackle the
problems that you are inheriting. As Chair of the Subcommittee
charged with funding your Department and its several agencies,
I look forward to working with you on the increasingly
significant challenges facing the Department of Commerce. In
fact, the Department faces so many formidable challenges that
we will not be able to discuss all the issues facing all of its
agencies today. This is not because the committee is
uninterested in tackling the issues that beset the smaller
agencies. There is simply not enough time in one day to do
justice to all the concerns. And today we choose to focus on
the most fiscally significant. It is sometimes unfortunately
true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
From the fiscal behemoth that is Census during its
decennial year through the critical research and operations of
NOAA, the burgeoning broadband issue, the backlog of
intellectual property applications, the challenge of ensuring
science and technical rigor for economic expansion, the
complexity of international trade and all of its ramifications,
and the necessity for economic development, to the smallest
individual agency, the Minority Business Development Agency,
the Department is challenged by diversity of missions and
perceived lack of cohesion. It is this committee's expectation
that you, Secretary Locke, will find the common thread among
all of the these diverse agencies and align their interests to
bring the Department into the 21st century. If we ever needed a
unified Department of Commerce, obviously it is now.
The 2010 decennial has been beset by lack of management and
oversight, the lack of acquisitions expertise, and lack of
transparency by an agency whose culture is perceived as so
impenetrable as to be self-defeating. Recent contract
modifications have reframed the concerns and renewed some
confidence in this agency, but great risks remain; and so much
depends on the success of the Bureau's diligent employees to
overcome the obstacles that--in many--ways were self-created.
It certainly doesn't help that leadership in the form of a new
Director is delayed, that there will have been three different
Directors in the three years leading up to the decennial, and
that a new Secretary must guide the process.
Recently this committee has heard testimony on the state of
the climate, and it is disturbing. The Nation, indeed the
planet, is at a crossroads. Scientific consensus exists that
humans are altering Earth's climate. Humans are at risk because
the climate is affecting the organisms on which we all depend.
Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for 1,000 years, and
no matter what we do now, a projected \1/2\ to 1 degree further
warming will occur due to a lag in the atmosphere. As Dr. Susan
Solomon testified, ``We can only crank the dial one way, and we
have got to decide how far.''
There is already 30 percent more CO2 in the
atmosphere than there has been in the past 500,000 years.
Temperature increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit. More rain is
falling as heavy rain. Ocean acidification is becoming a
serious threat as the ocean is a carbon sink. The atmosphere is
currently at 385 parts per million CO2 and on its
way to 450 parts per million.
As a consequence, the oceans have become 30 percent more
acidic already, and another 30 percent change appears likely.
The organisms we depend on have not evolved to deal with the
increasing acidity. Coral reefs are a good metric, and more
will dissolve than evolve by 2050. This negatively affects our
fisheries and our coasts, where the vast majority of people
live.
Rising sea levels will compound the problem, and this
committee heard testimony that sea levels were very likely to
rise by 1 meter by 2100 as a result of melting ice sheets. In
some areas, given the slope of the coast, that means that seas
could move inland by more than half a mile. This could
drastically alter the coastline worldwide as beach erosion will
be highly sensitive to increasing sea levels and is projected
to cost as much as $1 trillion in GDP.
The Nation needs an agency that can provide the data needed
for citizens and communities to adapt to these changes and to
mitigate them as much as possible. There is only one agency
that is capable of providing this leadership role, but it is
not structured or funded for this Herculean task. This
committee expects you and your Administrator, Dr. Jane
Lubchenco, to ensure the creation of a National Climate
Service, analogous to the National Weather Service within NOAA,
and to do everything in your power to fund it commensurate with
its mission. This includes all of NOAA's line offices, not just
the NCS, because the agency is uniquely suited and tasked to
research, monitor, regulate, produce and archive the data, and
to collaborate with other Federal and international agencies,
States and local governments in combating these enormous
challenges.
However, in order to ensure that both the NCS and the NWS
receive all the data they depend on, you and your new
Administrator will have to first fix the National Polar
Orbiting Satellite System, NPOESS. The agency appears to have
had some somewhat more success with the next generation of
GOES, GOES-R, although GAO still found some cause for concern,
and this committee will rely on you and Dr. Lubchenco to ensure
it does not duplicate the messy path of NPOESS.
Underpinning all of these challenges is the need to ensure
the science and technical expertise exists and is fostered for
future generations; that measurements are reliable so that
industry can move forward with innovations to combat climate
change and meet energy needs; and that the acquisition and
procurement process is transparent, technically feasible, and
does not bankrupt the Nation in the process.
Other critical needs include ensuring a safety culture;
modernizing information technology systems to bring them into
the 21st century; ensuring the Nation is safe from cyberattack;
and maintaining fisheries at sustainable levels so that they
provide both sustenance and reliable economies for the
communities that depend upon them.
As we all know, we have not yet received the President's
complete budget submission. Accordingly, we don't know many of
the details of the request. We will be anxious to see those
details when the budget is submitted, and we are sure to have
additional questions at that time.
The hearing transcript will remain open two weeks after the
budget submission so as to provide Members an opportunity to
submit any budget-related questions.
At this time, Mr. Secretary, I would like to invite you to
make your opening statement. Your recorded statement will be
made a part of the record. Before I do that, I call on the
Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, for any opening statement he would
like to make.
[Written statement by Chairman Alan Mollohan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Opening Remarks
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we welcome, welcome you. I think the
Chairman has covered a lot of the points. I have a prepared
statement and will just submit it for the record.
There are several things that I am really concerned about,
though, and the deficit that we are faced with the budget
submission and what we are looking at now, the figure was 1.75
trillion. Now, some have said as perhaps it could go to as high
as $1.9 trillion. And I know I looked at your bio last night
when I was going through the material. You have three young
children. I have five children, and I have a number of
grandchildren. And I just wonder what we are transferring or
passing on to future generations.
While I think a lot of this spending is necessary to a
certain degree, and when I was Chairman of this committee, we
dramatically increased the spending on sciences. But
Congressman Cooper and I have a bill--we have 26 Republicans on
it and 26 Democrats--that sets up a bipartisan national
commission that puts every spending program, including
entitlements and tax policy, on the table. With the deficit
projections under this administration will continue through the
year 2019, the projection is in that year the deficit will be
$712 billion in 2019. No nation, no nation can continue this
way.
We had a group a month ago that released a new series of
recommendations on education--it was chaired by former Governor
Roemer, who you may or may not know; David Abshire, heading the
Center for the Study of the Presidency; former Senator Brock--
that supported the concept that that Jim Cooper and I have. And
at the unveiling of that, Norm Augustine got up and made the
comment, he said, in the 16th century the Spaniards thought
that they would always be the number one country; in the 17th
century, the French believed that they would be number one; and
in the 19th century, the British thought that they would be
number one. The sun never set on the British Empire, they would
say. Well, in the 20th century, we know they did not maintain
it. In the 20th century, Augustine makes a very scary
prediction that if we don't deal with both these deficits and
also with increased areas in dealing on our economy, the U.S.
could go the way of those other countries.
The other issue--and there will be some questions as we get
into it, and you are the key person, yet I haven't heard the
administration say very, very much about it--is our
manufacturing base is eroding before our eyes. There is a
publication called Manufacturing News. Do you receive
Manufacturing News?
Secretary Locke. No, I don't.
Mr. Wolf. You ought to get it. Your people can call my
office, and we will give you the title, how to get it and get a
copy. It comes out about every month.
Our manufacturing base is almost gone. I know you are from
the west coast, but if you get on the train in Washington and
take it up to New York, you actually go through my old
neighborhood in southwest Philadelphia. The factories are all
closed. The windows are broken. There is graffiti all over the
walls. There is a bridge that leaves Trenton, New Jersey, that
goes into Pennsylvania that has a sign across that says,
``Trenton makes. The world takes.'' Trenton does not make
anything anymore. Trenton has a terrific gang problem, and is
pretty much, from a manufacturing point, at the end of the
case.
I would hope that you could really put together a team to
see what you can do there to rejuvenate, if you will, the
manufacturing base, because we can no longer be a country that
just buys things from other people, we have to begin to make
them.
With those two things, let me just say welcome to the
committee, and look forward to working with you over the years.
Mr. Mollohan. Secretary Locke, your opening statement.
Opening Remarks
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Chairman Mollohan and
Ranking Member Wolf. I am very pleased to join you today to
talk about the Department of Commerce. I would like to make a
brief opening statement and then, of course, submit written
testimony for the record.
It is my top priority to make certain that the Department
of Commerce plays an integral role in President Obama's efforts
to help America retool and reinvent. The President's budget
reflects the Department's broad mandate to strengthen the
Nation's economy, promote innovation and environmental
stewardship, but I have also challenged our employees to
establish the Department of Commerce in the eyes of America as
the voice for Main Street businesses and family-wage jobs. And
it is our intent to help grow local economies by fostering
innovation and opening markets to U.S. products and services.
To that end the President's fiscal year 2010 budget for the
Department of Commerce includes some $13.8 billion in
discretionary funds. This is an increase of $4.5 billion over
the 2009 appropriation of $9.3 billion. Not counting Recovery
Act appropriations, this is the large--a very large increase.
The large increase is due primarily to the decennial census of
some $4.1 billion.
While most of the details of the 2010 request are still
under development, I am happy to share highlights, and I look
forward to providing the rest in the future and discussing
those aspects with you and the other members of the Committee.
This budget contains the resources necessary to complete
the 2010 census effectively and on time, counting everyone
once, only once, and in the right place. The allocation,
combined with the $1 billion that the Congress provided in the
Recovery Act, will enable us to hire nearly 1\1/2\ million
temporary workers. We have also instituted numerous oversight
changes in response to findings by the GAO and our own
Inspector General.
The request includes more than $1.3 billion for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite
programs that capture key weather forecasting and climate data,
as well as resources to advance climate and ocean research, and
to support implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Our
weather satellite programs have been the focus of much concern
by the Congress and a variety of oversight agencies. Progress
is being made to implement recommendations by GAO and the
Inspector General's Office, and to apply those lessons,
particularly with respect to the NPOESS program, into the GOES-
R program. But there still are significant challenges with
respect to the NPOESS satellite program.
The President's plan includes doubling the funding over 10
years for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's
research activities that are critical to the Nation's
technology infrastructure, as well as $125 million for the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and $70
million for the Technology Innovation Program.
The Economic Development Administration will provide some
$50 million in grants to support the creation of regional
innovation clusters, and use $50 million to create a nationwide
network of public/private business incubators to promote
entrepreneurial activities in distressed areas. It is also our
intent to really lead an effort with respect to bringing back
manufacturing and stabilizing manufacturing in the United
States.
The President's budget also supports the International
Trade Administration's efforts to promote exports and eliminate
barriers to the sale of U.S. products and goods abroad, but
also continue to give the United States Patent and Trademark
Office full access to its fee collections.
I want to thank you for entrusting the Department with
nearly $8 billion in Recovery Act funds. We have provided our
proposed spend plans and will keep you informed of our
progress.
The National Telecommunications and Information
Administration will have the biggest challenge, administering
some $4.7 billion to improve broadband deployment throughout
America.
Besides planning for next year and making sure that we use
current resources effectively, I am focused on addressing the
key management issues facing the Department of Commerce,
including conducting a successful 2010 census, and improving
the patent process. We need to substantially reduce the backlog
and the time frame by which patents and trademarks are
approved. We need to manage our satellite development and
acquisition programs, and we need to strengthen our overall
information technologies infrastructure within the Department
of Commerce, because key technology and many of our information
technologies involve and deal with very sensitive issues of
concern to national security.
Your support has been and will be critical to our efforts.
I appreciate the chance to hear your views on these subjects. I
thank you for the opportunity to come before you today, and I
look forward to your comments and questions not just today, but
over the weeks and months to come. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[Written statement by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. In the first round, we are going to stick to
the 5-minute rule and see how many Members come in and perhaps
proceed differently after.
NOAA ORGANIC ACT
NOAA was created, Mr. Secretary, in 1970 by consolidating
programs from across the government. The consolidation was
accomplished under an executive reorganization plan, leaving
each program's original authorizing laws in place. Recently
several NOAA ocean programs were authorized under the Omnibus
Public Lands Act of 2009, Public Law 111-11. The U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy report stated that a NOAA organic
act would strengthen the agency and would help to ensure that
its structure is consistent with its primary functions of
management, prediction, research and education. The Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative calls for Congress, quote, to ``codify
and strengthen NOAA to enhance its mission, improve its
structure and better enable it to carry out new and exciting
responsibilities.''
Does this administration, Mr. Secretary, intend to pursue
an organic act for NOAA?
Secretary Locke. Chairman Mollohan, I have not yet had a
chance to review the recommendations of the Commission on Ocean
Policy. I do, in fact, know several of the members on that
Commission and consider them very good friends. But I cannot
comment and would have to get back to you as to our response to
those recommendations.
Mr. Mollohan. If you would.
[The information follows:]
NOAA Organic Act
At this time, the Administration has not determined whether or how
to pursue a NOAA Organic Act. NOAA's Administrator, Dr. Jane Lubchenco,
was a member of the Pew Ocean Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative. I will look to Dr. Lubchenco for recommendations on how to
strengthen NOAA to ensure the agency can effectively carry out its
mission.
NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE
Mr. Mollohan. One of those new and exciting
responsibilities should be the creation of the National Climate
Service, Mr. Secretary. In fact, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and the
Administrator of NOAA, has made it one of her priorities.
Cities and States across the Nation are looking for
information to help them make decisions on where to build, what
type of construction, the required placement of transportation,
wildlife corridors, and a myriad of other choices that will be
affected by the increase in sea levels and changes in climate,
and the world looks to this information and this Service. No
single agency can meet all the Nation's need for climate
services, but as the world's preeminent source of climate data
and information, NOAA is uniquely positioned to coordinate
climate information and service across the Federal Government.
Secretary Locke, will you commit to the creation of a
National Climate Service within NOAA and to ensure it is
appropriately resourced to provide the Nation with the products
and the services it needs to understand, monitor and adapt to
climate change?
Secretary Locke. Mr. Chairman, I am very supportive of what
Dr. Lubchenco, Administrator of NOAA, has proposed by way of
National Climate Service. And I think it is a natural extension
to have it be part of NOAA, and it is a natural extension of
our National Weather Service. And I clearly agree with you that
we do need that type of service and entity, because farmers
need that information, long-range information, about the
impacts of climate change: communities that are affected by
flooding; the concern about recreation and wildlife; what now
falls as snow in the Cascade Mountains over the next several
years in the future could fall as heavy rain, which has
devastating impact not just on operations of the mountains and
the use of the mountains for recreation, but also the impact on
lowland areas.
This country does need a service that provides that data
about climate so that businesses, individuals, families,
communities can plan and adapt accordingly. Hopefully the
country will also make very pronounced efforts to reverse
climate change, or at least prevent it from getting worse, but
in the meantime we also need this climate service, and I
support that.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Dr. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of
Sciences, testified that we need an appropriate national
strategy for climate change, and that NOAA should be in the
center. He went on to name the big four in climate change:
NOAA, NASA, NSF and DOE, with DOI and the USDA contributing.
Given the fact that NOAA, NASA and NSF are all in the same
Subcommittee as well as being the top three climate change
agencies, should OMB coexamine their budgets to develop
synergies and take advantage of these efficiencies?
Secretary Locke. Well, I am not familiar with the structure
in terms of the committees and as they relate to the Congress,
but clearly I think that NOAA does work very well with all of
these agencies, especially NASA, already. Again, I believe that
there needs to be greater coordination, and I do believe that
NOAA would be the appropriate agency to take the lead role with
respect to a climate service.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How would the National Climate Service be set up? Would it
be a division of NOAA? How would it be set up?
Secretary Locke. No one has any details yet, and, of
course, that needs to be coordinated with the White House. And
I know that the White House and the President are very much
concerned about climate change, and others within the White
House have talked about a climate service. And I know that
there are many Members of the Congress that are considering
legislation.
So we would be more than happy to work with the Members of
Congress, along with the White House and OMB, on how a climate
service would be established. But I would believe that it would
be a part of NOAA, and I would be very supportive of having it
be a part of NOAA, an extension of our National Weather Service
activities already. What the exact appropriate, most cost-
effective, efficient and effective arrangement would be, I have
no thoughts on that yet.
COMMERCE SPENDING
Mr. Wolf. With regard to the spending, what is Commerce
doing with regard to spending? Are there any programs that you
are proposing to eliminate in fiscal year 2010 or any future
years?
Secretary Locke. Well, I don't have any proposals yet. I do
know the President has charged us to be more efficient with the
dollars that we do spend. And while I was Governor of the State
of Washington, I prided myself in instituting a host of
management changes that were able to accomplish our goals in a
more cost-effective manner, having lofty goals, but using
existing dollars to reorganize and to make our agencies more
efficient and more effective, and to provide incentives for
agencies to save money.
I have already expressed some of those ideas to OMB and to
the President in a Cabinet meeting, and I look forward to
working with Members of Congress as well as the administration,
OMB on how we can institutionalize budget savings so that there
are incentives to save, and the agencies are not penalized for
identifying areas for saving, but, in fact, are able to keep
some of those dollars and then return some of those dollars
back to the Treasury.
Mr. Wolf. You know, the problem may very well be that in
certain areas that you are in, there really are programs that
you really may want to increase even. It is the entitlement
issue, and the disappointment I have had with the Obama
administration is they had that entitlement conference, and it
just sort of evaporated and went away.
Have you followed what David Walker has said, who was the
former GAO, about the economic tsunami off the coast ready to
come and swamp us?
Secretary Locke. Yes, in fact I attended a conference put
on by former Comptroller David Walker talking about the impact
of the deficits, and this was about 2 years ago, and how, as
you indicated in your opening statement, it is a mortgage on
our children and our grandchildren. Of course, the President
and the administration are really focused on economic stimulus.
We have got so many people who are out of work. I think most of
the observers indicate, and the economists have indicated, that
in order to get us out of this recession, we have got to spend
more.
After accomplishing, hopefully, the economic stimulus and
getting people back to work and our economy back on sound
footing, we then have to really examine all the spending within
the Federal Government. I know the President is committed to
that, but we in the Department of Commerce need to look at our
functions and decide what programs are effective, what are of a
high priority, which are not effective and perhaps could be
reduced or eliminated in order to free up dollars for other
vital service.
It has always been my belief and motto that regardless of
the revenues that an agency or a department or a State or a
government may have, we will never be able to do it all. We
will never be able to satisfy everyone's wish lists; therefore,
we need to establish priorities and focus on effective and
efficient programs.
Mr. Wolf. I thought you were reaching for your clock when I
saw your hand.
Mr. Mollohan. No, you have another minute.
Mr. Wolf. Well, maybe I will save that question for another
minute then. This may take more than a minute. You will bear
with me, Mr. Chairman.
PROTECTING COMMERCE COMPUTERS
The Secretary of Commerce's laptop computer was compromised
when he went to Europe, when he went to China. Most of the
people in his party, the same thing happened. A lot of Members
of Congress haven't been aware, but when they go to China,
their laptop is compromised, their BlackBerry is compromised,
which comes back--my computer was stripped by the Chinese.
There were 17 other Members of the House whose computers were
stripped including the International Relations Committee. There
are cyberattacks directed against a number of government
agencies.
What do you have planned with regard to protecting the
computers and knowledge and information on the computers that
you have in the Department of Commerce? And are you aware of
what happened to Secretary Gutierrez?
Secretary Locke. Yes, I am aware, and I have had a briefing
with our inspector general, as well as some of the key agencies
within--the bureaus within the Department of Commerce that are
the repositories of very sensitive information dealing with
national security, and our trade approaches, and the concerns
that we have with respect to, for instance, exports of
sensitive material to other countries.
For instance, BIS, within the Department of Commerce, has
very antiquated information technology systems for which they
cannot even find replacement parts, and so they are truly
surviving almost by a thread. It is my intent, as I indicated
in the opening statement, to focus our energy on upgrading our
technology systems and ensuring that we also have the utmost
attention to cybersecurity. That has to be a top priority for
the Department of Commerce because of the incidents that you
have already referenced.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
For Members who have just arrived, we are proceeding under
the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary
Locke. It is good to see you.
Just on the side, I just think that I don't know of anybody
as well prepared as you are in terms of your background
experience, so we look forward to working with you on the
myriad of challenges you have in your office.
CENSUS
I heard that you spoke on the census, and my sense is that
the work on the census is going to be very, very important.
What I was hoping also was that the emphasis on communities of
great need, communities that are difficult to assess have a
higher tension, and because of our financial crisis now and
trying to get information on folks would depend a lot on
addresses.
So I was wondering what thoughts you may have had on so
many people losing their homes, how are you going to be able to
get accurate information on our communities, on the census and
on the community survey, which goes on as a continuous effort?
The issue of language other than Spanish, Spanish has the
sufficient numbers, but we usually look at percentage of a
population before we look at the implementation of languages.
Given that our communities are varied, and some are larger than
others, but the need for communication in this arena is still
important. Maybe you can speak a little bit about how you may
want--how you may address the language issues with our
communities that might be creative and unique.
CLIMATE CHANGE
And the issues around NOAA and climate change, I support
all the efforts that you have talked about. And I think that
the coordination of the climate issues is going to be paramount
in this climate change. So maybe you could talk a little bit
about how you think you may be operating at the Cabinet level
with the other Secretaries, given that they have issues and
arenas they are responsible for, and how you may be working
with them to make sure that the issue of climate change is
coordinated and is in sync for the administration.
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman Honda. It
is really a pleasure to be appearing before this subcommittee
with you as a member of that. And I have always enjoyed our
relationship and our partnership over the years in a variety of
capacities.
CENSUS
With respect to the census, it is the number one challenge
facing the Department right now. It is a monumental undertaking
with a lifecycle cost for the entire 2010 census, which started
many years ago, and when it finishes in a few years, estimated
cost about $15 billion. And as I indicated earlier, we will be
hiring almost 1\1/2\ million people, or 1.4 million people,
temporary workers, to help conduct the census.
Given the challenges we had with respect to the handheld
computers, which had to be abandoned about a year or 2 ago, and
the cost overruns associated with that and having to rely on
pencil and paper for some of the aspects of the census, it will
be even more important that we have outreach efforts to those
who do not mail back the census forms come April 1, 2010. And
so a lot of the people we will be hiring will be going door to
door, apartment to apartment, homeless shelters, college dorms
to enumerate and have an accurate count of the population of
America.
To be successful we have to rely on communities of color
and community-based organizations, from churches to nonprofit
organizations, to get the word out. Much of the budget calls
for advertisements in nontraditional media, and to community
organizations and language newspapers emphasizing the
importance of the census, and making sure that people know that
census forms are available in other languages. We will, in
fact, be sending out census questionnaires in Spanish to
selected households in areas with high Hispanic populations.
But I also believe that we should be affirmatively sending
out census questionnaires in other languages, for instance
Asian languages; Vietnamese in certain parts of Houston where
we know that there is a high concentration of people from
Southeast Asia. We should not have to ask, or rely, or expect
those families to call in or ask for a census form in another
language, because if they can't really read English all that
well to begin with, how will they know, how can they read the
instructions to ask for a census form in another language? I
think we need to be more proactive in that regard.
CLIMATE CHANGE
With respect to NOAA and climate change, I do sit on some
committees convened by the White House dealing with climate
change. Clearly there will be costs to the American public, to
the American taxpayer, and businesses in implementing climate-
change measures, but if we don't address climate change, the
impact to people and businesses will be even far greater if we
allow climate change to remain unabated.
These task forces do have other agencies represented. And
so Congress is trying to provide its viewpoint on the impact of
businesses, but also committing all the agencies--it is a
multiagency task force convened by the White House--to really
look at it. But there are many other agencies involved, and
Commerce is a key, integral part of that task force, of
actually two task forces that I serve on.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT
Mr. Secretary, I represent Alabama's only coastal district,
and I have great concerns concerning the Magnuson-Stevens Act
and its requirement to end overfishing by 2011.
While I agree that we need to preserve our valuable
resources for future generations, I question whether this is
the best time to engage in such strict fishing limits. And I
would ask you to consider from where I sit the following: Our
commercial seafood sector supports over $490 million in
revenues from my home State, as well as some 11,000 jobs for
Alabamians. Our recreation seafood sector supports over $630
million in annual revenues for our State, and more than 6,500
jobs for Alabamians.
Before NOAA moves forward on its recommendations of
limiting one catch over another, do you look at economic
impacts that it will have on communities that are currently
struggling just to stay afloat?
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman Bonner.
These are tough economic times, and let me just say that as
Governor of the State of Washington, we had to deal with the
prospect of overfishing, and setting limits on catches, and
understanding the significant economic impact it had on the
entire fishing industry, and the businesses that depend on the
fishing industry, and the families that are impacted as well.
Let me be very clear, I support the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
That is an act passed by Congress, and so if any changes have
to be made, it must initiate with the Congress itself. But let
me just say that if we allow overfishing to continue, we will
soon face the prospect of no fishing, because once the stocks
are depleted, and if they are fished to the point where they
cannot replenish, where the salmon cannot spawn again, and we
cannot have recovering or returning salmon or regeneration of
various stocks to the point that they can be fished, then we
face the prospect of complete elimination of fishing sectors in
many parts of the country along our coastal communities. So it
is either pay now or face the prospect of no fishing in the
future.
I do believe that once NOAA sets limits, that we need to be
mindful of the economic impact, and therefore, it is important
that we also have economic programs to help the fishing
industry cope with those changes, whether it is buyout of their
boats, whether it is financial assistance to move into other
fields, or engaging the fishing industry to actually help
engage or conduct some of the research that is necessary to
continue to monitor the fishing stock or the affected industry.
I will note that, for instance, NOAA recently took economic
impact into account with respect to the Northeast fisheries
when a rule was proposed that would have severely limited the
fishery, and so NOAA took that into account and did not impose
as strict a fishing restrictions as had been called for by
other individuals and various agencies within NOAA, but at the
same time provided some economic impact to the extent that we
could to the affected industry.
Mr. Bonner. I would appreciate that balanced response as we
go forward to this, because, again, I am not disputing the
benefits of the act itself, just appreciate hearing from you
that economic impact should be a factor, and that we do need to
consider how we help these families that have been in many
cases involved in this industry for generations, that we not
put them at the back of what is already a long unemployment
line.
BUY AMERICAN
Could I shift gears real quicklike to Buy American?
Secretary Locke. I did not hear that.
Mr. Bonner. If I could, I would like to shift gears to Buy
American. Something that you may know, but others in the room
may not know, we build cars in Alabama. There has been a big
debate in our Nation about the state of the American automobile
industry. We build cars in my home State as well. In the last
10 years, we created more than 35,000 new jobs for Americans in
the State of Alabama, and we are now the sixth largest
automobile-producing State in the Nation. We build Navy ships
and superferries, and hopefully if we can get through a little
conflict with the Department of Defense, we will be in a
position to help build refueling tankers for the Air Force in
my home State.
But because of companies who came to Alabama with names
like Mercedes and Honda, Airbus, Austal, Thyssenkrupp, we
believe we are poised to recover from this economic downturn
perhaps more quickly than some of our sister States. Yet this
whole debate on Buy American has come to Congress in the last
few weeks and months.
To me, Buy American means just that, that we are buying
products that put Americans to work in States like Alabama and
Washington, where you lead a very ambitious and successful
agenda to sell American products overseas. We think that when
you are creating jobs in America and creating products that can
then be sold overseas, that that has a good win-win situation.
The President has recognized, and I am paraphrasing here,
that Buy American restrictions could violate WTO agreements or
in other ways signal some form of protectionism, from his visit
to Canada, as well as his trip recently to Europe. And I think
he believes that such restrictions would be a mistake in these
tough economic times as a potential source of a future
international trade war. So my question is to you, what are
your thoughts? How do you see the term ``Buy American'' in
terms of what we are trying to accomplish and also what we want
to do in terms of putting our focus on the overall economy both
here and globally?
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman Bonner,
for that question.
I think all of us want to help promote our companies in our
local communities, American companies. They make great products
and services, and helping them grow, especially in the
manufacturing sector, is key to our economic recovery. And we
need to examine all of our national policies, whether it is tax
policies to support services that would enable American
manufacturing and American companies to grow and prosper. And I
think we all want to help our local companies regardless of the
nature of the content or the extent of the contact of truly
American components.
I think we need to be very, very careful as we try to
promote American companies and as we try to stimulate our
national economy that we do not engage in protectionism, and
the line now between--is getting very blurred between purely
protectionist measures and economic stimulus activities. But if
we engage in protectionism, whether it starts in another
country, once we engage in protectionism, then we will see
responses by other countries, and pretty soon we get into a
trade war. And oftentimes nobody wins in a trade war, and it
can become mutually destructive. So I think we need to be very,
very careful.
One of the aspects of the Buy American provisions is that
it has an impact especially on the States, because I think
under the measure passed by the Congress, the Federal agencies
and the Federal programs are not affected where there is an
exemption to the Buy American clause if we have agreements, for
instance, with other countries, such as WTO agreements and so
forth. But the States themselves oftentimes don't have those
types of agreements with other countries, and so material that
they might be buying as part of the stimulus or Recovery Act,
whether it is road construction or technology or what have you,
building college campuses and universities, repairing dorms,
equipping those dormitories or those laboratories with
sophisticated equipment, may run afoul of the Buy American Act
simply because the content is not sufficiently American.
And so I think we need to be very, very careful when we
enact some of those policies, but obviously the Congress and
the administration are trying, focused on trying to stimulate
our economy and trying to get as many American workers
gainfully employed as possible. So those are all legitimate
objectives. At the same time we did need to be mindful what
impact it might have on the States, localities that are
receiving these dollars, as well as the repercussions it may
have around the world.
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Mollohan. Than you, Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
ITAR
Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes. There are two areas I would like to
get at, but I think probably will hit one and this afternoon on
the other. It is ITAR and NOAA satellites.
You are familiar with ITAR, I am sure, and ITAR developed,
I think, when one of our planes went down in China, and there
was a lot of information that was received by--it was received
by China, to our detriment. ITAR was then put in place, which
basically was a regulation, and when Congress passes a law, we
better watch what we are doing because it could have negative
consequences after a period of time.
And what happened basically because of ITAR regulation, it
put a lot of our companies, American companies, at a strong
disadvantage for a couple of reasons. First thing, Europe has
now been able to develop businesses that are competing with our
American businesses because we can't compete with ITAR. And
part of the issue also, not only the law, but just our
bureaucracy, that we are really behind in allowing our American
companies to compete and to approve what they can do and not do
as it relates to ITAR.
And it is really getting serious to the point that some
American companies may go out of business. Normally the world
would buy American parts, but now they can't do it anymore. And
it is putting us in a disadvantage in a lot of different areas,
especially in our space industry, which we were the strongest
in the world.
My question is what do you think of ITAR? How do you think
it affects our domestic industries? And I would like to get
your thoughts on the matter of what you would like seeing done.
It is my understanding that the Commerce Department is
attempting to move these ITAR requests quickly, but I also feel
that we are going to have to have some kind of major regulation
or even a change in Congress on ITAR and how it is affecting
our economy and our space industry.
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman. It is a
very, very important question.
The ITAR program is administered primarily by our BIS
Bureau, and we have the dual-use export program that is making
sure that very sensitive equipment, technology is not used for
military purposes by certain countries around the world. And so
basically it is a prohibition on the export of military
technology, or technology or equipment that could be used for
military purposes, adverse to the United States.
[The information follows:]
The Department of Commerce provided this clarification: The
ITAR program is administered by the U.S. Department of State,
which controls the export of defense articles, including
satellites and many satellite components. The Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS), administers the Export
Administration Regulations (EAR), which control strictly
commercial and dual-use items.
The problem is that regular pieces of equipment or supplies
that could go into military equipment might be readily
available in other countries. It could be a bolt, or it could
be a screw. And as a result of the restrictions that we have, a
lot of companies are losing sales of commonsense items to other
countries. And so it is hurting the sales of American goods and
products abroad, and those goods are being sold by other
countries, to the detriment of American companies.
The National Academy of Sciences has called for a
significant review and reform of our export control systems,
while still focusing on those components and equipment and
items that truly are sensitive and important to the
preservation of our military intelligence and our national
security. It is my intent to look at that and to convene a task
force to see what we can do to speed up the review of those
items.
We do have a program called Validated End User, where
certain companies, for instance in China, who have demonstrated
a track record of receiving American goods and not using them
for inappropriate ends, are authorized to receive and to have
items sold to them without having to go through the normal
individual export license regime. I would point out, for
instance, of all the exports, for instance, going to China,
only less than \4/10\ of one percent are subject to the export
control measures. And of that \4/10\ of 1 percent, virtually 80
percent of items for which licenses are sought are given and
granted. The problem is it is a very lengthy, laborious
process, and the process often discourages American companies
from trying to make the sale. So we are losing lots of sales
opportunities for American companies.
Regardless of the Validated End User Program and the
progress in the growing list of companies that have been
cleared in other countries to whom we can sell those materials,
I still think we should look at reforming the entire system.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, my suggestions is this: I think
China is really not the issue as much as Europe is the issue. I
think administration after administration understands this is a
problem, but then they do a task force which takes a long
period of time, and then nothing really happens.
I would hope that you would make it a priority. I am going
to be making it a priority from my perspective. I also am on
the Intelligence Committee, so I understand the sensitivity of
some of what we need to do, but we are way out of line, I
think, as far as putting us at a competitive disadvantage not
just competitively, but also from an intelligence and a defense
and national security point of view.
Jurisdiction in this area is also with our International
Relations Committee, so it takes Commerce and International
Relations to deal with it. Hopefully, if you have somebody from
your staff contact me, and we are going to be making this a
very high priority, because I think we have to move quicker
than a task force and then we are way behind again. We have had
a lot of studies, and I think we know the problem. Maybe we
need more resources to speed up the process; that we have
people waiting in line for years to determine whether it is
ITAR-related or not, and that slows it down, too.
So this should be something, I think, especially in the
space area and the parts that we are dealing with space that we
need to look at. I am sure my time is up by now, so this
afternoon I will talk to you about the NOAA satellite issue.
Secretary Locke. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CENSUS BOYCOTT
Mr. Chairman, in the interest of full disclosure, before I
ask some questions, I have one brother who has been working at
the Census Bureau for, I think, close to 30 years, or over 30
years, which is 10 years longer than I have been in Congress.
Having said that, let me ask some questions about the Census
Bureau.
And thank you for your testimony and for joining us today.
Mr. Secretary, recently a group, especially the National
Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, has called
for a boycott of the census. I publicly have stated that that
is one of the most irresponsible things I have heard, and it
does not serve any purpose to tie immigration reform to the
census count. I know that the Census Bureau goes out of its way
to count everyone living within our borders, and that is the
way it should be.
In view of this now, and as we work to try to get them to
take back that statement hopefully, what plans are in place to
make sure that old folks, regardless of immigration status, are
counted?
And unfortunately, you now have added to you this new
situation with these folks making that statement. What, if
anything, is taking place to deal with that and to make sure
that this doesn't happen? And again, I want to just be clear. I
think that was horrible, it shouldn't happen, and it makes a
very bad point. In fact, one of the arguments pro immigration
has always been these folks want to be part of our society, so
for this group to say, don't count yourself, runs counter to
that statement.
Secretary Locke. It is my intention to meet with the
leaders of that coalition, and hopefully we will have members
of the administration and other community leaders meeting with
them as well to emphasize how important it is that everyone be
counted. Especially in these tough economic times, it is
important that every community receive its fair share of
Federal dollars, and we are talking about some $300 billion a
year in Federal dollars for education, human services and a
variety of programs that flow to these communities. And so it
is in their own economic self-interest and the future
aspirations of minority communities, Hispanic communities,
Latino communities, to be engaged in this census and to be
fully counted.
CENSUS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
Mr. Serrano. Right. And in addition to that, the ongoing
work of the census prior to this controversy does intend to
reach out through the churches and community groups to the
undocumented community.
Secretary Locke. They are, in fact, critical partners to
the success of the census. We have to rely on those community-
based organizations, faith-based organizations to get the word
out, emphasizing how important it is that everyone be counted,
and that the challenge is even tougher as the years go by with
more and more Americans failing to respond to any survey that
comes in the mail, let alone the census survey.
CENSUS AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Serrano. Let me ask you--one of the issues is always,
well, if I count myself, then people will find out I am here
undocumented. And I have always said those are two separate
issues. There is an immigration issue, some people call it a
problem; then there is the census count, we should count
everyone.
Is the Census Bureau empowered to make statements saying
you are not going to be--this information is not going over
anywhere else, it is just being held here? Are you empowered to
say that?
Secretary Locke. Yes, we are empowered to say it, and I
have been saying it as well. And we need to--our community
partners will need to say it, then the media, the newspapers,
the TV/radio stations will have to say it as well.
Mr. Serrano. Let me just say, I thank you for your
comments. I feel confident that you will handle this the proper
way.
This is a very interesting situation. Even individuals in
Congress who are, I would say, harsh on the issue of
immigration, undocumented immigration, don't really want these
folks not to be counted, because some of the toughest people on
immigration are in States where there are a lot of undocumented
immigrants, and if they don't get counted, they lose dollars.
So this may be one time when even the critics of undocumented
immigration, or immigrants in general, may actually be on the
same side saying, make sure you get counted.
But I thank you. And as every member of this committee, I
stand ready to assist you on all issues, but especially on this
very important issue of the next census. Thank you.
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee. I appreciate your
comments and was able to hear them prior to my arrival, on the
census; and I also would like to indicate my interest in the
work of NOAA and particularly in the life of oceans and what is
going on in terms of the research, to some of the challenges
facing oceans.
EDUCATION DEFICIT
But I really want to focus my question today on the
McKenzie report that just came out on education, the education
deficit. And it said in this report, looking at the challenges
that we face in terms of international competition, that we
have really lost our way in terms of international competition
with other developed countries or wealthy countries. We are
really at the bottom in terms of international education
disparities, and that this is, in the words of the report, has
the economic effect of a permanent recession on our economy,
that the GDP growth which would have been the case if we would
have just held even since, for instance, the 1980 report, A
Nation At Risk. You take Bill Gates', Microsoft which you know
well, and Bill Gates says, I can't even hire the people I need
to do the work that I need done; and if I can't hire them here,
I have to find some other place to hire them.
So I know this is a little, seemingly, off the beaten
trail, because you are not the Secretary of Education. But I
know you tackled this issue when you were Governor, and now you
see it in a broader context and you see our economic
competitors are really ratcheting up their educational effort.
India has now set aside 50 percent of all seats in higher
education institutions to classes of the public that heretofore
were not allowed to go to college because they figure, if they
get more people rowing, they can do even a better--China has
ramped up its undergraduate and engineering programs quite
significantly.
So as the Commerce Secretary--and I guess you will have
more information once the census is done, but it is apparently
very clear across the breadth and width of the country, we have
a dearth of Americans, native born, who are pursuing terminal
degrees in any of the arts and sciences. We have a significant
shortfall now in males pursuing, successfully, college degrees
at the undergraduate level, whether African American, white,
Hispanic.
I mean, is this a challenge of some significance? I would
like you to just suspend a moment--I know the administration
has made significant investments and has a great many plans. If
you would, comment to the committee about this educational
deficit and how it impacts our competitive circumstances, vis-
a-vis commerce.
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman Fattah.
I actually believe that the education agenda is very much a
part of the Commerce agenda. And I think those of us who have
worked at the local level know just how important a highly
educated workforce is to the competitiveness and the viability
of American businesses.
The President yesterday gave a speech to the National
Academy of Sciences, emphasizing the need for science and math
education, emphasizing the need for research and development
among companies, emphasizing the need for us to focus on
innovation and technology as part of the future of America.
And he gave a very interesting statistic that was very
troubling, that America, students--American students rank very
far behind other developing countries, and even the developed
countries as well as the developing countries, in terms of math
and science proficiency--it is; the developing countries have
stronger math and science than America--and that the students
in those developing countries have a higher achievement in math
and science or higher proficiency in math and science than
American kids.
As much as we focus on economic recovery, we have got to
focus--we have to include as a key component of that the
education of our children, and emphasizing math and science and
engineering.
The President indicated that when Apollo 10 or one of the--
during one of the Apollo flights, that the average age of the
people in mission control was 26 years old, 26 years old
running our space program. And now we are having a dearth of
qualified individuals, Americans, American students, American
children into the engineering ranks and accomplishing some of
the huge challenges that we face.
And yet we see college-age students forming--creating
Google or Microsoft; and so we have got to realize that the
jobs of the future are in--high-wage jobs of the future are in
some of these exciting technology fields.
The President has committed significant dollars and
proposed significant dollars and the Congress has responded
with--in the Recovery Act with significant dollars for the
Department of Education; and the President has talked about
incentives for States to focus on math and science instruction,
high academic standards.
It would be very easy for all the States to lower their
education standards in order to help meet the No Child Left
Behind requirements. And it would be very easy for States to
lower academic standards so that more children can graduate
from high school and make the parents of the children feel
good. But what have we done for their economic future if they
are not skilled in critical thinking, reading, writing, math
and in science?
So I very much believe that American businesses need to
help lead the charge and work with education officials in their
respective communities to insist on high academic standards
with attention to math and science.
Mr. Fattah. Let me thank you and thank you for your work
you have done in your previous role as Governor. I am quite
familiar with the work that was done in Seattle with the
business community to create real workplace internships and
apprenticeship programs for our children to get a sense of what
is available in real life.
But there is more work to be done, and I think that is
going to be very hard for us to compete internationally if we
don't have the educational achievement level raised. And then
what is amazing is that this challenge rests--this disparity
rests between our best performing children and our
international competitors; and as you know and I know, there
are a lot of young people who have not yet been able to
demonstrate their best for lack of educational opportunities.
So thank you for your testimony. I look forward to working
with you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Culberson.
AMERICA'S COMPETITIVENESS IN THE SCIENCES
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could not agree
more with my friend, Mr. Fattah. This entire Subcommittee, Mr.
Secretary, is committed to investing in scientific research and
ensuring that the United States maintains its technological
edge. We are all strong supporters of the space program, and as
concerned as I know you are and the administration is in the
declining number of young people going into the engineering
profession, going into the sciences, physics, mathematics, I
wanted to ask if you could very quickly tell us a couple of
specific things you will do as Secretary of Commerce, very
specific things with short-term or long-term results, to help
improve America's competitiveness in the sciences, encourage
more young people to go into the sciences and help us keep that
technological edge that we have always had.
Secretary Locke. First of all, I have already been to
several States where we have announced Economic Development
Administration grants. Just a few weeks ago, 2 weeks ago, I was
in Arkansas providing some--announcing some $5 million in
grants for economic assistance.
Mr. Culberson. To what type of organizations?
Secretary Locke. These were to colleges and universities,
helping create incubator sites; also some industrial parks,
where we are providing some infrastructure. This was part of
the disaster relief funds that the Congress appropriated in the
wake of the hurricanes and the tornados and the flooding in the
Southeast and throughout much of America.
Mr. Culberson. Targeted grant money. How about to encourage
young people to go into the sciences?
Secretary Locke. Right. But in those--at, for instance, the
colleges and the universities and even meeting with the local
business people, I talked about the need for the business
community to really focus on math and science and focus on
academic standards, and for the business community to get
involved in the education agenda and the education plans within
their respective communities.
With respect to Department of Commerce, we also have some
funds that we are going to be providing through NIST, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, on fellowships,
grants to colleges and universities, promoting more research
and development, because we need to have a strong research
innovation base throughout America, not just within the
Department of Commerce.
Mr. Culberson. That is where I was hoping you would be
going, is through the investment and research through NIST,
which has a terrific track record of investing in peer-reviewed
specific research with great benefit.
And if I could, also, I want to be sure that you are aware
from the numbers that we have been--become familiar with, over
the last several years working on this wonderful subcommittee,
that the Chinese have about 200,000 people working in their
space program. We have only got about 90,000 in ours. They
graduate about 300,000 engineers a year, where we are, in the
United States, graduating about 30,000.
So it is an extraordinarily important question. And I
appreciate your commitment to NIST. They do wonderful work.
WASHINGTON STATE BUDGET
I wanted to ask, if I could, Mr. Secretary, as Governor of
Washington State, did you have, as we have in Texas, a balanced
budget requirement in your State constitution?
Secretary Locke. Yes, we did. It is actually not in our
constitution, but we have various statutes that, in effect,
require us to have a balanced budget.
Mr. Culberson. I know, as Governor, you dealt with that
every year and made recommendations to the legislature. Did you
make recommendations to the legislature about where to save
money in the budget of Washington State in order to make sure
the budget stayed balanced?
Secretary Locke. Yes, we did. When we had a very severe
recession, what we did was not to raise taxes, but instead
institute what we called the ``priorities of government''
approach, which has been adopted by many other States--
Republican Governors, Democratic Governors. It has been written
up in a variety of different textbooks.
Mr. Culberson. How did that work?
Secretary Locke. We went through every item in the State
budget. We had people from the outside, different agencies,
cross-sections of people, interdisciplinary teams. We set very
broad spending parameters in various components or activities
of State government, and then basically ranked every single
program to determine what was most valuable. And then I and my
advisors would sit down and go through these lists and say, we
are going to go through items 1 through 15, or this is how much
we wanted to spend in this particular area and----
GOVERNMENT SAVINGS
Mr. Culberson. Save money on the ones that are of lower
priority, sort of the Dave Ramsey approach, I guess, which is--
he is a guy I have been paying increasing attention to.
We in the Federal Government, as I know you are aware, are
on a path to, frankly, becoming Argentina if we are not
careful. Medicare will be the bank--the trust fund of Medicare
will be exhausted in 10 years. It is gone, empty, no more
Medicare checks. Social Security is on a similar path; we are
trying to get the number right now when it is exhausted.
And I don't play favorites by the way. I voted against $2.3
trillion in new spending under President Bush.
I got here in 2001. I voted against the Medicare
prescription drug program, the farm bills. I voted against
virtually every major spending bill I could under President
Bush in order to try to save money and, so far, had to vote
against $1.6 trillion in spending just in this new Congress.
And I wanted to ask if you could apply that--I really like
that idea, the ``priorities of government'' approach--to the
Department of Commerce. There are bound to be some areas in the
Department of Commerce that you can identify for the
subcommittee where we could save money.
Do you think you could find 5 percent savings, 10 percent
savings, if--if you applied the priorities of government
approach to the Department of Commerce and show us where you
could save a nickel on the dollar or a dime on the dollar?
Secretary Locke. It is my intent to bring some of those
principles to the Department of Commerce. I have only been here
4 weeks. I am still trying to learn the nomenclature, the
personnel nomenclature, the financial nomenclature of
Washington, D.C., and the Federal Government.
But the President does very much care about efficiency and
effectiveness in government programs. He has asked all of us to
go through our budgets and find savings. But the States--while
we had--most of us have had to have balanced budgets, we also
rely very much on the Federal Government to help carry out our
programs. And I do believe that in these very, very tough
economic times, the way to get out of a recession is, in fact,
to spend more.
Mr. Culberson. We are borrowing money to pay off borrowed
money is the worry.
And I wanted to ask if you could--because I only have a
brief amount of time, would you be willing to apply that
priorities-of-government approach to the Department of Commerce
and tell us on the subcommittee where you think we could find
some savings?
Secretary Locke. I do intend to bring management
efficiencies and changes to the Department of Commerce to
identify programs that are perhaps not as effective or
efficient as others. I believe that we in all of government
should be trying to identify those savings and take those
freed-up dollars, for instance, to put into more important or
critical programs. As I said at the beginning, it is my belief
that regardless of the revenue source, regardless of your type
of agency, you will never have enough money to do it all and we
need to prioritize.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Because I know you recognize the
urgency of the problem and actions essential.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
NOAA SATELLITE DESIGN LIFE ISSUE
Mr. Mollohan. Secretary Locke, Dr. Cicerone testified
before this committee that the fleet of observational
satellites needs quick attention. How many NOAA satellites are
past their design lives?
Secretary Locke. I do not know the exact number of
satellites that are beyond their useful life. I think an
interesting point, or a corollary to that, is we also have
several satellites in the future that are approaching the end
of their useful lives, and the challenge is to make sure,
whether it is with NPOESS or the GOES-R system, that we have
those satellites in place so that there is not a gap in the
coverage and the capability of our satellite system.
Mr. Mollohan. That is my question, if you would submit that
answer for the record, and what is the risk of data continuity
and delivery of NOAA forecasts and other products as a result
of this design life issue.
[The information follows:]
Satellites
In the NOAA Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites
(GOES) constellation, two of three on-orbit satellites are operating
beyond their design life. NOAA is preparing to launch the GOES-O
satellite later this year, which will be available for operational use
or to be placed in storage. NOAA is taking steps to avoid risks to data
continuity based on a current assessment of the performance of NOAA's
on-orbit satellites. However, such continuity is dependent on the
success of planned launches and the continued development of the GOES-R
series of spacecraft without significant delays.
In the NOAA Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
(POES) constellation, two of four on-orbit operational satellites are
operating beyond their design life. The NOAA-19 spacecraft was launched
in February 2009 and is currently undergoing its initial testing post-
launch, though all components are operating as expected. The satellite
will be placed into service once the tests are complete in the next few
months. NOAA's on-orbit and recently launched satellites are performing
well and there is no immediate risk to data continuity for NOAA's
weather and climate missions. We are concerned about the fragility of
the constellation as the tri-agency National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) satellites are scheduled to be
launched in the 2014 timeframe. The continued challenges with
developing a key NPOESS sensor are the major cause of this risk to data
continuity. NOAA is placing highest priority on the acquisition of this
system to mitigate this risk, and is working in collaboration with NASA
and the Department of Defense.
NOAA SATELLITES
Mr. Mollohan. Given the projected outyear budgets for
NPOESS and GOES-R, existing satellite programs could exceed 30
percent of NOAA's discretionary request as early as 2011 and
remain at that level. And this assumes that NOAA's budget
reaches 4.5 billion and that funding for the rest of NOAA
remains flat. This obviously represents a major funding
challenge for NOAA.
Since NOAA has these responsibilities, national priority
represented by climate and weather satellites, do you agree
that NOAA's funding level should increase accordingly to
accommodate this huge percentage out of their budget that
satellites are going to represent?
Secretary Locke. Because the satellite program is going to
be costing more because you have to continue the development
and the research until they are finally launched. And the
longer it takes, the more we are spending. The various
estimates for these programs go up, although we are hoping that
the trajectory of those increased costs are flattening out,
especially with some of the recommendations, whether the Nunn-
McCurdy recommendations, as well as reports by GAO that
management changes are being made.
But we still have concerns, and even though some of the
past--even though the recommendations of the Nunn-McCurdy
process have been incorporated, we are still finding delays, we
are still finding increased costs. So that is very troubling
because of the impact these increased costs will have on the
other key functions of NOAA. So I think that if we--putting the
cost of the satellite programs aside, then with some of the
increased responsibilities of NOAA, it is going to be a
challenge to accomplish that within the dollars that are
available to us.
And then, if the increased cost and if the satellite
programs continue to increase in cost, then we are stuck with
the problem of either cutting back on these other programs,
vital programs of NOAA; and that, I think, wouldn't be in the
best interest of the country.
Mr. Mollohan. During the 1990s, two fateful decisions were
made, first, to converge the civil and defense polar orbiting
environmental satellite programs and, second, to abandon the
long-term mission elements for NASA's EOS.
In the transition to reliance on NOAA's polar orbiting
system for continuity and numerous critical climate
observations, the ensuing NPOESS implementation has proved to
be disappointing in the extreme, with cost overruns that have
jeopardized the overall health of NOAA and schedules that left
the civil polar satellite system fragile and one satellite
failure away from major gaps in the data, particularly for
monitoring of climate change.
The difficulty with the tri-agency's executive committee
and the management for NPOESS has had a lot of study, a lot of
comment. It comes as no surprise that NPOESS is routinely
behind schedule and over budget. That is all very well
documented, and this committee could have a whole day of
hearings on NPOESS and what it means for your budget, what you
are going to do to address the concern as you come into this
responsibility. And you are the new person on the block, so
that puts you in, maybe, a refreshing position to deal with it.
But let me--instead of going through all of that in that
kind of detail, let me give you an opportunity to assess the
status of these programs, NPOESS and GOES-R, and discuss the
management and funding challenges and how you, at this point,
early in your tenure here, intend to address them and approach
solutions.
Secretary Locke. As a Governor, as a manager, I never liked
cost overruns. I think that was----
Mr. Mollohan. You are going to be very unhappy as you come
into this program.
Secretary Locke. And I think that clearly this committee
knows much more than I about the tortured history of these
satellite programs.
I don't think the current system is effective. I don't
think it works. As you indicated, it is a tri-agency ownership
or tri-agency management structure; and it is well documented
what has happened. And the cost overruns have triggered the
Nunn-McCurdy review, which came up with a whole host of
recommendations which the agencies have followed.
But that still has not solved the problem. So I think there
is really--I have mentioned this to OMB and to others within
the administration. I have also mentioned to Secretary Gates my
desire to sit down and talk with him. I think it needs to be
resolved at a higher level, involving the White House Science
and Technology Office, OMB and the Secretaries involved, and I
intend to raise this issue.
We need a change. We need a change in the method by which
we approach the satellite system. Now, whether or not it can be
changed given the contracts that have already been awarded and
the way in which NPOESS is now being operated, that is
debatable. But certainly, as we look at future satellite
systems, I don't think we can repeat this type of management
structure.
Thank goodness, or thankfully, a lot of the lessons learned
from NPOESS have been incorporated into the management regime
for the GOES-R system. But GAO has also pointed out a few items
where we can certainly do better, and so I intend to address
those and make sure that the recommendations of the GAO are
being followed with respect to GOES-R. But the GOES-R satellite
system seems to be much farther along and with better cost
controls than NPOESS.
Mr. Mollohan. We understand that the GOES-R schedule for
that series of satellites is being pushed out because of some
protests. Provide us with a background on that issue and why
the protest, and what does that mean for the launch schedule?
Secretary Locke. I would have to get back to you in writing
or at another time or even perhaps this afternoon with respect
to that particular issue, as I am not fully apprised on that.
Mr. Mollohan. That would be fine for the record, or if you
are prepared to talk about it this afternoon, that would be
good as well. So we will just jump that topic.
[The information follows:]
Goes-R
The GOES-R spacecraft contract was awarded on December 4, 2008, and
subsequently protested by Boeing on December 15, 2008. On February 20,
2009, GAO dismissed the GOES-R protest as moot sonce NASA decided on
February 17, 2008 to re-evaluate the proposals and make a new selection
decision. The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) has reconvened and re-
evaluated the proposals as necessary. The new selection decision was
made and announced on May 6, 2009.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SCHOOL VOUCHERS
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate a number of your comments. I
found myself agreeing with most of what you have said, and I
have a couple of questions I want to ask you on the census. But
before I do--maybe you should have been the Secretary of
Education; I agree with your comments. We are now 24th and we
are falling behind rapidly; and some the countries we are
behind, it is really very, very troubling. And our space
program, we are falling behind in many, many areas.
I was disappointed and I want to take this opportunity--not
to pressure you on it--but that you may become an advocate for
the inconsistency of this administration on the issue of
vouchers for children in the District of Columbia schools.
I have a daughter that has been involved in teaching in the
inner city who has worked in the inner city for a number of
years. Many of those young people who use those voucher
programs, it is their way to get out, to break out, to get an
education. And I saw the Secretary of Education move to my
former congressional district, Arlington, so he could have good
schools. But if you are living in an inner city--and my
daughter taught in the D.C. schools, too, and there is no
education really; fundamentally you are getting beaten up
almost every day.
And now this administration wants to take away that voucher
of 1,700 kids and then also prohibit any additional ones from
coming in. The administration is splitting families up, because
there are some families where the one child would be in a
voucher program and the other child would be coming into the
voucher program the following year and they are being knocked
out.
And so I would hope when this comes up in a Cabinet meeting
that you would formally speak the way you spoke here and
advocate for that. Because it is one thing to say we should
improve the District schools, and I think Superintendent Rhee
is--is doing a very good job. But in the interim, don't tell a
parent her child should stay in a declining school where they
are getting beaten up.
I would hope when this comes up--the administration has
been silent, the mayor has been silent, the Washington Post has
advocated for it--and I would hope that you would speak out on
behalf of those young students, all from the inner city, who
are taking advantage of the voucher program.
You don't have to comment on that unless you want to make a
comment. But I do agree with your comments about what you said
on education.
THE GATHERING STORM
Secondly I would urge you, if you could, to meet with Norm
Augustine, who put together the Gathering Storm. Do you know
who Norm Augustine is?
Secretary Locke. No, I don't.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we will get a copy of it. Norm Augustine is
a prominent business leader with Lockheed Martin. He was the
author of--the chairman of the report, The Gathering Storm and
I will get that to you. But I would urge you to meet with Norm
and sort of get some ideas of where maybe we might want to go.
HUMAN AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The third issue before I get to the census is that I was
critical of the previous administration for the failures to
address and advocate at every opportunity human and religious
freedom. In July of this past year, just before the Olympics, I
was one that felt the President should not go to the Olympics
and said so publicly.
In July, Congressman Smith and I went to China, had a very
difficult time getting a visa. It took about 3 weeks. And only
at about 10:30 at night the night before did they grant the
visa.
We had meetings set up with a lot of religious leaders and,
also, some dissidents who were lawyers, who had been given an
award by the National Endowment for Democracy. Only one of them
who was invited to dinner made it. Every other one was
arrested, and the next morning the one who made it to the
dinner was arrested. Secretary Rice, who was in town at that
time never said a thing. In fact, in a press conference that
she had with the Chinese foreign minister, they bantered and
discussed what venue would be their favorite venue when the
Olympics took place.
And yet you had men that were taken away, beaten. One
pastor's son's eye was beaten; whether he lost the eye or not,
I am not sure.
In China today--I don't know what faith you are. In China
today, there are 30 Catholic bishops in jail. Congressman Chris
Smith took Holy Communion from Bishop Su. He has never been
seen since. He was seen once, they believed, being transferred
from one automobile to another, but we don't know if he is
alive or not, simply for granting Holy Communion to Congressman
Smith.
In 1989, I was in Beijing Prison No. 1 where they were
making socks. These were Tiananmen Square demonstrators, making
socks for export to the United States. Tiananmen demonstrators
are still in prison today--20 years, still in prison today.
I went to Tibet through a back door. We went in with a
trekking group years ago; and what they have done to the
Tibetan community--Lhasa is really no longer a Tibetan city.
They are persecuting the Uyghurs. There is a woman in my
district, Reba Kadeer, whose two children are now in prison,
and there are public security police living in an apartment to
make sure her daughter doesn't do anything.
I have seen similar trends in this administration. I
thought when Secretary Clinton went to Beijing, they missed an
opportunity to speak out and advocate for them. I had urged
Secretary Gutierrez and everyone in the Bush administration who
had a political appointment to attend a house church in China.
A number of house church leaders had asked us to attend the
house church and said, could you get someone in the
administration to attend the house church. So they, in essence,
wanted someone to come. It isn't that they were going to be in
danger; they felt this would actually protect them.
I would urge you and others in the Department of Commerce,
when given the opportunity of going to Beijing, that you
worship, even though it may not be exactly your denomination
and we don't have to get into what your religion or faith is.
Just to stand with them, Sharansky said when people stood with
him, advocated for him, his life got better. Solzhenitsyn said
the same thing; Yelena Bonner said the same thing. So I would
urge that.
Perhaps the Secretary regrets the fact that she missed an
opportunity. Because you were in politics before, you were
Governor, you have run for office; and it is like someone
saying, Gary, I am really for you privately, I just can't be
for you publicly.
Well, if we can't stand with the dissidents publicly, then
we are really not for them.
So I am hoping you are given an opportunity, and I will
share with you the letter that we sent to the Bush people, and
I would ask you to consider attending a house church where a
pastor wants you to be. If--do you think you might want to do
that?
Secretary Locke. I will certainly consider it, and if you
can give me some of that information, I will welcome it.
Mr. Wolf. I will do that.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CENSUS
Now for the question. When Senator Gregg was nominated to
the Secretary of Commerce, White House officials stated that
the Census Bureau will be overseen directly by the White House
instead of the Secretary of Commerce.
We need a fair, accurate, trustworthy 2010 census,
conducted by career professionals, not a 2010 census managed by
political operatives. It was very troubling when I saw that
Rahm Emanuel was going to kind of run the census or be
operating it.
Three questions:
Do you believe the 2010 census should be managed by
experienced professionals who are leaders in the field? And I
think I know your answer, but I want to get it on the record.
Two, what role will the White House have in execution of
the 2010 census?
Thirdly, if the White House attempted to change the
administration of the 2010 census, such as add in a question or
change the nonresponse follow-up process, how would that impact
the costs and risks associated with the census?
Secretary Locke. Congressman, let me just say that when I
was asked by the President and the White House to take on the
role of Secretary of Commerce, I, in fact, asked about the
census, given the matter that it had received in the press. And
the President and others in the White House have assured me
that we will--that the White House will not be supervising or
running the census. The census ultimately reports to me, and of
course, I report to the White House and to the President and
serve at his pleasure.
But we have thousands of highly professional and dedicated
people in the Census Bureau, and it is their job to carry out
the census and there will be no political interference.
But what is the role of the White House? Obviously, in
every census, under Democratic and Republican administrations,
we have always kept the White House and the Members of Congress
apprised as to how the census was going, whether cost overruns,
management issues, response rates, et cetera, et cetera. We
will continue to report the progress of the census to the
Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, House and
Senate, and to the White House.
But it is our intent, and I have been assured by the White
House that they have no intention of supervising and running
the census, that it is the purview and the province of the
Census Bureau, the professionals there, along with the
Secretary of Commerce.
STATISTICAL SAMPLING OF THE CENSUS
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. One other question, then. Do you have
any plans to use statistical sampling for the 2010 census
figures for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats or
allocating Federal funding?
Secretary Locke. No.
CHINA MATERIAL
Mr. Wolf. Well, I want to thank you very, very much. And I
will get the China material to you, plus the names of any of
the pastors. And if you feel comfortable, I plan on waiting
until all of the political appointees are appointed in the
administration and then sending them--and let me just say
candidly, no one, no one, no political appointee in the Bush
administration took me up on visiting a church.
And so once most of the political appointees are appointed,
I plan on sending a letter with the telephone number so that
they can--and also with the acquiescence of the people involved
that hopefully--it will be so refreshing to have a flooding of
people from this administration and government--and, quite
frankly, let me just say that I don't know that there are
Members of Congress that really go to these services either.
In the days of the Reagan administration, whenever Members
of Congress went abroad or members of the administration went
abroad, they generally carried a list of the dissidents they
advocated; and for someone like you to raise a couple of these
cases I think could go a long way.
So I appreciate it. I will get you the material. And thank
you for your testimony.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Honda.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think many times when
we get new jobs and new positions, we generally have a
conversation with ourselves, saying something like, geez, I
didn't know that. I wish I knew this before or--maybe we should
do a better job of teaching our youngsters some of the basics
that we start to realize that exist here on the Hill and to run
the government.
Seeing the breadth of the responsibilities of the
Department of Commerce that includes not only business, trade,
but education, science and the other activities, will there be
a time when you will be asking your Department to start looking
at some of the things that they do and try to develop some sort
of a conceptual framework of what it is that--without the title
of Department of Commerce, but what the activities are and how
they are related and how they can be converted into
instructions so that somewhere along the line the education
department can take that and sort of convert that into
instruction? Because the more that our citizens are informed
and cognizant of concepts and responsibilities, the better
consumers they become, better consumers of information and
better decision-makers they would be.
CLIMATE CHANGE
And with this whole issue of climate change, I don't think
there is anything under the sun that isn't affected by some
activities of human behavior, whether it is understanding the
climate--movement of air, carbon dioxide, water, the chemical
processes and all these sorts of things; and then how change in
climate might impact on different diseases that may occur
because of the climate change, or different geography that
might occur, predictable; and the kinds of things that NOAA and
NASA and NIST can work on in terms of being better stewards and
understand how to make decisions on what we do with our
stewardship and our Earth, outside of the economics that we
understand that we need to take care of this Earth with the
whole idea that Earth first and figure out how to make a living
from that later on.
Is there any thought--have you had any thoughts about that
or would that be something you would sort of look at in your
future and sort of contemplate and see what can be done with
that?
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman Honda.
Being relatively new to the Department of Commerce, I am
nonetheless very, very impressed and amazed at the wide array
of resources and information and activities within the
Department of Commerce from NOAA to the Census Bureau; and it
is not just counting the population every 10 years or doing the
American community survey every year, but all the incredible
research that occurs in terms of business transactions,
business behavior, consumer activities, consumer spending, what
consumers, or Americans and how they spend when they visit
other countries to even some of the characteristics of
successful businesses over a period of time.
And then, of course, we have all of our trade and economic
activities. And we also have National Institute of Standards
and Technology, which is really helping set the course for so
much of the new technology that Americans take for granted
every single day, whether it is cell phone standards to cyber
security or even to the testing of sophisticated equipment that
companies deploy, setting the standards for what basically will
pass the test or pass muster and what doesn't pass muster.
So I really think we have an opportunity to communicate a
lot of these activities and this incredible breadth of
knowledge to people across America so that they understand a
lot of and can take advantage of this research, whether it is
from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to some
information from the Census Bureau and especially to NOAA.
And I think we really have a challenge to try and impart
this information, especially to our schools and children. And
it would be great if children could almost view real time, some
of the research that is going on, taking place on our NOAA
ships or receiving some of the pictures from our NOAA
satellites. So that they really have an understanding of the
relevance of so many of these bureaus within the Department of
Commerce, to them and really can get excited about a lot of
this cutting edge activity. I want the people of America to
view the Department of Commerce as a department of knowledge,
innovation and economic growth.
LONG-TERM IMPACT OF SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES
Mr. Honda. It would be important, I think, somehow that--
there is a tension, it seems to me, between science, good
stewardship and making money; and sometimes we go to the most
recent, the most short time line, that is, to make money first
and not worry about the impact of how we make that money.
For instance, when we scrape the bottom of the ocean
looking for different kinds of foods, we destroy thousands of
years of formation that was necessary for the propagation of
different species and the balance and sustainability of our
planet. So all that seems to be embodied in a lot of things
that you do. So it would seem logical that somewhere along the
line we would look at all these things and how this is embedded
in creating some value that we internalize as a nation, as
individuals; and I think that you understand that and this is
something that our children and your children would probably
be--it would be helpful for them, so that we can sustain the
leadership that we have in this country.
I appreciate--perhaps sometime in the near future we can
have a more thorough discussion about that.
Secretary Locke. Well, thank you, Congressman Honda. I
think it is important that Americans--I think Americans are
beginning to take a longer view on matters; as the current
economic problems of the country have shown, we cannot just
focus on short-term results, short-term corollary results and
the drive for profit in the next quarter without thinking of
the implications 2 or 3 years down the road.
And I think clearly President Obama is trying to get our
country back on sound economic footing, a strong economy
creating more jobs, preserving jobs, sensible regulation of the
financial market, knowing that without regulation, proper
balance, that American consumers, American industries,
financial practices can hurt those American families and
American businesses.
And the same thing goes to the environment, which is why
the President is so committed to climate change, because it is
going to cost us a lot more money if we simply allow emissions
of greenhouse gases to continue unabated. The devastation to
businesses, to communities, to farmers, to recreation, to daily
lives with more flooding, severe heat waves, the list goes on.
So--the human toll, let alone the political and economic toll
will be disastrous, so it is either do something now or suffer
the consequences later.
Mr. Honda. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CENSUS AND THE WHITE HOUSE
Secretary Locke, as Governor, you always had a reputation
as being a fair man and you always followed the law. And I
wondered if I could to follow up on questions that Mr. Wolf
asked you about the census.
And, you know, the Department of Commerce has a statutory
obligation, Federal law assigns the responsibility for running
the census to the Department of Commerce and no other agency;
and the law is unambiguous.
We have as--I know Frank is familiar with the book; I
haven't read completely myself, Rahm Emanuel's book, The
Thumping. When Mr. Emanuel or someone from the White House--
because he is going to make a phone call. He is going to make a
phone call or ask you verbally.
When he asks you or makes suggestions, assuming that he
does--I think he will. When the White House asks you to do one,
two and three or attempts to give you specific direction on how
to run the census, how will you respond to that?
Secretary Locke. I have every confidence that the White
House will want the census to be done as accurately as
possible, and all within the legal parameters with which we are
charged. So I have absolute confidence that there will be no
attempts to interfere with the census.
Mr. Culberson. So you will not accept any communications
from the White House on how to run the census. You will do that
entirely on your own, under the law, within the Department of
Commerce, without outside interference from anywhere, including
the White House?
Secretary Locke. As I indicated to Congressman Wolf, the
census has always communicated with the White House under
Democratic and Republican administrations and to the Members of
Congress. We are receiving suggestions on how to run the census
from the Members of Congress, and I am sure that we will have
ideas from the White House, ideas on how to have more effective
outreach, how to use the media, paid and free media, to the
whole notion of bilingual forms. We are having ideas from a
variety of community groups and Members of Congress that we're
not using enough bilingual forms.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
And you will make all of those publicly available to the
committee and the Congress?
Secretary Locke. We are governed by the Freedom of
Information Act, and President Obama very much believes in
greater transparency.
Let me just say that I intend to supervise the census, and
we have chosen a census director who is a trained professional,
highly respected in the academic field, who has worked in the
Commerce Department, Census Bureau before. And it is my mission
to make sure that we run the most accurate and effective census
ever.
Now, we have some huge management challenges given the
problems that we had with the handhelds. We are on a very, very
tight time frame. We are seeing a lower response, census after
census, of Americans filling out the census form and sending it
back, just as I think academicians will say that participation
in surveys is dropping, it is harder and harder----
Mr. Culberson. People are not required to fill out all the
information. It is a free country. You will just have to count
heads, essentially.
And I appreciate your answer. I want to be sure you are
running the census in an objective, independent, professional
way under the statute without interference from anybody.
Secretary Locke. I don't expect interference from anyone,
whether the White House or the Congress.
GOVERNMENT SAVINGS
Mr. Culberson. That is great. Thank you.
You received at the Department of Commerce a $7.9 billion
increase from the Stimulus Act, and your entire annual budget
for 2008 was 7.9 billion. There is a dramatic increase in
funding this year, of course, primarily due to the needs of the
census.
But in light of the economic downturns, severe problems the
country is facing as a whole, the fact I mentioned to you
earlier that the Medicare bank account is empty, there is no
more money for benefits in 10 years, the country's glide path
is--we have got record debt and deficit, I want to ask you
specifically, would you commit to the subcommittee that you
will identify areas where we could save money in the Department
of Commerce? And if so, how much?
Secretary Locke. I cannot give you----
Mr. Culberson. I mean, a percentage. A penny on the dollar.
Would you commit to helping us find a penny on the dollar, 1
percent savings?
Secretary Locke. I would like to be able to surprise you
with how much we are able to save, but having only been there
for 4 weeks, or starting my fourth week, I cannot give you a
figure.
PRIORITIES OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Culberson. Sure. You are in a great position, though,
to apply your budget--what did you call it, the ``priorities of
government''?
Secretary Locke. Priorities of government.
Mr. Culberson. It is a great idea. Let me ask you that.
Would you commit to apply that principle that you applied as
Governor to the budget of the State of Washington, would you
apply that to the budget of the Department of Commerce and
recommend savings based on that approach to the subcommittee?
Secretary Locke. I intend to incorporate the priorities-of-
government approach and numerous other government efficiency
and accountability measures that I employed in the State of
Washington to the Department of Commerce.
Mr. Culberson. And make those recommendations to the
subcommittee?
Secretary Locke. I will be making our recommendations and
trying to impose those savings within the Department of
Commerce, period.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. I am glad we got you in here this morning.
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
Mr. Schiff. I apologize, Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman. I
had votes in the Judiciary Committee, so I have been running
back and forth; I may get called again to vote.
But it is wonderful to see you. We had a chance to meet in
Los Angeles some years ago. No reason you would remember that,
but it was wonderful to meet you then and nice to see you again
here today.
I wanted to ask you a little bit about broadband
deployment. And I know in your testimony you mention NTIA is
administering the $4.7 billion in surplus funds directed both
towards expanding--well, primarily towards expanding broadband
Internet access. We all hope that money is spent both quickly
and wisely.
Although the U.S. enjoyed an early lead in Internet
deployment over the last few years, we have fallen behind our
economic competitors in Europe and Asia in the breadth of
access, connection, speed and cost. What we call broadband in
the U.S. seems rare, slow and expensive to visitors from Japan,
Korea or the U.K.
What is your sense of what caused us to lose our edge in
this area, and what do we need to do to change it? Plainly we
have deployed significant resources. What needs to happen for
us to catch up?
Secretary Locke. I think in some ways other countries have
been able to move faster than the United States only because
they have learned from our lessons, and they have been able to
simply take advantage of the latest technology and have been
able to simply leapfrog Americans and American
telecommunications by watching and seeing what we have done.
So much of our telecommunications infrastructure has really
started, first, with copper wire and so many of the changes
have been focused on additions to that technology. And so it
has been very, very expensive to make improvements off of that
basically legacy systems.
But you are already seeing in various parts of the United
States where we are using cellular and satellite technology and
microwave technology where we are able to leapfrog or
transverse large distances without having to lay copper or
fiber-optic cable. Using that cellular technology and satellite
and microwave technology, you receive the signal and then you
can deploy fiber-optic cables and so forth.
And that is what other countries have started to do, so
they have in some ways benefited from total absence of
telecommunications and not been burdened by some of the older
technology that we have had, which was natural, which was state
of the art at that time, and then basically been able to pick
and choose from this current technology and say, wow, we can
transverse mountains and huge valleys using this technology.
But I think that we are seeing Americans change their
entire habits. I mean, so many people just have cell phones now
and really aren't using handhelds or copper wire. Or they are
using portable phones, walking around their entire house with a
portable phone.
So the whole state of technology is changing so rapidly,
and clearly with the President's initiative on broadband, he
wants the most advanced telecommunications brought to every
person and every community and every business in America.
So we are excited about this possibility and this
opportunity and this challenge; and we are working with the
stakeholders, in a very transparent fashion, of
telecommunications companies, academic communities, political
leaders, mayors, governors, religious leaders exactly on how
this $4.7 billion within Commerce will be deployed, working
with the FCC and the Department of Agriculture as well.
Mr. Schiff. One of the downside risks that is going to come
along with the broader deployment of broadband affects an
industry in my district greatly, and that is the entertainment
industry. The music industry has been decimated by illegal
downloads. The more you have broadband coverage, the more you
can download films which require a lot more bandwidth.
PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Are there steps the Commerce Department is contemplating
taking to try to protect the intellectual property that is
being stolen so rampantly and will be stolen even more,
potentially, as the technology improves?
Secretary Locke. Clearly, the issue of intellectual
property is of major concern to the industry and it certainly
is to us within the Department of Commerce, because as we go
around the world, urging other countries to increase their
efforts at the protection of intellectual property, we have to
be able to point to what we are doing here in our own country
as well.
And I recently met with the motion picture industry that
was meeting here in Washington, D.C., and we talked
specifically about these issues. When some of the movies
already are available over the Internet, even before they are
released to the general public, that is of concern. And it is a
disincentive for investment in a variety of industries, not
just the entertainment industry. But it is--if people cannot
receive a return on their investment because of piracy and
intellectual property violations, whether it is drugs, whether
it is in machinery, whether it is in ideas, whether it is in
entertainment, all around the world as well as here in America,
then is a disincentive to that type of investment, and it is
depriving people, companies, of income and taking away jobs.
So it is an issue that is going to require a whole host of
policymakers to get engaged in, Members of Congress, the
administration, the industry and all sectors of business.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
And if I may make one last point, Mr. Chairman, on this
subject--and I don't even know, it may be in the theaters now
or may not still be out yet. But Wolverine, the new X-Men film,
was out, being illegally pirated, before its theatrical
release. And obviously that can cost millions of dollars to the
creators of that intellectual property.
And I always think the old paradigm of the American
industry was the auto industry, which we have seen having
tremendous problems. The new paradigm is in the intellectual
property area, not just content, but things like software and
other intellectual property.
If there were cars being stolen off the GM lot or off the
Ford lot, and those automakers were losing millions because
there were cars being stolen off the lot, and that was
contributing to the demise of that industry, we would be
jumping on that with a vengeance. Well, cars are being stolen
off the lots of Warner Brothers and Disney and Dreamworks and
all the other studios by having their films stolen before they
are out the gate.
So I appreciate it, all your efforts, and look forward to
working with you on these issues.
Secretary Locke. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. I was----
Mr. Mollohan. Were you anticipating our adjourning for
lunch and coming back at 2:00?
Mr. Serrano. No.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you going to be back here this afternoon?
Mr. Serrano. I am not sure. I have one further question.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Mr. Schiff covered the area that I wanted to
cover. And I just know that you said your Department--
Department of Commerce is working with the FCC because they had
recommendations that they had made on the 4.7 billion. So that
will be a close relationship, I hope.
CUBA
I just wanted to ask you a question about Commerce and
Cuba. The President, to my joy, has made some comments and
started some things and put some things in place that may begin
to change certainly our relationship with Cuba.
As you know, we sell items to Cuba--agriculture, medicine.
But the problem in the past administration was that we then--
what is allowed to be done, people made it difficult for it to
get done. And so getting a license was difficult; humanitarian
shipments were difficult.
My question is also a statement. I would hope that would
change, that within the law what is allowed to be done with
Cuba is done with Cuba, and that people don't take at the
Department, as they did before the law, and say, yeah, but that
was a bad policy Congress passed, so we are going to try to get
around it; and made it very difficult--very, very difficult to
carry out what is allowed by law.
Mr. Serrano. What is your take on that whole issue with
dealing with Cuba and what the law allows now in sales and
licensing and so on?
Secretary Locke. The President has embarked on a
significant change in the relations between the United States
and Cuba. We now have an opportunity to permit and encourage
more travel and trade between Cuba and the United States. It is
my belief that trade, more tourism, more visits can facilitate
reform and modernization as well as democratization of
countries; that the more people from the United States travel
to Cuba or any other country, the more visitors from another
country to the United States, the more commerce that is
conducted; the more opportunities for other people of other
countries to witness firsthand the benefits of our diversity,
our freedoms, our democratic way of life. And I believe that
that exposure hastens the appetite--or whets the appetite and
hastens the development of democratic principles in that other
country.
We in the Department of Commerce will vigorously carry out
the President's initiatives, and we will want to help
facilitate his objectives.
Mr. Serrano. I appreciate your comments. I must say,
however, that the role of the Commerce Department should not be
that of trying to bring changes in Cuba, as we don't do the
same with China or with other places; we just deal with them.
And while that may be the end result, and that is always good,
the role should be, the one role I want the Commerce Department
to play, is to know that there are some laws in place that the
last administration Commerce Department made difficult to work
within and that we stay there.
I don't dispute with you, perhaps, your personal desires to
see change in Cuba, but I think that that is the problem that
we have had in the past, a lot of folks' personal situation,
including the last Commerce Secretary, who had a personal stake
in what happened in Cuba, since he was Cuban American, although
I stopped trying to embarrass him, which was not my intent,
after the first hearing that he came every year, because he
had, when he was the head of Kellogg's, said that we should
deal with Cuba and trade everything we could. And as Commerce
Secretary he made another statement, but I only did that once
to remind him of his comment, as people remind me of mine on a
constant level.
Anyway, my whole intent is to get you to say publicly what
you have said, that what the President wants to do is to get
closer, and we should get closer. Whether or not that changes,
well, I could give you a list of countries in the Middle East
that we don't demand that from while we deal with them. But I
thank you for your comments, and I stand ready to support you
in all your work.
Secretary Locke. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. We look forward to
you being back this afternoon, in any event.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make every
attempt to be back this afternoon.
Mr. Mollohan. I know. You are very good about that.
Mr. Secretary, we are going to adjourn, and we will
reassemble--recess and be back at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Mollohan. Hearing is in recess.
Secretary Locke. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order. Mr.
Secretary, I hope you had a good lunch and maybe a walk out in
that beautiful sunshine. A great day it is out there. But you
probably ran downtown and worked for 2 hours.
Secretary Locke. Well, I am not used to this Washington,
D.C., weather compared to the other Washington.
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, I will bet.
Mr. Wolf. How many umbrellas do you own?
Secretary Locke. Actually I don't like umbrellas either
so--they are always breaking, and I am afraid they are going to
poke people in the eye or in the head, so I just wear a parka
over my suit coat in Seattle.
STATUS OF THE CENSUS
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Secretary, there were some questions with
regard to census. We are just going to ask you a few. If you
would like to give us any more detail about the status of how
you see the census at this point, and give us some assurances
with regard to time lines. If there is anything you can add to
your testimony that you have already given with regard to the
census, this is extremely important.
You come to this job and assume the responsibilities of an
agency that just did an absolutely miserable job with the
census up to this time from contractor oversight to the
performance of those who were in charge of this process. And I
think they would really acknowledge that and actually did
acknowledge that sitting right there at that table. So what was
not done well and not done right in a previous regime, you have
to assume the product and to make it right.
So if you would talk to us about the status of it, how you
see it going forward, give us some assurance that you are
meeting every time line, and we are going to be ready to do a
bang-up job on the census that is going to make everybody
proud, we would appreciate it.
Secretary Locke. Thank you again, Chairman Mollohan and
Ranking Member Wolf.
Regarding the census, there have been numerous changes that
have been made, numerous procedures that have been instituted.
Let me just be very brief about it and answer any further
questions you might have.
There have been leadership changes as a result of the
debacle surrounding the handheld computers, where large funds
of money were actually given out to the contractor for very
little performance.
We have adjusted the field data automation contract so that
we have--we are doing more items in house, and we also have a
different contractor on some of the systems.
We have implemented, in response to the GAO report, a high-
risk improvement plan to address the points raised by the GAO
report. There are, for instance, monthly status reports to the
Department of Commerce Secretary's office, as well as OMB, and
then within the Census Bureau, they have weekly reports, and
they have almost like a situation room where they are
monitoring all the key items, and key management functions, and
issues, and time frames, and projects within the decennial
census.
We have already received some reports that, for instance,
the verification of addresses is proceeding on time, actually a
little bit ahead of schedule and within budget. Because the
Census Bureau has abandoned the handheld computers for the
enumeration that were to be used by people going around door to
door, they have instead reinstituted a paper and pencil
program, and as a result they have not been able to fully test
all of their systems. They were hoping for a full dress
rehearsal this past year, but that has not occurred. And so
they are testing various systems in an abbreviated fashion, in
a scaled-down version. And, of course, the time frames for
responding to any deficiencies that might be identified in
those field tests are very, very--the time schedule or the
response time is very small and very narrow. But so far things
are proceeding on course with no major problems identified. So
we are basically keeping our fingers crossed.
But we have an enormous challenge ahead of hiring over at
least another million people next spring to serve as
enumerators, to go door to door and to get the response that we
need for those who are not sending in the questionnaires back
to the Census Bureau. But so far we are watching it very, very
carefully, and, in fact, we will be bringing on almost a SWOT
team of people to get an independent assessment of exactly the
status of the Census Bureau operations surrounding the
decennial census. And we are bringing people from outside,
private sector, people experienced in census, and have a
thorough, independent review just to make sure that things are
on track.
Mr. Mollohan. Would you submit for the record a time line,
your targets for accomplishing each stage of the census, and
then obviously the implementation date so we can just get a
sense of what you have to do between now and implementation and
how close you are to meeting a time schedule?
Secretary Locke. Yes, be happy to submit that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. When will the Bureau thread-test the paper-
based operations control system?
Secretary Locke. I am sorry, what was that?
Mr. Mollohan. When will, if you know--and if you don't, you
can submit it for the record--will the Bureau thread-test the
paper-based operations control system?
Secretary Locke. We will have to get that to you.
[The information follows:]
Thread Testing of Paper-Based Operations Control System
Thread testing of the Paper-Based Operations Control System begins
with the thread test for Non-Response Follow-up. That test is underway
running from April 20, 2009 through June 1, 2009. Subsequent tests will
follow.
HANDHELDS
Mr. Mollohan. How are the handhelds working?
Secretary Locke. The handhelds are actually working for the
limited purpose now of helping verify addresses and entering it
into the GPS system so that we have a more accurate
determination as to which legislative district or where a
particular household will fall or a particular address will
fall. So actually that is proceeding well.
I think we have had demonstration projects for Members of
Congress and some of the staff. I have actually had that shown
to me as well. And the handhelds even incorporate such things
as the time entry for the field workers so that we can
accurately record their hours for payroll purposes. And they
can actually communicate back to the field offices if they have
any questions. So I have talked to one of the staff members,
one of the paid individuals who is conducting this, and they
like it, and it is getting positive reviews out in the field.
Mr. Mollohan. We have a number of fairly detailed questions
with regard to the census that we will submit, Mr. Secretary,
for the record, so that you can respond to them.
Secretary Locke. Okay.
INFORMATION SECURITY
Mr. Mollohan. Department-wide security issues, Mr.
Secretary. The Inspector General reports that the Department
has reported information security as a material weakness every
year since 2001 despite additional expenditures to mitigate the
problem. Securing systems from cyberthreats is the most
difficult piece of the challenge. Incorporation of wireless and
other technologies to support operations and workplace
flexibilities invite new risks to the Department which you must
anticipate and mitigate.
The IG has found a number of problems and several notable
security incidents. This includes security personnel with an
inadequate grasp on the Department's IT security policy, NIST
standards, and guidance and security technology. The Department
has apparently cited a lack of resources as a major impediment.
Besides the fact of what you have requested for those
resources, will you commit to providing this committee with a
clear, focused request for IT security funding that lays out
the requirements and the results expected, and give us your
assessment of this problem?
Secretary Locke. I would be happy to supply that in writing
as well.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Locke. I just want to indicate that I met with
the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce, and we
have gone over the issues about information security. For
instance, the budget request for the Bureau of Industry and
Security recognizes the need for that overhaul.
In my earlier comments this morning when I talked about
some of the systems, servers and other pieces of equipment for
which there are no replacement parts, I was referring to the
Bureau of Industry and Security. And there I would like to find
a way in which we can accelerate the replacement of the
information technology there.
And when Representative Culberson was asking about trying
to achieve savings within the Department of Commerce, it is my
hope that if we were able to find savings in other departments,
agencies or bureaus within the Department of Commerce, we would
be able to move that in the areas that most need it, whether it
is in satellite for NOAA or into the technology needs and
cybersecurity needs within the Department of Commerce without
having to wait for future years and to wait for future
appropriations or funds in order to accomplish that.
BROADBAND ACCESS
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we stand ready to work with you on
that, Mr. Secretary, and I know you will let us know what your
resource needs are as you deal with that issue.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided in our
title of the bill $4.7 billion for broadband, and I believe 2.5
in Agriculture. As we talked previously, West Virginia
unfortunately is overrepresenting the rural areas of the Nation
possibly with regard to inadequate or no broadband access.
As the Department fashions its guidelines with regard to
the expenditures of these funds, what steps are you taking to
ensure that individual States with particular inadequacies in
this area are not overlooked as these funds are expended, and
that they achieve one of the goals, and that is to bring
broadband access in areas where it is inadequate or doesn't
exist?
Secretary Locke. That is one of the objectives of the
broadband dollars that have been appropriated or provided under
the Recovery Act, and it is a clear priority for the President
to make sure that both rural and urban areas, served,
underserved and----
Mr. Mollohan. Not served.
Secretary Locke [continuing]. And not served are addressed.
We are working very closely with the Department of
Agriculture and the FCC in trying to formulate general policies
and criteria that would be used across the country, and to make
sure that when all is said and done, that we can actually point
to a significant achievement of specific policies, and goals,
and objectives for the deployment of these broadband dollars.
We have been very, very transparent in seeking the input,
ideas from all sectors, Members of the Congress to other
Federal agencies, to the Governors, to the mayors, the private-
sector academia. And so we are hoping to put together those
general principals by which we would give out these grants, and
hope to have those principles clearly enunciated and published
by early summer, and hope that the first grants will flow in
the early fall of 2009. But trying to develop some policy and
principles that will target the rural areas is a priority for
us.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN STATES AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER BROADBAND
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Secretary, I had a broadband symposium or
meeting, if you will, at which the West Virginia Secretary of
Agriculture, a very capable woman, attended--was a panel
member. I was impressed by her knowledge of communication from
West Virginia, the needs from West Virginia, and specifically
because we were talking about broadband, broadband.
I did get the sense, however, that she was waiting. She was
waiting for something to come down from the Federal Government.
And that unnerved me a little bit because I had hoped that
there would be more interaction between the State and the
Federal Government, even at this point. For example, she didn't
know whether she was going to be issued a check and told, do
broadband in West Virginia, which she said, I hope that doesn't
happen, in words to that effect. Or whether she was going to be
asked to come up with some comprehensive plan, or whether the
Federal Government was going to work with the States and then
work with nonprofits or work with different sectors. So she is
really at a loss.
And with the Federal Government going forward with this
rulemaking, or whatever procedure is going to come forward with
these guidelines, at least based upon my sense of listening to
her and observing her at this hearing, I didn't have a sense
that the State was really prepared to be really proactive when
the right time came, didn't know where they were going. So it
means they are going to have a learning curve after all this
comes forward.
You may not be able to comment on this, but what
interaction is going on with the States? The States are going
to be huge players in this. I guess you are going to work
through the States. Is that your sense of it primarily, or are
you going to work through the States and individual entities
throughout the country?
Secretary Locke. Mr. Chairman, I can't give you a
definitive answer because no decisions have yet been made, and
there are a whole host of recommendations and ideas on how to
distribute the $4.7 billion within Congress and, as you say,
over $2 billion in the Department of Agriculture. We are
coordinating with the FCC and the Department of Agriculture.
The Department of Commerce has deployed a very transparent
process in seeking input and ideas, and everything is on the
Internet so that everyone in the world can see the ideas and
the suggestions offered by the telecommunications companies and
different sectors within telecommunications. They all have
different ideas, to the cable companies, to the Governors, to
the mayors and all the different interest groups.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I understood your testimony, and that is
what you said before. I guess I am simply trying to anticipate
or trying to head off a disappointment in this area. There is a
lot of money, there is a lot of need out there, there is a lot
of not having access, a lot of gaps out there, and if at the
end of the day we have not really strategically developed a
plan, looking at West Virginia, that makes a difference, that
is going to be a very sad thing, and an opportunity--a real
opportunity missed.
This is a lot more--I don't have to tell you, you are
from--you know how to do it up there, and you know how
important this is for economic development and also, most
importantly, for areas that are naturally resource-dependent
for economic diversification. It is the infrastructure we need
to do that, and I am intent on, to the extent possible,
following this with the hope that the Federal agencies and good
people who have responsibility for fashioning these rules, and
the State of West Virginia, are strategic and results-oriented
with regard to its being implemented in West Virginia.
Secretary Locke. I share your concern, Mr. Chairman,
because for us the measure of success is not simply
distributing the dollars in a timely fashion, but really making
sure that at the end of the day that significant policy
objectives have been advanced so that we can truly say that for
the dollars expended, the American public businesses in urban,
rural areas, underserved, unserved areas have truly benefited
from the distribution of dollars.
We have to be very, strategic in how we deploy these
dollars to make sure that we are getting true bang for the buck
and that we are leveraging whatever successes we have already
achieved.
Mr. Mollohan. It is terribly complicated. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CENSUS PARTENERSHIPS
Welcome back, Mr. Secretary. It is a series of different
subjects, but on the census, before we left, there was one more
I wanted to ask you. The Census Bureau is partnering with
thousands of national and local organizations to promote
participation in the 2010 census. I personally have serious
concerns that you are partnering with a group like ACORN. I
think they have been convicted of crimes, and I think it is a
very bad group. I would like to get your comments about that,
and are there other groups on there of a similar nature?
Secretary Locke. Mr. Wolf, Congressman Wolf, with respect
to ACORN, let me first indicate how the Census Bureau is
approaching partnerships with other organizations. At no time
will Department of Commerce or Census Bureau be contracting out
with any organization to carry out any functions of the Census
Bureau in terms of partnerships. We will not be providing
grants to nonprofit groups to do outreach or coordination or
anything like that.
We invite all partnership groups or partners in the
community to help us spread the word. And we will, for
instance, use our printed material and distribute to them for
them to pass out. But we are in no way subcontracting out the
hiring of people or personnel to go door to door. We insist on
full authority to hire the people that we think are qualified.
Now, if organizations want to encourage their members and
others in the community to come and apply for a job with the
Census Bureau, to knock on the doors, that is fine. We will do
the screening, and we will do the testing. We are not bound by
their suggestions. And so we are not using them as
subcontractors to provide people to us, nor are we
subcontracting work out to them.
Mr. Wolf. But why would you even participate with a group
like ACORN?
Secretary Locke. Well, first of all--
Mr. Wolf. They fabricated lists. You are in the Census
Bureau. Quite frankly, anything that ACORN is connected with,
the American people will have a difficult time believing is
credible. And so why would you even involve yourself in
something with a group like this that has such a bad
reputation?
Secretary Locke. If ACORN is willing to take our brochures,
and pass it out to families in their communities, and hold
meetings and pass out brochures, encouraging people to mail in
the response when they get it in the mail, then that is the
type of help that is legitimate, that is legal that we would
support.
Mr. Wolf. Well, that is a troubling answer, because would
you do it with a convicted felon, a group of people that have
been convicted felons? Would you do it with a group that wanted
to overthrow the United States? Would you do it with a group
that has a history of abusing women? Let's say there was a
group that had a history of abusing women, and they just wanted
to participate, and they said, we will participate with you,
but we will take your people. Would you do that?
Secretary Locke. No, we would not.
Mr. Wolf. Would you do that?
Secretary Locke. No, we would not, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Well, then I ask you to go back and give us a
written report and take a look at some of things that ACORN has
been involved in. I mean, that question really raises questions
then about the ability to do the census right. If you have a
group like ACORN, then it is going to be flawed, it is going to
be questioned, people are going to have problems with it.
Secretary Locke. I would be more than willing to talk with
you about this issue.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
HUMAN RIGHTS TRAINING
Several years ago as Chairman of this Subcommittee, I
included language requiring that ITA employees receive training
on human rights, the rule of law and corporate responsibility.
Unfortunately it is my understanding that this training has not
been continued after that year--I guess that is what happens
when you leave the committee--and that the new ITA----
Mr. Mollohan. I didn't hear that.
Mr. Wolf. I said this program has not been continued, this
training. I said perhaps, parenthetically, that is what happens
when you leave.
Given that the Department's commercial service currently
has 120 offices in China, far more than any other country, it
is a missed opportunity to better prepare our officers to be
aware of abuses and advocate for human rights.
We have also been told by the staff you actually have a
carrier for NEIT. It is a question would you start retraining
it now? Would you look at having people in your commercial
program both with regard to China and Vietnam and any other
country you think may be appropriate to have some training and
understanding, perhaps have an afternoon where you bring in
Harry Wu, who was in prison for 18 years, bring in Ray
Berkadir, bring in a Protestant pastor, bring in the Cardinal
Kung Foundation so that your commercial people can hear from
people who have direct knowledge of this. But one, will you
start the program up, and would you consider starting it up
with a carrier with the excess money that you currently have?
Secretary Locke. Well, you mentioned this program to me
just before this afternoon's hearing commenced, and I was not
aware of this program.
Mr. Wolf. No, I didn't expect you--
Secretary Locke. But I would like to look into it and find
out more about it. And I can report back to you our response in
terms of providing some sort of training or reinstituting this
training program.
[The information follows:]
Training on Human Rights
Beginning in FY 2003, Congress directed ITA to use $500,000 to
develop a human rights training program to address a concern that ITA's
efforts to increase trade were conducted without consideration of the
impact of U.S. global business expansion on human rights. To ensure
that our employees included information on human rights as part of
their counseling for U.S. exporters, the U.S. and Foreign Commercial
Service's (US&FCS) Office of Professional Development built a
comprehensive training program in coordination with ITA. Designed with
the input of Commercial Officers, outside experts, NGOs, and the State
Department, the training provided Commercial Service staff with the
tools to incorporate the promotion of human rights, rule of law, and
corporate responsibility into their daily work when counseling U.S.
businesses.
This training program began implementation for Commercial Officers
in FY 2003. In FY 2005, the training initiative was expanded to include
Commercial Specialists and Domestic Trade Specialists. ITA has
incorporated Human Rights training in the employee professional
development plans and at the beginning of FY 2009 almost all Commercial
Service officers and the majority of the staff have been trained. As we
bring on new employees, we are committed to ensuring that they too
receive human rights training as a part of their ongoing professional
development.
The International Trade Administration recognizes the importance of
human rights, rule of law, and corporate responsibility and the role
they play in international trade. We have trained almost all Commercial
Service officers and the majority of staff in this important area and
are committed to including human rights training in the ongoing
professional development of new officers and staff. In addition, we are
exploring cost-effective technology solutions to deliver the training
in the future to ensure that the training is available to all employees
on a continuous basis.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, I think it would be good. I mean, why
wouldn't we do it? I mean, why wouldn't we want to sensitize? I
mean, here we actually had a situation where I picked socks up
off the line in Beijing prison number 1. Those socks were being
manufactured for export to the West. I mean, here you had
Tiananmen Square demonstrators making socks so people could buy
them here in the West.
And it would seem to me that your people ought to know what
is going on, also in Vietnam. I mean, I think they are
persecuting the Catholic Church, they are persecuting
Buddhists, and they are having a very, very difficult time. So
I really can't really understand why--and, again, it is not
your fault--why we would not do that.
EXPORT CONTROL LAWS
As Commerce Secretary what will you do to ensure that our
export control laws are aggressively enforced in order to
prevent dual-use technologies from leaving the United States
and going to develop advanced military equipment in China,
build a nuclear bomb in Iran, or assist terrorists in creating
a weapon of mass destruction?
Secretary Locke. Dual-use export falls under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Industry and Security, and the
National Academy of Sciences has come out with a series of
recommendations on how to improve that operation. There are
certain items that obviously many people feel should not be the
subject of regulation that would then free up resources to
really focus on true threats and other materials that are the
subject of national security concern, and so that we have the
right emphasis and can be more vigilant in particular areas.
I very much am willing to look at that and to see what we
can do to reform that process to really direct our personnel
and focus our efforts on those issues and items that clearly
are of concern to our national security interest.
INFORMATION SECURITY
But we need to be very, very careful with the technology
that we have and the equipment and the products made in the
United States that they not fall in the wrong hands or are used
for military purposes, especially where it could be adverse to
the United States' interests. And so we take those
responsibilities seriously.
That is also an area, for instance, where our information
technology is vulnerable and antiquated. It is the very same
agency within the Department of Commerce that has complained
that it has information technology for which there are no
replacement parts. And obviously, in order to be cybersecure,
BIS has shut off access to the Internet to make sure that their
systems are secure. Those are the programs that we need to
watch very, very carefully. If we are able we will free up
dollars in other operations, redeploy them and address some of
the cybersecurity issues.
Mr. Wolf. How long has that been a problem with regard to
that Bureau?
Secretary Locke. I think it has been ongoing for many, many
years. And I received a report from the Inspector General
saying--and even from the Acting Under Secretary, at BIS,
complaining about this and expressing concern that it has been
going on for perhaps 7 or 8 years. And they have been wanting
more dollars devoted to beefing up their information systems
and addressing the issue of cybersecurity, especially in an
area, at a Bureau that deals with such sensitive issues such as
military technology.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree.
THE JASON PROGRAM
The last question I have, are you aware of The Jason
Program, do you know Dr. Ballard?
Secretary Locke. No.
Mr. Wolf. I thought you would have known Dr. Ballard.
Secretary Locke. No.
Mr. Wolf. I would encourage you to look into The Jason
Program. The committee has funded The Jason Program over the
years. Dr. Ballard is the scientist who discovered the Titanic,
and he has an educational program with regard to the oceans,
and it is thoroughly exciting. And a lot of our schools out in
northern Virginia participate in The Jason Program. I had the
opportunity, they asked me to come one night to introduce Dr.
Ballard, and I had another event to go to. And I said, by the
way, it is the last game of the World Series, so I really don't
think we will get a crowd, but I will come. The auditorium was
packed, and they were there listening to Dr. Ballard talk about
the oceans and the sciences. And so it is an educational
program in a lot of schools.
I would urge you to, one, try to find out a little bit
about it, and maybe if Dr. Ballard comes into town, sit down
with him. I believe he has a place up in Woods Hole in
Massachusetts. But it is a program of sciences with regard to
the oceans and teaching young people math, science, physics,
chemistry, and biology.
For some years we will put the program in, and when the
budget comes up from--what was in the budget last year? We had
to add it in, and every time the administration would testify,
they would say it is a great program, we think it is a great
program, but then when the budget would come up, it would not
be in. Sometimes--and I know you will not do this--sometimes
the administration plays games. They know there are programs
that the Congress will probably put in. They want those
programs, but they won't put it in knowing someone up there on
Capitol Hill may very well put it in.
Now to really care about the math, and science, and
physics, and chemistry, and biology and oceans and scientists
for young people and education, The Jason Program offers a lot.
So I hope you take a look at that, and if you are interested,
let Dr. Ballard know the next time he is in town to come by and
see you.
Secretary Locke. Thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
SATELLITE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ruppersberger. The two issues I want to get into, that
is the satellite issues and also the issue of cyber security.
We in this country have been having a difficult time in the
last maybe 10 years of maintaining our efficiency and where we
were years ago in the space industry. I think when Sputnik came
about by the Russians, we responded as a country by putting a
man on the moon in 12 years. We have a difficult time in our
overhead architecture to even get a major satellite up in 12
years, and there are a lot of reasons for that. You basically
don't have a lot of jurisdiction, but your jurisdiction in NOAA
where you work with NASA is important, so you have some
responsibility there.
I am Chairman of a technical tactical committee on
Intelligence which overseas the whole overhead architecture.
And we had a huge investigation or really hearings and
tabletops, bringing the entire industry in, both the Director
of National Intelligence and the Department of Defense and also
the major contractors, commercial contractors. One of the
things that came out of that report was that one of the reasons
we have been having problems, a lot is in acquisition and
setting the specifications, getting people with an expertise in
the area of acquisition.
But another reason was the fact that a lot of the research
that needed to be done to put up the satellite was--was the
research and development were done after the contracts were let
out. And I think that in order to maintain our dominance from a
national security point of view, but also what our satellite
programs do in the commercial sector, what they do for NOAA, we
need to maintain and keep moving ahead in that regard.
My question to you is basically do you understand there are
issues in the satellite industry and in the space industry?
From your perspective, where would your priorities be as far as
resource?
And one other thing if you could address. We can't afford
to build satellites for Department of Defense, intel and NASA
and think we have the money to do everything. Now, we are going
to keep doing all of them, but we need to really work more in a
collaborative mode with DOD, with intel, and especially in
sharing some of the classified areas that we really don't need
to be classified with NOAA and with NASA. So if you can respond
to that issue, I would appreciate it, where you think you are
going from your perspective. And if it is too complicated, just
get back to you me afterwards on this issue so I could work
with your staff.
ITAR
I also want to get back--and this is very high priority to
me is ITAR, and I want to make sure that we work together to
resolve this ITAR. We can't wait any longer for ITAR. We are
having serious issues involving or national security, but our
business and whatever. So I think we really have to work on
that, too.
SATELLITE PROGRAMS IN NOAA
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Congressman. I would
like to perhaps sit down with you privately and individually to
learn more about some of these issues. I can only say that I
believe that the NPOESS satellite program for NOAA suffers from
a triagency management structure that simply does not work.
And the fact is that, with respect to the contracting, as
you said, a lot of the research and development is performed
after the contracts have been signed, because the contracts are
really for entities or organizations, whether private sector,
to develop the instruments, once the scientists have figured
out what it is that they want collected and what type of
information they want collected 20 or 30 years from now. None
of those instruments exist now.
And so we are basically saying as President Kennedy
challenged the Nation to put a man on the moon by the end of
the decade, we are basically asking the scientific community
and the contracting community to come up with these instruments
to measure and to do various tasks for which there are no
things, they are not off-the-shelf that you can then just stick
on a satellite and put them up into space.
So the contract calls for the research and development of
items in a very general and broad sense for which people really
don't have a firm estimate of the cost or how long it is going
to take to do. And so the cost overruns occur when it takes
more time to do it than anyone ever envisioned. It is taking
long, and it is more complex, and as a result budgets either
skyrocket, or the number of instruments get scaled back or
both.
Also I think there is an issue as to how we supervise the
subcontractors, and whether that is done effectively and
efficiently. In some cases we found perhaps it is better to
have NASA actually being the overseer of the project, as
opposed to a private contractor overseeing a subcontractor.
So I think we need to reexamine all the different models,
find out what really works and what does not work. Because it
is amazing that it is taking us so long to get the satellites
up and running.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Another area, too, is the commercial
satellite, which, because Europe has not had the money that we
have had, they very effectively have used commercial
satellites, which usually you can get maybe a lot more
satellites for the money. They are on time and on budget, or
they don't get paid. And that is something that I think we all
need to look at in that regard, too.
There is a report that our committee rendered, that the
President has now and the administration has now, and I should
have my staff person to get it to you all and look at it.
I think one of the things about research and development,
even before a contract is let out, we need to do that before it
goes out; in other words, have the research and development
there. You have program management issues. You have people who
are putting together the acquisition who don't have experience.
So there are a lot of issues that we have to deal with that are
very important.
CYBER SECURITY
The other is cyber. Cyber is probably one of the most
important issues from a national security point of view that we
are going to deal with in the future. We are way behind the
eight ball, other than some areas that I can't discuss, but
basically cyber can affect everything that we do in this
country. We know that we have--and I can say this is not
classified, it has been out there--our Pentagon has been
cyberattacked, NASA has been cyberattacked. And when you get
cyberattacked, there is probably millions if not billions of
dollars of research and development that, say, a China or
Russia, somebody can obtain that information that we have done,
and they can pick up what we need to do. But it goes way beyond
that.
We rely, we are probably--we are the strongest country in
the world and one of the main reasons we control the skies. Yet
China and Russia are that close to us. And yet from a cyber
point of view, these attacks can come through a grid system; a
grid system as far as energy or electricity or whatever, can be
done. They can go and they can attack a bank. You and some of
the experts in this area, basically if you have a senior
citizen in South Dakota who has a server and deals with a
community bank, and that community bank deals with Bank of
America, the bad guys can go in through that one server and
probably affect an ATM system of Bank of America generally.
When Russia went in to fight Georgia just this last summer,
they cyberattacked first from a banking, a grid. So this is a
very serious issue that we have to move quickly.
The good news is President Obama understands this. He was
briefed with McCain and President Bush last year where this
really came to the forefront. He has agreed to put money in the
right place. He has Melissa Hathaway, who he is working with on
his side, and then General Alexander is probably one of the
best technicians that we have in the United States military.
And so there are good people that are in place, but it is just
not about the people.
A lot of people right now think that NSA listens to their
phone calls, which is not true at all. It is unfortunately
sometimes the way the media takes something, moves something
out. This is as far as what people think. But cyber, we do not
own the Internet. The United States does not own the Internet.
It is very relevant and very important that, I think, from your
perspective in a commercial, that Microsoft, all these
businesses that are global are dealing with the cyber issue.
There has to be a buy-in from the business community, from the
government community, and from the average American citizen who
has a computer that we need to do this.
So if you could really focus on the cyber initiative and
maybe stand up some people in your organization, because a lot
of this is going to have to do with global companies, and we
need to have all of them in the tent, because there is going to
be billions of dollars' worth of money, and the government
cannot pay for all of that. Business has to be a part of this.
Secretary Locke. I thoroughly agree. And you indicated Ms.
Hathaway is helping conduct that review on behalf of the
President, and I believe that the various executive agencies
will be meeting shortly to discuss that report and to have that
report.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you see from your perspective and
your mission that you have a role there also? I think you have
a major role.
Secretary Locke. Oh, very much so. And the whole issue of
the impact on commerce, the impact to businesses, small and
medium-size businesses, to our financial institutions, as you
indicated, to our power grid system on which everything
depends. And as the President has declared, we all need to
really step up to the issue of cybersecurity not only within
our agencies, but for the entire country as a whole, and
commercial enterprises and financial enterprises, power grid
systems, water supply systems, medical systems, everything. I
mean, it is very easy for a person, a teenager, from some other
country just to start hacking into and destroying----
Mr. Ruppersberger. It could be al Qaeda, it could be a
hacker.
Secretary Locke. Or an organization of terrorist intent.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Thanks.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger.
PACIFIC COAST SALMON RECOVERY FUND
Secretary Locke, as a former Governor of Washington, you
likely are very familiar with the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery
Fund. In fact, the State of Washington received, I believe,
approximately 17 percent of those funds for this program.
Last year we heard testimony from the previous NOAA
Administrator, a fine Administrator, Retired Vice Admiral
Conrad Lautenbacher, who testified that the PCSRF had been
funded to the tune of, quote, ``many millions of dollars,'' end
of quote, over the previous 6 or 7 years. And in his opinion,
quote, ``It is time to start weaning the States off of some of
these grants. They have had time to adjust to them and the time
to build recovery plans.''
Do you agree with that statement in whole or in part, and
if not, why not?
Secretary Locke. I am not familiar with those comments or
his recommendations or his assessment. I do know that a lot of
effort has gone into addressing the endangered and threatened
salmon runs on the west coast, in the North Pacific all the way
from Alaska down to northern California, and we constantly face
additional challenges.
In fact, there appears to be another run of salmon that are
threatened, and the Governors of both California and Oregon are
asking for economic assistance because it appears that the
scientists are recommending a complete shutdown of a fishery in
the Klamath Basin area. That will have profound economic
impact.
It is important that we set time frames and that we have
measurable goals with respect to the actions by which we can
judge the actions at the local level. We cannot just continue
to support endless study after study; there has to be action
plans. We need to be monitoring the local governments and the
communities with respect to their progress on those action
plans, and if they are not making progress, they need to adjust
those action plans.
So I think it really is a case-by-case basis. I do believe,
however, that as we look at endangered runs in the north
Atlantic to the Gulf Coast States, that as, I think, one of the
other Congressmen indicated earlier, that we need to be very
mindful of the economic impact to the restrictions that we
impose based on the science. We have to be grounded by the
science, but then we also need to recognize the economic toll
and the economic impact of restricting fisheries.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, let me explain a little bit more the
focus of my question. This Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund
is requested in previous years to the tune of about $35
million. In the 2009 request, it was $35 million. There is
considerable support, parochial support, in the Congress for
this program. Programmatically we have increased it to 60-, 70-
, 80-, 90-million. Last year, I think, after conference this
fund was--we funded it to the tune of $90 million. That is a
lot of money.
That money, as I understand it, goes for remediation of
spawning areas, helping the salmon get up to where they spawn.
And the program has been going on, as Admiral Lautenbacher
indicated, for a long time now, a great number of years, and
many millions of dollars spent on it. And I think it is worth a
review because it is so much money.
This committee really does want to address the problem and
the issue, and I am just wondering if repairing so many
culverts or opening so many dams or so many run-arounds, how
much of that we can do, because I don't see the goals being
achieved. I see there still being continuing problems. There
are some that say, look, you can remediate, continue to do
that, if that is your strategy, but you have to be equally or
maybe more concerned about the increasing acidification of the
oceans where the salmon swim. So I just encourage you to look
at that program.
And I also wonder about the equity of these areas being so
designated and salmon being the only species involved here. I
just commend it to your consideration as you come forward,
because we are looking at because it is so much money. Again,
there is tremendous support for it in the Congress. We
understand its justification, but we think we ought to be more
strategic and maybe more scientific about it. Are we really
addressing the problem by spending these tremendous amounts of
money on inland remediation?
Secretary Locke. I thoroughly agree with you. There is
always room for an analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness
of the programs. The measure of a program should not be the
dollars spent, but what we are getting for it.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Mollohan. The Economic Development Administration, Mr.
Secretary. It is an agency that I am pretty familiar with. Tell
me what your attitude is with regard to the Economic
Development Administration; to what extent do you anticipate
the Department of Commerce supporting it? And what is going to
be your emphasis with regard to programs that they manage?
Secretary Locke. Well, I think that the role of the
Economic Development Administration is more critical now than
ever before, given the tough economic times that our country is
in. And the President has proposed in the 2010 budget
delineating out of the funds that have been proposed some $50
million for the creation of regional innovation clusters that
really would build on the strengths and the vision of
communities. And that is up to each community working with
their public-private partnerships, their colleges,
universities, and really focusing on their strengths and trying
to build on those strengths.
Another $50 million would be designated for public-private
business incubators to encourage that entrepreneurial activity,
especially in economically distressed areas. Of course, the
Congress put some $150 million in additional funds for the
Economic Development Administration as part of the Recovery
Act, especially for communities experiencing very severe job
losses, and so we are very excited about that; and, of course,
with some of the money that was provided, several hundreds of
millions of dollars provided, in the aftermath of various
natural disasters in the recent couple of years, again to
target those areas to help them address and mitigate against
those natural disasters, but also to help rebuild some of their
industries.
So I look forward to the opportunity to administer this.
Right now it is administered through regional offices on a
competitive basis all across the country. They do incredible
leveraging of dollars. I think for every $1 that is provided by
the Federal agency, we are actually getting some $14 in
economic benefit working in partnership with economic
development associations, colleges, universities, State
programs, State dollars, the private sector. Federal dollars
provide sometimes that last critical piece of funding that
makes the project viable. And so this program is very, very
valuable and very much needed.
Mr. Mollohan. I would encourage you to, as you interact
with the Economic Development Administration and its new
leadership, encourage it to have an economic diversification
focus, because really in those areas that are dependent on
traditional industries, if they are not going to be focusing on
diversification, they need to be incentivized to focus on
diversification, because they are going to be in for tough
competition if they are just going to continue to try to pursue
those sectors of the economy on which they relied forever.
In the Economic Development Administration I think that is
a simple redirection, perhaps only in part. But if that were
made a part of every grant submitted, to what extent does this
contribute to economic diversification, you would, in my
judgment, help facilitate in the long-term improvement in
standard of living that we are looking for.
REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTERS AND PUBLIC-PRIVATE INCUBATORS
Please talk to me a little bit about regional innovation
clusters and public-private incubators. Are there models for
these two suggestions out there across the country? And
otherwise talk a little bit more about them for us.
Secretary Locke. Actually there has been a great deal of
interest in the academic community and in the business
development community about, first of all, public-private
business incubators. We see a lot of those supported by the
States using the colleges and universities, where the private
sector can rent very inexpensive space in a college engineering
facility and have access to other staff and laboratories where
they can actually help perfect their ideas and their
innovations, their products, and take advantage of the
expertise that is also available, offered, let's say, in that
public-private partnership to really help entrepreneurs to
perfect their ideas, to make it more commercially available.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you have any examples of where that is
occurring for the record? Could you submit----
Secretary Locke. Well, actually there are some at the
University of Washington, in my home State of Washington. And I
believe that there are numerous examples, but, yes, we can get
you a list of some of that.
[The information follows:]
History of EDA's Investments in Business Incubators and Regional
Innovation Clusters
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has a long,
successful history supporting business incubator projects throughout
the nation. Since 1995, EDA has invested approximately $348 million in
321 business incubator projects. Grantees estimate that these projects
have created 61,428 jobs and have generated $4.8 billion in private
investment. A complete list of those investments has been included for
your review. This list will be maintained in the Subcommittee's files.
Similarly, EDA has long recognized the power of the regional
cluster approach to economic development. Since the early 1990s, EDA
has taken steps to conduct practitioner accessible research on
regionalism, business and occupational clusters, their importance to
regional economies, and ties to innovation and entrepreneurism. In
addition, EDA has sought to fund economic development projects at the
local and regional levels that support the development of clusters and
cluster-based economic development initiatives. Such projects have
highlighted EDA's emphasis on expanding regional competitiveness,
promoting business clusters as a series of coordinated economic
development activities related to a comprehensive economic development
strategy for a given region.
For example, in FY 2008, EDA funded a $154,000 Local Technical
Assistance investment to the Center for Advanced Technology and
Information (CATI) to replicate the successful CATI technology transfer
model in up to three other mid-sized Midwestern regions attempting to
infuse innovation and technology into existing manufacturing companies
as a way to compete globally as well as to instill a mechanism for more
value-added entrepreneurship by linking underutilized intellectual
property. The Midwest region is a growing cluster for developing new
technologies and ideas, generating one-third of the nation's new
intellectual property and approximately 30 percent of all the private
and public research and development, but less than 12 percent of all
equity capital has been attracted to the area, meaning that there is
underutilized intellectual property which requires an aggressive
process for transferring to entrepreneurs and existing companies
capable of commercialization.
Furthermore, EDA has supported significant research efforts on the
topic of regional innovation clusters over the past two decades. These
studies include:
--Cluster Based Economic Development: A Key to Regional
Competitiveness--Report (1997)
--Innovative Local Economic Development Programs--Report (1999)
--A Governor's Guide to Cluster-Based Economic Development--Report
(2002)
--Rural Knowledge Clusters: The Challenge of Rural Economic
Prosperity (2002)
--Universities and the Development of Industry Clusters--Report
(2004)
--Competitiveness in Rural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research
Agenda--Report (2004)
--Unlocking Rural Competitiveness: The Role of Regional Clusters--
Report & Interactive Website (2006)
--Know Your Region Project--Curriculum & Interactive Website (2006)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Secretary Locke. Jonathan Salit, who used to work at
Commerce Department, has written extensively on this and even,
I think, testified in front of various committees here in the
House of Representatives about the notion and the benefits of
regional clusters as well as business incubators.
The whole notion of the regional clusters is to build on
the natural strengths of a community, instead of just giving
out dollars willy-nilly and for any project that comes along,
but to really try and capitalize on the aspirations, the
natural geographic workforce, strengths of a region, some of
their core industries to begin with, not at the expense of
diversifying, as you pointed out. But if an area is well known
for biotechnology, what is that entire region doing to bring
other businesses into biotechnology or biomedical research? And
are the grants working truly in partnership with the colleges
and universities to train people into life sciences at all
levels of salary and employment?
Mr. Mollohan. That would be relatively easy to do if the
area has a tradition of biotechnology. I could see where that
could happen easily.
Secretary Locke. It might be in other areas. It might be
focusing on tourism. Another area of the country might be
focusing on aerospace or automotive industry whether it is in
the South or you name it. It is not to prejudge, but to say
have you as a region really thought about what you believe to
be your economic future or a component of your economic future,
and do you have a lot of forces that are already aligned that
perhaps with some Federal assistance, incentivize and promote
even greater collaboration for whatever it is that the
community and the regional economic leaders have focused on.
Mr. Mollohan. And all regions have some strengths.
Secretary Locke. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. But if you are going to diversify, then
sometimes you have to help create the strength and then create
the cluster. How would the Economic Development Administration
promote a regional innovation cluster? What would be the steps,
the facilitating steps, and resources made available by the
Economic Development Administration?
Secretary Locke. It would be grants along the lines of our
current programs where we receive applications. We would judge
the application based on the type of partnerships that are
being envisioned and looking at the totality of support.
Obviously if there are private-sector funds, that means that
there is private-sector interest and validation on the ideas
and the priorities or the emphases that are put on, let's say,
by the local government, the State government or the region.
But knowing that not every region has, in fact--is prepared to
identify what they want to be or do over the next several
years, then there is funding also proposed just for planning.
And to bring all those economic development, you know, the
counties, the cities, the State economic development people,
the nonprofit, the college and universities, and the private
sector together so they can start creating that vision for
their communities.
Mr. Mollohan. Are these block grants? Are these grants
applied for directly to the Economic Development
Administration?
Secretary Locke. These would be grants that would be
applied to directly to the Economic Development Administration.
Mr. Mollohan. And managed at the regional basis, regional
level?
Secretary Locke. It would be, I believe, our intent to have
them administered and the decisions made at the regional
levels, by the regional offices scattered throughout the
country.
PTO
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Secretary, as a wholly fee-supported
Agency, USPTO's funding is not based on the requirements
necessary to complete the work, and the Agency's ability to
operate is affected by the economic crisis. Fewer applications
are filed and more patent holders decline to maintain their
patents.
Would you agree that the decision to transform USPTO into a
wholly fee-supported agency does not appear to be working?
Secretary Locke. I think clearly there are challenges with
the fee-supported concept and especially with applications
declining and the backlog increasing. We may have to look at
another model.
But clearly, number one, we should not be diverting the
fees generated within the Patent and Trademark Office to other
purposes. They need steady funding; they may need, in fact, an
extra infusion of funds down the road to reduce that backlog
and to make significant changes, such as improvements in
technology, so that we can truly get the average processing
time of patents down to what I think is an acceptable level.
The average now is anywhere from 27 to 28 months for first
action review, and that is an average because some patents are
very simple and take very little time. So that means other
patents that are more complex can take anywhere from 4 to 5
years. And I think that is completely unacceptable, especially
for a country that prides itself on innovation and the need to
get products, new ideas, and new medicines, out to market and
commercialized.
Mr. Mollohan. What is your goal?
Secretary Locke. I would love it if we could say the
average time frame is less than a year.
Mr. Mollohan. You think that is achievable?
Secretary Locke. We are hopefully about to announce a new
director for the Patent and Trademark Office. We want to work
with all the stakeholders, including the employees, the
professionals there, on creative ways of using technology, and
basically start from scratch and rebuild and reinvent how we
process patent applications.
DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION
Mr. Mollohan. On April the 2nd, the Wall Street Journal--we
are winding down here, Mr. Secretary--the Wall Street Journal
reported that 11 percent of local TV stations planned to change
their broadcast areas. Is it possible, even with a converter
box and a powerful rooftop antenna, some people may still not
receive their local TV stations?
Secretary Locke. We are working very hard on that, Mr.
Chairman; and I am proud to say that the backlog for request
for coupons has been eliminated and all requests for coupons
are being processed within a week.
And I note that in the various large media markets, I think
about the top 100 media markets, roughly at least 95, 97
percent of the households are ready and will not be affected by
the changeover come June 12th.
But there are some pockets around the country where we
would like to have the numbers higher in terms of the
households ready to receive this new digital transmission. And
so we are really revamping and stepping up our advertising,
working with the FCC to get the word out.
Too many seniors and others simply don't know what an
analog versus a digital television is, and the commercials that
say the countdown has begun does not really tell them whether
they are affected and what to do. And so we need to modify our
announcements, our publicity campaign, working with the TV
stations who are doing a lot of public service announcements.
It is in their economic interest to make sure people can
receive their broadcasts, so we are trying to get the word out.
But we have made considerable progress, and I think the
country is much better prepared than it was several months ago.
And I thank the Members of the Congress and the President for
the delay and the extra funding to get the publicity out and
provide those converter coupons.
But in some of the markets where they have made the change,
they have noticed that in the past, with analog, your reception
may not be great because of distance or because of geography,
but you were getting a signal. The problem with digital is that
it is a very abrupt--it is basically all or nothing, and so
there is no grey area of a less-than-desirable, less-than-high-
quality picture. Some individuals may end up with no picture.
And so there have been some complaints about that--for
instance in the Denver area, which made the transition about 3
weeks ago--but very few, very few. So that is something that
the FCC and we are looking at and working with the stations to
address.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, we wish you luck in that. As the
complaint center of last resort, I can tell you Members of
Congress hope you resolve these issues before they get to us.
Mr. Wolf.
TELEWORK
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One final issue. The
Patent and Trademark Office is one of the premier agencies in
the government with regard to using telework. The committee
over the years has had language encouraging, mandating
telework. Can you tell us your views with regard to telework?
Secretary Locke. I think it is a great idea. It is one of
the successes--the great successes, and is a great example for
other Federal agencies. So much of the work actually done in
the trademark area is done by telecommuting or telework; and I
actually would like to take the success in the Trademark
Division and move it over to the patent area as well.
And, in fact, other agencies, especially as we face traffic
congestion, it helps to cut down on congestion, pollution, and
reduces the overhead costs of government by not having to
provide offices for everyone. I think it is an innovative way
in which the private sector is moving, and we in government
should also try to follow that same model.
Mr. Wolf. Also, in continuity of government, should there
be that need, would you submit for the record how the various
agencies of the Department of Commerce, or do we know, EDA, et
cetera, what percentage each agency has with regard to how many
are teleworking?
Secretary Locke. Yes, we can try to get you that
information.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CLOSING REMARKS
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your
appearance today. Again, congratulations on your appointment to
this very important position at this very crucial time in our
Nation's history. This Committee stands ready to work with you
in solving and confronting the diverse challenges that your
agency deals with.
We look forward to the budget in detail. We will probably
have questions, the Committee and members of the Committee,
after it is submitted. We will hold the record open for a
couple of weeks after that for that purpose.
And do you have any comments in summary or in closing that
you would like to make?
CLOSING REMARKS
Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
time and the courtesy for engaging in this dialogue.
And clearly we need to work with you and the members of
your Committee on these tough issues, whether it is cyber
security, whether it is economic development, math and science
instruction, human rights issues in other countries, and to
just elevating science and technology, not just in the programs
administered by the Departments, in Congress but also by the
entire Federal Government.
The charge of the Department of Commerce is very, very
broad. And we are trying to make it even more relevant to the
people of America, the medium- and small-size businesses, the
Main Street businesses of America; and we have much to offer
those entities, large and small.
We need to make sure that people know that the Department
of Commerce is truly one of a repository of knowledge, a source
for innovation and, ultimately, a source for job creation. And
that is what it is all about.
So I thank you and look forward to the opportunity to work
with you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, April 29, 2009.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
WITNESS
CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Mollohan's Opening Remarks
Mr. Mollohan. The hearing will come to order.
Good morning, Acting Administrator Scolese, and welcome to
everybody who is at the table this morning.
This morning, we turn our attention to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. We appreciate your coming
today to inform the Committee about ongoing programs and
activities and general details of the NASA budget while we
await the appointment and confirmation of a permanent
Administrator for NASA and its detailed budget submission for
fiscal year 2010.
Mr. Scolese was cited by Administrator Griffin as the
second of twelve people that are most essential to remain at
NASA. So while we do not have an Administrator in place, NASA
certainly remains in competent hands as Mr. Scolese and his
very competent team continue to fulfill their responsibilities
at NASA. We look forward to hearing from you all this morning.
Preceding your appearance today, the Committee received
testimony from a number of expert witnesses in the areas of
science and technology, research and higher education, earth
observation, and climate change. NASA is not at the periphery
of these activities. Rather, it is at the center of them.
Dr. Leonard Fisk commented that he ``can find no logic in
the judgment that NASA science is less important than other
scientific disciplines,'' at NSF and NIH, for example, and that
we need to recognize that space has become part of the
underlying infrastructure of our society and an integral part
of our foreign policy.
Dr. Ralph Cicerone stated that NASA's science activities
were an admission from the gathering storm and that its
activities should be treated similarly to NIST and NSF in the
doubling agenda outlined in ``The American Competes Act.''
He went further to note that NASA's research and higher
education infrastructure is extremely important to this nation.
Innovative technologies developed from NASA's space and
aeronautics missions have improved our health and medicine,
transportation systems, public safety, computer technology, and
industrial productivity.
With respect to earth observations and climate change, NASA
is also front and center. It developed the current class of
earth observation systems, nearly all of which have exceeded
their life expectancies, and today is developing the next
generation of satellites and sensors recommended by the
National Research Council.
Part of that effort includes the NPOESS Program which is
managed by NOAA, DoD, and NASA. We have had to confront major
cost overruns in the NPOESS Program and additional requirements
appear likely given the anticipated need to support operational
climate predictions and monitoring.
In nominal terms, investments in earth science have
decreased by one-third since their high water mark. It is time
again to renew our focus on the mission to planet earth.
Investments in these satellite development programs and in
NASA's science enterprise generally are critical, but they also
must compete for resources with NASA's other major programs.
NASA continues to fly the shuttle, operate and maintain the
International Space Station, and proceed with the Constellation
Program, all very important.
Costs of all these activities are rising. Last year, for
example, nearly 70 percent of NASA's major projects were in
breach of the projects' development costs and/or schedule
thresholds.
The price tag for Orion and Ares continues to mount and
there are considerable unknowns as to whether NASA's plans for
the Ares and Orion vehicles can be executed within schedule and
current cost estimates.
These cost increases occur within finite annual budgets and
as such, cost increases in one program likely mean reductions
in another.
Given these fiscal realities, it is incumbent upon NASA to
have far more reliable cost estimates at the time missions are
proposed, effective management tools and empowerment managers
in place to minimize cost increases and schedule slippages, and
greater transparency in NASA's budgeting and execution to
improve program costs, budgeting, review, and oversight. This
is an ongoing process and one that continues today.
But the larger looming question remains. Can NASA do all
that it is asked to do within its budget allocation? Although
this Administration has requested nearly $1 billion more for
NASA over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, the out-year
profile for NASA is straight-lined over the next five years,
signaling little change in the budget profile from the last
Administration.
Unlike previous years, today NASA is asked to reinvest in
observations to planet earth and to reinvigorate its
aeronautics research. These programs suffered at the expense of
the Constellation Program, so this is a welcome change.
NASA is to continue with its development of the existing
vision and the new generation of U.S. human space flight
capabilities, the cost of which, as I commented earlier,
continues to mount and the time line for initial operating
capability gets pushed further and further into the future.
The shuttle is to be terminated in 2010, creating a gap in
U.S. human space flight of at least five years before Orion and
Ares are available. The space station continues to fly, used as
a platform for far less research than supported by its original
justification, until 2015 at which time, its fate is uncertain.
If the decision is to cease the use of the station at that
time, we could be developing portions of the Constellation
Program for a one-way trip to low earth orbit to take the
station from orbit.
Is it any wonder that it has been so difficult to find an
Administrator for this agency?
At some point, it seems clear that the walk must match the
talk and that funds must follow policy. But the problem is not
mid-level career staff at the Office of Management and Budget.
The President, the Administrator, and Congress are responsible
for defining NASA's missions and then ensuring that funds are
there to support those missions.
As we all know, we have not yet received the President's
complete budget submission. Accordingly, we do not know many of
the details of the request. We will be eager to see those
details when the budget is submitted and we are sure to have
additional questions at that time.
The hearing transcript that we are developing today will
remain open for two weeks after the budget submission so as to
provide members an opportunity to submit any budget-related
questions.
At this time, I would like to invite Mr. Scolese to offer
your opening statement. Your written statement will be made a
part of the record, of course.
But first I want to recognize Mr. Culberson who is sitting
in for the Ranking Member, Mr. Wolf, for any opening statement
that he would like to make.
Mr. Culberson.
Rep. Culberson's Opening Remarks
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am anxious to hear from everyone on this panel. And
everyone I know on this Subcommittee shares my support for the
sciences, for the investment the nation must make in our space
program to maintain America's competitive edge, our leadership
role in space. It is essential that we provide the resources
NASA needs to complete everything that you have got on your
plate.
And I know that the stimulus package helped immensely in
filling some of those gaps, but, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
very much your support for our nation's space program and look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Scolese.
Acting Administrator Scolese Opening Statement
Mr. Scolese. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Mollohan and Mr.
Culberson and members of the Subcommittee, for inviting us here
today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 2010 budget
request for NASA as submitted to Congress on February 26th.
The President's request of $18.686 billion represents an
increase of $903.6 million above Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations. Because the President's detailed budget request
has not yet been submitted to Congress, I will address the
Fiscal Year 2010 budget overview, highlights of NASA's Fiscal
Year 2009 funding, and current program status.
NASA's initial Fiscal Year 2009 operating plan is $18.784
billion or about $1.17 billion above the President's fiscal
year 2009 request. This reflects an increase of $168.2 million
in the regular appropriations and about one billion in ``The
Recovery Act.'' NASA is appreciative of the action by the
Committee and Congress in providing full funding in the regular
appropriations and for providing ``Recovery Act'' funds which
will enable NASA to meet its critical objectives.
In Earth science, NASA is continuing to work aggressively
to implement the recommendations of the Decadal Survey. The
first two Decadal missions, SMAP and ICEsat-II, will continue
formulation in fiscal year 2010. The next two, DESDynI and
CLARREO will be accelerated. NASA will issue its first venture
class announcement of opportunity later this year.
In the next year, we plan to launch the Glory and Aquarius
missions and the GOES-O Mission for NOAA, complete development
of the NPOESS Preparatory Project, continued development of
foundational missions such as the Global Precipitation Mission
and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and initiate work on a
thermal infrared sensor to complement the Landsat Data
Continuity Mission.
NASA is assessing options to recover from the disappointing
loss of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory and we will keep the
Congress informed of our plans.
We are continuing the exploration of the solar system with
planetary science missions, Juno to Jupiter, and the Mars
science laboratory, both planned for launch in 2011, and
recently selected the MAVEN Scout Mission to Mars.
NASA's fleet of heliophysics missions strategically placed
throughout the solar system is providing researchers the first
ever solar system-wide view of solar influences on Earth and
other planets and the dynamic structures of space itself.
In astrophysics, NASA launched the Kepler Mission to search
for earth-like planets in our galaxy. The final Space Shuttle
Servicing Mission to the Hubble Space Telescope aboard STS-125
is scheduled for launch on May 11th to upgrade the observatory
to its peak scientific performance.
Development continues on the James Webb space telescope
which passed its confirmation review in 2008 and has an Agency
commitment to launch in 2014.
Formulation continues for ambitious future mission concepts
to search for Earth-like planets around nearby stars, to
explore the universe and the nature of dark energy.
The fiscal year 2010 budget request renews NASA's
commitment to a strong national program in aeronautics that
contributes to the economic well-being and quality of life of
American citizens through its strong partnerships with
industry, academia, and other government agencies.
Our Aerospace Systems Program continues to collaborate with
the Joint Planning Development Office to enhance the capacity,
efficiency, and flexibility of the national aerospace system.
In exploration, the President's fiscal year 2010 budget
overview directs that NASA advance the development of the next
generation human space flight system to carry American crews
and supplies to space and work to return Americans to the moon.
NASA exploration systems continue to make significant
progress in developing the next generation human space flight
vehicles and their associated ground to mission support
systems.
Soon the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Lunar CRater
Observation Sensing Satellite Spacecraft will be launched to
help NASA scout for potential lunar landing sites.
Later this year, two major flight tests for the
Constellation programs will be conducted. First the Ares I-X
developmental test flight will launch from Kennedy Space
Center, pad 39B, to support the design of the Ares I crew
launch vehicle. Second, the pad abort 1 test at the White Sands
missile range will be the first test of the launch abort system
for the Orion crew exploration vehicle.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget funds the safe
flight of the space shuttle to conduct a final servicing
mission for the Hubble, complete the ISS, and then retire the
shuttle in 2010.
An additional flight to deliver the Alpha Magnetic
spectrometer to the space station will be conducted if it can
be safely and affordably flown by the end of 2010.
In May, the ISS will host its first six-person crew. And in
June, the STS127 mission will deliver the third and final
component of the Japanese Kibo laboratory, setting the stage
for full utilization of the ISS as a highly capable research
facility.
In December 2008, the Agency awarded two commercial
resupply services contracts that are required to deliver
supplies and experiments to the space station.
The benefits from space shuttle missions and ISS research
are ultimately demonstrated in the program's ability to inspire
the next generation of Americans. This was reflected recently
in the delighted faces of students who participated in the
uplink phone call between President Obama and the station on
March 24th which we both participated in, sir.
NASA's Education Program will continue developing a future
aerospace workforce, improving the technological
competitiveness of our nation's universities and attracting and
retaining students in science technology, engineering, and
mathematics.
Finally, the 2010 budget funds NASA's cross-agency support
programs which provide critical mission support activities
necessary to ensure the efficient and effective operation and
administration of the Agency, including the management and
operations of our centers.
Chairman Mollohan, thank you again for your support and
that of the Subcommittee. The five of us would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or the other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
BUDGET OVERVIEW
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Scolese.
We are going to proceed under a five-minute rule in these
first rounds and then we will see after we go forward how far
we get and perhaps modify that for longer questioning in
subsequent rounds. Mr. Scolese, the budget proposes to increase
funding for NASA in Fiscal Year 2010 by $700 million over the
Fiscal Year 2009 enacted level, as you pointed out, after which
the budget would be flat for the next several years.
The increase this year is notable and a welcome change, but
what is the effect of straight-lining this budget into the out-
years on your program and project planning?
Mr. Scolese. Well, of course, we are very appreciative of
the increase that we get in 2009 and 2010. That allows us to
start and accelerate a number of activities. The impact in the
out-years of a flat-line budget, of course, is dictated by the
economic situation in the country as we all know.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no. I am not asking what dictates it. I
am asking like if you were sitting around the table with these
fine folks that are sitting right there and you said, wow, this
is a great increase for this year, are we not lucky, or not
lucky, are we not fortunate and deserving.
Mr. Scolese. I like that.
Mr. Mollohan. But, boy--no, I mean that--but, boy, these
out-years, they are flat. What does that mean for us?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. So what would we be saying here?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. We would look at that and, of
course, we would do our mission planning based on the budget
projections that we have. So we will design our missions so
that they fit within that profile. That means some missions
will not start as soon as people would like, but we also look
at the content of the mission so that we can structure a
program. I think you will see when the budget comes out a very
good program that does excellent science, excellent
aeronautics, and continues the Human Space Flight Program along
the lines that we have talked about. But it is very difficult
to go through all those details. We can give you some more
details on----
Mr. Mollohan. Well, why don't you do this at a kind of
remote level then?
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
SCIENCE
Mr. Mollohan. What does it mean for science? What does it
mean for aeronautics? If you were summarizing like a paragraph
on each one of them, what would flat-lining mean to you?
Something meaningful for this Committee----
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. To understand what flat-lining
means.
Mr. Scolese. We, as I was highlighting here and I can give
some more details, we clearly are going to be developing in
earth science the Decadal missions. We will solidify the SMAP
Mission and the ICEsat-II Mission in the 2013 and 2014 time
frame, which allows us to do that.
We will accelerate the next two Decadal missions, the tier
ones. It allows us to maintain and progress on the foundational
missions. I mentioned two, the GPM, Global Precipitation
Mission and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission. There are
other missions in that category, the NPOESS Preparatory
Project, that we are working on and continue to develop. So we
have those missions coming along and we are using all the
resources that we have, quite frankly, in the Earth Sciences
community to define those missions. We will also be engaging
more the research community with the new venture class----
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Now, are you telling me what flat-
lining into the future, the impact it would have on you?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir we can do all these missions with the
flat-line budget that you are describing.
Mr. Mollohan. You could get to tier two?
Mr. Scolese. Tier one, we are working tier one.
Mr. Mollohan. I know you are working tier one.
Mr. Scolese. Tier two is still delayed, sir, in the budget.
Mr. Mollohan. So if you were not flat-lined, would you be
able to get to tier two?
Mr. Scolese. Possibly. We also have, frankly, an industrial
base issue with the number of people that we have, number of
contractors we have, number of centers we have to go off and do
this. I am sure we could do more, but probably not all, just
the capacity of the nation to be able to go off and support all
of those missions. So there is a balance there between the
budget available, of course, and the workforce and the
industrial capacity that we need to deal with.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
Mr. Mollohan. What would flat-lining mean for aeronautics?
Mr. Scolese. Aeronautics, we have actually a fairly robust
program there. The flat-lining for Aeronautics is flat-lining
with a higher level than we have been at in previous years.
There, we are initiating programs to improve the aerospace
system, as I mentioned, working with the FAA and others, but
also allowing us to work on I will call it green aviation,
looking at ways to improve the efficiency of our aircraft and
our aerospace system to look at synthetic biofuels.
So that program will be a very robust program. It is
enhancing its research in fundamental aeronautics, looking at
ways to trade, for instance, noise versus fuel efficiency
versus the effluent. So the Aeronautics Program will be very
strong.
EXPLORATION SYSTEMS
Mr. Mollohan. Well, if you have got increases for earth
into the out-years and you are flat-lined, that means something
is going to have to suffer. What happens to Constellation?
Mr. Scolese. The Human Space Flight Program, in general, I
need to talk about. As you know, the intent is to retire the
shuttle in 2010. As the shuttle is retired, the funds that are
there for the shuttle go to or accrue to the Constellation
Program. So that was in the plan before. We are able to
maintain our plans for the initial operational capability in
the 2015 time frame. Acceleration earlier than that is not
likely. Our plans for the lunar, the beyond low earth orbit
portion really did not start ramping up funding until the 2013,
2014 time frame.
Mr. Cooke. Right.
Mr. Scolese. So that is where we would have to discuss the
flat-lining, if you will, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Availability of Constellation before 2015 is
not likely? Is that what you said?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Well, it is not possible, is it?
Mr. Scolese. I would not say it is not possible, but it is
not likely. I mean, as we look at today and----
Mr. Mollohan. I mean, what is likely is it is going to be
pushed out beyond 2015.
Mr. Scolese. We are going to work very hard, sir, to make
that----
Mr. Mollohan. No, no, I know, but that is what is likely,
right?
Mr. Scolese. We are going to try as hard as we can, sir, to
make 2015.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson.
PRIORITIZING PROJECTS
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Scolese, you have got no better friends in
Congress than this Committee and we really want to find ways to
help you.
We are also operating in an environment of record debt and
deficit which is affecting all of the entire federal
government. And every agency is going to have to prioritize and
find ways to control costs and save money.
We had the Department of Commerce Secretary in yesterday. I
asked him about a procedure he followed in the State of
Washington of prioritizing projects and figuring out ways to
cut or eliminate those that are at the lower end.
And as, you know, difficult or hard as it is for NASA, you
all may have to go through the same process.
And the Decadal Survey, I know, has been a very successful
way over the years when it comes to the scientific robotic
missions of identifying the top priority of the planetary
scientists. And as I recall, it is broken down to the--is it
solar missions or is it solar Decadal, inner planet, earth
Decadal, and then outer planets in each of those categories?
Mr. Scolese. I think it is planetary, Earth science,
heliophysics, the solar and planetary or astronomy, I am sorry,
astronomy and physics.
DECADAL MISSIONS
Mr. Culberson. One thing I would certainly suggest, Mr.
Chairman and panel members, is that we make absolutely certain
that NASA has sufficient funding and that you are giving us
accurate cost estimates, that is really critical, to make sure
that those Decadal missions are flown.
NASA has historically always flown those missions, but with
everything on their plate that they have got to do and
inadequate funding over the years and the loss of the Columbia,
the Agency has never really fully been reimbursed and no way to
compensate the Agency for the loss of the astronauts.
But when Challenger was lost, Congress paid for another
shuttle and the Agency was never fully compensated financially
for the financial loss of Columbia or the hurricane damage. The
stimulus went, I know, a long way towards helping with that
effort.
But what could you tell us about the ability of NASA to
fully fund, make sure--are you confident that you will be able
to fully fund the Decadal Survey missions that you have for
this decade?
In particular, I am very pleased and excited that the
internal review process that you went through, Dr. Weiler,
singled out, reaffirmed the Europa Mission, which had been
chosen as the Decadal Survey Mission for the outer planets.
Are you confident you will have what you need to do to fly
those Decadal Survey missions?
Mr. Scolese. We have a plan to go off and fly those
missions, yes, sir. It fits within the budget profile that you
see. If I may, to address your question about how do we get
confidence in our budgets, we are working----
Mr. Culberson. Cost estimates in particular.
Mr. Scolese. Cost estimates, yes, yes. That is what I am
talking about, sir, yes. We are working with the National
Academy at the front end because as you accurately pointed out,
we go there for our Decadal Surveys and they rank our missions
appropriately.
But we need to have good estimates there. So we are working
with the National Academy so that they have better estimates up
front that we can use and rely on. Clearly they will not be the
best estimates. So at NASA, we have instituted processes where
we get consistent cost estimates. We can compare them over
time. We will not make our commitment until we have done at
least the basic research and mission definition. So at least at
the PDR timeframe is where we will make our commitments to you
and to the American public as to what it is going to cost. We
have instituted much more rigorous cost accounting. I discussed
that in a previous hearing. So I think our cost estimates are
going to be much better in the future and I think the ones that
we are providing you today in terms of cost and schedule are
much better than they were even a year ago.
Mr. Culberson. It was a particularly good article in the
Journal of Science which I have always relied on very heavily
for a lot of my information. Mr. Chairman, I will make sure you
get a copy of this as well.
And Dr. Weiler correctly pointed out over a ten-year
period, you have got $6 billion worth of promises made in
planetary sciences and you just do not have the money. It is
just a real concern.
So the prioritization is critical. Make sure, please, that
you are flying the Decadal Survey missions. That is vital. We
have got to close that gap.
And the Manned Program is one of the, in terms of priority,
seems to me, you have got to close the gap and make sure that
we minimize that gap when we are unable to fly manned missions,
number one, and, number two, to make sure that we are flying
those Decadal Survey missions and get us realistic cost
estimates----
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Because we want to help, but we have got to
have realistic cost estimates.
Mr. Scolese. And we will do that.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Schiff.
COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (COTS)
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator, Dr. Weiler, great to see you both. Thank you
for the outstanding work that you do and all of your team.
I wanted to ask you about the COTS Program. Over the last
three years, NASA has developed a commercial orbital
transportation system to provide commercial cargo and crew
flights to the International Space Station.
In December, NASA awarded contracts to two companies,
Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for ISS resupply missions. The
first flights are expected in late 2010 or early 2011.
Before those flights, it is hard to declare the program a
success, but at this point, it is hard to see how it could be
going any better.
I want to congratulate NASA for having the foresight to
launch the COTS Program. I have been out to SpaceX and was
incredibly impressed with what they are doing. And I was there
after the second unsuccessful launch where they were quite
confident they diagnosed the problem correctly and sure enough,
on the third launch, they showed that they had. And it is very
exciting.
There is another stage to the COTS Program, Capability D,
which involves developing commercial crew delivery. As we
approach shuttle retirement, Capability D could offer our only
domestic method of delivering astronauts to the ISS. This
Subcommittee has consistently supported that capability as has
the Authorizing Committee.
My understanding is that the crew capability could be
demonstrated two years after approval. In the Stimulus Bill,
Congress provided an additional 150 million for commercial crew
and cargo.
So I am interested to know if NASA has taken any steps
toward activating the Capability D option or if there are any
impediments to that. And does NASA believe that exercising the
option would allow for cheaper ISS crew flights during the 2010
to 2015 window?
Mr. Scolese. The Capability D, we did provide $150 million
of stimulus funds for looking at crew and enhancing cargo.
About $70 million of that funding is to go off and address
issues that are broadly related to crew capability for anybody
that would be providing a crew capability. It is looking at
what we need to do for attaching a vehicle and detaching a
vehicle from the station. We need to provide some interfaces
for that, so we are looking at that. We have activities to work
with people and to better define the human rating requirements
that would be needed to put crew into space.
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel had some concerns about
our human rating requirements as currently written. So this is
to go off and clarify those, make them clear to anybody that
wants to fly crew.
And then we have about $80 million----
Mr. Schiff. I am sorry, Mr. Administrator. It sounds like
bongos in here. Is that the sound system or do you have musical
accompaniment at NASA now?
Mr. Scolese. I do not think I have musical accompaniment,
sir.
Mr. Schiff. Is that in the room?
Mr. Scolese. I am sorry. I do not know how to follow that
up.
Mr. Mollohan. This is NASA.
Mr. Scolese. And then we have additional resources, the
balance of it to accelerate cargo flights and to go off and
solicit initially as a request for information, information on
how commercial crew could be done.
Fundamentally, the plan that we see going forward is to
logically proceed from cargo, which will be difficult in and of
itself to achieve, to a crew escape capability to ultimately
bringing crew up to the space station.
So that is basically our plan and overview and that is what
the $150 million in the funding that you saw in the operating
plan yesterday that it will initiate. And that is in addition
to, as you pointed out already, the commercial cargo portion of
it.
EUROPA MISSION
Mr. Schiff. Let me ask you about one other issue and that
is an issue that Mr. Culberson and I are very interested in and
that is Europa. I saw that a couple months ago, NASA selected
Europa as the first outer planet flagship mission with a tight
mission to follow.
Will you be issuing an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for
Europa in fiscal year 2010?
Mr. Scolese. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Weiler. There are not sufficient funds to get an AO out
in 2010. I am not sure of the exact date we have planned for
that, but we can certainly submit that to the record.
We are also awaiting----
Mr. Schiff. I am sorry. Did you say there were not
sufficient funds?
Mr. Weiler. There are not sufficient funds in the near-term
budget to issue an AO that early. I will get that date to you
in the record.
In the meantime, we are starting the planetary Decadal
Study and one of the questions we are asking them is to really
look at the current priorities in the Planetary Program across
all planets including the moon. We have to ask the question
what is the highest priority in our program. Should we be
putting more money into Europa from other parts of the program,
for instance. Right now Europa is not well-funded at all
because of previous priorities, frankly, and I want that to be
relooked at and I want the Decadal to do a fair and competitive
peer review across all of the missions in the Planetary
Program.
Mr. Scolese. But the current plan is at 2020.
Mr. Weiler. It is a 2020 launch. I should also point out
that we have worked with the ESA, the European Space Agency,
and now Europa will actually be a truly international mission.
Instead of competing with each other, we are going to go to
Jupiter together. The Europeans are going to orbit Ganymede and
we are going to orbit Europa and share the data. So it is a
much better mission, I think, in the long run.
Mr. Schiff. In the next round, I would love to follow-up
with you on the moon science and how it affects other science.
Thank you.
COTS D
Mr. Mollohan. Just clarification of a question that Mr.
Schiff asked on the COTS D. Your spending plan is $150 million
for commercial crew and cargo. Our information, it was 80
million to be available for commercial development of crew
concepts and technology demonstrations and investigations.
And all that sure sounds like COTS D and what you described
sounded like COTS D. But in conversations with our staff, your
staff assured us or not assured us but represented that that
was not COTS D.
So could you clarify?
Mr. Scolese. Unfortunately, we use COTS D as a shorthand
for commercial crew. COTS D really is an option that was out
there in the early ``Space Act'' agreements to talk about human
space flight. And there is only one organization that bid to
that. So shorthand, we call it COTS D, but it really is not
COTS D. If I misspoke, I am sorry.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no, you did not misspeak.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. It just sounded like COTS D.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. So what is the difference?
Mr. Scolese. The difference is we are not going off doing
what we originally described as COTS D. And when I get done
here, maybe Doug can add a little more----
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Well, we will come back to that.
Mr. Scolese. But what we are doing is a logical progression
to crew. It is not COTS D as was originally discussed, what was
it, two years ago?
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Great.
Mr. Bonner.
KEEPING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INTEREST IN SPACE
Mr. Bonner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scolese and your colleagues, we are glad to have you
before us.
When I was on the Science Authorizing Committee before I
joined the Subcommittee this year, I asked this question of
your predecessors, so I will give you another shot at it as
well.
Help me understand. And this is not a new problem, but I do
think it is a challenge. The shuttle is going to retire in 2010
and we are looking to have returned man space flight to the
moon in 2020. So I am trying to understand how we keep the
American taxpayers' interest in NASA.
Even though I know there are many important missions that
will take place between 2010 and 2020, I just wonder sometimes
if Major League Baseball, which we have got a new season upon
us, had a ten-year hiatus or the National Football League went
ten years without there being a Super Bowl, would it not be a
challenge to keep people--there may be Minor League sports and
there may be other factors taking place, but the big game that
for many Americans is seeing that shuttle launch or seeing that
man take his or her first steps on the moon.
Are you all concerned about this and, if so, what can we do
to help you bridge that gap and keep the American taxpayers
interested, as Mr. Culberson said, with record deficit, record
debt, record spending, and, yet, out of sight, out of mind?
Mr. Scolese. I do not know if I will do better than my
predecessors here or not, but I think the answer to your
question is it is clearly unfortunate that we have the gap. I
do not think anybody wanted to have a gap in the ability to
take Americans to space in American vehicles. That is
unfortunate and it is the result of previous decisions that
were made.
To keep people excited, I think you cited a few things.
Clearly the missions of exploration on Mars, going to the outer
planets, going to the inner planets, as we look at those will
certainly provide a degree of excitement, but we must not
forget that during that entire period, we will have permanent
crew on board the space station.
And the unfortunate thing is it will not be American
rockets taking the crew to the space station, but we will have
crew up there. We will have international crew and we will be
demonstrating, I think, once we get all the labs on board,
which we will this year, and have it fully functional by the
end of next year, we will be demonstrating some really exciting
research that has some very practical applications.
Others can give you a better indication, but I think, you
know, one that really peaked my interest and I think even had
some articles on it is the research that was done that is
allowing us to better understand salmonella and its modalities
so that we can develop a vaccine for it.
So I believe that with a combination of our permanently
crewed presence on the space station, the exciting research
that can be done there, as well as the other missions that we
will keep people stimulated in it.
And hopefully with the development of the next generation
system, people will see and be excited about that as I was in
the 1960s when I was young and becoming interested in the Space
Program.
There was that hiatus between Gemini and Apollo and
subsequently between Apollo and Shuttle. And many of us still
stayed very much interested in the program.
So I hope those are the ways that we will keep the American
public interested, sir.
MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Mr. Bonner. Well, that is a great lead into my second
question. This year under the dynamic leadership of our
Chairman, our Subcommittee has spent a lot of time in
conversation talking about how to get kids and young people
throughout the country more interested in math and science
education.
And you have just alluded to when you were a young man in
the 1960s and what piqued your curiosity and interest in this
area.
One of the items in your written testimony discusses NASA's
efforts to strengthen curricula in two-year community colleges.
In our home State, Congressman Aderholt and I, we are both
from Alabama, and our state has established a plan to
dramatically improve workforce training in our two-year system.
Can you tell us a little bit more about what NASA is doing
specifically to reach out and engage students? Now, that is at
a much more advanced stage than you were when you were
interested in it, but is it too late to capture those
opportunities when they get to the two-year system?
Mr. Scolese. No, sir, I do not think so. In fact, not going
on that, and we will provide you more details for the record
about what the program is there, but I can describe a program
that we initiated when I was at the Goddard Space Flight Center
working with two-year colleges, Capitol College at the time,
where we provided opportunities for junior college students to
go off and operate spacecraft. And that has become a very
successful program, inspiring a lot of people not only to go
off and become spacecraft operators but to go on and get their
four-year degrees in engineering or science or mathematics. So
building upon that program, I think very much we can go off and
do that, but I cannot give you the details right here. I will
have to provide the absolute details for the record, sir.
Mr. Bonner. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Bonner.
Mr. Aderholt.
ARES I ORION/ARES V
Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What is the original date that Ares I and Ares V were
proposed to be ready?
Mr. Scolese. I believe the commitment date that we always
had for the Ares I Orion system was 2015. We were striving
internally for a 2013 and a 2014 date.
Over time, as a result of a number of factors, that has no
longer really become possible. So we are at the commitment date
that we had made of 2015. And for Ares V, I thought it was
2018, but I may be wrong on that, Doug.
Mr. Cooke. No. That is correct.
Mr. Scolese. Okay, 2018.
Mr. Aderholt. That is what the current is?
Mr. Scolese. Today, yes.
Mr. Aderholt. Yeah. Okay. But you said it was originally by
2013?
Mr. Scolese. Our internal date for Ares I was 2013 and then
2014. And now our internal date and our commitment date are
approximately the same within a few months, but they are both
in 2015.
CONSTELLATION PROGRAM
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. If the shuttle is retired in 2010 or
any costs to extend the shuttle are added to your current
budget, how many additional dollars would you need to be able
to complete the Constellation Program by 2013 or 2014? Let us
think of in increments of $100 million. For each $100 million
that we add to Constellation, how many months do we accelerate
the completion of the program?
Mr. Scolese. Today we are driven largely by our long-lead
materials. So we have looked at acceleration options and do not
see a significant acceleration that could be done for almost
any amount of dollars. We could talk a few months, but we could
not talk a year or more, sir.
Mr. Aderholt. But it would be possibly a few months?
Mr. Scolese. Possibly at best.
CLIMATE RESEARCH AND AERONAUTICS
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. There are a lot of climate research
duties and aeronautics duties that have been added to NASA's
list that had not been done so in the past.
Is the Federal Aeronautics Administration, the airline
industry, or NOAA adding any of their own funds to these
efforts?
Mr. Scolese. In both cases, the answer is yes. I cannot
speak specifically to FAA. Perhaps Dr. Shin could do that. But,
yes, they are providing resources to go out and do that. NOAA
definitely is. They have an increase in their budget to go off
and improve the weather system and the climate system which, of
course, are very much related. So, yes, there are increases in
both.
Dr. Shin. Yes. FAA has a specific program called CLEAN and
this is to develop certifiable technologies for environmental
impact mitigation and also climate change. They have also a
very active weather policy group that works with the
international community to address regulations and setting the
standard and all those aspects for climate control or climate
change mitigation. So we are happily working with FAA in those
areas.
Mr. Aderholt. Are they adding any of their own funds,
though, or----
Dr. Shin. Out of their new reauthorization at FAA, they are
funded. The CLEAN Program is funded and climate change----
Mr. Aderholt. Out of their own budget?
Dr. Shin. Yes, out of their own budget.
Mr. Aderholt. Okay. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
NASA BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Scolese, in
testimony before this Subcommittee earlier, again, Dr. Fisk
stated that when he was on the Space Studies Board they
repeatedly pointed out that NASA is asked to do too much with
too little, something we hear a lot of. Do you feel that this
is the case today?
Mr. Scolese. Yes. I mean, it is also a good place to be,
quite frankly. It is nice to have people wanting us to do more
than we can do. All of our communities, the science community,
the aviation community, all want us to do a lot of very
exciting things. And we have to work collaboratively with them
to try and determine what we can fit within the resources that
we are provided. I think for as long as NASA is around I hope
there is always more people coming to us asking us to do more
than is currently possible. But I also hope that we have an
organization in the National Academy, and obviously with
Congress and the administration, that understands that we have
a finite budget and a finite number of people and resources to
be able to prioritize those in a sensible and logical way. And
I think we get that, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. I think I heard that process being discussed
in Mr. Weiler's response to Mr. Schiff's question.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
RETURN HUMANS TO THE MOON
Mr. Mollohan. Does this budget in any way, either
programmatic content or out year funding constraints, change
the nation's current plans to return Americans to the moon by
2020?
Mr. Scolese. It may impact the return to the moon. But
clearly, that is part of our normal design process as we go off
and understand the vehicles that we are developing. We have a
major preliminary design review coming up this year that will
help us inform that decision. I think the significant piece in
this discussion is that the President did in the overview
budget ask that we strive to return humans to the moon by 2020.
That is the goal that we are going to work on. But it is going
to be informed along the way as we understand more and more
about our systems, and we can understand more and more about
the budget that we will have to live on. Not just this year and
for the next five, but for the next ten years.
Mr. Mollohan. So my question is, how does this budget and
the out year budgets impact that as you are looking at it are
informed along the way?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Do you anticipate an impact?
Mr. Scolese. I anticipate that we will have some changes in
the program, yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Yeah, but my question is, is there anything--
--
Mr. Scolese. I cannot tell you what those changes will be.
Mr. Mollohan. I do not know. I mean, if you look forward,
you can look at the budget and see how that impacts various
programs and see which ones of them are a critical path to
getting back to the moon. And does anything you see possibly
impact our getting to the moon by the 2020 target date?
Mr. Scolese. Well the reason----
Mr. Mollohan. Anything you see in this budget, in the
project?
Mr. Scolese. No, I understand, sir. The difficulty is, we
looked at, we are still looking at options for what do we mean
by the moon. Do we mean a colony on the moon?
Mr. Mollohan. Oh, boy.
Mr. Scolese. That is clearly very expensive, right? Are we
looking at something along the lines of what we did with
Apollo?
Mr. Mollohan. Well what definition were we using when we
set the goal? So whatever definition we were using, what is
returning to the moon, when we set the goal of 2020.
Mr. Scolese. I think we were looking at an outpost on the
moon, was the basis for that estimate, and that one is being
revisited. It will probably be less than an outpost on the
moon. But where it fits between sorties, single trips to the
moon to various parts, and an outpost is really going to be
dependent on the studies that we are going to be doing, not
just this year but as we progress in the definition of the
lunar program.
Mr. Mollohan. So if you were sitting on the Committee and
you were asking somebody, because you want to get a sense of,
well, is the funding we are providing in these various programs
that are lead up to getting on the moon by the target date,
what kind of an answer would you want to walk away with, having
a sense, or at least an understanding, of what the experts
thought about this budget impacting our getting to the moon,
whatever definition we used originally, what answer would you
want to hear in order to help understand that? That is the
answer I would like to have.
Mr. Scolese. Okay. I think the answer I would like to hear,
and I guess I will give, is that we will have the capability
provide options for what that solution space looks like at the
moon and beyond. Because recall, the vision was not just to go
to the moon, as it was in Apollo. It was to utilize space to go
on to Mars and to go to other places. So what I would look for
from us over time is a system that is capable of carrying crew,
clearly, into space. But then the capability of carrying crew
and sufficient cargo out of low Earth orbit. So that we can do
various things at the moon.
We have demonstrated over the last several years that with
multiple flights we can build a very complex system reliably,
the Space Station, involving multiple Nations. As long as we
have that capability, and we will need something like that if
we are going to go to Mars. So what I would like to see from
NASA over time is an architecture that allows us to build up a
system that will give us flexibility for taking humans beyond
low Earth orbit and allowing us to have options for what we can
do at the moon as well as other destinations. Be they, physical
destinations like the moon or Mars or an asteroid, or whether
they be, astronomical ones, or celestial mechanics ones, the
libration points where we are going to be putting satellites to
do, you know, to do repairs there if that is warranted.
So that is the answer I would be looking for from us today
so that there are options on what we do in 2020. Is that okay?
Mr. Mollohan. Well, you have exhausted my five minutes. Mr.
Culberson.
SCIENCE MISSION PRIORITIES
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman asked
a really important question and I want to follow up on it. But
I first want to make sure I understand Dr. Weiler's response to
my good friend Mr. Schiff's question about Europa. I thought
the Europa question was settled. That is the top outer planets
priority, is it not, Dr. Weiler? You said something about you
are going to go back and reevaluate as a scientist, to compare
Europa, we are not going through another competition, are we?
Europa is settled. That is the flagship mission to the outer
planets, now top priority, right?
Dr. Weiler. Absolutely. The Europa orbiter is now the top
priority in the outer planets program. The problem is, the
budget that I inherited about a year ago when I came back to
headquarters does not just have outer planets in it. It has
Mars, it has the moon, it has asteroids, comets, and various
other programs. To get Europa moving faster than the plan is
currently----
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Dr. Weiler [continuing]. I would have to move money around.
Mr. Culberson. From other, lower priority missions that are
not----
Dr. Weiler. Well, that is the key, Mr. Culberson. As an
associate administrator I may have a lot of authority but when
it comes to making priority scientific decisions I tend to rely
on the National Academy.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. Of course, as you should.
Dr. Weiler. That is why this decadal is so important,
because I have asked them, nothing is special in the solar
system. Not the moon, not comets, whatever. You guys, you gals,
are supposed to tell me. What is the most important thing? Is
it Mars? Is it the outer planets program? Is it going to the
moon----
Mr. Culberson. Right.
Dr. Weiler [continuing]. For science? And we should have
that answer, you know, over the next year, year and a half.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, very good. I recommend, Mr. Chairman
and the Committee, as an absolute minimum that we make certain
that no matter what else NASA is doing, and when it comes to
the scientific work that they do on the robotics missions, that
we have given them enough money to fly that top priority
decadal mission in each of those categories. At an absolute
minimum, particularly in this tough budget environment. That
would be good. Because the scientific community does make those
recommendations to them, Mr. Chairman. And they have done a
good job over the years of prioritizing the mission.
The one area that you have just got to get a handle on is
the cost estimates. And the GAO recommends that you develop a
sound business case for each mission and as a part of the
process. Could you comment on that? What is your thought on the
GAO recommendation on trying to give us more accurate cost
estimates? And it makes it easier for your friends on this
Committee to be able to fund what you want to do.
Mr. Scolese. Well, we certainly do not disagree with the
GAO. And we, in fact, responded back that we principally agreed
with their findings. And they also commented in the report that
we were doing much of what they had recommended in the report.
So we are doing those things to make our estimates much better.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Scolese. The one thing I would like to comment on in
the report that we did disagree with, which was mentioned
earlier, was the number of missions that had cost growth. We
specifically asked them to consider the fact that many of those
missions we had no control over. I will give two examples, and
we said about half of them they really should not count as NASA
cost growth.
SDO, the Solar Dynamics Observatory, was ready on time to
launch. And because of the launch manifest will launch about a
year later than anticipated.
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Scolese. And a similar, although not as significant
delay, is for the lunar reconnaissance orbiter and the LCROSS
mission.
CBO'S ANALYSIS
Mr. Culberson. Well let me if I could follow up on the
Chairman's very important question. Because he was throwing you
a nice softball trying to help you find a way, help you help us
to get you the money that you need. And in order to help, I am
going to yield, I am going to ask the question and then yield
whatever time I have got back to the Chairman to follow up.
But the CBO estimated that if you follow your current
budget plans there will be an average rate of cost growth,
would result in a delay in Orion/Ares until 2016. And we have
just got to shrink that gap. Because the human space flight
program is just essential. And we cannot allow ourselves to be
hostage to the Russians, who will charge us whatever the market
will bear. Because they will be the only game in town. That is
just an unacceptable, that gap is just unacceptable and we have
got to make sure we shrink it. But the CBO is estimating that
there could be a delay in Orion/Ares until late 2016, a delay
in returning humans to the moon until 2023, and that fifteen of
seventy-nine science missions would be delayed beyond 2025. Do
you agree with the CBO's analysis? And then could you make sure
you address the Chairman's question, which is related to this?
Mr. Scolese. I agree with how the CBO did their analysis,
the results they got. I do not agree with their conclusions,
however. They made assumptions that we would have 50 percent
cost growth across the board, in all of our activities.
Clearly, we do not plan to have 50 percent cost growth. We work
so that we do not. As I alluded to earlier, we are doing what
we can to provide you and ourselves, frankly, with better
estimates so that when we lay out a plan it is a plan that we
can live with, and that we can execute, and that we will show
up on time.
That is our plan with Constellation. We will come to you
with our detailed plan at the conclusion of PDR, as we do with
all of our missions. But our plan, our efforts, and everything
that we are doing is to be there in 2015. Of course, I mean in
any new development there are surprises. But our plan, and the
activities that we have settled, that we have in place, and the
benefits that were provided by the stimulus allow us to do some
early testing. So we are going to work as hard as we can to
make 2015 a reality.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Culberson. Mr. Schiff?
EUROPA MISSION
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a couple of
follow up questions for Dr. Weiler on the Europa mission. How
soon would you need to go out with a proposal on the science in
order to keep on a 2020 schedule?
Dr. Weiler. Well we are talking about an AO for a mission
that if we can meet a 2020 goal, which is currently what the
Europeans are trying to meet too, I would guess that an AO
would have to go out for instruments. Because we would be
soliciting AO instruments and science team, broadly. That would
probably have to go out in a time frame of 2012, 2013,
probably, at the latest. So I would feel more comfortable if we
went out about 2012. Despite our best efforts, instruments
usually drive the launch. So, you like to get those started as
early as possible. In the meantime, even with the budget we
have now, I can keep the Europa team working on critical
technologies. But again, I look to the decadal for advice on
how to prioritize these things because with more money I could
accelerate that launch date.
SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES
Mr. Schiff. Well, let me ask you about that issue. And
this, I think, may have been part of the Chairman's question.
Or I may have been reading more into the Chairman's question
than I should. But you mentioned doing some reexamination of
scientific priorities and where we are putting our resources.
As I understand it, the manned mission to the moon is part of a
broader manned mission to Mars. There is moon scientific work
that is being done in preparation for a manned mission to the
moon. And there is moon science that is being done that is
probably independent of what you would need to do to bring man
back to the moon. If the science community does not, and I am
asking this question. If the science community does not
conclude that the moon science is anywhere near as valuable as,
say, Mars science or Europa science, are there ways that the
moon program could be trimmed back to accommodate other higher
scientific priorities?
Dr. Weiler. Oh, absolutely, Mr. Schiff. That is exactly,
that is exactly why we want this decadal. Because, and I will
let Doug speak for himself, but there is no question that the
lunar reconnaissance orbiter (LRO) mission that we are going to
launch hopefully next month is absolutely critical for the
human landings. Because we to this day do not have a high
quality digital map of the moon. And we do not have a laser
altimeter map of the terrain. So the LRO is going to provide
critical information that is going to help the manned lunar
program in the near term.
On the science side, I have asked the current Associate
Administrator, and actually the previous two, are there
scientific missions that are critical to support the human
mission beyond LRO, the lunar reconnaissance orbiter? The
answer has usually been no, so at that point I have to ask the
question, where does moon science stand in priority, versus
searching for life on Mars, going to Europa, going to other
planets, comets, whatever? That is a question that is so
important. That is why I say the decadal should answer that
question. I do not feel qualified to make that decision on my
own.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you. And I think that is exactly the
right question to ask. Things get put in motion, they get an
inertia of their own. And they may, they may not make sense.
And I realize you inherited this budget, and the trajectory we
are on in several different programs. But given, you know, for
example the very exciting discovery of this Earth-like planet,
this planet that is two or three times the size of Earth, and
the possibility that there may be a great many Earth-like
planets out there, I would think as a non-scientist the level
of interest and excitement that could be generated over, you
know, science exploring those, you know, habitats where life
could exist would drive a lot of interest in the science. In
the space program and in the sciences.
Let me ask you one other question. The President announced
a new science initiative designed to devote 3 percent of our
GDP to research and development, which I was thrilled to hear.
``Science,'' he said, ``was more essential for our prosperity,
security, health, environment, and quality of life than it has
ever been.'' Has the administration given you any indication,
Mr. Administrator, that NASA will be a part of this new focus
on science? Because obviously, I think I speak for my fellow
Committee members, we really feel it should be. And it is
probably the one area of science that is most attractive to
young people, to get them interested in science. But also has
some of the most fascinating questions. So have you heard
anything about whether NASA will be part of this?
Dr. Weiler. If I could interrupt and save a question for
the record, it turns out I am more conservative than my
planetary division director. Even with the budget he has today
in the near term he feels he can get an AO on the street for
instruments on Europa in the late 2011 time frame, which would
even be better for a 2020 launch because it would give us more
time to develop the technologies.
Mr. Schiff. All right. Well, I think many of us would love
to see it happen before 2020. So we would love to see the
proposal go out in 2010.
Mr. Scolese. The answer to your question is, I was at the
President's speech. He did mention it. He mentioned, of course,
NASA several times. But to be very frank, we do not have the
details yet of what that means. But I would fully expect that
NASA as a science agency would certainly be a part of that. But
I cannot say anything more than that because I do not know.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Mr. Kennedy.
EARTH SYSTEMS DISTURBANCES
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome all of you.
Thank you for the work you do for our country. I wanted to ask
about, particularly Dr. Cooke if you would, about how NASA has
begun to support systems approaches to exploring science of the
interactions among components of the Earth's system, including
human dimensions of the Earth's systems disturbances. And
particularly we do, in Rhode Island, through our sciences work
to develop quantitative risk models that analyze the
interactions between humans and regional atmospheric systems
for studying local and regional environmental changes, and the
potential for social and economic consequences related to
renewable energy, coastal fisheries, and human infrastructure
and health. Has NASA begun to include this type of applied
modeling and social science into its scientific portfolio? And
are there opportunities for NASA to support this type of work
with universities like we have in Rhode Island?
Mr. Scolese. Mr. Kennedy, that would be in Dr. Weiler's
division. Let me answer just real briefly, though, and then Ed
can add more detail to it. The short answer is, yes. It is in
our applied sciences division. We do do that. Of course, we
have to work with other agencies. Since NASA is a research
agency we do not do operational type of activities. We
support--operational activities. But, it is something----
Mr. Kennedy. Well then what do you need to do with other
agencies to do that?
Mr. Scolese. I will let Ed cover that.
Dr. Weiler. It is a very detailed question, Mr. Kennedy. I
really would like to take it for the record, if I could.
Mr. Kennedy. Okay. That would be fine. Maybe you could
comment about it just generally, then we could get some detail
later on. But in terms of the Earth's systems disturbances, and
how the human----
Mr. Scolese. I can give a brief one because most of my
career in NASA was actually on the Earth science side. So while
it may not be as current or as up-to-date as some, NASA has
launched a number of missions, as you know, to collect data
about the Earth. The Landsat missions have been flying since
the 1970's, and in their current forms since the early 1980's,
they provide us with a continuous data record that is used by a
number of localities for urban planning and it is used by
agricultural services to predict and plan for crops. The EOS
series of missions, there are several of those, are providing
daily critical resources, critical information on resources
around the world, not just in this country, both for marine and
hydrologic activities. We have our tropical rain forest
mission. It is integral in predicting the path and the
intensity of hurricanes. We have instruments that are used
routinely by the operational agencies for mitigating floods,
predicting flood paths, and predicting paths for even volcanic
activity. So that is sort of an overview of it. Those missions
are being used continuously by virtually every agency of the
U.S. government, and they are being used by other nations as
well.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NASA'S EARTH SCIENCE PROGRAM BENEFITS
Mr. Kennedy. Well I think it is important that we find out,
Mr. Chairman, how those other agencies benefit from the work
that NASA does. Because I think in a time of global climate
change, like we are going through right now, it is especially
important how the Department of Agriculture uses NASA's assets,
and how Department of Defense uses NASA's assets, and how all
of these different agencies use NASA's, rely on them, you know,
frankly I think even the Department of Transportation and all
of our local governments with coastal zone management.
The fact of the matter is, I think these are the assets
that NASA has that they could contribute in the most direct
way, obviously, in the Mission to Planet Earth. And we
obviously have to plan ahead in terms of droughts, in terms of
preparing for potential civil conflict. If there is a drought
that is going to be coming ahead, we are going to see it from
space before we see it anywhere else. And if we can, and we
know there is going to be displacement of people because of the
drought and we are going to have to call in our Marines as a
result, it is going to be a mass expenditure of our military. I
mean, these are things that, you know, we can know and have a
direct impact on our economy and on our national security. And,
you know, most people in my district do not know how NASA
impacts their daily lives. I think they would like to know, and
I think they would be very happy to know how it does in a very
direct way, that their sons' and daughters' lives could be
saved by this vital information.
So I would really like to get that. And I would like to
have this so that we can really publicize it. Because I think
NASA really, we need to get the message out there about how
vital the work that NASA does is to our national security and
to the future of this planet and its security.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. And we will provide you with the
details on that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ruppersberger.
SPACE COMMUNICATION NETWORK SERVICES
Mr. Ruppersberger. First I have a question. I want to get
into two areas if I have time, ITAR and also cyber security.
But Chairman Bart Gordon from the Science Committee asked me to
ask this question. It is about the $1.3 billion contract for
Space Communication Network Services, SCNS, despite the fact
that both the House Science Committee and NASA's own inspector
general are investigating serious allegations of that may have
affected procurement. He asked me to ask you, is there any
reason why NASA could not have waited to award the contract
until after these investigations are complete?
Mr. Scolese. Sir, we had reviewed the----
Mr. Ruppersberger. I do not want to spend a lot of time
because I want to get into my questions.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Ruppersberger. I am doing this as a favor.
Mr. Scolese. Well, I will make it real short, then. Sir, we
awarded the contract because we felt it was in the best value
of the government. The contract has been protested again, so it
is under a protective order. We are prohibited from discussing
it further than that, really.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. But, maybe, have you determined
whether an adequate analysis was performed to ensure that no
organizational conflict of interest was prevalent during this
competition? Is it not NASA's responsibility to do so?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir, we did do that. We did not see an
organizational conflict of interest.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And the final question that was asked,
should this Committee fund a program when you cannot find an
assurance that proper process was followed to ensure adherence
to ethical requirements to prevent personal and organizational
conflicts of interest?
Mr. Scolese. We, on every one of our contracts we review
organizational conflicts of interest. We have a rigorous
process. We believe we followed all the rules and that the
award was valid.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Also, what will NASA do in the
event that a problem is found as a result of these
investigations? Will there be, will we be, it is too late to
remedy the problem once one is found?
Mr. Scolese. No. We will have to work out a remedy if a
problem is found.
INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATIONS (ITAR)
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. ITAR. ITAR is an issue that,
again, sometimes I think in this country we try to fix some
problems and it causes other problems, and I think this is a
perfect example. Different administrations have been looking at
ITAR and saying, ``We are going to study it. We are going to
look at it.'' But we really do not do anything. And it is about
time we stand up and do something. I think we need to do
something right away.
There have been different studies that have come out about
U.S. national space policy and how do we resolve some of the
ITAR issues. And I want to read something here. Maybe you can
respond to it. ``The study recommends a number of changes to
existing export control regime, including that the Secretary of
Defense and NASA Administrator in conjunction with the
Secretary of State should have the authority to grant real
time, case by case, specific time period exemptions for
resolutions deemed to be in the national interest based on the
criteria and the national space policy.'' Do you have any
comments on, and you are included in, trying to be involved and
providing exemptions, I guess, right away?
Mr. Scolese. That would be ideal. I mean, ITAR has been one
of the issues that has made it very difficult to do some of our
international missions, mostly because of delays to get the
agreements in place, and the delays associated with working the
protections to make sure that information is not exchanged.
Further, it sort of stifles the conversation with our
international partners, as they look at it and say, ``Are you
telling us everything you can tell us?'' So they create, in
some cases, their own ITAR, a reverse ITAR.
Mr. Ruppersberger. And that is what is happening
internationally, and it is putting a lot of our companies at a
disadvantage.
Mr. Scolese. Seriously.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Seriously. And it seems to me that when
it comes to, you want to call it tier one or whatever as far as
what we need to be classified, I think that most of the
contractors you deal with understand that. And you all have the
ability to be able to maintain that confidentiality, or keep it
classified.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. But we need to move it. I think, I met,
we had the Commerce Secretary here afterwards. I met with him
afterwards. We are going to have to deal with our International
Relations Committee. I know Mr. Schiff is on that Committee,
right? And also on Intelligence, we are both on Intelligence
and we are looking at it from that perspective. But we are
going to try and get very aggressive. And if you have any ideas
if you could get to us on that, where we need to go. Whether we
need a law, a regulation, we are still not sure. But we are
going to try to deal with it.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, we do have ideas on that and we will be
happy to provide it for you on the record.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Do you have any recommendations? Any
recommendations what you think should be done?
Mr. Scolese. Well, I think one of the things that you
mentioned, providing exemptions. Or providing the ability for
the NASA Administrator to make exemptions, similar to what the
Department of Defense has. Getting the munitions list down to
a, to truly those things that are classified as opposed to
potentially useful would help immensely as a first order. Those
would probably be the first two things that I would go after.
Then we could probably do more at the detail level for the
record.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Ruppersberger. The other thing is cybersecurity. Very
serious issue to our country, to the world. And we know we have
had a lot of attacks. We know that NASA has been attacked. We
are concerned about, and this is all unclassified because I
have been reading about it in the papers, and these issues. I
believe there was an article about how NASA really has not
identified the fact, it does not want to admit that we have
been compromised, especially by countries like China as far as
getting a lot of our data, information, and the way we do
business. Do you have a system, is my time starting to run out,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Mollohan. Yes, it is.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Can I finish this?
Mr. Mollohan. How long are you going to take?
Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I am just going to finish this
question.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, go ahead. And it is a short answer, I
am sure.
Mr. Ruppersberger. That is up to him. It is just that it is
important, I think, that you work with our different agencies
that deal with cyber, and that we have a defense because of
what we do in space. It is very important. And I hope you have
a system or a plan in place to do that.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir, we do. We are working with the other
committees. In the interest of time I will not go much further.
But I will add that we do have a committee on our advisory
council that also looks at cybersecurity that we work with. So
we do take it very seriously. We are taking appropriate
actions, and in the interest of time I will leave it at that,
sir.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay, thanks.
Mr. Mollohan. Supplement that for the record, if you want.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Wolf.
NASA ADMINISTRATOR SELECTION
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being
late. I had a, I was on a panel with Congressman Cooper
downtown and there was a demonstration at the Capitol. You
cannot get in the grounds. So I do apologize, and do not know
what questions have been asked. So just some general ones that
probably have not, and hopefully have not. When will the new
Administrator be selected? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Scolese. No, sir, I do not.
CHINA SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Wolf. Okay. What is the likelihood of China beating us
back to the moon?
Mr. Scolese. That is hard to say. We believe they have a
vehicle with minor modifications to maybe moderate
modifications could be a lunar vehicle. Not a lander, but it
could get to the moon. And we believe that they are developing
vehicles that would allow them that opportunity. Whether they
have the desire to do it or not, we cannot say.
Mr. Wolf. I think the desire, so, given I believe they have
the desire, do you think with the desire they have the ability?
Mr. Scolese. Yes. They will. I mean, they do not have it
today but they will.
Mr. Wolf. And could they beat us back? Could they beat us,
the United States, back to the moon?
Mr. Scolese. Sir, I do not have the latest study.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you must have thought about this.
Mr. Scolese. We have. I am just checking----
Mr. Wolf. I mean, I cannot be the only guy, person----
Mr. Scolese. No, I mean, they could beat us to the moon,
yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Well, how do you define ``could''?
Mr. Scolese. That is what I was trying to find out, sir. I
have not seen the latest study. What we do know is that they
have plans for vehicles that are capable, with docking and
Earth orbit, of getting to the moon. We understand that their
Shenzhou capsule, with some modifications, would leave Earth
orbit, clearly, and return from a lunar trajectory. What we do
not know is, you know, whether they have any plans to build a
lander and what the----
Mr. Wolf. What are your expectations?
Mr. Scolese. I think if they have the desire to do it, sir,
they can do it. I think considering where they are today they
could probably beat us to the moon before 2020.
Mr. Wolf. Well, how many employees do we have, both
government and contractors, working on the space program and
how many do the Chinese have?
Mr. Scolese. I do not know the answer on the Chinese side.
We have 17,900 civil servants in the agency. We have about
double that in support contractors immediately around the
centers. Then the industrial base is probably several times
that number.
Mr. Wolf. So what----
Mr. Scolese. I will have to give you for the record the
total number, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And, Griffin was able to tell us last year how
many the Chinese had. Can you----
Mr. Scolese. We can get that for the record, sir. I do not
know the answer to that.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
Mr. Wolf. Two other last questions. The aeronautics, there
has been great criticism that NASA, National Aeronautic, you
are not doing as much. What are the expectations in the budget
with regard to aeronautics?
Mr. Scolese. Aeronautics has been given a plus up in the
2009 budget, as you saw, and with the stimulus. So we expect
more out of aeronautics. I would let Dr. Shin cover some more
of the details of what we are doing there.
Dr. Shin. Yes. Most importantly, we will be able to address
and focus more on the environmental impact mitigation. Also, we
will continue to work on supporting NextGen vision, Next
Generation Air Transportation System vision. So we still play a
very strong role providing research and technologies in that
initiative.
Mr. Wolf. Would you agree that it had weakened a little
bit?
Dr. Shin. I do not think so.
Mr. Wolf. Well, most people outside do. But----
Dr. Shin. I did not quite catch the last part.
Mr. Wolf. Do you believe the emphasis, both funding and
interest, by NASA on aeronautics had weakened over the last
several years?
Dr. Shin. We have been stable. We have been getting stable
funding. And we conduct fundamental----
Mr. Wolf. But what about the funding for the Jet Propulsion
Lab, and what about the funding for some of the other labs. I
mean, has that not been decreased?
Mr. Scolese. In aeronautics the principal centers are
Langley, Ames, and Glenn Research Centers.
Mr. Wolf. And has Langley not been reduced in numbers of
people, too?
Mr. Scolese. Langley is not as large as it was a few years
ago. It is growing again. They are hiring up. Langley has
continued to do work in aeronautics, and Jai can focus more.
Langley has also been very much involved in the exploration
program. They have developed the launch abort, or developing
launch abort system, the boiler plate capsules for the various
tests that are going on. I mentioned earlier the Ares 1-X Test
and the Pad Abort 1 Test. Langley developed those vehicles for
it and is very much engaged on the Constellation program as
well. But today they are in the process of increasing their
hiring.
IRAN, NORTH KOREA, SYRIA NONPROLIFERATION ACT (INKSNA)
Mr. Wolf. Two other last questions. At the retirement of
the shuttle, and maybe you have answered this, you will need to
buy flights from Russia to deliver crews. Last year, Congress
provided you with a waiver from the Iran, North Korea, Syria
Nonproliferation Act to continue these purchases. Have you
secured the necessary agreements with the Russians?
Mr. Scolese. Yes. Yes, we have.
WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY
Mr. Wolf. Lastly, what are you doing down at Wallops
Island? Maybe you can just tell me that, have somebody call me
and bring me up to speed on it.
Mr. Scolese. Certainly, we would be glad to do it. We are
doing a lot of interesting things there. Of course, just as a
brief highlight, we are going to, we have started space
launches again from Wallops with the Minotaurs. Orbital space
science is moving there.
Mr. Wolf. Well maybe you can get somebody to tell me what
you are doing, and what your projections are, and what you----
Mr. Scolese. Okay. We are doing launches today with the
Minotaurs. We will be doing launches in the future as well,
with the orbital sciences. Of course, we do the balloon
research there as I am sure you know. But we will get you all
the details of that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
RETURN TO THE MOON
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. Mr. Scolese, so Mr.
Cooke, I asked Mr. Scolese, does this budget in any way either
by programmatic content or out year funding constraints change
our nation's current plans to return Americans to the moon by
2020? May I direct that question to you, please?
Mr. Cooke. Yes, sir. In terms of the 2010 budget we have
actually not assessed that at this point. The programs, the
Constellation program projects have not seen that budget.
Mr. Mollohan. No, no. I am sorry. This budget. Is there
anything in this budget----
Mr. Cooke. The 2009?
Mr. Mollohan [continuing]. That would impact our getting to
the moon by the target date of 2020? I am sorry--2020. Does the
2010 budget request impact in any way our target, is this so
complicated, our target of getting to the moon by 2020? Or is
the answer scary? What is----
Mr. Cooke. Well, we, once again, we have not released, we
have not given that budget to the project or program to assess.
There are also variables associated with that far out, which
include certain things that we can do ourselves.
Mr. Mollohan. But all of those variables existed when that
target date was established.
Mr. Cooke. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that not correct? Have any of those
variables changed that would impact that target? With the same
probabilities as was in existence when the target was set?
Mr. Cooke. Not really. The variables are the cost of
transition from shuttle to Constellation. The question of
extension of Space Station beyond 2016. Those variables have
been there and they, they certainly have an effect one way or
another. But we have, we actually have not assessed the 2010
budget at this point within the program.
Mr. Mollohan. Is there any consideration being given within
the organization to not attempting to, to not attempting to
meet the 2020 moon? Is there any reconsideration of going
there? What is going on there?
Mr. Cooke. The direction that we have is to continue to
pursue the 2020 date within our guidance.
Mr. Mollohan. Mm-hmm. And with the 2010 budget request, do
you feel like you are still on target for that?
Mr. Cooke. That is what we have to assess.
Mr. Mollohan. And what will be the assessment process?
Mr. Cooke. Well, we will----
Mr. Mollohan. Describe the assessment process for me,
please.
Mr. Cooke. The budget that we build is based on release of
that budget, and the program and projects working through what
has to be done first to get to the initial operating capability
of 2015 with Ares I and Orion and then looking at the out year
budgets and what we can do with that. But it does, it is a
bottoms up exercise that we go through to build the budget,
within the Ares I project, the Orion, with the people who are
working Ares V, and lunar lander, and surface systems, and all
that. So that is the process we go through. And as we try to
understand priorities and how they fit together, and what we
are able to do within the budget that we have.
Mr. Mollohan. What about your 2009 budget, which we have
seen? Does that in any way impact your ability to get to the
moon by 2020?
Mr. Cooke. That one, that budget we feel we are on track to
get there in that time, near that time frame, understanding
that those variables are still in play.
Mr. Mollohan. Is there anything in the 2009 budget that
would bring that into question, getting to the moon by 2020? Is
there anything in that budget, 2009 budget, that would impact
getting to the moon by 2020?
Mr. Cooke. Not that I can think of, sir. We fully intend,
with that planning we had the ability to get there, I believe.
Mr. Mollohan. Are you involved----
Mr. Cooke. With some uncertainty due to the Space Station
commitment, for extension and such.
Mr. Mollohan. So the question of Space Station is in the
path of thinking about getting to the moon by 2020. In what
way?
Mr. Cooke. Well, in terms of overall budgets, that has
never, the extension beyond 2016 has not been in our,
absolutely in our budget.
Mr. Mollohan. Yeah.
Mr. Cooke. So, actually between Bill Gerstenmaier and I we
are looking at operations costs, fixed costs out in that time
frame to get to reductions there to make those kinds of plans
work.
SPACE STATION
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, well that is a nice segue. Mr.
Gerstenmaier, Space Station after 2015, is there any money
projected in the budget beyond, or to 2015 and beyond 2015, for
Space Station? Why do you not just pull that close to you?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. We have been given guidance to not
preclude Space Station operations beyond 2015. We have done
that within the budget we have been given. There is no unique
expenditures now that we have applied that have been required
prior to our 2009 budget submit for that do not preclude
statement. In the next budget cycle 2010 and 2011 we are going
to have to start showing some additional impacts potentially to
protect the option of keeping Space Station viable beyond 2015.
Mr. Mollohan. Well in your planning do you, I have got
several questions for you. In your planning, do you anticipate
budget requests for Space Station beyond 2015?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Yes. We are going to go ahead and propose
to continue to operate Space Station in conjunction with what
Doug talked about, to work an overall kind of combined
exploration operations budget for beyond 2015. We will make
those submits into the system at the appropriate time.
Mr. Mollohan. And your international partners, are they
confident and totally reassured that you are going to be
operating Space Station beyond 2015?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We do not have formal approval to operate
beyond 2015. We have been told to not preclude operations
beyond 2015. That is what we are doing. We will look for a
decision from the administration at the appropriate time to
allow us to either continue or not continue Space Station
operations. We are working that through the system. We keep our
partners informed. At the last heads of agency last year we got
agreement from all our partners that each of us would go to our
governments and talk about extending operations beyond 2015
with the idea that we would get together as an international
community this summer, or maybe fall. Then we would decide
collectively if that is in all our best interests, to go ahead
and continue Space Station beyond that.
Mr. Mollohan. I am sorry. Say that again, that last part?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We were going to get together at another
heads of agency meeting in the fall to understand whether we
can all then commit to operating Space Station beyond 2015. So
it is, each country has to go seek approval from their own
government to do that. We are in the same situation as they
are. We need each other to continue to operate. The Russians
need to be there to supply some services to us. We provide
services to them. The Japanese operate their laboratory. The
Europeans do as well. So it is a collective international
decision that will ultimately result in whether we continue
Space Station operations or not.
Mr. Mollohan. So you anticipate that by this fall you will
have enough interaction, enough collaboration with the
administration to be able to talk confidently about what our
government's attitude is going to be with regard to Station
after 2015?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. That is our goal, is to get the
appropriate approval to remove the do not preclude and make a
positive decision on the future of Space Station.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. This is our situation. And members have
left, so I would ask staff to advise their members. We have a
series of votes here. We are going to recess the hearing and
reconvene at approximately 1:00. We hope to reconvene by 1:00.
And we understand your time constraints, Mr. Scolese, and some
others. And we are going to respect that. So we are going to be
done by 3:00 here, or very shortly if an answer goes over. Does
that accommodate you? Okay. So we are going to try to start an
hour earlier if that is all right. Both the Ranking and myself,
we have noontime commitments, but we are really cutting that
short and trying to get back here. So we will take advantage of
this vote to stop a little early. And we will start a little
early, and then we will move right along and be done by 3:00.
Mr. Scolese. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Scolese. Thank you, all, and
we will look forward to seeing you.
MARS PROGRAM
Mr. Schiff [presiding]. We are back in session. And Mr.
Administrator, this is the moment I have been waiting for. It
came much sooner than I expected. I have always wanted to be a
Committee or Subcommittee Chair and it is finally happened. Up
until now I have been only the chair of the Congressional
Delegation from the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley and
the western part of the San Gabriel Valley, and that is my only
chairmanship of one.
I would like to start out and ask you about an issue that
is near and dear to my heart. We had a chance to talk it over a
little bit yesterday, and I know you can't be very specific,
given the budget numbers haven't been fully delineated yet, but
I would like to ask you your agency's perspective on the Mars
Program.
It was on a very strong trajectory, that trajectory was
changed over the last couple years, and we have had some
problems with the Mars Science Lab, which are hopefully now
being corrected. But I would like to get your thoughts on the
future of the Mars Program and whether you see an opportunity
to make up for some of the ground we may have lost funding wise
over the last couple years.
Mr. Scolese. Sure. Well as you know the Mars Program has
yielded some incredible results. And you know, with the first
time a human machine--not a human yet--but a human machine has
touched water on another planet with the Phoenix landing, and
of course the incredible discoveries of our two rovers on the
surface and the orbital assets that are there, and we now need
to go beyond those as you were talking about. Ed talked about
it earlier or eluded to it, but there is really--if I could
expand on it a little bit and then let Ed add to it.
There is really three pieces. There is The National Academy
study that is going to go off and look at the entire planetary
arena; the Moon, Mars, and all the other planets, the outer
planets, what have you, to determine their priorities and their
ranking so that we have an assessment of the importance of the
various planetary bodies as well as the missions that would be
going there.
Second we have, kind of collectively realized as a world
that we are getting to the point where Mars' exploration--we
are starting to ask the very difficult questions, and very
difficult questions tend to cost a lot of money. So
partnerships are being forged. The most recent one is with ESA
for the 2016 mission that we are working.
Third, we have asked Scott Hubbard, who led the recovery
effort of Mars '98 to go off and look at the Mars Program and
help us put together a program of record that we can go off and
look at.
So these three things will all help us to (a) do more as we
have partners that can provide resources, provide a better
understanding of what needs to be done so that we can advocate
for more or less, if it comes out that way, for the Mars
Program, and have a solid direction to go in.
I don't know, Ed, do you want to add to that?
Dr. Weiler. If I could expand a little bit on the European
Space Agency connection, because I am in the middle of that for
the past few months. Because of the problems with the Mars
Science Laboratory and the impacts that it has on the ability
for us to do the kind of missions we want to do in the out
years, we were facing a situation where the kinds of missions
we wanted to do we weren't going to have enough money for.
In the meantime I met with David Southwood, who is my
counterpart in Europe just last summer, and he was having the
same problems with his Mars Program. He has a 2016 mission that
is very aggressive. His scientists have added a lot of
instruments to it. And he was facing a situation where he just
didn't have the kind of money that would be needed to do his
mission. So that is where the idea came up, maybe it is time.
We have now reached the point where the easy things have
been done on Mars, the really cheap things have been done. When
you look at U.S. science community plans, western European
plans, they are remarkably similar. We all want the so-called
Holy Grail. We all agree at some point we have to send a robot
to Mars, pick up a piece of Mars and bring it back for analysis
and the billions of dollars of laboratories we have here right
on Earth. That is going to be a very expensive mission, and it
is going to be very expensive to develop the technology to get
to that point.
Since missions are looking like they are going to cost a
billion dollars whether they are European or American, we kind
of said maybe it is time for us to stop competing with each
other and start working together since we have the same goals.
That was kind of the genesis of where we are now. We are going
to Plymouth, England in June for our annual bilateral meeting
and that is what we are going to start trying to lay out not
just a plan where we might do the 2016 mission together, but
what I would call an architecture of where are we going to go
in 2016, 18, 20, and so on leading up to a Mars sample return.
I think we all have agreed between us scientists that there is
no way one country is going to be able to afford a Mars sample
return mission. We have to do it internationally, and maybe it
is the time to start recognizing that now and do the whole
program that way in the future.
COLLABORATION WITH CHINESE SPACE PROGRAM
Mr. Schiff. What kind of collaboration, if any, do we have
or might we have with the Chinese space program?
Mr. Scolese. Today on the science side we have some
collaboration and we are expanding that a little bit more. The
fundamental tenants that we have for the Chinese program, is
transparency as we do with all of our other partners within the
bounds that we are allowed to have as we were talking earlier
about ITAR, and we have that on the science programs.
I believe at this stage, and I have to be corrected, we
have some efforts going on in Earth science that we are doing.
I do know we have a Landsat station in China that they utilize,
and we are looking to expand that.
On the human space flight front there haven't really been
any dialogues there yet because we really haven't-- it is a
much more complicated situation, because anything that involves
human space flight and going to the space station isn't really
a U.S.-only question.
So in addition to the transparency it is our other partner
nations on the space station that would have to agree to
participate. So we have to have the dialogues with our
international partners on that. But that is about the extent of
it right now.
Some limited science missions and activities are
progressing and not much in the way of human space flight yet.
JAPANESE AIR SPACE EXPLORATION AGENCY
Mr. Schiff. Does the Japanese Air Space Exploration Agency
have a potential role in the Mars Program or is that something
to explore as well?
Mr. Scolese. You want to answer that one?
Dr. Weiler. Yes. The Japanese have played a major role in
many of our programs, especially x-ray astronomy, and they have
their own small planetary program even now. We have a
collaborative mission with them on an asteroid sample return
mission. I forget the name of it, but it is on the way back to
Earth now with Japan and JPL.
When I mentioned our working closely with ESA it is not to
preclude other countries, it was just that I was looking for
other space agencies that could afford billion dollar class
missions, and certainly ESA is the only one out there at this
point in time. That does not preclude us working with other
countries, especially Japan, for contributions like a science
instrument on a rover or an orbiter, that kind of thing.
So we welcome all comers, and Japan is certainly one of the
strongest space agencies, you know, other than the U.S. and
Europe.
ORBITING CARBON OBSERVATORY (OCO)
Mr. Schiff. Can you comment a little bit on the loss of the
OCO and what options NASA is exploring to be able to replace
the data that we would have had, had that been a successful
launch?
Mr. Scolese. Certainly. Like everybody, we were very
disappointed in the loss of OCO. It had great potential and it
still does. So that has been confirmed. We have asked the
science community to go off and look at the mission and see if
the data that was going to come from OCO would still be
relevant and still be high priority. The answer came back yes.
That wasn't really a surprise, but we had to answer that
question. So we are in the process now of looking at what is
the best way to go off and recover that mission. We are looking
at two options.
One which would be to fly essentially a copy of OCO, and
the other would be to fly the OCO instrument with the Landsat
instrument, TIR, on a common bus. That one is a little bit more
complicated because you have to work out the relationships
between the two instruments and make sure that since they will
be in the same orbit to make sure that that orbit is compatible
with the science for both. We are in the process of evaluating
that.
One of the reasons it is not exactly a copy is OCO was--we
didn't have any spares, so we have to acquire the same
equipment and some of it is obsolete, so we will have to go off
and restart that. But we are looking at the earliest as
probably three years before we could have a mission flying
again. Principally because of that.
Mr. Schiff. How with the cost of OCO change in doing a
duplicate if that is the route that you take? You mentioned
that some of the parts aren't made anymore and they have got to
be redone, some of the instrumentation may need to be updated.
On the other hand a lot of the work has been done. Do the cost
savings in doing again largely what you have done before, are
they more than enough to offset the additional costs of the new
instrumentation or re-engineering the parts that aren't made
anymore?
Mr. Scolese. Again, it depends on which mission, and that
is one of the factors that we are off looking at. But the short
answer is it will end up costing about the same. Clearly we
don't have to do the design over again, but we have to do the
build over again.
The spacecraft--I am not 100 percent sure--I think it was
an off the shelf spacecraft, so that is going to be essentially
the same price as it was before. The launch vehicle cost has
gone up a little bit.
So if we were to do a copy we wouldn't have to pay for the
engineering all over again, but that is a small part of the
cost that we had to recoup. So it would end up being about the
same cost. A little less, but about the same cost.
So that is one of the other motivations for looking at
flying the two sensors that I mentioned, the OCO sensor and TIR
sensor together. There may be an economic advantage, as well as
a scientific advantage to do that. We haven't determined
whether that is true or not yet, and that is one of the things
that we hope to find out by the end of late spring, early
summer, to have that answered and then be ready to present a
plan.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you. Mr. Wolf.
SHUTTLE RETENTION AND WORKFORCE
Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And a couple questions to you both. I had just spoken to
somebody earlier, they said that with the end of the shuttle
that you potentially could lose thousands of employees.
What are your expectations with regard to employee
additions, losses, retirements, ages, and with regard to NASA
based on where we are now and where you think we are going to
be going?
Mr. Scolese. With the retirement of the shuttle we do
expect to lose several thousand employees.
Mr. Wolf. Two thousand or----
Mr. Scolese. The current number is close to 10,000.
Mr. Wolf. Ten thousands.
Mr. Scolese. Yeah. Correct me if I am wrong.
Mr. Gerstenmaier. That would include all of the contractors
that support the shuttle program throughout. Civil servants
were about the same. We do a work course report that is given
to Congress periodically, we are due for another update for
that. As soon as we get the budget that report-- and then you
can go ahead and you can see the report and read for yourself
the numbers where they are. The report is about six months old.
Mr. Wolf. And where would they likely go?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. Well, we were trying to capture as many
of the workforce as we can in the new program, the Doug
Constellation Program, so we have been giving them some
training opportunities to go learn some skills that helps
support his program.
Again, it is not uniform across our workforce. Some of the
older employees are ready for retirement. The younger employees
have employment opportunities in other areas. The mid-age group
has opportunities to potentially-- they are probably more
susceptible to have to move to another industry other than
aerospace, but our goal is to try to capture and give them jobs
in the aerospace community. They have provided unbelievable
service to us. They have great knowledge. We want to use them
in the most effective ways we can and engage them in the Doug's
program.
So even though there is a period where we are not flying,
we are still doing testing for Doug's equipment, we are doing
test flight at KSC, we are starting to build up launch pads, we
are putting infrastructure in place, we are doing analysis and
those types of things. We can do those with this same
workforce. So there will be a period where they will be
employed maybe in a slightly different job, but they will still
be able to contribute to the space station.
Mr. Wolf. But you are projecting there are a loss of 10,000
that would leave the agency?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. We don't know the exact number leaving
the agency, but that is the maximum number that is in our
workforce report. It is a function of how many jobs we can
create.
Again, you know, we purchase services as NASA, and then we
let our contractors go do the actual employment and hiring. So
the estimates we had, the worst case, was the number on the
order of 10,000, and that is again, agency wide and country
wide, and we will see where they are. The lower ranges were on
the order. I don't remember the exact number off the top of my
head, but we can get it for you for the record.
[The information follows:]
Workforce Transition Strategy
In NASA's October 2008 Workforce Transition Strategy update, the
Agency projected a net reduction of between 3,800 and 6,000 direct
equivalent positions from FY 2008 through FY 2013, including civil
service ``full time equivalents'' and contractor ``work year
equivalents.'' Since civil servant equivalents stay roughly level from
year to year, the great majority of the reduction would be in
contractor ``work year equivalents.'' This 3,800-6,000 planned
reduction is the net change from year to year based on the total number
of equivalents working on the Space Shuttle Program and the
Constellation Program. It should be noted that NASA's workforce
projections after FY2010 will change as a result of the President's
2010 Budget Submission and the ``Review of United States Human Space
Flight Plans.'' This review will examine ongoing and planned NASA human
space flight development activities, as well as potential alternatives,
and present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and
sustainable human space flight program in the years following Space
Shuttle retirement. The review will be concluded by August 2009; any
resultant changes will be reflected in future editions of the Workforce
Transition Strategy, which NASA updates and provides to Congress twice
a year, as directed in the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(P.L. 110-161). NASA plans to update its workforce report in July 2009.
This report will focus on the workforce changes anticipated in 2010.
The remaining years will be updated after the ``Review of United States
Human Space Flight Plans'' is completed in August 2009.
Mr. Wolf. Would they ever go work for Russia?
Mr. Gerstenmaier. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Scolese. Don't think so. And Bill is indicating the
difficulty that we have. We can tell you what you lose if you
no longer do an activity, but we don't actually know what the
contractors are going to hire back. So that makes it difficult
to determine the lowest number, and that is what the higher
number is based on, just what would be lost.
PROGRAM COST ESTIMATES AND ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Wolf. A combination of a couple questions. A recent
article in Science quoted some unnamed scientists who blame
NASA centers, contractors, and members of Congress for
exploiting the system of low initial estimates to get a project
started, followed by pressure to fund any ensuing cost growth
in order to protect the project and the jobs associated with
it. What is your reaction to that critique?
Mr. Scolese. Well, I think it is exaggerated, unfair. I had
mentioned earlier that we are working harder today to develop
better estimates that we can provide to you, that we can commit
to ourselves so that we can do it more completely.
And what are we doing to do that? We are working with the
National Academy to help them develop better cost estimates.
They are contracting with people that do cost estimates so they
can develop better cost estimates. We have established rules
for how we are going to do our cost estimating and assessing of
our programs and projects from day one and monitoring those
monthly, quarterly and periodic reviews so that we can clearly
understand what the costs are and when there are threats to
cost growth, be they underestimates, optimism in the estimate,
or problems that come up. Either they are not getting the
funding that they needed, they have launch vehicle issues, they
have things outside of their control that they are going to go
off and deal with. The earlier we can address those the earlier
we can make corrective actions that will limit or eliminate any
additional cost growth. So we are looking at it from the very
beginning at those essential estimates, working with our
colleagues in the academy to develop better estimates, common
estimates, all the way up until we actually deliver the
spacecraft on orbit or on a planetary surface so that we are
looking at each step to make sure that we understand what the
impacts are and how we can mitigate those.
MAJOR PROGRAM COST AND SCHEDULE GROWTH
Mr. Wolf. One of the questions was, and you don't have to
cover it, it is going to set up another question, but one of
the major reasons why NASA does not seem to have enough funding
to carry out its mission is a recurring problem of cost and
scheduled growth in their major projects. A recent GAO report
found that 10 or 13 large projects they reviewed experienced
cost or scheduled growth that exceeded reporting thresholds.
I guess the general question because we are out of time and
I assume we are coming back here, but what has happened to
NASA? What do you think? I mean, this is not a fair question
and I am not trying to put you on the spot. You don't have an
administer and I think it is until you get an administer a lot
of these can't be directly--you may not want to answer. But
what has happened to NASA? Is it that the bloom is off with
regard to--you know, in the old days when there was a space
shot everyone knew it was Glenn, it was Shepard, it was--we
stopped, we watched it on television. I bet, maybe this
audience would be the exceptions, but we don't know the names
of the last astronauts that went up. And it seems you have had
leadership that has been somewhat political at times, and then
you have had other leadership.
And it may not be a fair question, and if you don't want to
answer it is fine. But I guess I am asking myself what has
happened to NASA? It is a great agency and you have done a lot
of amazing things. America ought to be number one in space. We
ought to be, you know, just out there. It is kind of the
American explorer concept, ideas, excitement, having young
people excited about it and involved in it, and yet it seems
that there is something missing, that something has been lost.
No offense to anybody here, obviously I am not attributing that
to anyone.
If you want to take a shot at the answer I would appreciate
it. What has happened to NASA?
Mr. Scolese. I will be glad to take a shot, don't know how
well I will do, but I will take a shot at it from a couple of
different directions.
Mr. Wolf. And I guess the question is that do you agree
something has happened to NASA?
Mr. Scolese. I think our mission has matured, but I think
that the NASA you see today is as vibrant and as capable as the
NASA that you talk about from the 1960s. We have some
incredible people, we are doing some absolutely incredible
things that I believe from going around and talking to people,
not that this is representative, but most recently to a group
of seventh graders that were absolutely thrilled about what we
were doing at NASA. More than thrilled, they were as engaged
and knowledgeable about the program as a geek like I was in the
1960s and 1970s when I was the same age as they were. So I
think the excitement is still there.
I think the difference is that the agency has matured as
many do. As we said earlier the problems have become more
difficult. To think that we have built a space station. Back
when I was a kid in the 1960s there was 2001: A Space Odyssey,
space stations were science fiction. And we built this one
over, what was it 50 flights or thereabouts, with multiple
other nations. It is an incredible accomplishment. We have
landed spacecraft on Mars, discovered water.
We look back at the Earth and we have made the Earth a
better place. Aviation, we continue to make, great discoveries
in aviation that help our civil aviation as well as or national
air space system. So I think the difference that you are
reflecting is a more mature agency that is addressing much more
difficult problems.
TENOR OF NASA ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Wolf. All right, the last question.
Would it make sense to use the same language for the NASA
administrator that you have for the FBI, set a ten-year term,
non-political, non-partisan, and so there is a continuity?
I mean, you had Griffin and you had the other guy. I mean,
would something like that--has that ever been considered or
would that make sense to have a NASA administrator, non-
political ten-year term, only removed for cause of action?
Mr. Scolese. All I can say is it has never been discussed
with me, and it certainly makes sense.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know what the time is.
Mr. Schiff. I think we are probably out of time.
Mr. Wolf. Are we coming back?
Mr. Schiff. We are coming back. Okay, we will recess until
after votes, thank you.
[Recess.]
INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION (IV&V)
Mr. Mollohan [presiding]. Good afternoon. One of the best
laid plans. Yeah. As the clock goes on though there is fewer
questions.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you all for your patience.
Mr. Scolese, NASA maintains an internal, independent
verification and validation process that it applies to its
mission critical software. This assurance process is performed
in addition to and not in lieu of software design and project
verification and validation. This process is independent of the
project design team and seeks to answer three questions.
One, did the design team miss anything? Two, did the design
team design the right thing? Three, does the design system
work?
Today the IV&V facility supports dozens of projects across
the mission directorate. It is each year, however, program
coverage is restricted, as insufficient funds have been
requested each out year by NASA, significantly increasing
agency risk related to safety and mission critical software
rework.
IV&V's customers have identified the value added of IV&V
work noting, quote, ``IV&V has unequivocally become some of the
best systems engineers on the program, their depth of knowledge
contributes continually.'' Quote, ``IV&V discovers issues that
no one else is capable of discovering.'' Quote, ``Your IV&V
staff demonstrates an outstanding ability to know when to bring
forward issues to be resolved.''
Mr. Scolese, do you share the same opinions as those I have
just reiterated and that IV&V adds valuable review to NASA
systems and accordingly contributes to cost savings and mission
success?
Mr. Scolese. Certainly IV&V focuses on the software and the
interaction of the software with the hardware, and yes, they do
definitely provide a value added service to the missions that
they support.
Mr. Mollohan. Do they contribute to cost savings and to
mission success?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, they do. It is always hard to determine
the cost savings, because when you find something you don't
always know what the cost would have been if you didn't do it,
but I am sure that it is there, it is just a little bit harder
to quantify.
Mission success is a lot easier to demonstrate by the fact
that we have fewer software issues with our missions.
Mr. Mollohan. Is that a fact with the use of IV&V
processing?
Mr. Scolese. Again, some of these things are very difficult
to go off and quantify specifically. We believe that we need an
independent process to review all of our activities in fact.
IV&V looks at software and they come at it from an independent
viewpoint. That, as we do in other areas, as you know where we
look at our designs and we bring in an independent team to look
at the overall design and the overall architecture of a system
brings some real value, because they ask questions that
sometimes the team didn't think about. They look at it in a way
that is different from the team, and therefore it brings
forward issues or identifies things that can be done better. So
clearly the IV&V activity is a value added activity.
Mr. Mollohan. Does it follow reason to conclude then that
if such activities are curtailed or limited NASA's safety and
mission critical software are placed at greater risk?
Mr. Scolese. I would have to go off and see what the
limitations are. There is a very rigorous process that our team
looks at for determining which missions don't get IV&V. So we
try and make sure that all of our critical missions, where
there is new development software, do in fact get IV&V. They
try to limit the ones that don't get IV&V or get a minimal set
of IV&V, for cases where there is true software reuse, where
there isn't very much risk in the system. I don't have off the
top of my head what the exact specifics are on that, but I am
pretty sure that critical missions get the full IV&V, and that
most missions get some fraction, some portion of the IV&V
activity.
Mr. Mollohan. Would you supply that for the record?
Mr. Scolese. We will.
Mr. Mollohan. Please. IV&V has continuously sought funding
to allow broader coverage of mission and safety critical
software for each project selected for IV&V and to cover the
cost increase to the agency security support contract. Why then
has NASA headquarters consistently constrained the IV&V's
annual budgetary requests?
Mr. Scolese. I am sorry, I misunderstood. The security
support contract? I don't think I----
Mr. Mollohan. Both security and software review, John is
telling me here. IV&V has continually sought funds to allow
broader coverage of mission and safety critical software for
each project selected for IV&V and to cover the cost increase
of the agency security support contract. Does that make sense
to you?
Mr. Scolese. I can't answer the last part. We will have to
probably go off and look at that. Well, I am not sure that I
know what the latest request is. I would have to take that one
for the record, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay, well let me understand it a little
better too, and we will both come back to it.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Mollohan. How is that? The budget for IV&V software has
remained fairly constrained over the last several years,
augmented mostly by Congress. However, would you agree that the
requirements for IV&V are projected to increase--kind of
referring to what you eluded to with regard to critical
missions--significantly to constellation ramping up while
existing programs, shuttle, ISS, and nominal science missions
continue?
Mr. Scolese. Hard to answer that question. Clearly we would
have to look at the mission profile as missions complete. Of
course we don't need to do IV&V as the shuttle is coming down
and constellation is going up. If we had a net increase in all
of our missions I would say yes. But I have to look at how many
missions are coming down the activity and how many missions are
going up in activity.
To a first order I would say we have been relatively flat
with the number of missions that we have, but I mean, when you
look at missions that are coming off their design and missions
that are coming up the design curve. So about a flat level is
about right for the software, as well as to our standing review
boards. Looking at standing review boards is another way to
look at it, and they stay about the same annually as well in
terms of numbers. But again, we can get you the numbers on what
the projected growth or projected number of projects is.
IV&V REQUIREMENTS FOR SCIENCE
Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Weiler, would you anticipate that the
requirements for IV&V will increase beyond planned rates as
additional investments are made and are observing systems that
were not projected in your fiscal year '09 budget?
[The information follows:]
Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
The President's FY 2010 budget contains resources for the
development phase of seventeen science missions each year on average.
The President's budget also provides for nine STS launches during FY
2009 and FY 2010, as well as ongoing operation of the ISS through the
outyears identified in the President's FY 2010 budget.
Exploration Systems projects in the President's FY 2010 budget are
driven principally by the Constellation program, notably Orion, Ares I,
and Ares V which is still in the early formulation stage. The budget
for Exploration Systems contains resources for a robotics project
through FY 2009 and it provides for Constellation-related modifications
to ground-based infrastructure.
Considering this portfolio as a whole the trend, at least from a
budgetary resources perspective, is that the Constellation program
offsets, but only marginally, declines in the STS program, while
science program and project activity remains approximately level.
Over each of the last three years through FY 2009 the Office of
Safety and Mission Assurance has made IV&V services available to an
average of more than sixteen programs and projects (including ISS
operations and STS mission execution). NASA uses a systematic risk-
based evaluation process to select projects for IV&V support. Under
this approach IV&V activity levels do not directly correlate with the
number of planned programs and projects in a particular year or over a
period of time.
Mr. Weiler. Well, I can't give you a specific thing without
going into every single mission, but what Chris said is
probably accurate in space science too, because the budget, at
least for the last three or four years, has been flat, so the
number of missions being launched or coming out of development
probably offsets the number of missions that are going into
development.
So you know, what we will have to go now is with the earth
science stimulus package and some acceleration in some of those
missions, you know, we will have to look at our needs for IV&V,
you know, in the future years. But in general for at least the
past three or four years the space science, earth science
budget has been flat and not even keeping up with inflation.
IV&V REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPLORATION SYSTEMS
Mr. Mollohan. Dr. Cooke, do you anticipate that the
requirements for IV&V will increase beyond planned rates as
additional and new investments come on line?
Mr. Cooke. I am sure that as--is this working?
Mr. Mollohan. If the button is lit, it is.
Mr. Cooke. It is. Okay. It wasn't working earlier.
I am sure that as we are defining the work and development
of software we will be looking at the requirements for that in
the future, and it will be weighed against other programs in
the agency in terms of how that affects the overall budget.
Mr. Mollohan. Will you say that again, please?
Mr. Cooke. Yes. We will be looking at our requirements for
independent verification, validation, as we get into further
development, and that will be weighed in as part of the overall
agency requirements.
Mr. Mollohan. Sure. I was asking about your anticipation
for its potential increase given the increase.
Mr. Cooke. Well in terms of our part of it, possibly.
Mr. Scolese. If I can interject. Clearly as constellation
goes up, because they are new projects there, they are going to
have a demand for the IV&V services. At the same time shuttle
demand and the station demand is going down. Those are the
things that we have to look at, and we look at it every year. I
can get you the results of that, but I can't recall it off the
top of my head.
FY 2009 OBLIGATIONS APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. Mollohan. What is your plan to fully obligate in this
fiscal year '09 the $45 million provided in the fiscal year '09
appropriations?
Mr. Scolese. We intend to obligate--we are working to
obligate close to 100 percent of our funding.
Mr. Mollohan. So you are not planning on carrying over any
funds?
Mr. Scolese. Well, that is different. We can obligate the
funding, and if we need to carry over some fraction of that to
carry us into the next fiscal year, whether it is for costing
on fixed price contracts where you have to pay for the work
ahead of time or whether it is a cost that will be accrued in
the subsequent year, would have to be worked.
ARES/ORION
Mr. Mollohan. The whole idea of closing the gap by
accelerating Ares Orion, we are beyond that; is that correct? I
think the date for making that decision to go with--attempting
acceleration or not was March of '09.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mollohan. But are we beyond that? That is no longer an
option?
Mr. Scolese. Potentially yes. I mean, there is no
significant acceleration that can occur.
Mr. Mollohan. I mean it would not be possible to do it at
this point; is that correct?
Mr. Scolese. Yes.
Mr. Mollohan. Okay. Mr. Serrano.
MINORITY INSTITUTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Scolese, I commend you and those under your leadership
at NASA for the strides that you have taken to engage young
people in the sciences.
I would also like to recognize Joseph M. Joe Acaba, who you
also mention in your written statement. I was looking at
transcripts a couple a years ago wherein being very supportive
of NASA. I said it would look good for the community if someone
identified with the Puerto Rican community went up in space. A
lot of jokes were made at that time, but here look what
happened. And I commend you for that, because diversity is
important. And I don't know if you saw the writings in New
York, New Jersey, you know, Florida, and in Puerto Rico it was
a great moment of pride. And not only because he of who he is,
but because of his role as a schoolteacher for middle and high
school students, and it conveys a powerful message to young
people across the nation about the endless possibility within
the realm of science.
Currently African Americans represent 12 percent of the
population, but only 8.7 percent of bachelor degree recipients
in the science and engineering fields in 2006. In addition,
Hispanics now represent about 15 percent of the U.S.
population, but only eight percent of students graduating with
a bachelors degree in science or engineering field in the same
year.
As you note in your written statement NASA has considerably
ramped up its targeted educational support to research grants
and universities, including minority serving institutions, as
well as its efforts to provide students with opportunities in
science, internships, and hands-on education.
I am also particularly pleased with the way NASA has
embraced new technologies, such as Twitter and other online
resources in an effort to engage young people in the exciting
work that you do.
Can you talk a bit more about how NASA is helping to
prepare young people for careers in the sciences and technology
fields?
I would also be interested to hear your thoughts on how
NASA might be able to further bridge the gap in terms of how
space sciences relate to more well-known issues such as climate
change and green technology.
Mr. Scolese. Certainly. And thank you for covering the
items that you did. In fact, I just signed out our annual
report that is coming over to the Congress on our support of
minority institutions for higher education, so you should be
getting those statistics here very shortly.
I think you covered well many of the things that we are
doing. In addition to what you said, we have programs clearly
where we allow, you know, have discussions with the crews on
the space station where they take opportunities to talk to
local schools, secondary schools, primary schools to relate
directly to the students where they have an opportunity to talk
to them. E-mail will be an opportunity as well.
We have been working as you noted with our websites to make
them much more friendly, and we have a kids section on the NASA
website so that younger people can go off and be motivated by
what is going on.
In addition to the societal end of things that you were
talking about, NASA is very much engaged in climate research
and in weather, in providing data to operational agencies,
providing it to industry, providing it to universities for use
in a broad range of activities.
In fact, it is probably almost too numerous to mention, but
a few that come to mind is we have satellites that help us to
better understand, predict, to track, and predict the severity
of hurricanes. Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM). The
satellite does that. It was an experimental mission. We intend
to extend that, working with our partners in the international
community and others in the U.S. government, it is called the
Global Precipitation Mission. We have instruments and missions
that are used by operational agencies. The MODIS instruments on
AQUA and TERRA are very much used by the operational agencies
in the prediction of weather and climate. There are many other
instruments that do that as well.
We support other agencies around the world. In fact
tracking forest fires is something that the MODIS instruments
are very good at doing and have been used most recently in
California in conjunction with unpiloted vehicles, UAVs, that
we have to help firefighters better determine what fires they
need to fight, where the fire front is, where to place their
resources, and doing that with a combination of satellites and
UAVs so that minimizes the risks to humans.
So I think there are lots of examples that we have out
there. And in addition our website has many of these listed on
it, plus some very practical home applications that NASA has
been engaged in.
I hope that answers your question, sir.
Mr. Serrano. Yes. I encourage you to continue to expand. I
have been the recipient of your services, if you will, and
astronauts and other folks visiting schools, and I would
commend anyone if they know in their community that this is
happening to go and see this. I don't know that there is a more
exciting event to attend in a school, other than graduation
maybe, or last day of school period, you know, than to see the
astronauts. Everyone understands it, it is exciting, it is one
of the few occasions--or it is an occasion, I am not going to
say few--where the teachers are excited as the students,
because you know, there is this romantic thing and dramatic and
special.
So I would continue to expand your work within the schools.
It is good for the agency, it is good for the children, it is
good for the country. And you know whatever NASA can do to
continue to encourage people from certain communities to study
in sciences and math and to expand that horizon, that would be
a good thing.
Mr. Scolese. Okay.
Mr. Serrano. But I stand ready, as I have been in the past,
and I am now a member of this Committee once again, to be
supportive in every way I can.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you.
Mr. Serrano. All right, thank you.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano. Mr. Wolf.
TENOR OF NASA ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a follow up on the question I had asked you about the
length of service of the administrator. Can you kind of tell me
what was the length of service? I mean, you know, Griffin was
there certain time. What from your tenor that you have been
there, how long did a general administrator generally stay, and
what has been the longest that you know of since the beginning
of NASA?
Mr. Scolese. I think Dan Goldin had the longest service at
about ten years I think, and then Jim Webb was--who was I guess
the second administrator in NASA was about eight or nine years.
I would guess the average service is about four years, maybe a
little more, a little less. In my recollection, in my tenor at
NASA the administrators have been Admiral Truly, Dr. Fletcher,
Dan Goldin.
Mr. Wolf. Who was the first administrator?
Mr. Scolese. The first administrator in NASA? Glennan I
believe. T. Keith Glennan. Dr. Glennan.
Mr. Wolf. And how long was he there, do you know?
Mr. Scolese. He was there at the very beginning, and then
Jim Webb came up, so I am not sure, maybe two years, three
years. That was in the transition from the old NACA to NASA.
CYBERSECURITY
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I think I heard this question, but let me
just elaborate a little bit more.
Last November Business Week published a very disturbing
report about a string of cyber attacks on NASA's computer
systems. ``In 2005 NASA's computer networks were compromised,
and it was only detected seven months later after millions of
pages of information had been rerouted to Taiwan. Attacks have
continued, including 2007.'' Do you continue to experience
these attacks, number one?
Mr. Scolese. Our systems are attacked, and of course we
take precautions against that and prefer not to discuss what we
do in public.
Mr. Wolf. The NASA OIG was quoted that quote, ``The scope,
sophistication, and timing and characteristics of some of these
intrusions indicate they are coordinated or essentially
managed.'' The sources, do you know the sources of them? China,
Russia?
Mr. Scolese. We know the sources of some of them, sir, and
some of them are from foreign nationals. Again, this is
something I would prefer to discuss----
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Scolese [continuing]. You know, separately.
Mr. Wolf. But I wonder without asking you, what would the
problem be as saying who it is though? I mean, it is probably
China. China came in and stripped a number of members
computers, the IR Committee's computers. It seems to me that
the administration ought to just say who it is. But I am not
going to press you on that. But you do know who it is?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Has there ever been a full assessment of who has
gained what information, and what national security impacts are
these--have these breaches had?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. There have been.
Mr. Wolf. Have there been any accounting of the value of
the intellectual property that has been stolen?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And have any criminal charges been filed?
Mr. Scolese. I know that there have been, I can't recall
exactly who, but I know there has been at least a couple of
cases where criminal charges have been filed, and there may
have been more.
Mr. Wolf. Well without asking you, maybe some time we can
chat about it privately. But my guess is that some of the
progress that China has made has probably come from cyber
attacks, you know.
Any way, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SATELLITE SYSTEM
(NPOESS)
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Scolese, NPOESS. What are we going to do about NPOESS?
Mr. Scolese. Well let me take a step back. NPOESS is not a
NASA project.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I understand it is not a NASA project, it
is NOAA, DOD, and NASA. And NASA----
Mr. Scolese. NASA's role in NPOESS is limited to two areas.
Mr. Mollohan. You have no money in NPOESS I don't think.
Yes.
Mr. Scolese. Yes. We do technology development, and we are
also providing the what is called the NPOESS Preparatory
Project. It is a satellite that is going to fly several
instruments. That mission we directly know that NPOESS
satellite and its instruments we know peripherally, and I can't
give you great detail on those, other than to tell you that
they are delayed.
Mr. Mollohan. No, I know you can't, but you kind of have a
unique background in the fact that you are not at the center of
it. Kind of puts you in a position of I think maybe commenting
on it more objectively.
Mr. Scolese. Okay. Let me start with the good parts, if I
will.
Mr. Mollohan. Sure.
Mr. Scolese. In NPOESS one of the things that has been
demonstrated is a very strong relationship between NASA and
NOAA. I think we have had a long-term relationship, as you may
recall with the early polar orbiting satellites, TIROS and
GOES. And NPOESS has demonstrated the importance of that
relationship. I think it has strengthened the operational
weather community to an extent as they see common need to data.
So those are some of the good things that have come out of it.
I think the NPP, NPOESS Preparatory Project, as we call it,
is a demonstration of the flexibility of what we can do given
the resources and given the support of our sister agencies.
While it hasn't flown yet because of delays in the beers
instrument and the Chris instrument, we were able to add
relatively quickly critical climate instruments, the series
instrument and the OMPS, it is an ozone monitoring instrument,
LIM sounder to that mission relatively quickly. So when it
launches it will be an addition to and help fill in the gaps
that are anticipated from the aging of the EOS satellites that
carry similar instruments.
The problems that we have experienced on NPOESS are
serious. They threaten the continuity of our weather satellite
system. That is of serious concern. Serious enough that NPP
mission has now become a--I will put it in terms of quasi
operational mission--it is required to make sure that there
isn't a gap in the afternoon orbit now, and that was never the
intent of the NPP mission. So that demonstrates flexibility,
but it also demonstrates the frailty of the system that we have
got.
We certainly need to look along the lines of what we were
talking about earlier at how we got here. I think it is a
combination of underscoping of the initial set of requirements
when they were put together, and I think it demonstrates the
need for strong government oversight over come flex
developments.
And I probably can't go much more than that into it without
speculating on the specifics of the NPOESS arrangement.
CONTRACT REGARDING WEATHER SYSTEM
Mr. Mollohan. Well what observations, and you sit around
and talk about it, what should happen? How should it move
forward? I mean, if DOD and NOAA aren't working well together,
and I don't know their budget overrun tolerances are different,
what advise would you give, if you have any, for moving
forward?
Mr. Scolese. I think the advise I would give would be to
look carefully at the contract that is in place to make sure
that we are getting the information and the responsiveness that
is desired to get this system launched to minimize or eliminate
the possibility of a gap in the weather record.
The clarity overall on the requirements. There is been an
excellent process to define what the requirements are for this
system, and we need to make sure that those are being
satisfied, one. Second, that there is flexibility to deal with
issues that come up with any development where you may not be
able to achieve the optimum, the desired speck, but you can
obtain a good enough, if you will. It is better than what we
have today, but maybe not the ideal that everybody wants. And
there has to be a process that would allow us to go off and do
that.
We are working with the Department of Defense and NOAA on
doing both of those things, but the specifics of the contract--
again, those are my observations--you would have to ask them as
to what to do specifically or what could be done specifically
with the contract.
But those would be the two major things that I would say
that we need to do. Take a good look at the contract and are we
getting what we expected in terms of data, in terms of
responsiveness? And if we are fine. If not, we should make
changes. And second, we need to be able to look at the
requirements, because we haven't launched the system yet, and
determine how much flexibility we have in meeting those
requirements so that we can minimize the probability of a gap
in our weather.
Mr. Mollohan. You are noted in the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Board as saying quote, ``The U.S. Air Force led NPOESS
development delays represent a threat to NASA's science budget
and ability to meet the earth science decay goals established
by NRC and endorsed by Congress.'' Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. When the NPOESS project was
originally conceived it was to do both weather and carry on the
climate measurements of the EOS satellites. Those satellites
were launched in the late '90s, 1999 and the early 2000s. Most
of them, not all, but the two critical ones, TERRA and AQUA,
from the prospective of NPOESS, are now at or well beyond their
design life. So while they are operating fine now, when you are
far beyond your design life you don't always know how much
longer they are going to operate and how well they are going to
operate beyond that design life.
So without these satellites to fill in when these sensors
do eventually die we have a risk of losing that data, and it is
a very critical data set for the climate community.
And as I mentioned earlier, it is something that is being
used actively by the operational communities for weather and
other services. So that is one risk that we obviously have in
the loss of data.
What that has meant is that we may have to expend
additional resources that we weren't planning on doing. The
Decadle Missions assumed NPOESS would be there. NASA planning
prior to that assumed NPOESS would be there. So now we have to
go off and look at our plans to see if we need to fill in
critical gaps. So that is one that puts the Decadles at risk.
And clearly NPP was supposed to have launched--three years
ago--three or four years ago, and the satellite has been ready,
so we have had to pay the carrying cost for that mission. So
there is a direct cost associated with the delays in the NPOESS
project and NASA, and that was what I was trying to get at.
ENHANCED USE LEASING AUTHORITY
Mr. Mollohan. A different topic.
NASA's enhanced use lease authority was first enacted in
2003 and allowed NASA to enter into a demonstration project for
EULs at two NASA centers. AIMS Research Center was selected as
a demonstration center.
In 2007 and again 2008 NASA's EUL authority was amended to
extent the EUL authority to allow NASA to use its authority in
all of its centers, limited the consideration NASA may receive
in cash and add a sunset date of ten years. These provisions of
law became effective in July of '08.
The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 clarified how the funds
should be expended, established percentages of the net revenue
that were to remain at the center, 65 percent, with 35 percent
being placed in the agency capital asset account.
NASA received $6.5 million in 2007 from EUL receipts, 9.8
million in 2008; we are advised, and a projection of 15.7
million in 2009; we were advised, and 15.7 million 2010, a
projected 76.6 million is projected to be collected over the
five-year budget horizon from Ames principally.
The fiscal year 2009 omnibus placed a limitation on EUL
expenditures of $9 million. In February NASA headquarters
placed a moratorium on all new EUL agreements.
Why did you do that?
Mr. Scolese. First, very simply, we completed the pilot and
we needed to collect our lessons learned and understand where
we were and where we were going if we were to expand it to the
other centers for use to determine, better when enhanced use
leasings are used, what that means, how are we going to go off
and implement them efficiently? We had done it at two centers
as you mentioned, as pilot projects. We learned from that. We
had some legislation, as you also indicated, that we wanted to
incorporate in it. We also wanted to understand where do we use
enhanced use leasing versus Space Act agreements?
So we took a hiatus to go off and understand that and
codify that and collect the lessons learned. We are about to
lift the moratorium, very shortly here, with revised
guidelines--clearer guidelines--for all of our organizations.
So that is why we did it. We wanted to collect the lessons
learned and understand where we are at. I might point out that
we have learned a lot in those few years that we had the pilot
projects. We are looking at some, I think, very good uses of
land that had easements on them because we want to have them
protected, either because of rocket tests, and you just can't
use the land. So we are looking at some of our facilities in
Plum Brook, Ohio, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, to put in
green energy activities where we could allow industry to come
in, whether those are enhanced use leases or Space Act
agreements. We can now go off and address those questions and
determine what makes the most sense. So we are looking to the
future as well as looking to the past to see how we can go off
and improve our use of enhanced use leases.
Mr. Mollohan. During that time out you significantly
changed the accounting of the enhanced use leasing program at
Ames. Why did you do that?
Mr. Scolese. Actually we found an error. And if we want to
go into details, I can ask the Comptroller to come forward. But
the simple answer is that we incorrectly accounted for income
from federal agreements with other federal agencies which we
shouldn't do. They don't pay us rent, they just pay for the
services that they use, as opposed to a commercial entity that
would pay for rent. We incorrectly kept those in the account
and we shouldn't have done that.
Mr. Mollohan. What occasioned discovering that error?
Mr. Scolese. As I said, when we took the time out to go off
and understand what we learned from the past, what we wanted to
do in the future, and bringing into account all of the
legislation that goes along with it, is when we discovered it.
EUL REVENUE
Mr. Mollohan. Describe please the effect of the Committee's
action on placing an obligation limitation of $9 million on the
expenditure of EUL revenue in fiscal year '09.
Mr. Scolese. That was one of the things that allowed us
to--as we were learning about EUL--one of the things that we
considered as we were looking at this moratorium. As it turns
out, when we took out the federal expenditures, the $9 million
was not a significant limitation on our ability to do things
for that legislation. I just got a note here that says the
total income projections that we anticipate is $7.9 million in
total income.
Mr. Mollohan. I thought it was 6 million.
Mr. Scolese. I have $6.1 in rental income, and $1.8 in
reimbursable services, and if we need more than that I need the
Comptroller to come up and explain that.
EUL DESK GUIDANCE
Mr. Mollohan. NASA's EUL desk guidance provides direction
on what costs can be considered as full costs for administering
the leases. To what extent, if at all, does the facility's
Engineering and Real Property Division or the Office of Program
and Institutional Integration review and audit these costs as
being appropriate and conforming to the guidance of the chief
financial officer?
Mr. Scolese. If I may, sir, can I invite the Comptroller
up?
Mr. Mollohan. Please.
Mr. Scolese. David, do you want to?
Mr. Schurr. Sure.
Mr. Mollohan. You will want to identify yourself.
Mr. Schurr. David Schurr, NASA comptroller.
The Office of Program and Institutional Integration is
responsible for running the budget process that would encompass
EUL as part of our formal budget submit, starting with the 2009
appropriation. We are required to incorporate this in the
budget. So we have formalized it as part of our budget process.
That office has the responsibility for collecting the
requirements and vetting them across all of the centers once we
get through the current stand down on new leases. So they are
vetting the actual numbers that will be part of what you saw in
the operating plan, as well as the budget. They will be
submitted hopefully in the next week or so.
Then the Facility's Engineering office has got the overall
responsibility for what they are using the funds for and
ensuring that they are following their particular processes.
The Chief Financial Officer has got the general
responsibility to make sure they are doing the accounting
properly so it shows up in the proper accounts.
Mr. Mollohan. The model of the general services
administration which deposits rent and other receipts from its
federal tenants into the federal buildings fund, and every year
Congress provides authority to spend those funds--Why wouldn't
that model be instructive to NASA's enhanced use lease
receipts?
Mr. Schurr. I think effectively with the direction of the
2009 appropriation that is what we are doing. You have asked us
to provide to you a plan for what we are going to spend the
monies on, the net receipts from the EUL activity, and that can
be part of our submit.
Mr. Mollohan. And is that a contingent precedent to you all
spending it?
Mr. Schurr. The other requirement we had is to submit to
you a plan with the operating plan on the specifics of what we
are spending it on, so I think both of those cover----
Mr. Mollohan. It has no spending prior to the approval of
that plan?
Mr. Schurr. We have to take that one for the record. It was
what we were doing in '09 prior to the passage of the '09
appropriations.
Mr. Mollohan. But the limitation that we put in the bill
didn't affect because the estimates were a lot higher--14
million--than what you are now coming up with; isn't that
correct?
Mr. Schurr. That is true. At the gross level that would be
true.
Mr. Mollohan. So we would have to do something else if we
are going to impact that.
Mr. Schurr. If we were going to limit the amount that was
spent in '09 that number would not limit it' that is correct.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NASA/NOAA & OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Mollohan. Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I am always intrigued by the relationship
between NASA and NOAA. And it seems to some of us at times like
you are working on the same projects, but you certainly have
different responsibilities.
So my question to you is--and you might have covered this
and I apologize for this-- in what areas is there joint work?
And then secondly as a side to that, one question that I
ask all, just about all of our federal agencies that gather
information, does our lack of diplomatic relations with certain
places, say with Cuba or our tense relationship with places
like Bolivia or Venezuela come into play when you have
information that is actually good for the people in those
areas?
I mean, I asked NOAA, you know, when you see a hurricane
coming. And you know the Cubans are very good at knowing when
these hurricanes are coming. But do you share some information?
Do you let them know or does politics come into play and you
have to hold back?
So the relationship between you and NOAA and then the----
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir. NASA and NOAA have a long
relationship going back to almost the formation of both
agencies in the '50s and the '60s, so the NASA relationship
with NOAA is multifaceted.
On the one hand we are their agent for providing the
spacecraft and the instruments that collect the data on weather
around the world. We have been the agent in the past for the
polar orbiting environmental satellites originally called TIROS
that started in the 1960s, and the last one was launched
earlier this year, but we remain--and that was replaced now
where the DOD is the agent for NOAA on the NPOESS project that
we were just discussing.
We still do the geostationary orbit environmental
satellites, the GOES satellites that are in geostationary orbit
that actually is the image that you typically see on the
evening news. So we do those directly for NOAA. NOAA funds
those, we are their agent for procuring them, launching them,
and doing initial check out.
In addition, we do research jointly with NOAA to improve
severe weather forecasts. We provide data from our research
satellites. I mentioned a couple of them earlier. The TRMM
satellites and the EOS satellites that provide data. So our
research from those satellites is shared with NOAA so they can
improve their models.
By the same token their researchers are looking at ours to
help us determine which kind of instruments we should go off
and develop. As far as the data, our data, and actually Dixon
Butler is sitting in the back here, one of the things he did
when he was at NASA was make sure that all of our data is
available so that our data doesn't have political boundaries.
If you want to get the data you can acquire it. The NASA data.
Sometimes it is very esoteric, but because we don't typically
do forecasts, but our data is made available. It is made
available to researchers, it is made available to operational
agencies around the world.
In addition many of our satellites have what we call a
direct broadcast capability that allow, if you have a receiver
on the ground, you can receive our data as the satellite is
coming overhead and use it for your purposes. And clearly if
desired we can deny that service. To my knowledge we have never
been asked to deny that service. So we have it on basically
continuously.
Mr. Serrano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman's Closing Remarks
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
Thank you, Mr. Scolese. I hope your make your flight.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. And we very much appreciate your terrific
service and the great team that you have that is doing that in
so many different ways, and we look forward to a new
administrator, and I know you all are looking forward to a new
administrator.
Mr. Scolese. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. So thank you very much for your testimony
today.
Mr. Scolese. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mollohan. Thank you. Hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Arabit, Joseph................................................... 1
Barnett, Helaine................................................. 193
Bevier, Lillian.................................................. 193
Gordon, Phil..................................................... 1
Holder, Eric..................................................... 269
Leonhart, Michele................................................ 115
Locke, Gary...................................................... 383
Newell, Bill..................................................... 1
Scolese, Christopher............................................. 587
Shirk, David..................................................... 1