[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED
                    AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

========================================================================

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________

   SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

                      RALPH REGULA, Ohio, Chairman

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DAN MILLER, Florida                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   

 NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Livingston, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.

Deborah Weatherly, Loretta Beaumont, Joel Kaplan, and Christopher Topik,
                            Staff Assistants
                                ________

                                 PART 8
                                                                   Page
 U.S. Geological Survey...........................................    1
 Minerals Management Service......................................  163
 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.............  205
 Bureau of Indian Affairs.........................................  279
 Office of Insular Affairs........................................  373
 DOI Departmental Management......................................  413
 Office of the Solicitor..........................................  439
 Office of the Inspector General..................................  461
 Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians...............  493

                              

                                ________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

 40-589                     WASHINGTON : 1997

------------------------------------------------------------------------

             For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office            
        Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office,        
                          Washington, DC 20402                          




                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS                      

                   BOB LIVINGSTON, Louisiana, Chairman                  

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania         DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin            
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida              SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois           
RALPH REGULA, Ohio                     LOUIS STOKES, Ohio                  
JERRY LEWIS, California                JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania        
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington         
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky                MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota         
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                  JULIAN C. DIXON, California         
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                VIC FAZIO, California               
TOM DeLAY, Texas                       W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina 
JIM KOLBE, Arizona                     STENY H. HOYER, Maryland            
RON PACKARD, California                ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia     
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama                MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                  
JAMES T. WALSH, New York               DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado           
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina      NANCY PELOSI, California            
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                  PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana         
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma        THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA, Pennsylvania   
HENRY BONILLA, Texas                   ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California   
JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan              NITA M. LOWEY, New York             
DAN MILLER, Florida                    JOSE E. SERRANO, New York           
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                   ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut        
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                 JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia            
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi               JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts        
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey    ED PASTOR, Arizona                  
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi           CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida             
MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York            DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina      
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr., Washington  CHET EDWARDS, Texas                 
MARK W. NEUMANN, Wisconsin             
RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM, California  
TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                    
ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                   
TOM LATHAM, Iowa                       
ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky              
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama            

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)



[Pages 1 - 2128 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]




=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                         U.S. Geological Survey


=======================================================================



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1998

                              ----------                              

                                           Tuesday, March 18, 1997.

                         U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

                               WITNESSES

GORDON P. EATON, DIRECTOR
BONNIE A. McGREGOR, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS
BARBARA J. RYAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS
RICHARD E. WITMER, ACTING CHIEF, NATIONAL MAPPING DIVISION
ROBERT M. HIRSCH, CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
PHILLIP PATRICK LEAHY, CHIEF, GEOLOGIC DIVISION
DENNIS B. FENN, CHIEF, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION
WILLIAM F. GOSSMAN, JR., ACTING CHIEF, OFFICE OF PROGRAM SUPPORT
JAMES F. DEVINE, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS
MARTIN E. ECKES, ACTING CHIEF, PROGRAM OPERATIONS OFFICE
MARY ANN LAWLER, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Pages 4 - 14 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Regula [presiding]. Okay, we'll get the committee 
hearing started. I have to take a little break here in about 
ten minutes and Mr. Nethercutt will cover.
    We're happy to welcome all of you. Mr. Eaton, and your team 
from USGS. What we'll do is put all your statements in the 
record and let you summarize for us. And I'm sure members will 
have questions and they'll, of course, also submit questions 
for the record. So, Mr. Eaton?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me, if I might, identify the key people who 
are here at the table and behind me, in particular, for the 
most important person here to keep track of who it is I've 
asked to come forward----
    On my right is Bonnie McGregor who is our Associate 
Director for Programs. And on my left, Barb Ryan, who is the 
Associate Director for Operations. And then, starting way back 
there on your far left is Jim Devine who is our Senior Advisor 
for Scientific Application. Next to him, Bill Gossman who heads 
up our administration in the Survey. Next to him, a newcomer to 
all of you and to us come October 1 this past year, Denny Fenn, 
the Chief Biologist of the new Biological Resources Division, 
and Dick Witmer, the Acting Chief of the National Mapping 
Division; Bob Hirsch, our Chief Hydrologist; Pat Leahy, our 
Chief Geologist; Marty Eckes who is our budget officer, and 
then from the Department of the Interior, Mary Ann Lawler.
    Mr. Skeen. Good morning, sir.
    Dr. Eaton. Good morning, how are you?
    Mr. Skeen. I was great until I had to get up. [Laughter]
    Dr. Eaton. I think in the interest of the committee's time, 
I'll forego any oral testimony. I'll submit my written 
testimony for the record. We might as well move right in to Q & 
A.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 16 - 20 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                            usgs/nbs merger

    Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, I'll have a few questions and then, 
Mr. Nethercutt, you can take over and I'll be gone about 
fifteen minutes.
    You mentioned the Chief of the Biological Resources 
Division. How is it working out, the melding of biological 
research with USGS?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me suggest that I'll answer that question 
and then I'll ask Dr. Fenn to come to the table, too, because I 
think that if there's a contrast in points of view, you need to 
hear that.
    From my point of view as somebody who initially was not 
enormously enthusiastic about the proposal, I couldn't be more 
pleased with the way it's gone. They've come aboard, they've 
fit right in. It turns out, as I've visited some of their major 
science centers, I've discovered that some of their scientists 
have been working with some scientists from the old Geological 
Survey for some time. So the integration is a very natural fit 
and it's gone very smoothly.
    Denny, do you want to come and comment from your point of 
view?
    Dr. Fenn. Mr. Chairman, I think from the perspective of 
what used to be the National Biological Service, our scientists 
are pleased and happy with the way it's gone. It's gone 
smoothly. We've been treated with respect and I think have 
joined a good, respected research organization and people feel 
very good about it. So I think we're happy.
    Mr. Regula. It seemed like a natural fit. We hear a lot 
about making government more efficient, better 
administratively, downsizing, and this was, I think, perhaps a 
good example of how it can work more efficiently and still get 
the service to the public that is needed. Have you completed 
the process of merging?

                          office consolidation

    Dr. Eaton. Yes, we have. The only thing that really has yet 
to be done, which is something I'd like to share with all the 
members of the committee is that in coming to this merger they 
brought about 160 offices. Those were added to the 238 that we 
already had, so we're operating 400 separate and distinct 
offices across the United States at the present time for an 
organization that's a little less than 10,000 strong--not the 
kind of system you would design, not efficient in terms of all 
sorts of administrative savings. And we're going to need to 
move over the next few years toward a consolidation plan.
    The issue that keeps us from moving very rapidly in that 
direction is that in the first year, and sometimes in the 
second year, there is a cost to this sort of thing. You have to 
buy off on contracts; you have to pay for transfer of 
headquarters of individuals; sometimes the government purchases 
houses at old duty stations as people prepare to move to new 
ones. So we're aware of the vital need for us to begin to sort 
of pull in our horns in terms of the way we're dispersed. But 
we have yet to really effectively have taken the first step.
    Mr. Regula. Do you feel that the clientele of both 
organizations are accepting the fact that you're moving in the 
direction of consolidation for efficiency purposes, but of 
course it means that you don't have as many locations for those 
who want the service?
    Dr. Eaton. Even with 400, we're averaging eight per State. 
In the State of California alone we have 32 separate offices. 
And I think all of our clientele, customers and partners alike, 
appreciate the fact that this is done--this highly diverse 
nature that we bring to the table isn't effectively a very 
strong one.

                 biological information infrastructure

    Mr. Regula. Are you getting a lot of use of your resources 
by the public and by the agencies that you serve, the diverse 
agencies of government itself?
    Dr. Eaton. Now you're talking specifically here about the 
Biological Resources Division?
    Mr. Regula. Yes. Well, both.
    Dr. Eaton. The general answer is ``yes,'' both for the 
whole of the Geological Survey, the new Geological Survey, as 
well as specifically the Biological Resources Division, but 
perhaps Dr. Fenn would comment.
    Dr. Fenn. Well, I think we are. I think, in fact, one of 
the important aspects we're operating is our national 
biological information infrastructure, which is to help bring 
access to this biological data to a broader range of the users 
and public interest groups who would like to get access to this 
information. So we're trying very hard to make sure that this 
information is usable and available to the clientele.

                      internet information access

    Mr. Regula. That brings up a whole new subject, and that is 
how are you changing the methods by which you deliver 
information; i.e., are you using computer access; are you using 
the Internet; are your functions available to students in 
schools, colleges across the country as well as the public that 
might have need for information? Are you moving in the 
direction of trying to do this type of outreach which 
multiplies the ability of the public to use your services?
    Dr. Eaton. The answer is yes. We have more than 100,000 
pages of information up now on the World Wide Web that's 
accessible to anyone. If you'll turn to the exhibits book, to 
pages 41 and 42, you'll see what the growth in the interest of 
our information and data has been. Page 41 shows just those 
customers who have inquired about the Geological Survey water 
resources data. You can see that in January of this year alone 
the number of pages served was one-and-three-quarter million. 
The number of visits to this particular site was 165,000. And 
the growth that's reflected there in the bar chart is just 
growth in the last two years. So this has turned out for us to 
be a real boon for getting information out and in a very rapid 
way.
    On the next page, you'll see the number of digital maps and 
image products that we've sold. That's a somewhat different 
issue than the one you've raised, but in fact access to 
information about these sorts of images are also available over 
the Web. So each of our divisions, in fact, has a lot of 
information up on the Web.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 23 - 24 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Regula. Is the same thing happening in terms of 
biological information services?
    Dr. Fenn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can give you an example. I 
was last week visiting our Upper Mississippi Science Center in 
LaCrosse, Wisconsin and they told me that their home page on 
the World Wide Web last year received 500,000 hits; over 
500,000 people visited their home page. Interestingly enough, 
they said the largest single user was from Australia. 
Australian scientists are drawing information down to try to 
help them in what they are doing in Australia, which is 
interesting.
    Mr. Regula. Do they have a similar system in Australia that 
we can access their information base? [Laughter]
    Dr. Fenn. If they can get to us, we can get to them. It's a 
two-way street.
    Mr. Regula. That's great. So we're going to live in one 
world now. Careful, I should say in a ``cooperative'' world. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Regula. That's not a very good term, is it? [Laughter.]
    Mr. Skeen. Can we insert the word ``cooperative?''
    Mr. Regula. ``Cooperative'' in place of ``one world,'' yes.

                   cooperative ecological study units

    To what extent does the National Park Service proposal to 
establish cooperative ecological study units with universities 
duplicate the cooperative research units that are in the USGS 
budget?
    Dr. Eaton. Well, the creation of those, as we understand 
the design, is really to create a liaison post, to make sure 
there's adequate communication and interflow between other 
bureaus and the Park Service. But let me ask Dr. Fenn spent 
most of his career with the Park Service and is very familiar 
with the way they work. Let me ask him to comment.
    Dr. Fenn. The Park Service is a big fan of this cooperative 
ecological study unit proposal. It's really a Departmental 
initiative that offers other non-DOI agencies who might have an 
interest in getting university cooperation to help them solve 
their research problems to be a part of this. And what the Park 
Service is proposing in their budget, this $2.4 million I 
believe they requested, is actually to fund liaison positions, 
research coordinators, not research scientists themselves, but 
research liaison people to sit at the table at the university 
with our people and work to bring Park Service needs to the 
table and say this is what they need done and, in fact, in some 
cases to bring Park Service dollars to the table and say: help 
us with this.
    Mr. Regula. You don't see it as a step backwards?
    Dr. Fenn. No. In fact, I think it's a cooperative effort 
which may actually strengthen our ability to serve the Park 
Service needs because they feel like they are more at the table 
getting those needs met.

                      remaining merger activities

    Dr. Eaton. Before we move on to another question, I've just 
been informed here that I did not provide you with a wholly 
accurate response to your very first question. Thereare some 
personnel files--this is concerning how well the merger has gone--there 
are some personnel files that need to be automated and there are a few 
loose ends, administratively, that need to be tied up, but for all 
intents and purposes----
    Mr. Regula. Well, for the amount of time, you've done 
pretty well.
    Mr. Nethercutt, it's your table.
    Mr. Nethercutt [presiding]. Well, welcome again.
    Dr. Eaton. Good morning. How are you?
    Mr. Nethercutt. I'm fine, thanks.
    Mr. Skeen, let me defer to you. I don't know what your 
schedule might be but I've got some questions and I'll follow 
up.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Director and those with you, I want to welcome you 
here.
    Dr. Eaton. Thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. We have a great endearment to the USGS because 
you've been great in working in cooperation with our State 
institutions on water.
    Dr. Eaton. Always nice to hear that.

                  U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY FUNDING LEVEL

    Mr. Skeen. Well, the new mapping techniques are just 
absolutely marvelous. I think the work being done by the Survey 
in connection with the cooperative institutions in the State 
have really come up with some futuristic mapping details. Now 
we understand more about our water reserves than ever before.
    What I wanted to ask was if the $745 million that you 
request by the Survey this year is an adequate amount of 
funding? Are we trying to squeeze the budget down? What I'm 
really interested in is whether there is any way you can 
fulfill program obligations or continue these programs with the 
kind of request that you've made for USGS----
    Dr. Eaton. Well, as you know, I'm compelled to say that 
everything is fine and that we're adequately funded, and that 
the balance between the elements in our budget----
    Mr. Skeen. Let me see the scorch marks on your fingers. 
[Laughter.]
    Dr. Eaton. As all of you on the committee may know, in 
these days of tight funding there are also unmet needs across 
the whole spectrum in which the Federal Government plays. But 
the practicality of funding them all is not very high at the 
present time.
    Are there other tasks that might be done, that it would be 
advisable to be done? I think the general answer to a question 
like that would be ``yes, of course.''
    Mr. Skeen. You can handle the programs that are in 
existence now with the $745 million?
    Dr. Eaton. We are handling them.

                  WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTES

    Mr. Skeen. You're handling them. And you've got the 
personnel. Did the selection process used in Fiscal Year 1996 
allow the Water Resources Research Institutes to meet their 
obligations under the newly reauthorized Water Resources 
Research Act?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me respond to that question in a general way 
and ask Dr. Hirsch to come to the table to talk about the 
specifics. The State Water Resources Research Institute budget 
has been proposed to be reduced by about $2.8 million. This is 
an issue that has been a perennial issue as our budget has been 
squeezed each year and we look at places for effective saving. 
And I think, fundamentally, the decision to take a reduction in 
this particular area relates to the fact that many of the 
activities of those institutes, while they relate to State 
needs, don't have as close a tie to the Federal program of the 
Geological Survey and the Water Resources Division. But having 
said that, let me ask Dr. Hirsch to comment, if he would.
    Dr. Hirsch. At the request of this committee, from your 
report language last year, we began a different kind of process 
for funding university research in the institutes. And in that 
process, thirty three different States received awards. 
Interestingly, some of those were multistate awards, so that in 
the end universities from thirty nine different States received 
awards.
    I'm well aware that the institute directors in general are 
not terribly happy with this arrangement and their concerns, as 
Dr. Eaton has suggested, are they have some concerns about the 
role that the State agencies play or do not play, as the case 
may be, in this program as it has been designed. I know they've 
been up to visit with members and staff to talk about those 
concerns.
    But we feel that we have funded a number of high priority 
projects in a wide variety of areas of water conservation, 
water quality, non point source pollution, and many other 
fields, through this program.
    Mr. Skeen. Do you feel you've gone as far as you can go 
with that on the cooperative agreements? Or are you downsizing 
the program?
    Dr. Hirsch. With respect to the institutes, the water 
institutes?
    Mr. Skeen. Yes, with respect to the water institutes.
    Dr. Hirsch. Well, our FY 1998 proposal is a significant 
reduction over the current year and we would, at that much 
lower funding level, we would use an equal grant per State, 
rather than the competitive process.

                  FEDERAL AND STATE WATER PARTNERSHIPS

    Mr. Skeen. Let me ask this question, too: in this process 
are we underbuying the longstanding Federal and State 
partnerships that we've initiated and had a good relationship 
throughout the years. Do you see that this is undermining that 
kind of relationship and it will denigrate?
    Dr. Hirsch. With respect to the Institutes?
    Mr. Skeen. To the Institutes, just the Institutes. And I 
want to stay in that one area.
    Dr. Hirsch. Okay, that's fine. My knowledge of this is more 
second-hand, through the Institute directors and the 
conversations that I've had with them. But if I could 
characterize their concern, it is that this program requires 
two dollars of State matching money to every dollar of Federal 
money.
    Mr. Skeen. For every dollar of Federal money?
    Dr. Hirsch. So they need to seek the participation of these 
State agencies, but that the State agencies have essentially no 
influence in the decisions about which grants are funded. And 
at least from the Institute directors' point of view, they feel 
that this kind of breaks a relationship that they have had over 
time with the State agencies. And they're concerned that the 
State agencies do not feel that their views are represented. I 
can't speak for the State agencies on this, but simply the 
perceptions----
    Mr. Skeen. But you have the feeling that you've come to a 
pause or an end to the kind of relationship that you had with 
them before?
    Dr. Hirsch. This change in the program changes the 
relationship between the Institutes and their State agencies.

                          EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH

    Mr. Skeen. What proportion of research and other 
investigative work has the Water Resources Division 
specifically, and the USGS as a whole, is conducted by extra 
mural researchers and competitive grant processes?
    Dr. Hirsch. The Water Institute Program has been running at 
about $5 million a year out of an appropriated budget on the 
order of $192 million. In addition, we do a great deal of 
collaborative work with universities, not through a competitive 
process, but through cooperative agreements whereby we bring 
faculty and students into involvement in many of our projects.
    Mr. Skeen. Well, are these capabilities of the USGS and the 
services provided to cooperators in the State and Federal co op 
programs? Are these unique to USGS or could private sectors or 
the universities provide any of these services that are now 
being supplied by USGS?
    Dr. Hirsch. The USGS activities in the Federal-State 
Cooperative Program we believe are unique capabilities that we 
should be providing. They deal with regional to national level 
studies, as well as basic data collection involving a large 
infrastructure, training, national standards, et cetera, which 
would be difficult to conduct through the universities or 
individual consulting firms.
    We utilize universities in a good deal of our work, 
particularly through the involvement of students, and there are 
many specific projects that we engage in, in which there is a 
role for the private sector working for, on behalf of, say a 
city or a county or the military, for example, we work with, 
that they're working side-by-side with us, they're doing the 
engineering aspects and we're doing the hydrology aspects.
    Dr. Eaton. One of the things that I might add to this 
response is the fact that in the Federal State Coop Program 
across the country as a whole, the States are putting a 
considerably greater amount of money on the table to engage us 
in their needs than we're able to match.
    Mr. Skeen. It's still a 2-to-1----
    Dr. Eaton. No.
    Dr. Hirsch. One-to-one.
    Dr. Eaton. One-to-one, in terms of the Federal-State 
Cooperative Program.
    Mr. Skeen. That puts you in a tougher stance, then?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes, but they haven't slacked off in terms of 
their asking us to come to their table to help them with their 
problems.
    Mr. Skeen. No, there's never any dearth of asking.
    Dr. Hirsch. If I might add----
    Mr. Skeen. It's ``He shall giveth.'' [Laughter.]
    Go ahead, excuse me.

                        IMPARTIAL WATER RESEARCH

    Dr. Hirsch. One of the reasons that the State and local 
entities come to us is because many of the issues are highly 
contentious issues. As I think you know, people fight over 
water actually nationwide.
    Mr. Skeen. In New Mexico that's a blood offense. 
[Laughter.]
    Dr. Hirsch. That's right. And many of them feel that it's 
important in their negotiations, say, one State engineer to 
another State engineer in the neighboring State, that they can 
come to that discussion both having utilized the services of 
the USGS to answer questions about the river or the aquifer or 
what have you, on either side of the State line because of the 
independent nature of our organization.
    Mr. Skeen. So it puts you in the position of being the 
moderator.
    Dr. Hirsch. Yes.
    Mr. Skeen. At times.
    Dr. Hirsch. At times.
    Mr. Skeen. And I understand that's hard. The 1996 
reauthorization requires the Interior Department to encourage 
Federal departments and agencies to take advantage of the 
expertise and the capabilities which are available to the Water 
Institutes and to encourage cooperation and coordination with 
other Federal programs concerned with water resource issues. 
And I think that you pretty well covered that kind of 
cooperation in you presentation.
    Dr. Hirsch. Right.
    Mr. Skeen. I appreciate your responses. By the way, I want 
to tell you that the latest studies that have come out with the 
new technology of mapping aquifers is outstanding, excellent.
    Dr. Hirsch. Glad to hear that, thank you.
    Mr. Skeen. It also helps in oil and gas, as well.
    Dr. Hirsch. Yes. Right.
    Mr. Skeen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Skeen. Mr. Skaggs?
    Mr. Skaggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    Dr. Eaton. Good morning.
    Mr. Skaggs. Sorry I missed your opening statement which no 
doubt will have covered all of the questions that I have.
    Dr. Eaton. I didn't make one. [Laughter.]
    I submitted one for the record.
    Mr. Skaggs. Well, in a kind of Zen way, I'm sure----
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Eaton. You're getting my drift.
    Mr. Skaggs. Right.
    Mr. Skeen. You can hear the crackling. [Laughter.]

                           1998 OMB DECISIONS

    Mr. Skaggs. As I understand, your request as presented 
after the OMB scrub is about $55 million less than as it went 
to OMB. And we all know that that sort of thing happens. But 
I'm interested in the areas that were affected by the OMB 
reductions in what you had submitted.
    Dr. Eaton. We did undertake extensive redirection efforts. 
We had to redirect something just under $15 million in order to 
meet $21.1 million for new Administration initiatives. We in 
turn also received a $6.5 million increase in our budget over 
FY 1997. So the sum of those two algebraically indicates that 
we're going to be undertaking approximately $21.1 million worth 
of new program initiatives.
    Requests for initiatives come in from a variety of places. 
They come from within ourselves, as well as from other places 
in government, the Congress and the Administration. And in 
these times of effectively declining budgets, and the 
Geological Survey's budget, in terms of what it can do and what 
it will purchase in the face of erosion from a variety of 
sources, has been declining for a number of years.
    So we're constantly faced with what it is we're going to do 
less of or eliminate doing in order to fund some of the new 
things. We've had a couple of very high priorities and those 
are still priorities. One of these is in the area of natural 
habitats and the recent floods are a good example of that 
activity. And water quality is a high priority in thisyear's 
budget, as well. But it has been a priority of the Geological Survey 
for a number of years how. So we're simply turning up the heat a little 
bit under this program through the process of reprogramming funds from 
other parts of our budget.
    Mr. Skaggs. Well, perhaps if you would submit something for 
the record that really parses out whatever the delta is between 
what went to OMB and what came back and the programmatic 
consequences of that----
    Dr. Eaton. We'd be happy to do that. There is in fact a 
table--my recollection is it's referred to as a Holifield 
table--which shows what a bureau has submitted as a request in 
a given budget year to the Department, and what the Department 
has asked OMB for, and then what OMB has granted.
    We're as aware as any other Federal agency of the fact that 
there just is less money each year to undertake some of these 
tasks, and I would have to observe on our own pay scale, with 
the declines that our budget has experienced as a result of 
erosion, that we have long since passed the place where we can 
honestly look across the table at you and say we're going to 
continue to do still more with less. We've gotten to the point 
where we're now doing less with less. And that's just the 
reality of it and the reality of the federal budget deficit.
    Mr. Skaggs. And if you would just lay out what the program 
consequences are, not just the table of differences, but what 
the implications with be for what you're able to get done next 
year----
    Dr. Eaton. We'd be happy to do that.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 31 - 36 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                             stream gauging

    Mr. Skaggs. And I'd like to explore this morning a couple 
of those areas, as I understand them, where we're already 
seeing the results of earlier cutbacks--the stream gauging 
program and your partnership with the Corps of Engineers.
    As I understand it from information from both the Service 
and the network news last week, one of the stations upstream 
from--is it Falmouth, Kentucky?----
    Dr. Eaton. Yes.
    Mr. Skaggs [continuing]. Was shut down relatively recently 
due to a funding shortfall. I would assume that the exercise 
that you go through in determining with the Corps or other 
partners where to make that sort of reduction is a kind of 
Russian roulette. I mean you try to pick the least, or guess as 
to what will be the least, problematic stations to close down 
and invariably sometimes you guess wrong.
    Dr. Eaton. Let me talk specifically about that gauge and 
then about the reduction in the number of stream-gauging 
stations in general, and then I'd like to call Dr. Hirsch back 
to the table to comment as well.
    That particular station upstream of Falmouth, Kentucky was 
closed in 1994 as a result of the Corps of Engineers, which had 
been paying for half the cost of operation, withdrawing their 
funds at the same time the State of Kentucky withdrew their 
funds. Most of these gauges, while they're operated by the 
USGS, are multi-agency funded. And our role in funding that 
gauge was 25 percent of the full cost. So we lost 75 percent of 
the operation income for that gauge as a result of some very 
real considerations on the part of these other two agencies. 
The State of Kentucky has cut way back on what it has been 
funding in terms of the number of gauges we operate there.
    Mr. Skaggs. What was its part of the other 75 percent?
    Dr. Eaton. It was 25 percent. It was a match to us through 
the Federal-State Coop Program. Since 1990, we have shut down 
363 stream gauges. We've shut some down in each of the last 
seven years. We did not shut down gauges in this Fiscal Year 
1997 in anticipation of an increase in funding that we thought 
we might get in 1998 and haven't. So we now have deferred 
shutting down stations in 1997 and we'll have to, in the face 
of the 1998 budget, shut down about 120 stations. So the number 
of stations that we're closing is growing with each year--not 
just as a result of reductions or erosion in our own budget, 
but as a result of reductions in the budgets of partners.
    Now, in the case of the Kentucky station, or any station 
that we're considering closing on the basis of should we close 
this one, we look very hard for other partners to step up to 
the plate with the funding. And in this particular case nobody 
stepped up to the plate and so the gauge was shut down. But all 
of these are warning systems. They're heavily dependent on 
warning systems with the National Weather Service whose 
precipitation data is really just as much key as our river 
stage data for making forecasts of the magnitude of river 
peaks, flood peaks, and when they will pass a particular site.
    So, in effect, with the erosion of the Federal budget and 
the State budget, the amount of warning that we're able to give 
communities across the United States is declining and will 
continue to decline, I think, as long as the budget continues 
to decline.
    Mr. Skaggs. Is there some sort of risk and economic model 
that you use to try to prioritize these things? Or is it sort 
of a happenstance of what states and other funding partners are 
willing to make deals with you about?

                        areas of major flooding

    Dr. Eaton. It's a little of each. For example, because of 
the very heavy snow pack across the Dakotas and Minnesota this 
winter, we anticipate they're going to have particular 
problems. I think we wouldn't have been able to forecast the 
Ohio River Valley situation in advance. But we've got a map of 
floods. It's the very first map on page one of the exhibits 
book. As you can see, where we've had catastrophic floods in 
the last four years, and the Ohio Valley floods are not here, 
nor have we defined that what we're anticipating is going to be 
episodal flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota yet. But this is 
a recurring kind of a thing and you really hate, in the face of 
the fact that the incidences of floods like this seem to be 
growing rather than declining. You could be finding yourself 
unable to do all of the monitoring that you feel is really 
important to do.
    Our contribution to the program from our own appropriated 
funds that you folks provide is $27 million out of a total 
operational cost of $82 million. Another $30 million is 
contributed by State and local agencies. And the balance of 
that is made up by other Federal agencies like the Corps of 
Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation.
    In my mind, this is a perfectly good example of how as the 
budgets have declined we're actually able to do less with less, 
not more. There is a finite cost to the purchase of these 
stations, to their installation for incorporating them into the 
network and then to operate. And when those funds are not 
available, there's really no way to get there from here.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 39 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Let me ask Dr. Hirsch to comment on that.

                      stream gauging partnerships

    Dr. Hirsch. You asked particularly about the process of 
prioritization in the making of these decisions. Because this 
is so much a partner-funded activity and that we are in fact 
kind of a minority shareholder in the entire operation, 
although we operate the network on behalf of all, we have to 
consider very heavily the specific purposes that those funding 
agencies have. In fact, the Corps of Engineers, which is a very 
important, vital partner in this program, their mission has 
changed dramatically in recent years from one of planning and 
designing new projects to be built to simply one of operating 
existing projects.
    So that the specific example in Kentucky is indicative of a 
general problem. That gauge was there for the purposes of 
designing and planning a reservoir. When it appeared to them in 
the early nineties that it was unlikely that that project would 
ever be built, they said we have no particular purpose in 
continuing to gauge there. Even though that gauge is providing 
some flood warning benefits to that community, it wasn't in 
their mission interests to do that and they pulled their money 
out.
    Our responsibility is to cost-share and help these other 
agencies accomplish their mission and accomplish these flood 
warning missions, but there are often no agencies that are 
really stepping up to the plate for the flood warning purposes, 
except in some specific areas where river basin commissions and 
other agencies have gotten together for that purpose.

                  washington and oregon stream gauges

    Dr. Eaton. Mr. Skaggs, let me suggest you turn to pages 2 
and 3 in the exhibit book because these are related topics. 
There's a map of the U.S. that shows the real-time stations and 
then some detail for Washington and Oregon and a list of those 
people who help us operate these real-time gauges.
    If you'd then go to the next page, you'll see that we lost 
135 of these stations in recent floods on the West Coast. So 
that's an additional problem to the loss of funding to support 
these gauges on a continuing basis. We get wiped out by the 
very floods that we're trying to monitor and there's a cost 
associated with re-establishing those stations, as well, which 
puts the system even further at a loss.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 41 - 42 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                      real-time hazards monitoring

    Mr. Skaggs. Is it correct that one of the things that got 
knocked out at OMB was an initiative to deal with these 
hazards?
    Dr. Eaton. I think what you must be referring to is a 
submittal that we put forth for a real-time hazard monitoring 
system that included both floods and earthquakes and volcanic 
eruptions and wild fires.
    We have a broad array of research programs in the whole 
area of natural hazards that include those things, as well as 
droughts and landslides. And it was our hope in 1998 that we 
might get started with systematically addressing all of these 
needs, and certainly the issue of gauging stations would have 
figured very prominently in that, when a country loses about $3 
billion a year, as I recall, in damage from floods alone--is 
that right, Bob?
    Mr. Skaggs. I think I've overstayed my time, especially 
with the chairman arriving. [Laughter.]
    Dr. Eaton. Incidentally, the instrumental infrastructure 
for all of this hazard monitoring needs very much to be 
upgraded. Some of it is not state-of-the-art.
    Mr. Skaggs. I have some more questions----
    Mr. Regula. [presiding]. We'll get back to you. I think Mr. 
Nethercutt has the time now.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me follow up on Mr. Skaggs' line of questioning 
regarding stream-gauging. Stream gauging is very important in 
my own district. As you know, we've talked, and I'm fearful 
that we're going to have more flood problems here this spring. 
There's a snow pack that's tremendously high in the mountains 
surrounding my district. So my question is this: now, my 
understanding is you have about 2,500 stations out of 7,000 
linked to the World Wide Web? Is that correct?
    Dr. Eaton. No, we've got more like, I think it's 4,000 
stations linked to the Web of which 2,500, Bob, are part of 
the----
    Dr. Hirsch. No, it's about 4,000 that are part of the flood 
forecasting network. I can't remember the number on the Web. 
It's somewhere in the neighborhood----
    Dr. Eaton. It's about 60 percent actually, I think. And 
increasingly we're putting more and more on the Web each year.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I'm wondering what the cost might be, 
whether that's a good way to meet the increasing need at times 
and perhaps get away from the selective elimination of--maybe 
they're mutual independent. But I'm wondering if there's some 
feasibility to putting more on the Web and given the 
proliferation of telecommunications capabilities in these small 
communities. That might be a way to solve----
    Dr. Eaton. Ideally, you would like to have them all on the 
Web. Now because in the case of flood, for example, you work so 
closely with the National Weather Service, and their 
precipitation data is utilized as well. This is something in 
which we need to move forward together and make decisions 
jointly.

                  increasing stream gauges on internet

    Mr. Nethercutt. Number one, is it feasible to get the other 
40 percent on the Web, and how much would it cost?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me ask Dr. Hirsch to respond.
    Dr. Hirsch. Yes. Many stations have been providing data 
using satellite technology. We have been providing that data. 
We send it up to the satellite from the station. It comes down 
to our offices and immediately goes to the Army Corps of 
Engineers, the National Weather Service, and a number of other 
agencies, the larger Federal agencies as well as some State 
agencies who receive it and use it for forecasting purposes and 
operational purposes.
    Adding data the World Wide Web allows us to bring that 
information to many more people that we could not reach through 
those other means, because then the equipment that many people 
now have in their homes or that the offices of a small town 
might have a capability to have that. So it's yet another means 
of delivery of the information.
    There is still a fundamental cost of setting up these 
systems and servicing them. The capital cost of the equipment 
to get us going with satellite telemetry of our stations, 
including the full cost of installation is in the order of 
$10,000 to get that going and a modest----
    Mr. Nethercutt. What do you mean by that?
    Dr. Hirsch. Get the broadcast of our data to the satellite 
and back down to earth.
    Mr. Nethercutt. For----
    Dr. Hirsch. A station.
    Mr. Nethercutt. For a station.
    Dr. Hirsch. For a station, on the order of $10,000 capital 
cost.
    Dr. Eaton. Let me suggest, Mr. Nethercutt, that you turn to 
page 40 in the exhibit. Here is a very nice example from the 
southern part of the United States where access to real time 
data allows individuals knowing the elevation of their homes or 
their businesses and their location relative to theedge of the 
flood plain, can dial up and very quickly help themselves make 
decisions about whether to evacuate or stay.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 45 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                      FY 1998 USGS Budget Request

    Mr. Nethercutt. I agree with you. I think it's a great 
service. I am just trying to figure out a way to pay for it in 
your budget and also meet the needs of people, as we face more 
disasters every single year. We're going to have it, I'm sure.
    I was looking at your budget request. It looks like you 
have requested a decrease of funding for your geological hazard 
activities, which I think are a core mission. A decrease in 
funding for national mapping activity, a decrease for the 
general administration and your facilities funding. You have 
got a slight increase for water resources investigations, but a 
$7.5 million increase for biological research. I think there 
was a $9 million increase for the water quality.
    Dr. Eaton. For the national water quality program.
    Mr. Nethercutt. Right. Then that's out of the $19 million 
that you have testified to being your total----
    Dr. Eaton. Right.

                      Biological Research Request

    Mr. Nethercutt. The increase for that biological research 
is a high one. I am wondering what you plan to do with that 
money. Is this now the focus of your agency?
    Dr. Eaton. It's one of the foci of the agency as a result 
of this committee giving the biological research program to the 
Geological Survey. But what that reflects as much as anything 
is the following. When it was still the National Biological 
Service, it took a reduction in its budget of almost 20 
percent, about $30 million. Because a lot of its work is done 
to serve management agencies at both the Federal level and at 
the State level, their ability to continue to serve in the ways 
that they had in the past were greatly diminished by this 
enormous budget cut.
    So the request for the $7.5 reflects our desire to begin to 
build back up their full capability. But the way we will spend 
that money is spread across a number of different kinds of 
things, many of which have economic consequences eventually, 
for example, restoration of fish stock populations and 
fisheries, both salmon in your part of the world, the lake 
trout in the Great Lakes. We need to know more about the causes 
of declines and how we need to provide information to 
restoration managers.
    The whole issue of invasive species that are not indigenous 
to the United States has economic consequences. About five 
percent of all of the lands in the Bureau of Land Management 
manages in the West now have been invaded by new species of 
weeds that are actually reducing the capacity of the land in 
terms of the grazing of cattle. So it's a whole host of things 
like this that this division has responsibility for in terms of 
carrying out research, that we have asked for this increase. I 
very strongly support this increase.

                           Duplicate Research

    Mr. Nethercutt. You know what it seems to me, and correct 
me if I am wrong. You and I talked a little bit about this when 
we met privately before this hearing. It seems to me we have 
got numerous agencies within the Department of the Interior 
conducting much similar kinds of research and fact-finding and 
information gathering that you have testified to just in the 
last 60 seconds. It seems to me somebody ought to do a study 
somewhere, maybe the GAO. But it seems to me that there is such 
a duplication of effort that is ongoing in not only Interior 
agencies but across the board, that numerous duplicate 
functions are being undertaken by numerous agencies, all at a 
tremendous cost. It seems to me we ought to get a handle 
somehow, somewhere on that duplication and transfer information 
and try to at least isolate who is supposed to do what and then 
streamline these agencies so that there's consistency, if 
nothing else.
    Do you agree or have you studied it at all? What 
suggestions can you offer to the committee as we try to analyze 
how we spend money and where it's being spent properly and 
where it's being spent in a duplicate fashion?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me respond at two different levels. Let me 
respond first from within the Department of the Interior, 
because it was the intention of the Secretary when he created 
the National Biological Service to pull the fundamental 
research out of the various bureaus where it had existed before 
to serve management needs, and put that together in a common 
fore.
    When this committee deemed it important to then fold that 
into the old Geological Survey, we then folded biological and 
physical research together. I would have to say that I am not 
conscious of what I would regard as duplication now within 
Interior bureaus. To be sure, there are scientists who remain 
behind in the Fish and Wildlife Service, in BLM, and in the 
Park Service, but they are conducting very site-specific 
research that meets the needs of a particular piece of ground 
that's being managed.
    I think one of the things that I am the most pleased about 
with respect to my own organization is that we don't have any 
management responsibility, nor do we have any regulatory 
responsibility, nor enforcement responsibility. We don't list 
species on the endangered species list. We provide information 
to others in order to make decisions and to carry out those 
functions. In order to do that, they have to have scientific 
expertise on their staffs. But those people generally are not 
undertaking research in that role. They are simply interpreting 
for the managers the consequences of one decision versus 
another.

                        Eastside Ecosystem Study

    Mr. Nethercutt. We just have gone through now an over two-
year program out in my part of the country, in seven western 
States, called the Interior Columbia Basin Eastside Ecosystem 
study. We have got BLM, the Forest Service, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and others. This compilation of science has 
been ongoing now and goodness knows when it will be finished or 
if it ever will. I am worried about the long-term continuing 
annual costs for implementation of the study findings, whatever 
preferred alternative might come up.
    I am wondering how much input you have had on this East 
Side Ecosystem study. It sort of belies your statement that--I 
understand your non-policy obligation, but there certainly is 
an awful lot of money being undertaken by a lot of scientific 
people within these respective agencies in the Interior, all of 
it compiled, goodness knows what. You then try to implement it. 
I don't think there's any real plan, it's beyond your 
responsibility, but there's no realistic plan to implement 
these study findings in the seven States. The cost is going to 
be tremendous.
    Dr. Eaton. Let me share with you what our role has been, 
because it's been relatively minor. We have been asked, our 
Geologic Division offices in Spokane, in fact in your district, 
have been asked to help with the preparation of some fairly 
basic maps from data bases, digital data bases that we already 
had at hand. We prepared, for example, maps of possible bat 
habitat in the region. We provided some hydrologic information 
as well, but it certainly has not been a major effort on our 
part.
    Mr. Nethercutt. For the record, could you kindly identify 
how much cost.
    [The information follows:]

                     Eastside Ecosystem Study Costs

    Starting in 1994, the USGS involvement in this study has 
been limited to providing information and assistance 
specifically requested by the interagency team performing an 
assessment of the region's resources and their environmental 
setting. USGS has helped the interagency team obtain and 
evaluate the utility of data and ensure the proper use of 
scientific information. USGS data collection, interpretation 
and analysis for the Eastside assessment was largely completed 
in FY 1996, although USGS has been available for consultation 
and has provided a limited amount of technical assistance when 
requested. In FY 1997, the few remaining USGS publications for 
the Eastside Assessment are being completed, and a CD ROM will 
be produced. Total costs will be approximately $10,000 in FY 
1977.

    Dr. Eaton. We would be pleased to do that. I want to come 
back to the other part of your question about duplication and 
go outside the Department of the Interior.
    From where I sit, in fact, there is a tendency for this to 
occur on a fairly regular basis. I think most organizations 
feel they have to have their own expertise in a particular area 
so they create hydrologic or geologic units or biological ones 
as well. My own feeling is that it would be worthwhile to take 
a look across all the Government to see where some duplication 
is taking place. Some will be apparent rather than real, but I 
think some would be real.
    Mr. Nethercutt. I just hate it that you are doing less with 
less, when in fact maybe if we cut back over in this agency, 
you can do your core function and do it well and share 
information.
    Dr. Eaton. We would be pleased to have you help us in that 
way obviously.

            National Academy of Public Administration Study

    Mr. Regula. Just to follow up on Mr. Nethercutt, the 
National Academy of Public Administration is looking at the 
duplication of mapping services in the government, defense, 
probably Park Service, probably BLM, and so on, and of course 
you have been the lead agency on mapping. Do you see a 
possibility we can consolidate the ``Government-wide mapping 
services''?
    Dr. Eaton. I think conceptually, the answer to that 
question has to be yes. We are talking specifically about 
civilian mapping.
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Dr. Eaton. As opposed to military mapping.
    Mr. Regula. But still there's overlap, I'm sure. I would 
guess that the military uses some of your maps and vice versa.
    Dr. Eaton. Our maps largely are those for the domestic 
areas in the United States and theirs are other places. We work 
very closely with them. We use a number of their classified 
assets in some of our work, but let me get Dr. Witmer to come 
up to the table and just expand on that a little bit because 
this is a NAPA study that's still under way. We are an 
enthusiastic participant in that.
    Dr. Witmer. Mr. Chairman, the study that you are referring 
to started just at the end of the last Fiscal Year. We have 
been working with the NAPA panel in what they call the first 
phase of their work, which is really to identify the most 
important high priority areas to study. In consultation with 
the NAPA committee and their committee staff, the study 
includes not only a review of potential duplication, but the 
value of the geographic data that all these agencies produce, 
and the proper role of the private sector in contributing to 
Government programs. We expect that the second phase, which is 
now underway, will really be providing us with substantive 
recommendations hopefully by the end of this Fiscal Year. 
During the conduct of the first phase, we have very actively 
worked with them to make sure that they did address these 
important questions.
    Mr. Regula. Do you think that out of this will grow the 
possibility that we can avoid some duplication of mapping 
services and get better control of the costs?
    Dr. Witmer. As Dr. Eaton was saying, we are strictly 
looking at civil mapping functions here. The four groups that 
are participating are the Forest Service, Geological Survey, 
Bureau of Land Management, and NOAA. Amongst those groups, 
there already is a very carefully devised separation of 
activities according to OMB circular A-16. For example, the BLM 
does no base mapping; that is done by USGS. Several decades 
ago, there were more than two dozen agencies that actually did 
base topographic mapping. Since that time, we have really 
reduced those numbers to the point where USGS is really the 
only agency in the Federal Government that does base 
topographic mapping.
    Mr. Regula. Civilian mapping.
    Dr. Witmer. Yes, civilian mapping. The BLM, for example, 
concentrates on cadastral work, boundary related work. 
Obviously, NOAA is responsible for the nautical and 
aeronautical charting activities. But the other large Federal 
agency that does domestic mapping work is the Forest Service. 
We have, over the last couple of years, come to a very 
important agreement with them that we will only produce one 
edition of the maps that cover forest lands. National Forests 
cover about 20 percent of the maps for the entire United 
States. We have a very well-established working relationship 
with them so that there is no duplicative mapping done over the 
forest lands. So we think we are well along the way to a 
streamlined system of providing base mapping for the country. I 
don't think I can speculate at all on what the possible results 
of the NAPA study might be, but we'll see as they continue 
their efforts.
    Dr. Eaton. There have been several other studies in the 
past, going back over the last 20 years, and have all tended in 
this same direction. It's an idea that is waiting to happen.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we do study things pretty thoroughly in 
this town.
    Mr. Skeen, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Skeen. I have no further questions.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Skaggs, I think you might have some more 
questions. We'll give Mr. Moran his five minutes and then we'll 
come back to you.
    Mr. Moran. No, go ahead. You can have David. I'm just 
catching up to speed here, Mr. Chairman. He can ask his 
questions. That is, if it's all right with you.
    Mr. Regula. It's civility, I can see that.
    Mr. Skaggs?
    Mr. Skaggs. I can see we'll wear this civility thing out 
real fast. [Laughter.]

                      global seismographic network

    Mr. Skaggs. You mentioned when we met a few days ago that 
you are being asked to absorb more or all of the costs of the 
international seismic program, which as I understand it anyway 
is critical to our ability to monitor nuclear test ban and 
related non-proliferation issues. I wonder if you could 
elaborate a little bit on that situation and at least your no 
doubt self-interested view in what other agencies might 
contribute to this program, given that they have a stake in the 
information we get from it.
    Dr. Eaton. Let me begin by explaining what our role has 
been in the past and what the increase that has been asked for 
is all about.
    We have had a major role in the past in operating the 
Global Seismographic Network. We have been doing something very 
similar to this with earlier versions for the last 30 years. So 
it is not unnatural that we continue to play this role and as 
the network expands therefore our involvement expands right 
along with it.
    It is true that one of the uses of the system is to monitor 
compliance with the test ban treaty, and I think that gives it 
some real currency here because a new treaty has just been 
signed in the last year or so. But the network plays a couple 
of other roles that are important to us. First of all, with 
stations around the world----
    Mr. Skaggs. Let me, because I don't have much time, I am 
interested in that, but let's get right to the case. What have 
your contributions been from national security agencies in the 
past, if any? What ought they to be?
    Dr. Eaton. Okay. Our budget request and that of the 
National Science Foundation, is taking over in supplanting 
funds that have been provided by the Department of Defense in 
the past.
    Mr. Skaggs. And how much money are we talking about?
    Dr. Eaton. A total of about $10 million. Let me ask Dr. 
Leahy to come up and provide you some additional details.
    Dr. Leahy. The Department of Defense has provided $9 
million a year for the capitalization of the Global 
Seismographic Network. That capitalization is done. We are now 
transitioning to the maintenance and continued monitoring 
phase.
    Mr. Skaggs. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make the 
suggestion that perhaps on behalf of the committee we asked our 
colleagues on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to make 
appropriate inquiry of the agencies they have responsibility 
for. I would think ACDA would be interested in this information 
as well in these tight budget times. They ought to be paying 
for them, the marginal utility anyway of the data that you are 
being tasked to collect. We can't afford it. It's got to be of 
great value, and they ought to pay something for it. Don't you 
think?
    Dr. Eaton. It is of equal value to us in terms of 
monitoring global earthquakes. We learn from those earthquakes. 
It's useful in the prediction of tsunamis as a result of sub-
sea earthquakes. We use it a lot in research. We learn things 
from every earthquake that occurs, whether it's in the United 
States or somewhere else. So it's not as though we are being 
asked to play a role to serve just the needs of another agency.
    Mr. Skaggs. No, I understand. But for them it becomes a 
free good, but it's of great value to them. They ought to be 
contributing, it seems to me. And given the pressures that you 
are under, if we're closing GSN stations that conceivably would 
save lives in this country, then if we need to tweak our 
calibration of all this, it seems to me you get the most 
accomplished.
    Dr. Leahy. Let me just make a point, if I could, Mr. 
Skaggs. Certainly the Department of Defense is a major user of 
the information coming from GSN. But I do think it is important 
to note that our national seismic network is really focused on 
the conterminous United States. It does not give us great 
coverage of Alaska or the territories in the Pacific. Certainly 
the GSN will provide information important in terms of locating 
earthquakes in that part of the world.
    The other point to make is as you probably are aware, the 
San Andreas fault is located very close to the Pacific coast. 
Our regional networks basically are looking at one side of that 
fault. The other side is sort of an unknown. The Global 
Seismographic Network will be instrumental in terms of us 
getting a full picture of that important area.
    Mr. Skaggs. I understand all of that. If this is an 
important data set for the defense people to have and for our 
arms control people to have, we ought to be able to figure out 
a way that they contribute to the cost of collecting it. Is 
that a bad premise?
    Dr. Eaton. No.
    Mr. Skaggs. Okay. That is all I wanted to get established.
    Mr. Regula. Let me say, Mr. Skaggs, I think you have an 
excellent suggestion. I will write a communication to the 
Chairman of the Defense Appropriations and suggest that we try 
to avoid duplication and suggest they have some money to help 
pay.
    Mr. Skaggs. They have got a lot more than we do.
    Mr. Regula. I have heard that's the case. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Skaggs. I may have a couple of questions for the 
record, but I'll get out of Mr. Moran's way.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Moran?

                      toxic materials in aquifers

    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question that 
involves DOD as well. In the town where I grew up, we had a 
port, in Natick, Massachusetts. They started in 1952 and 
apparently they did a fair amount of testing with nuclear 
material. They had a big concrete pit that they built. They 
dumped the nuclear stuff in it. I think they figured that water 
would rinse it off and clean it at that time. One day they go 
out. They see that the pit is cracked, all the nuclear radiated 
water has leaked into what's called Lake Cochituate, which is 
the source of our reservoir for drinking water.
    Now over the weekend, I find out that the State did a 
survey. They found that the rates of cancer are off the charts 
in this town. In fact, on the street where my parents lived, 
this one little block on this street, 13 people died of 
pancreatic cancer during the survey period, including my 
parents. There's another street where 50 people died ofcancer, 
all of it the kind of cancer where things lodge in the fatty tissue. 
Now what I wanted to ask you about is that the State actually, the 
survey was completed in 1990. They didn't release it. We only got the 
survey this month. My brother happens to be the top elected official in 
the town. He was able to get it. I don't know why they delayed it for 
six years, but anyway, that's another question. The thing I really 
wanted to get at is, I am told that there is still some form of 
radioactive material that is in the aquifer in this town. Let me leave 
it at that.
    Do you have the capacity to detect where that might be? In 
other words, where there might be radioactive material or any 
kind of toxic material in an aquifer within a jurisdiction?
    Dr. Eaton. We do indeed.
    Mr. Moran. You do?
    Dr. Eaton. There are a number of different kinds of 
materials that we track nationwide, toxic substances as well as 
pathogens in our water quality program.
    Specifically on that issue, Bob, let me introduce Dr. 
Hirsch to you, Mr. Moran.
    Dr. Hirsch. I am not familiar with the particular instance 
that you describe, but we do and have over many many years done 
quite a variety of studies relating to radiation and its 
presence in water, both with respect to looking at the 
performance of low level radioactive waste sites, a number of 
which have been around the country, and almost all of them I 
think have had some problems. We measure the groundwater 
movement and the amount of radiation in the groundwater and 
what its pathways are. We are also right now conducting a study 
in the State of New Jersey where there is radiation in the 
groundwater, although it is of natural origin. It is simply 
from the minerals that are in the soil and the farming 
activities cause that to be released. We're trying to identify 
what parts of the area would be more vulnerable, threatened by 
that to help homeowners determine whether they might have a 
problem.
    Mr. Regula. Will you yield, Mr. Moran?
    Mr. Moran. Yes, please.

                         coordination with epa

    Mr. Regula. Do you coordinate with EPA so that we're not 
duplicating efforts in determining water quality?
    Dr. Hirsch. Absolutely. We have extensive interaction with 
EPA and with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the 
Department of Energy, all of whom have important roles with 
respect to radiation safety. Our role is one of doing some 
assessments in a variety of locations and some fundamental 
research on the movement of radionuclides in groundwater and 
surface water.
    Mr. Moran. Well that's the question I wanted to ask too. 
That they have thought to contact EPA, but it sounds like they 
should really be contacting US Geological Survey.

                     massachusetts district office

    Dr. Hirsch. Right. We have an office--this is Massachusetts 
we're talking about?
    Mr. Moran. Yes.
    Dr. Hirsch. We have an office, a district office in 
Marlboro, Massachusetts. I am sure that they would be 
interested in discussing what should be done and how it should 
be looked at.
    Dr. Eaton. We'll look into that and provide some additional 
information for the record. I am reminded by my colleague to my 
left that 25 years ago we did have a cooperative study near 
that lake for potential municipal water supplies that we 
undertook with the State of Massachusetts.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 54 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Moran. You did?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes. Whether or not at that point there was a 
concern about low level radioactive waste material is something 
we're going to need to look into and provide to you.

             reimbursable work with the defense department

    Mr. Moran. I would be very interested to know if, since you 
have studied it, this quartermaster lab, this research and 
development testing lab is right on the bank of the lake that 
feeds into the reservoir. So I would be interested to know if 
since the study was done if any warning signs had been given 
the Army that you have got this radioactive material, you are 
right on the banks of the lake and this lake feeds into the 
water supply in a preventive fashion.
    Dr. Eaton. We will, we'll look into that. We have a fairly 
major program, and Dr. Hirsch can describe it to you in some 
general ways, where we have been working with the Department of 
Defense for a long time. They have a program called DODEC, the 
Department of Defense Environmental Contamination Program, 
where we are one of the principal consultants and do a great 
deal of work on military bases all over the country. We have 
had a major study underway for some time down on Cape Cod in 
the State of Massachusetts, where we are looking at the impacts 
of aviation fuels spilled purposely for the purposes of fire 
fighting training, where waste water treatment from the sewage 
treatment plant for the base has been spilled into the local 
water supply. So we work very closely with them, and it's a 
very strong and positive relationship that we have with the 
Department of Defense.
    Dr. Hirsch. We work with all the services of the Defense 
Department, and on a reimbursable basis, about $30 million a 
year of work that they request from us to look at where is the 
movement of the water on the base and its relationship to areas 
of known potential waste disposal. This is in addition to our 
own research efforts at a number of sites around the country 
where we look at plumes of groundwater contamination or surface 
water contamination, essentially as living laboratories of how 
these things behave and how the various kinds of contaminants 
behave in the environment.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you very much. I would be very much 
interested in that. Let me ask another similar question if I 
could.
    Mr. Regula. Go ahead.

                        methane gas accumulation

    Mr. Moran. This concerns the Lorton Prison area. Some of 
this you get third hand, but I understand because we have a 
major dump site there on the same land, the same property 
that's owned by the Federal Government, we lease it for this 
dump site, that there's enormous accumulation of methane gas 
underground, and that in fact, at one point there was a hole or 
something below the prison and it seeped into the prison and 
one of the cells blew up from the methane gas. The guy lights a 
cigarette, and everything just blows up because of this methane 
leak from the methane gas underground.
    I am wondering whether that has been cleared up, whether 
it's a problem, whether it even falls within your jurisdiction 
at all. I'll just ask the other thing about it. I understand we 
have got leakage from that dump into a tributary that goes into 
the Occoquan and into the Chesapeake Bay. So I am wondering 
whether you are on top of that as well, or whether you should 
be.
    Dr. Eaton. Let me ask Dr. Hirsch to respond.
    Dr. Hirsch. I don't believe we have an ongoing 
programrelating to Lorton. We are aware of some of the pollution 
problems. Again, it's a matter of the right authorities. There's a 
million things out there we could be doing. Those authorities from that 
facility coming to our office in this case would be in Richmond, to 
discuss the possibility.
    With respect to methane, we are very actively engaged in a 
study, it happens to be in Kingsford, Michigan, where a house 
blew up because of methane gas accumulation in the groundwater. 
EPA brought us in to use the results of our research to help 
them understand whether more houses were potentially at risk. 
So it's a problem that we are very familiar with and have 
worked with, but I do not believe we have done so at Lorton at 
this point. We'll look into it and get back to you with what 
thoughts we might have or what we might be able to do.
    Dr. Eaton. Mr. Moran, when I visited you a week before 
last, one of the things that I left with one of your staff was 
our continuous strategic plan. In there is described in modest 
detail an intention on our part to get more into issues of 
human health of the sort you have just been raising here as 
questions in terms of the long term program. Because now that 
we have a biological resources division, as well as hydrology, 
geology, and mapping, there are a lot of things now that we 
know about the environment that constitutes threats, whether 
it's at the national level or at the local level as in the case 
of Lorton. So I hope that as we continue working together, you 
will continue to ask questions of this sort, because it helps 
us to design programs for the future.
    Mr. Moran. Yes, it's helpful. I never had any idea that the 
U.S. Geological Survey was involved in this kind of stuff. I 
mean I could think of all kinds of things now.
    For one thing, we have the largest railroad switching yard 
on the east coast, Potomac Yard, and they used to back in the 
old days, they used to just dump all their toxic stuff on the 
ground, and of course it would seep to the lowest level. The 
USGS would have a role there. But there are places you can walk 
on this yard which is just between Route 1 and the parkway, 
where it's a quicksand. You walk in and you'll sink right down, 
and it's all toxic stuff. That's one of the reasons it's still 
there. Of course it's leaking into the water supply which goes 
directly into the Potomac at that point. But nobody knows where 
to put it or what to do with it. Jack Kent Cooke said it's no 
problem, I'll just blacktop it over and we'll play football 
over it. But that's not so easy if it's underground and it's 
potentially leaking into the Chesapeake Bay and so on. But 
obviously, the Geological Survey does have a role here in 
determining whether some toxic deposits can be left alone or 
others can't be because of the topography and the likelihood of 
their seeping into the water supply.

             IMPROVING ACCESS TO WATER-QUALITY INFORMATION

    Dr. Eaton. Mr. Moran, do you have a copy of our exhibit?
    Mr. Moran. Your exhibit?
    Dr. Eaton. If you'll turn to page 39 there, you'll see 
defined with green dots, the 75 largest cities in the United 
States. The increase of $9 million that we're asking for for 
our national water quality program is specifically designed to 
provide information to residents and city managers and other 
government officials, a continuous status and trend update on 
the quality of the drinking water for those cities. So this is 
a national scale model of the very sort of thing you are 
talking about now with respect to the Washington area.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 58 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Moran. Well, this is very interesting. Obviously before 
I ask many more questions, I ought to read some of this 
material. Thanks.
    Mr. Regula. Following up on Mr. Moran's comment, we read a 
lot about how water quality for human consumption in the United 
States is deteriorating, quality is decreasing, there's more 
water supply that's at risk. Is that an accurate appraisal?
    Dr. Hirsch. Actually it's a much more mixed picture than 
that. The Clean Water Act passed in 1972 has resulted in some 
really outstanding improvements in many aspects of the Nation's 
water quality. Basically, we were looking at a lot of raw 
sewage or poorly treated sewage and a lot of industrial 
effluent that were discharged with almost no control. A great 
deal of progress has been made in those areas, both from the 
sewage standpoint as well as the industrial waste standpoint.
    What we find now is what you might consider a kind of a 
residual set of problems, many of them stemming from non-point 
sources. That's the pesticides that you or I might use as a 
homeowner, what farmers use on their land, the fertilizers that 
they may use. Things that are coming out of the atmosphere, for 
example, 10 years ago acid rain was a major issue. It still is 
an issue, but we are finding now is that we have cleaned up a 
lot of the sulfur emissions that are in acid rain, but there is 
still a lot of nitrate, much of which comes from the tail pipe 
of all of our automobiles. That enters the water and places 
like Chesapeake Bay are affected by that.
    We also have issues of much lower concentrations of manmade 
chemicals, some of the pesticides, some of them industrial 
chemicals, that are prevalent, widespread, and the health 
effects associated with them are frankly largely unknown in 
many cases. But I would say the Nation has made a great deal of 
progress in water quality, but there are still many issues 
remaining.
    Dr. Eaton. If it's possible to concede that an individual 
Member of Congress could own a river, I would picture you 
owning the Cuyahoga River in Ohio. There is a real success 
story.
    Mr. Moran. That's the one that caught on fire.
    Mr. Regula. It has gotten better since I took over. 
[Laughter.]

                          CHESAPEAKE BAY WORK

    Dr. Eaton. Some of these issues though are regional in 
scope. If I can get you both to turn to page 20 in the exhibit 
book, you can see some of the work that we are doing in the 
Chesapeake.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 60 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                             DRINKING WATER

    Mr. Regula. Let me ask you a question. Are you comfortable 
to go any place in the United States, and if you stop at a 
restroom to drink the water?
    Dr. Eaton. I do it.

                 FOREIGN INTEREST IN WATER INFORMATION

    Mr. Regula. And parallel to that, do other countries 
consult with you because when you travel overseas, Americans 
pretty much stick with bottled water because they don't trust 
the water in many of the countries. I would think these 
countries are interested in also improving quality. Do you 
share, information and does anyone ever come to you for help 
from other nations?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me answer in a very general way. I think one 
of the world's great assets that the world has not taken 
advantage of is in fact the expertise in our water resources 
division. There is no other nation on earth that has a program 
that matches the comprehensiveness and the nature of the sort 
of thing that we do. But as you know, because we reside within 
the Department of the Interior rather than the exterior, we 
have to be invited with the promise of funds from other nations 
to work in those places. Here and there, particularly in the 
Middle East, we have played a role, but a very minor role 
compared to the one that we could play.
    Mr. Regula. Could they dial up on the Internet?
    Mr. Eaton. Yes, to get information.
    Mr. Regula. Information, if you were in charge of water 
quality.
    Dr. Hirsch. Let me answer in a couple of ways. Yes, we get 
many many contacts over the Internet of not only our water 
data, but also things like our computer models that are used to 
simulate the movement of groundwater, surface water and water 
quality. Thousands of requests come in over the Internet for 
these simulation models.
    We respond. We really don't use our appropriated funds in 
general to work with international, other than on a very quick 
kind of consulting basis. But we have a constant stream of 
visitors to our offices to learn our approaches and our 
methodologies and are requested by others such as the World 
Bank, the World Health Organization, AID.
    Just to give a couple of quick examples, we have done 
training programs with the groundwater board of India. Their 
scientists have come and worked in our office to learn our 
methodologies and take them back to help in India. When the 
Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union broke up, Slovenia 
needed some help in how to set up water monitoring. We sent 
someone over for a few weeks to help them develop their water 
monitoring programs. The same thing for the Russian Republic. 
These have all been funded by AID, EPA, World Bank, et cetera. 
We are playing a very active role in the Middle East, where we 
have someone on the ground in the Middle East right now working 
with Arabs, Israelis, Palestinians, all of the nations involved 
helping them share information about water and improve their 
water infrastructure over there. That's paid for by the U.S. 
State Department.

                          KALAMAZOO INTIATIVE

    Mr. Regula. You propose a $9 million increase for the 
National Water Quality Assessment Program. We have always 
supported that in this committee. How does this fit with the 
president's Kalamazoo initiative?
    Dr. Eaton. In a sense, I would argue that the Kalamazoo 
initiative is an extension of the NAWQA program. If you look at 
the map, again that we have--39, you'll see that most of the 
cities there lie within or on the border of current NAWQA study 
areas. By a crude count I made a few days ago, about 15 to 20 
cities are not part of this. So specifically, this is now 
refocusing part of the program as it currently is run to 
provide information to residents of those cities about the 
quality of their drinking water.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 63 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Regula. Is this new proposed work which came out of the 
Kalamazoo initiative included as part of the NAWQA plan that 
was originally presented to Congress, and is it proposed as 
part of your Fiscal Year 1998 budget submission that you made 
to the Department of Interior and to OMB? And does this evolve 
from your strategic planning program or was this just a result 
of the President's statements?
    Dr. Eaton. I think it's fair to say that it's responsive to 
the drinking water act, as well as to the President's concern, 
as well as to the NAWQA program as it currently exists. I don't 
see this as a major tweaking of the NAWQA program away from its 
original purposes.

                FEDERAL-STATE WATER COOPERATIVE PROGRAM

    Mr. Regula. Well, your request for Fiscal Year 1998 
includes a decrease in the Federal/State cooperative for water 
programs. In 1997 you proposed an increase. Why the change in 
direction?
    Dr. Eaton. It would appear to be an inconsistency.
    Mr. Regula. Yes; it does to some extent.
    Mr. Eaton. I agree. It's the kind of a bind that a bureau 
gets into when, in fact, it takes on new tasks. It has to scout 
around and see where it's going to cut back in order to fund 
other initiatives. I don't need to tell you, Mr. Regula, that 
this is a very different era than the one we had 20 to 25 years 
ago.
    All of these are very, very tough choices, and as I like to 
remind members of my staff, when you come to me and tell me you 
want me to make a tough choice--you're telling me that you want 
me to cut Mr. Moran's program but not your own----
    Mr. Regula. That's fine.
    Dr. Eaton. [continuing] He would view a tough choice on my 
part to be just the opposite.
    Mr. Moran. That's not really what he's saying. [Laughter.]
    You're clearly using an extreme, outrageous example to make 
your point. [Laughter.]

                     HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING

    Mr. Regula. Well, as a member of the committee, we're going 
to take care of Mr. Moran. [Laughter.]
    What is the extent of your involvement in the habitat 
conservation planning?
    Dr. Eaton. Here I'm going to ask Dr. Fenn to come to the 
table.
    Dr. Fenn. Mr. Chairman, I think up until now our extent--
and I think it will probably continue that way--our involvement 
is in providing assessments of that habitat and its potential 
to actually accomplish the stated objectives. I think, for 
example, our national wetlands research center in Louisiana is 
working very hard with the State of Louisiana to help define 
wetland habitat conservation.
    I think in California, in southern California, where it 
looks like that's the only hope we have of actually protecting 
some of these endangered species, is to protect habitat and 
hope that multiple species will survive as a consequence of 
that, our science center in California is basically the sole 
source or the major source, at least in the search of defining 
the habitat and helping the county and State Governments there 
come to grips with that.
    Mr. Regula. Well, isn't this somewhat of a model way to 
balance economic needs with ecological concerns and with 
endangered species? And I think perhaps in the San Diego area 
there's a model for this.
    Dr. Fenn. No question. I think it definitely is the way we 
have to go as a Nation to deal with this endangered species 
issue. And so I think it's really a real positive development, 
and we're working hard in southern California to help that 
effort.
    Mr. Regula. How many areas either have or are moving toward 
establishing a habitat conservation type of program as is the 
case with the San Diego area?
    Dr. Fenn. I think San Diego is leading the effort, but 
there are other places in California and even in Texas and a 
few other places that have a lot of endangered species where 
this is really the approach they're taking. I don't know the 
exact number, but it's a growing idea that many people see, 
where they can actually have that economic development to 
support the local economy, but yet at the same time be 
environmentally responsive and provide habitat for species. So 
I think we will see more of it in the future.
    Mr. Regula. Would this be a useful tool in, say, Mr. 
Moran's area, because you mentioned the other day about the 
conflicts between wildlife population and the people, the 
growth out there?
    Dr. Fenn. No question. If you look at Fairfax County and 
what's happening in the growth of that county, this is really 
the only way, I think, to really approach that problem, where 
local communities and the county can get together and match 
both economic and----
    Mr. Regula. Is anything happening in Fairfax? It's right 
close to home.
    Dr. Fenn. I'm not aware of our involvement with anything 
like that in Fairfax County.
    Mr. Regula. Which agency normally takes a lead in making 
one of these happen?
    Dr. Fenn. Well, I think normally the lead agency for the 
Federal Government is the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    Mr. Regula. No, but I mean it has to have a local 
community--commissioners, mayors?
    Dr. Fenn. Yes, in San Diego it's county commissioners. In 
California it's the county commissioners who are really leading 
the effort.
    Mr. Moran. They have to make a request that you would then 
respond to?
    Dr. Fenn. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. That's Fish and Wildlife's response, and then 
Fish and Wildlife goes to you?
    Dr. Fenn. Oftentimes, that's the way it happens; yes.
    Mr. Moran. You would never initiate something like that?
    Dr. Fenn. Well, we would certainly make any research 
information we have ongoing available to any of the users and 
would certainly respond to them, but we're really not a 
management agency, and we really need to be in a responsive 
mode rather than a directive mode, I think, when it comes to 
management decisions on the landscape.
    Mr. Regula. I think this has unique possibilities for an 
area like yours. I'm very impressed with what they've done in 
San Diego and the southern California area in getting almost 
everybody on board--local Government, the agencies, the 
development groups--and to balance economic growth with habitat 
conservation.
    Dr. Fenn. It's still not easy, but five years ago people 
said it's impossible, and now we found a mechanism that has 
people sitting around the table talking and solving problems 
together who have historically been at loggerheads with one 
another. So it really does have a great potential.
    Mr. Moran. It would be nice if we could just have a meeting 
sometime just to discuss that.
    Dr. Fenn. Sure.
    Dr. Eaton. We'd be pleased to.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you.
    Could I ask another question, Mr. Chairman?
    Mr. Regula. Sure.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

    Mr. Moran. This business of the inter-relationship between 
agencies is fascinating, and between the divisions within an 
agency. For example, when a community sets about building a 
bridge and determining where the bridge should be located, how 
big the bridge should be, they always have to do an 
environmental impact statement, and they look to EPA and the 
Corps of Engineers to do the data. But do they automatically 
consult with you? Because the geological survey data would seem 
to be critical, critically important.
    Dr. Eaton. You're right, and they do.
    Mr. Moran. They do? So it's automatic that you get tapped 
for your information anytime you do an EIS like that?
    Dr. Eaton. Well, in part it depends on who is doing it and 
for what purpose. It varies in an anecdotal sort of way from 
project-to-project, but we do a lot of EIS work.
    Mr. Moran. Okay, so you do do a lot. The same thing--for 
example, most metropolitan areas build outer beltways, 
eventually, and if there's an outer beltway built obviously you 
have to do an EIS. But the U.S. Geological Survey would be a 
critical component in terms of consulting on that EIS?

                             URBAN DYNAMICS

    Dr. Eaton. Yes. I want to call your attention to something 
again, and this is data in the exhibit book. Page 34 shows the 
population growth and the development of both cities and 
roadways from 1792 to 1992 of Washington and Baltimore. In 
preparing a series of maps like this, we learn how cities grow 
and what their impact is on wildlife, on habitat, on aquifer 
demands, and so forth. And our hope is to take this--and a new 
program we're calling urban dynamics--and begin to create a 
series of future maps that will show what further growth will 
look like and where it will be limited and what impacts it will 
have.
    And while strictly speaking this isn't an EIS-related 
issue, it certainly has to be part of regional planning in the 
future.
    [The information follows:]

[Page 67 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Moran. Sure. This is fascinating, but then not only 
would you do this mapping, you would do some analyses of the 
impact.
    Dr. Eaton. Absolutely, right. Because you're either 
encroaching on farmland, or you're encroaching on natural 
habitat, or you're playing off the use of the aquifer as a sand 
and gravel resource versus a water resource.
    Mr. Moran. So you would establish the parameters beyond 
which you can't go, in terms of development, given the water 
supply, given the pathology of the land.
    Dr. Eaton. We'd provide the information and we would make 
interpretations, but we would stop short of advocacy, which is 
another thing we don't do in addition to enforcement and 
management.
    Mr. Moran. But you would advise what appropriate limits 
are----
    Dr. Eaton. Yes.
    Mr. Moran [continuing]. How much this area can sustain in 
terms of development.
    Mr. Regula. Well, it would appear that a local regional 
planning commission could find this information extremely 
useful because they become the on-the-ground people.

                       OHIO WATER RESOURCE ISSUE

    Dr. Eaton. Let me cite a specific example from Mr. Regula's 
home State. It's not in his district, but the city of Columbus, 
Ohio has counted in the past, substantially, on a well-field 
south of the city that is in a floodplain of a river. The city 
never acquired the land and, therefore, didn't have ownership 
to the land. And now a mining company has come in and is 
quarrying sand and gravel, literally using what is the aquifer 
for the city of Columbus. And there's an agreement now that 
they won't come in any closer than 1,000 feet from each of the 
collector wells, but they're quarrying right down to bedrock, 
so in fact the aquifer is disappearing.
    Here is a case where one resource is competing against 
another, and the city didn't think far enough into the future 
to see that this might happen; and so they're having to 
scramble now and develop a major water transportation system 
that brings water in from way to the north of the city of 
Columbus. But we can help with these kinds of issues. We set 
parameters; we don't make the decisions.
    Mr. Moran. But in a case like this you would have advised 
the city of Columbus, if they had asked, of the implications of 
this, the long term implications.
    Dr. Eaton. Right. I mean, it was clear that this was a very 
high quality sand and gravel resource. And one of the things 
that stems from this is the fact that that's also what creates 
a good groundwater aquifer in the floodplain of a river. So 
it's very easy to see what they should have done in hindsight, 
but what we'd like to do through this urban dynamic program is 
get out ahead of that process for large cities around the 
country.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you very much.

                     REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONS

    Mr. Regula. I wonder if regional planning commissions 
really appreciate the value of the information you have for 
them and available to them.
    Dr. Eaton. Well, I really can't show you the answer to that 
question. Here and there we have worked with them, but, again, 
it's anecdotal.
    Mr. Regula. A classic example had they been ahead of the 
curve, the city would have probably saved themselves a lot of 
headache, and probably there was a time when they could have 
bought that land.
    Dr. Eaton. Yes; it was all farmland; they could have bought 
the farm.
    Mr. Regula. I think we had the forest in New Jersey and New 
York, which we have now acquired or are in the process of, as 
an example of where they are preserving the watershed as a 
resource.
    Dr. Eaton. You know because we have a presence in each 
State, and, in fact, our water resources division has a major 
office in each State----
    Mr. Regula. Now you work closely with local officials?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes, in every State. In fact, our office is 
working with the city of Columbus on this particular issue in 
the State of Ohio.
    Mr. Regula. But, you know, we have a very active regional 
planning commission up in my area, and I don't know whether 
they ever contact your offices or utilize your resources, or 
not.

                         information about usgs

    Dr. Eaton. I would offer the view that in the past we have 
done an insufficient job of telling people who we are, what we 
do, how we can help their concerns.
    Mr. Regula. Well, this is what's occurring to me, that 
maybe you should have some kind of information program to let 
people know what resources are available to them. I don't know 
exactly how you get the information out to the public, but 
its's important.
    Dr. Eaton. Well, we're moving to do that, and given the 
growth and the number of hits on the home pages on the Web, I 
think we're making progress for those people who have the use 
of computer systems, but that's not enough.
    Mr. Regula. I think the value of the USGS has been a fairly 
well-kept secret, and we should try to remedy that if possible.
    Dr. Eaton. I would agree.
    Mr. Regula. I was in California and visited the earthquake 
program out there, and it's a model example of teamwork. You've 
got the State involved; you've got the university system 
involved; you have the private sector involved. All are part of 
the team, as near as I could tell, and you have the media 
involved.
    Dr. Eaton. They are, and the media is part of the team as 
well, and, therefore, the citizens are kept well-informed.
    Mr. Regula. The media alerts the public to possible 
problems.
    Dr. Eaton. I've just been passed a note that says we've got 
1,100 State and local partners--the Geological Survey does--in 
Ohio alone.
    Dr. Hirsch. No--36 in Ohio.
    Dr. Eaton. Oh, 36; sorry.
    Mr. Regula. Well, Mr. Moran touched on it, and I think we 
have demonstrated here, that we need perhaps a higher degree of 
communication among Government agencies. And, likewise, among 
the State and local agencies along with the Federal agencies. 
We're all serving the same populace.
    Dr. Eaton. Right, the same taxpayer.
    Mr. Regula. And I don't know how to maybe accelerate that 
degree of cooperation to avoid duplication of expenditures, as 
well as to ensure that the resources get used.

                           state fact sheets

    Dr. Eaton. Let me tell you of some steps that we have taken 
in this direction. We now have a key point of contact in each 
State that is our representative in each State. We prepared a 
fact sheet for each of the States that each year describes our 
current activities in the State, and on the back there is all 
of the addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, and E-mail 
addresses so that anybody in any community in the State, or any 
citizen, if they're aware of this, can get access to 
fundamental information from the Geological Survey.
    Oftentimes the role of this person, this State 
representative, is then to direct the inquirer to somewhere 
else within the organization. So we've created a network--I 
guess you're being handed an example of the Ohio fact sheet--
but we're trying to increase the network. And as we've added 
the Biological Resources Division, we've picked up a number of 
additional potential partners, and we can present a pretty 
broad and comprehensive face to the State and to the local 
communities. And some are very sophisticated as you've 
suggested, like southern California, and have taken advantage; 
others, I think, are less aware.
    Mr. Nethercutt brought to the hearing last year the fact 
that the city of Toulouse in his district would have benefitted 
from some real-time stream information on the river that passes 
through there. We do need to create broader awareness of the 
services we can provide across the Nation, so your point is 
very well made.
    Mr. Regula. I guess you keep working at it. I notice you 
have a survey of programs that are going on in Ohio; we have 
the annual meeting of our regional planning commission coming 
up in a couple of weeks, and I intend to ask them whether 
they're utilizing your services because they're serving about 
360,000 people and should, by all means, at least explore 
whether or not there's anything you have that's useful.

                     usgs information and products

    Dr. Eaton. It just occurs to me to point something out to 
the Committee that I'm pointing out to myself at the same time, 
and that is that even though most of the other bureaus in the 
Department of the Interior are concerned with federally-owned 
land----
    Mr. Regula. Right.
    Dr. Eaton [continuing]. We have a role that goes well 
beyond the Federal land in all of our programs and across all 
four divisions. The preparation of topographic maps in States, 
the water resources division in States.
    Mr. Regula. I think you're an enormously valuable resource 
because water is a problem for a lot of communities.
    Dr. Eaton. That isn't just the West.
    Mr. Regula. Not in our area, but in a lot of areas 
earthquakes are a problem. Much of what you do affects people.
    Dr. Eaton. Right.
    Mr. Regula. And it's important to make sure local 
Government, i.e., State and local, use these services. I guess 
that's an ongoing mission.
    Dr. Eaton. It is. I was very surprised a little over a year 
ago to visit with a very distinguished colleague in the Senate 
who was asking about work that we were doing in his particular 
State, and I made reference, for some reason or another, about 
water work that we were doing in the East. And he sat up and 
kind of shook his head and said, ``What are you doing working 
in the East? There are very few Federal lands there.'' He 
didn't realize that our mission was to speak to all of the 
citizenry.
    Mr. Regula. Well, I know that I use to order your maps when 
I was practicing law--the topographical maps.
    Dr. Eaton. They're our most well-known product.
    Mr. Regula. Yes, that is commonly understood as to the 
availability, and I assume you update those periodically.
    Dr. Eaton. We do; we work very closely with the States to 
determine and to learn their priority. They provide some 
funding for the update on that.
    Mr. Regula. Does the oil and gas industry use your 
services?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes, very much so. We're working probably closer 
with them today than at any time in the past. For example, we 
released in February of 1995 a new, five-year assessment of the 
oil and gas resources of the United States, and they were very 
much involved in the provision of data, in the reviews and 
assessments of the methodology that we were using.
    Mr. Regula. Does the building industry use your soils 
assessment?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes, and we have a new relationship--again, 
thanks to the fact that you saw fit to move part of the Bureau 
of Mines to us, the mineral information team. We've gained a 
couple of hundred new partners there at the National Stone 
Association, and the whole issue of crushed rock and aggregate 
that's needed for rebuilding the infrastructure. We're very 
much involved with industry there. For example, we've got a 
prototype study going in the Rocky Mountain-Denver urban 
corridor now looking at infrastructure development there. You 
may be aware of the fact that when Denver International Airport 
was built there were insufficient local resources.
    Mr. Regula. The original or the present one?
    Dr. Eaton. The new one.
    Mr. Regula. The new one.
    Dr. Eaton. There were insufficient resources locally for 
that construction, and they had to import about 10 percent of 
the material from Wyoming.
    Mr. Regula. Are you talking about stone?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes, right. So we can provide information of 
that sort on a local basis, a regional basis, and even a 
national basis.

                authorization proposal for park service

    Mr. Regula. Just a couple of other things. I know there's a 
bill over in the Resources Committee to authorize $30 million 
for the Park Service--this is beyond what we talked about 
earlier--to develop their own science. And it seems to me that 
would result in a duplication of effort, and it would be moving 
away from what we've tried to do here by putting the NBS in 
USGS to concentrate ourscientific resources.
    Do you have any observation on this proposal?
    Dr. Eaton. Well, as I understand this proposal, and I have 
only a very loose grip on it, it specifically addresses only 
the biological needs because the old Geological Survey has been 
serving the science needs to the Park Service for a very long 
time. We have a program called ``Science in the Parks.'' Many 
of the parks are perhaps more geological in their origin, 
nature, and scenery than they are biological, and yet this 
effort that the Park Service is proposing speaks only to the 
issue of biology; and let me tell you where I think they're 
coming from.
    As research scientists were moved out of the Park Service, 
out of the Fish and Wildlife Service, out of the BLM, to create 
NBS, those other bureaus saw some loss of something that had 
been theirs to begin with. We have a specific plan called the 
``Bureau Information Needs'' where we assess the specific needs 
for scientific information on the part of the other bureaus, 
including the Park Service.
    But I think what's happened here is, with the large budget 
cut that NBS took, clearly we can't service all those needs in 
a way that we serviced them in the past. And, consequently, 
that's why I'm proposing that we build back some of that budget 
loss with this increase of $7.5 million that we're asking for. 
Certainly the potential is there for duplication; I don't think 
there's any question about that.

                    funding for uncontrollable costs

    Mr. Regula. Do you think your budget is adequate as 
proposed to meet your uncontrollables?
    Dr. Eaton. Specifically to meet our uncontrollables?
    Mr. Regula. Yes.
    Dr. Eaton. We're asked to absorb our uncontrollables so 
that that's part of the erosion----
    Mr. Regula. But you also were asked to do that in 1997.
    Dr. Eaton. We traditionally are asked to do that. It's a 
fact of our life.
    Mr. Regula. Is that a major handicap on your ability to 
meet program needs?
    Dr. Eaton. This year it amounts to $16 million. I think you 
can see that that has to have a negative impact.

                   research data for ohio consortium

    Mr. Regula. A couple of weeks ago we had testimony from a 
consortium of Ohio universities, and they were interested in 
providing funding for the EROS Data Center to purchase super-
computing capability necessary to transfer satellite data to 
organizations such as this Ohio consortium. This appeals to a 
goal, my goal, certainly, of making Government research data 
more accessible to the public, and I'd be interested in your 
views on their proposal.
    Dr. Eaton. Well, specifically, their proposal speaks, as 
you've said, to the issue of the acquisition of the super-
computer system for EROS. The amount of data and information 
now that we're handling there, in terms of archiving and making 
it available, is growing by leaps and bounds. There's no 
question that they probably should have that system.
    Mr. Regula. So you would say they probably should have that 
system?
    Dr. Eaton. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. Your budget doesn't provide for it.
    Dr. Eaton. No, it doesn't, and my great concern is that 
somehow that doesn't come at the expense of the other programs 
we're here to push for.
    Mr. Regula. How much would it take to do that?
    Dr. Eaton. Let me ask Dr. Witmer if he has an off-the-top-
of-the-head figure. Dick?
    Dr. Witmer. Mr. Chairman, I read the testimony of the 
representative of the consortium, and there were no specific 
dollars mentioned in there. Our managers at the EROS Data 
Center have been working with that group, as you know, and they 
have visited the data center; and what we're trying to do right 
now is to find out exactly what the requirements are that they 
have been referring to.
    Mr. Regula. So at this point you don't have a cost 
estimate?
    Dr. Witmer. I do not have a cost estimate, and I've not 
been able to get one. As you know, we provide very, very large 
amounts of data currently to different organizations. So what 
we do within our current budget is very, very substantial.
    Mr. Regula. Do you agree that putting this capability in 
place would be useful not only to them, but to other groups?
    Dr. Witmer. Absolutely. It is a future method of doing 
business that we are moving toward. We would really like to be 
in a wholesaler type of relationship, considering the 
consortium as a retailer dealer, and then they could service 
many of the needs of not only the universities and colleges in 
Ohio, but the State organizations as well. It is a direction 
that we're moving in the provision of data.
    Mr. Regula. You must accumulate a huge amount of data, and 
the problem is getting it out to people that could use it.
    Dr. Witmer. Exactly. If I could just give you one example 
that I just learned of recently. I think you're aware of the 
large study that we did following the floods on the upper 
Midwest in 1993. I was told just the other day--and maybe you 
have heard in the past that we established a clearinghouse of 
information after we did that study so that people could come 
to the clearinghouse--and I learned that over three-quarters of 
a million digital data files have been downloaded from that 
clearinghouse to users in the upper Mid-West. I was absolutely 
astounded by the amount of data.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Moran, any further questions?
    Mr. Moran. No. I'm fascinated by the scope of USGS, and I 
want to learn more about it before I ask more questions. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regula. Let me just conclude by saying that I urge you 
to pursue the mission of developing cooperative arrangements 
with other agencies to avoid duplication of Federal services, 
because we are going to be faced continuously, prospectively 
with reduced Federal funds. And, secondly, to make every effort 
to let the public know and to work with local Government so 
that this vast amount of useful information is available to 
serve the public. And I think you do view that as your mission, 
but I only want to reinforce it, that's all.
    Dr. Eaton. We very much appreciate that advice, and we will 
be moving in those directions more and more. We're up now to 
2,000 formal organizational partnerships at a variety of 
governmental levels--Federal, State, and local--and the number 
continues to grow. And I guess that's a good thing.
    Mr. Regula. Well, it would appear to me that what you do, 
in one way or another, touches a life of almost every American.
    Dr. Eaton. We, in fact, like to say that ourselves because 
they're not aware of it.
    Mr. Regula. They may not be aware of it, but it does. 
Everybody that gets a glass of water has to be concerned about 
what you're doing. And the use of America's resources, 
collectively, in a wise way, would seem to me to be enhanced by 
the kind of information you develop.
    Dr. Eaton. It would indeed.
    Mr. Regula. Okay, thank you very much.
    Dr. Eaton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regula. That concludes our hearing.

[Pages 75 - 162 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                      Minerals Management Service


=======================================================================



[Pages 165 - 203 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement


=======================================================================


[Pages 207 - 278 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs


=======================================================================


                                           Tuesday, April 15, 1997.

                        BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

                               WITNESSES

ADA E. DEER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY-INDIAN AFFAIRS
MARY ANN LAWLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET
HILDA A. MANUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOANN SEBASTIAN MORRIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INDIAN EDUCATION PROGRAMS
DEBORAH J. MADDOX, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRIBAL SERVICES
TERRY VIRDEN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES
JAMES H. McDIVITT, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 
    ADMINISTRATION


[Pages 282 - 289 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



    Mr. Regula [presiding]. We'll call the committee to order.
    Welcome, all of you, and especially Ms. Deer, the 
Secretary, and whoever else you'd like to testify. Your 
statement will be made a part of the record and any other 
statements you'd like to submit. Just tell us what the 
situation is.

                     summary statement of ada deer

    Ms. Deer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have accompanying 
me Ms. Hilda Manuel, who is our Deputy Commissioner, and Mr. 
Jim McDivitt, who is the Director of Administration and 
Management.
    I am delighted to be here today to present testimony in 
support of the President's request for the Indian Affairs 
budget. Rather than read the prepared testimony which has 
already been submitted for the record, I will present a short 
summary.
    I'd like to begin by expressing our appreciation to you, 
Chairman Regula, for your leadership and to Representative 
Yates for his longstanding commitment, and to each of the 
members of this committee for the understanding and support it 
has historically provided to addressing the pressing needs of 
the American Indian and Alaska native communities.
    The budget we present today is extremely lean, and yet it 
is responsive to the needs of tribal communities. It provides 
funds for the basic operation of the Bureau and will permit us 
to alleviate some of the most urgent backlogs in trust 
programs. Great care has been taken in its preparation and we 
strongly urge this committee to appropriate funds at the 
President's requested level of 1.73 billion dollars.

                            budget overview

    The proposed budget contains a modest increase of 126 
million dollars over the Fiscal Year 1997 appropriations. 
Nearly half of the increase will accrue to the tribal priority 
allocations to support vital tribal government services, such 
as law enforcement, social services, and child welfare 
programs, among others. Since 1995 shortfalls in these programs 
have been particularly serious. In addition, this winter's 
harsh weather will have long-term economic consequences beyond 
the urgent and immediate needs addressed in our request for 
supplemental appropriation which we hope will be favorably 
acted upon very soon.
    We cannot project the full impact of these conditions, but 
we do know that many tribes will suffer extensive financial 
losses in areas such as agriculture and ranching. There will be 
damages to physical infrastructure, including roads, dams, 
bridges, and buildings.
    Revenue losses will accrue to tribes due to diminished fish 
and wildlife stocks. Riparian damage is an inevitable 
consequence of flooding and there will be significant impacts 
to trust resources. These and related effects will 
significantly increase demands on tribes and the BIA for 
services and resources.

                               education

    About a third of the requested increase will go to benefit 
Indian schools. Indian education is among our most important 
priorities. During my tenure, I visited as many tribal and BIA 
schools as possible.
    Recently, I had the opportunity to visit the Chief Leschi 
School in Washington State. While I was there I learned of the 
outstanding support that this school has received from the 
State of Washington's congressional delegation. I would like to 
say that the advocacy of Representative Dicks and Nethercutt is 
recognized and deeply appreciated, both within the Bureau and 
by the students and staff of the school. It's a wonderful 
school, one of the finest I've ever seen. Any community would 
be proud to have a school like this.
    I wish that every school in our system was like the Chief 
Leschi School. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Classrooms 
are overcrowded in virtually all the schools and some are in a 
disgraceful state of dilapidation and disrepair. The bus fleet 
is aging, a process accelerated by the rough roads and harsh 
climates in much of Indian country.
    Funding has not kept pace with the needs of our school 
system, which are growing. We anticipate an annual increase in 
enrollment of approximately 3 percent. A third of the BIA's 
requested construction budget will be used for education 
construction so that we can begin to replace some of the unsafe 
schools on the priority list.
    The schools on the priority list are some of the oldest, 
most dilapidated schools in our system. Eight million dollars 
of the requested increase in the facilities improvement and 
repair budget will be used for just such school repairs. At a 
minimum, we must provide children a safe learning environment 
in schools that meet accreditation standards and good teachers 
who are provided essential training and continuing education.
    Mr. Regula. Let me ask something here. Why is the Chief 
Leschi--is that pronounced correctly?
    Ms. Deer. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. What's different that's caused this to be such 
a good school? And I'm hearing you say that a lot of them are 
in deplorable condition.
    Ms. Deer. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. What made the difference?
    Ms. Deer. It's a new school. And let me say that----
    Mr. Regula. A new building?
    Ms. Deer. It's a new building, new construction. It took 
twenty years of work by the tribe and the Bureau and the cost 
was approximately--I think it was about $32 million. So, it's a 
first rate school. If you ever get out there----
    Mr. Regula. Well, I want to know if they're attracting good 
teachers. Buildings are fine, but teachers are the heart of a 
system.
    Ms. Deer. Well, we have our education director here who can 
talk about the staff qualifications, but I would say yes. I was 
very impressed at my recent visit there by everyone. The 
teachers are excited. The parents are excited. The students are 
excited. And it's a beautiful, new facility, state-of-the-art.
    Mr. Regula. Is this a high school or is it a K-12 system?
    Ms. Deer. It's a K-12.
    Mr. Regula. A K-12 system. You mentioned that the tribe had 
had some part to play. Did they help raise the money to pay for 
it or what do the tribes do? Or was this totally federally 
financed?
    Ms. Deer. Well, first of all, the tribe and the Bureau 
worked hard together, but basically it is a federally-financed 
operation. But they are forming some partnerships with local 
people, because not everything is fully complete yet.
    Mr. Regula. I see. Okay.
    Ms. Deer. But it is a state-of-the-art school. It was 
wonderful to see the little kindergartners sitting there before 
their computers and looking forward to the 21st century. So, 
this is the type of education that we would like to see all the 
students have.
    Mr. Regula. I understand. Okay.

                              Other Needs

    Ms. Deer. Okay. I just have a couple more pages to read and 
then we can start. The remainder of the requested increase will 
be used to address high-priority needs in a number of areas, 
particularly in relation to public health and safety. Four 
million dollars of the increase will be used to repair 
structural deficiencies of high-hazard dams on Indian lands. 
This is particularly important, given the severe flood 
conditions in many areas of the country this past year, as well 
as the floods inevitable in the coming months.
    We requested a $12 million increase for public safety and 
justice construction which will fund the construction and 
repair of detention centers and the establishment of fire 
protection safeguards in schools and other facilities.
    Mr. Chairman, I know this committee has expressed serious 
concerns about the BIA's effectiveness and efficiency. I, too, 
have been a strong and outspoken advocate to make the Bureau a 
more efficient, effective, responsive, and responsible agency 
and I pushed hard to improve its management and operations. 
While structural reorganization continues to be discussed and 
debated, we've responded to fair criticism by improving our 
management and performance. We've also worked hard to carry out 
Congress' intent to shift greater authority and responsibility 
for program and service delivery to tribal governments through 
the tribal shares process. Tribal self-determination and self-
governance policies have provided important tools to affect the 
kind of positive change we all seek. As a result, tribal 
governments are stronger and more empowered than ever before in 
this century. And we've achieved our lowest staffing level in 
more than 15 years.
    In spite of diminished resources, we have achieved a 66 
percent improvement in resolving material weaknesses in our 
management. We have satisfactorily resolved 11 material 
weaknesses, bringing the number from 16 to 5 in the last four 
years. We have closed all of the 123 overdue external audits 
which existed when I was sworn in and none are overdue at this 
time.
    We have dramatically improved the rate at which corrective 
actions are taken to problems identified in internal audits. 
Eleven internal audits have been closed just since September.
    While we have worked hard to improve our management and 
become more efficient we've realized some negative impacts from 
downsizing. The backlogs in land titles and records have 
increased. Recently, the Inspector General identified problems 
in our computer operations attributable to the lack of staff. 
There was a long servicing failure in the Phoenix area because 
of insufficient staff to handle it. The few modest increases 
requested in this budget will allow us to alleviate some of the 
most severe backlogs in our trust operations, including land 
titles and records and administrative records management and to 
replace them with a facilities management information system.
    We have made a real difference in the way our Nation 
conducts its affairs with the first Americans. Gone are the 
days when ninety cents of every dollar was absorbed by 
administration. Today, ninety cents of every dollar directly 
serves tribal communities and tribal members. Gone is the 
attitude that the Bureau knows what is best for Indian people.
    Today, the Bureau works to strengthen and empower tribal 
governments. It is a new era. Yet, we must recognize and be 
cognizant of and act consistently with the solemn duties and 
obligations to which our Nation pledged itself some 200 years 
ago.
    There are no frills in the budget we have presented today. 
Hard choices were made and priorities were set. We urge 
favorably the consideration of the President's request. Thank 
you.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 294 - 299 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                              Block Grants

    Mr. Regula. Thank you. You mentioned that the tribal 
government is stronger. Would you favor greater block grants 
and give each of the tribes more discretion and responsibility 
for expending their funds?
    Ms. Deer. We are proceeding under the self-governance 
authority which is already in existence. There are, I believe, 
sixty compacts. And this is the thrust of the policy--to 
empower the tribes, to increase their self-determination and 
their self-governance.
    Mr. Regula. It's an ongoing program? Are the tribes getting 
greater autonomy each year and with less management directives 
from BIA?
    Ms. Deer. Under the self-governance compacts the tribes 
have received a block of money and this is a compact that is 
negotiated between the Bureau and the tribe and the duties are 
outlined there, but they are basically responsible for the 
operations of the self-governance compact.
    Mr. Regula. But is this an expanding program?
    Ms. Deer. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Regula. Is it working well?

                        Self-Governance Compacts

    Ms. Deer. The tribes seem to like it. And we do have the 
director of our self-governance program here who can give you 
some more direct information on that if you would like.
    Mr. Regula. Well, I guess my real question is, are the 
members of the tribes better off under these programs?
    Ms. Deer. I believe they are.
    Mr. Regula. Who's in charge over here? State your name for 
the record, please.
    Mr. Anderson. My name is Michael Anderson. I'm Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs and I'm on our 
negotiated rulemaking team to implement self-governance. And as 
the Assistant Secretary mentioned, there are 60 compacts 
covering 205 tribes currently. The idea is to give them more 
autonomy and flexibility in allocating their priorities, so 
they have more flexibility than, say, in the 638 process. They 
can redesign, reprogram without having to go through the 
Bureau. That's successful, but not every tribe has wanted to 
participate in the compact process. Some tribes want to 
maintain the choice of direct services from the Bureau where 
there's not sufficient infrastructure in the tribes, or 
sufficient staffing to take those on. And the administration is 
committed to that choice.
    So, while programs have worked well for the tribes that 
have wanted to be under a compact, some tribes don't want to 
pursue self-governance and wish to maintain their direct 
services.
    Mr. Regula. Is the program expanding? Are there more tribes 
each year?
    Mr. Anderson. It's peaking. Initially, we had 30-20 tribes 
joining per year. This year we got six applicants for the self-
governance program. We're allowed by law to have at least 20 
per year. So, the interest, because, I think, of the budget 
realities today, has diminished. Primarily because some tribes 
don't wish to assume full service deliveries when they don't 
have the full funding to support them as well.
    Mr. Regula. Do you do follow-up to some extent to make sure 
that the members of the tribes are getting the kinds of 
services that they should have--that the money isn't wasted or 
diverted?
    Mr. Anderson. This is a strong concern of the Department, 
that these are federal funds and should not be wasted. We do 
have standards written in by Congress. We have an annual trust 
evaluation and annual auditing report on those requirements and 
also a report to Congress to give the tribe an opportunity to 
present its view of success. And it's really in their interest 
to present the success stories of their programs. So, yes, 
there are----
    Mr. Regula. I assume it's the larger tribes that tend to do 
more self-governance.
    Mr. Anderson. It's really both, one of the leading tribes 
in this area, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, is a tribe with 
300 members and 2 acres, but the largest tribe, the Navaho 
Nation, is not in the self-governance program. So it depends on 
whether the tribe's assessment of programs and funding make 
sense for their individual circumstances. So wecan't really 
generalize.
    Mr. Regula. So it would depend a great deal on the 
leadership. Now, when you do this, like with the compact, do 
the tribes then take responsibility for the schools or does 
that still remain in the BIA?
    Mr. Anderson. The school system is excluded by statute from 
the self-governance program.
    Mr. Regula. Okay. How about health?
    Ms. Deer. Health is under the Indian Health Service. But 
there are programs like General Assistance----
    Mr. Regula. Well, what do they use it for then? Let's say 
they go for a compact. What would they be doing that normally 
BIA would be doing?
    Mr. Anderson. Some of their top priorities are law 
enforcement, tribal governmental services, forestry, timber, 
trust programs. And, it may be that in the past they felt that 
timber was a priority, but maybe because of reduced sales, law 
enforcement has become a priority. So they've moved their funds 
in that direction. But I would say that trust management is 
probably the top area. Fish hatcheries, and management of 
resources throughout the Northwest is a big priority for them 
there.
    Mr. Regula. So the economic aspect of the tribal 
governances, is that the area where you, apparently, under 
compacts give the tribes greater responsibility?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes. And the key area is service delivery. 
Some make it because they're tribal employees hired to deliver 
the services rather than the Bureau. It's more effective on the 
ground. So it's also used as a big tribal employment program as 
well.

                           BIA Reorganization

    Mr. Regula. Okay. Well, thank you, very much. At the 
hearing, the Secretary of the Interior indicated that BIA would 
be submitting its reorganization plan soon. When can we expect 
to get that?
    Ms. Manuel. We're planning to submit a report on what plans 
the Bureau is going to undertake to affect our reorganization. 
As you know, we did conduct a reduction-in-force last February 
and as a result of that the Bureau lost over 1,700 positions. 
We've not been able, because of the language that was in the 
appropriations bill last year, to reorganize in place. Just to 
accommodate the changes that were made as a result of the RIF.
    This last go-around--we've been asked to provide a report 
to the Congress on how we plan to reorganize. We've been 
looking, primarily, at the mechanism of using the tribal shares 
process which is tied very heavily to the contracting and the 
compacting that the Deputy Assistant Secretary spoke of. As 
tribes begin to take on more and more responsibilities, the 
need for Bureau staff decreases and we find ourselves having to 
make changes in the way that we do business.
    However, the tribal shares process has been, I believe, 
somewhat delayed at this point primarily at the request of the 
tribes and the work group who I've asked to work with the 
Bureau to help develop and finalize the determination of what 
functions are contractible and what functions are inherently 
federal or inherently governmental, and only federal officials 
can perform.
    That process has become very complex in the sense that the 
tribes believe that the definition of inherently federal and 
inherently governmental is one that needs to be put out for 
public comments and information. In other words, we need to get 
this information out to the public to allow the public to 
comment on their determinations and their findings of what 
functions are inherently federal. We hope to do that by Federal 
Register notice on May 1 of this year.
    Mr. Regula. Would these be functions that even if you were 
to have a compact would still remain federal?
    Ms. Manuel. That's right. That could not, otherwise----
    Mr. Regula. And you had to clearly define those so you do 
them--each compact making is somewhat different then, depending 
on which functions you turn over to the tribe. Is that correct?
    Ms. Manuel. That's correct. And in fact, there's been at 
least two tribes that have proposed to assume responsibilities 
and activities that, I believe, we take the position they are 
in fact federal. I think it will be useful to have a listing 
of, say----
    Mr. Regula. So they could anticipate that in making a 
compact request.
    Ms. Deer. It helps. It puts them in a better negotiating--
and certainly the Bureau puts them in a better negotiating 
position.
    Mr. Regula. Are the tribes doing any privatizing where they 
contract for functions or services?
    Ms. Manuel. There might be some of that. I mean, I think 
when they take all their shares of a specific program or 
activity, they may actually, if they don't provide it in-house, 
they may actually go out and find it. The example that comes to 
mind is appraisal services for real estate land transactions. 
They may actually go out and purchase that service.

                          Staffing Reductions

    Mr. Regula. Now, you said that the Bureau's staffing was 
reduced 1,700. Is that correct?
    Ms. Manuel. That's the number of positions, I believe, that 
we lost in the actual reduction in force.
    Mr. Regula. That was part of the Fiscal Year 1997 
appropriation?
    Ms. Manuel. 1996. That was the result of the 1996 budget 
reductions.
    Mr. Regula. And those are reflected in a savings that was 
used for greater support for the tribes?
    Ms. Manuel. We identified, I believe, as a result of lower 
GSA rent and the overhead costs $3.4 million that will be 
transferred in 1998 as savings to the tribal priority 
allocations account, yes.
    Mr. Regula. And this is a result of reducing the numbers in 
the BIA?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. And the space, as well as people? Incidentally, 
the supplemental will address some of your concerns about 
flooding and other types of damage. We have, what, $16 million 
in the supplemental that we'll be bringing up at 1:30 this 
afternoon.
    Ms. Deer. Well, we appreciate your help in this.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we recognize you do have these problems. 
Some of this came in late, but we tried to address the 
problems.

                           Shared Facilities

    Do you make any effort to share facilities with other 
agencies of the Federal Government just to reduce costs for 
housing offices and the cost of utilities and so on?
    Mr. McDivitt. Yes, we do and we're doing more and more of 
it all the time. In a number of places we're co-located in 
Federal Centers. And more recently, with the pressure on 
funding all the way around, we've begun to share personnel 
services in certain locations. We are at this point in 
timetrying to implement a complete telecommunications network and so a 
number of opportunities for this have arisen. We are trying to share 
the rather expensive primary trunk lines for telecommunications, trying 
to tie into networks that exist for other bureaus.

                      tribal priority allocations

    Mr. Regula. I noticed that the TPA portion of the budget 
is, what, $76 million above the 1997 level? Assuming that we 
have no more funds available in 1998 that we had in 1997, if we 
are to do this, we're going to have to squeeze $76 million 
somewhere else. Where would you suggest we get that?
    Ms. Deer. That's a difficult question.
    Mr. Regula. I understand that.
    Ms. Deer. We're expressing our need and I think that that 
will be in your arena to make that decision.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we'll have to make some priority choices 
if we're frozen in our allocation for 1998 at 1997 levels. It 
would be helpful, of course, if you could give us your idea of 
priorities on the assumption that there is a freeze. Would you 
want to submit those for the record?
    Ms. Deer. We would work closely with the committee to 
consult on this.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we'll keep in touch. And I think we want 
to allocate the funds that are available in the most effective 
way possible. So your guidance could be helpful in that respect 
and so I hope you would keep in touch. Do you allow the tribes 
to co-mingle their funds with federal funds.
    Ms. Deer. I don't know the answer to the question. Someone 
else may know.
    Ms. Richardson. I'm Linda Richardson, Director of the 
Office of Audit and Evaluation. Mr. Chairman, the federal 
revenues are separately accounted for by tribes. Tribes may 
supplement, of course, federal funds with local revenues to 
improve program operations. But only the indirect costs from 
the federal side can go into the general funds of the tribe.
    Mr. Regula. So, generally, your answer would be that they 
do not co-mingle tribal and federal funds.
    Ms. Richardson. They generally account for them separately, 
yes.
    Mr. Regula. Okay. Thank you. Do you think it would be 
feasible to include the education programs within the tribal 
priority allocations?
    Ms. Deer. This comes up from time to time, but there are 
always efforts to maintain a separate function and identity of 
the schools. The Indian educators have maintained strong 
leadership and advocacy to separate education from the other 
programs because they want to maintain the integrity of the 
educational system and there are questions, then, that would 
arise if all the funds were in one account.
    Mr. Regula. Have you been successful in attracting good 
people for the education system, given the fact that the 
teacher is the heart and soul of a good school system. What's 
your observation on that?

                       indian education programs

    Ms. Deer. Yes, we have some excellent, excellent people. 
And Joann Sebastian Morris was the Director of Education--and 
she can provide you with additional information.
    Mr. Regula. Now, you're the Director of the Indian 
Education Program?
    Ms. Morris. Yes, I am. I just wanted to add, too, to the 
first question that you asked related to education, that there 
are three programs, three education-related programs that are 
in TPA: the Johnson-O'Malley program and higher education 
scholarships, and Adult Ed. Those are the three that are 
already distributed to all tribes. The other programs--we have 
187 schools in 23 states on 63 reservations----
    Mr. Regula. Now, these are purely Indian schools? They are 
on reservations?
    Ms. Morris. On reservations.
    Mr. Regula. These are not anywhere, we are paying money to 
a public school based on the number of students that they have 
coming from reservations?
    Ms. Morris. There's one instance where that happens and 
that was a court case, and that was in Utah, which is we pay 
tuition for the students from Richfield Dorm to attend the 
public school nearby, and that was based on, again, a legal 
case.
    And you had a question in terms of teachers? I'm sorry----
    Mr. Regula. Yes, the quality. Are you attracting well-
skilled teachers into the system, given the fact that the 
teachers are the key to a good education system?
    Ms. Morris. I think we are. And that has certainly changed 
over the years. And Congress saw that there were problems with 
the quality of teachers that we had out in several schools in 
the rural, isolated areas, and it was instituted that the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs had to utilize the Department of 
Defense salary schedule in order to allow the schools to offer 
teachers a very good salary for living out in the rural areas. 
And that has been very instrumental in attracting a high-
quality staff.
    When schools contract or grant their school and run the 
school themselves, they do now have the option of changing that 
salary scale and reducing it to what some of the other public 
schools are paying, but for the most part they're still keeping 
that salary at a high level in order to attract quality 
teachers.
    Mr. Regula. Do the teachers meet state standards or does 
the BIA have its own set of standards in terms of 
qualifications, i.e., as to their educational background? You 
know, most states will have requirements that they establish 
for eligibility to teach in the public schools.
    Ms. Morris. Yes, all the teachers are certified. That is, 
indeed, a requirement.
    Mr. Regula. Certified by the state?
    Ms. Morris. Certified by the state in which they're 
teaching. And, as well, again, a difference from the past is 
that we have one school that is in the process of being re-
accredited, but otherwise 99 percent of our schools are all 
accredited either by a regional association or by the state 
accreditation. And so the standards that we are imposing are 
much higher and they are meeting those standards.
    Mr. Regula. Do you measure the results of the national test 
scores against the public schools in the area?
    Ms. Morris. That hasn't been done in recent years. I know 
that there was a special report that did a comparison of public 
schools with the Bureau schools in the past and we did fare 
very well, and we are looking into what that possibility is 
because that is an ongoing concern--how our students are doing.
    I guess my experience in the last year-plus is that the 
schools are working for diligently on academics. We have school 
reform plans in place at every single school. Within those 
plans are, again, academic standards that have to bemet. And 
they have all really shown themselves to be very forward-thinking in 
the kind of academic programs that are being instituted.
    Mr. Regula. And are you having success in getting students 
to go on to higher education?
    Ms. Morris. The percentage continues to increase. That is 
an area, though, where we are still needing to have more 
graduates, more high school graduates and more college 
graduates.

                           bia reorganization

    Mr. Regula. Mr. Kolbe?
    Mr. Kolbe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I especially want to welcome Ms. Manuel who is a member of 
the Tohono O'odham, a tribe in my area. We're delighted to have 
you here with us before this subcommittee.
    I really just have one question. I know the chairman asked 
you a question along these lines, but I'm not sure--I was 
talking to my staff about this--exactly what you said, so maybe 
you could clarify it for me and maybe I can get it clear in my 
own mind, and that has to do with the BIA reorganization. 
Because, as you know, we submitted the language--placed the 
language in the bill and were pretty specific about this, about 
reorganizing along the lines provided by a commission. And we 
also asked you to provide the subcommittee with the plans for 
the reorganization. That report, of course, we haven't seen. 
I'm not sure what the status of that is. Would you tell us 
where we are with that reorganization?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, the report was due, as you know, in 
December.
    Mr. Kolbe. That's what I thought.
    Ms. Manuel. We asked for an extension to April 1 and the 
reason is that we wanted to have a much longer period to 
develop the plan for reorganization because, as I indicated 
earlier, the Bureau has been working on the tribal shares 
process as part of the 638 amendments that were passed in 1994, 
which allows the tribes greater participation and involvement 
in actually sitting down with the Bureau in helping not only 
identify all those functions and activities that might be 
contractible or compactable under the Authorities of 638, but 
also helps develop the inherently federal governmental 
functions that will remain with the Bureau. And we've been 
engaged in that process for over two years now.
    Mr. Kolbe. This is a process that's with the tribes 
themselves?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, what we've done over the past two years, 
after Congress passed the amendment to 638 which contained--or 
at least the tribes took the position that the amendment 
allowed tribes to take their share of Bureau activities, 
functions, and funds without regard to the organization level. 
In other words, they could come to the central office and ask 
for their tribal shares of whatever program they wanted or area 
or agency. But there was no process actually laid out as to how 
we were going to come to that.
    Mr. Kolbe. How you were going to allocate those funds?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, how were we going to determine each 
tribe's share? So we engaged in this process of developing a 
mechanism, a process, formulas, coming to some clear 
understanding with the tribes----
    Mr. Kolbe. That's been going on for two years?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes.
    Mr. Kolbe. And that's not completed?
    Ms. Manuel. No.
    Mr. Kolbe. So I guess my question, then, requires the 
answer to the earlier one or to the one before that. Then 
what's the status of that process?

                      inherently federal functions

    Ms. Manuel. Well, we are close. What I reported a few 
minutes earlier is that we hope by May 1, and I believe that is 
the last meeting that the tribal work group--we have a tribal 
work group, a representative group from all of the twelve 
areas, who have been working with us in refining this process. 
We'll be publishing a list on May 1 of inherently federal 
functions, as a notice to the public: these are the things that 
this tribal work group and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have 
determined are those functions that could never be contracted 
or compacted by tribes.
    We would allow a comment period, I believe, of sixty days, 
during which anyone from the public, including the tribes--and 
we expect that there will be a lot of comment from the tribes 
because this is a very novel idea to go out and actually in 
some definitive form list out all the things that only federal 
officials can perform.
    Mr. Kolbe. Give me an example of one that would be non-
contractible or compactable.
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, under the self-governance compact 
activities.
    Mr. Kolbe. Give me an example of one.
    Ms. Manuel. Budget formulation.
    Mr. Kolbe. Budget formulation?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, actually putting together the numbers and 
the estimates for the agency's operation. Personnel, performing 
personnel functions for federal officials. Most trust 
activities, for example, signing off on environmental 
assessments, findings of no significant impacts. I believe a 
Federal official can sign a finding.
    Mr. Kolbe. So you believe that by May 1 you're going to 
have this agreement in hand. Is that correct?
    Ms. Manuel. The list will be published on May 1.
    Mr. Kolbe. The list? And this can be done by rule and 
regulation? It does not require congressional legislative 
action, is that right?
    Ms. Manuel. No. It's actually--we would just propose a 
listing on May 1. The comment period would end in September, at 
which point it will become final. That list then becomes the 
basis----
    Mr. Kolbe. And it's final by being printed in The Federal 
Register?
    Ms. Manuel. That's right.
    Mr. Kolbe. So it's rule and regulation.
    Ms. Manuel. That's right. That becomes useful then in the 
Bureau and the tribes being able to sit down and negotiate for 
tribal shares, 638, the 638 contracting or compacting.
    Mr. Kolbe. Is it your view that you have to have 
substantial consensus or do you have to have 100 percent 
unanimity on this?
    Ms. Manuel. My personal feeling is that we can go forward 
whether there's consensus or not. In other words, it's the 
tribes' decision and their option whether they want to take 
their shares or contract----
    Mr. Kolbe. So the tribes will have their choice?
    Ms. Manuel. They have their choice. The only time that we 
would have to come in and, I think, make some decision that 
might be contrary to a tribe's wishes is when wedetermine that 
by that tribe taking their share it would impair or hurt the other 
tribes that might be benefitting from the same program, and we had some 
examples. For example, a multi-tribe agency where, say, you have eight 
small tribes that all share the agency activities and services. You may 
have one position that's available for all tribes--the one that comes 
to mind, criminal investigator function--and one of the eight wants to 
take their share of that. Well, it reduces the amount of money that's 
available for that position. We wouldn't make a call that they could 
not take their share of the criminal investigative function because by 
doing so it will hurt the other seven tribes who are also expecting 
services from----

                             tribal shares

    Mr. Kolbe. I see. Okay. A final question then--to bring it 
back to the reorganization. Once this is completed in 
September, then you go back to the whole reorganization?
    Ms. Manuel. Well, that's right, but what I do want to say 
is that, as a result of the contracting and the compacting that 
has gone on, despite the fact that we've not actually defined a 
real clear process to determine tribal shares, we have seen a 
significant change in the way the organization looks, and I'll 
share with you two or three places where this is illustrated 
very clearly.
    The Red Lake Tippewa Tribe of Minnesota went self-
governance January 1 of this year. The Red Lake Agency which is 
located in Minnesota lost--there were 83 Bureau of Indian staff 
that worked at Red Lake Agency. As a result of self-governance, 
that office no longer is an agency but a trust office, and it's 
now left with one trust officer who represents--is the 
Secretary's representative at that level.
    We've had actually eight agencies, including Red Lake, that 
have become trust offices or will become trust offices this 
year as a result of tribes taking their shares and contracting.
    The Navajo Nation has been working for over the past year 
to restructure their area office into a super-agency. In fact, 
they passed a resolution, I believe, last summer that closed 
their five agencies throughout the Navajo Nation. We've got at 
least three of those locations where you had a full complement 
of Bureau staff two years ago, two or three people that are 
there carrying out the trust functions that are remaining with 
the Bureau.
    The Albuquerque area has been working with the tribes to 
create a tech center that they've wanted since the task force 
on reorganization proposed their plan. We've just recently 
become more involved with the Albuquerque area tribes to design 
it.
    So the report will say, and the report's been delayed at my 
request simply because I've wanted to have a complete picture 
of not only where we're at with tribal shares, but also to give 
Congress a complete picture of what's happened as a result of 
all the contracting and the compacting that has taken place.
    Mr. Kolbe. So if I understand then--final question here--
the reorganization that you're talking about is really taking 
place, but it's kind of in a piecemeal basis, so we're not 
going to see one grand scheme of reorganization?
    Ms. Manuel. Exactly, as a result of different activities 
and with the active participation of the tribes, which is very 
important.

                          tribal consultation

    Mr. Kolbe. Right, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regula. Well, don't significant changes require 
consensus of all the tribes?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, when if affects--and in fact, we've had 
several sessions or meetings with the tribes at the area level 
where the area director and the agency superintendent meet with 
the tribes to talk about tribal shares or----
    Mr. Regula. Doesn't that make it very difficult to make any 
changes when you've got to get 550 tribes to agree?
    Ms. Manuel. It's going to be very difficult when we 
actually get----
    Mr. Regula. Do we need to change the law?
    Ms. Manuel. I'm not sure. I mean I'd like to give the 
benefit of the doubt to the tribes at this point in time with 
the limited resources and at least, I believe, our good faith 
effort to really involve them more actively than I think 
previous administrations have in the actual decisionmaking of 
what the area and the agency will look like. I hope that we 
don't have to do that, and that we will have their cooperation 
and their assistance in making these hard choices.

                 government performance and results act

    Mr. Regula. I think under GPRA, the Government Performance 
and Results Act, you have to have a strategic plan by September 
30. How can you accomplish that if you're going to have to get 
550 tribes to agree to it?
    Ms. Manuel. Well, we've actually had some discussions, some 
very preliminary discussions, with tribes at a national level a 
year ago at the national budget hearing in Prescott, Arizona. 
They were introduced to the GPRA.
    The position they took and although we've had--
subsequently, there have been agency and area meetings, and 
each area and agency developing sort of an area agency-specific 
strategic plan which we then are going to incorporate into a 
master plan. The tribes I think for the most part take the 
position that the GPRA is a requirement on the federal agency 
itself. They do understand that through the budget process 
where we will be measured on performance, goals, and how we 
spend federal dollars, that that will----
    Mr. Regula. It's going to affect them.
    Ms. Manuel. It will affect them, and they understand that. 
Now it'll come up again next week at the National Budget 
Hearing.
    Mr. Regula. You're working on it.
    Ms. Manuel. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. That's not far away.
    Ms. Manuel. I understand.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Yates?
    Mr. Yates. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         self governance tribes

    You mentioned self-governance tribes. How many are there 
now?
    Ms. Manuel. There are over, I think, approximately 200 
tribes that are in the self-governance program; we have about 
60 compacts. As you know, in Alaska we have a number of 
consortiums where one compact may actually cover a number of 
tribes.
    Mr. Yates. What is the relationship between self-governance 
tribes and the BIA?
    Ms. Manuel. We actually have a fairly healthy relationship 
with the self-governance tribes.
    Mr. Yates. Because more responsibilities are going to them?
    Ms. Manuel. Well, as you know, they pretty much lock, 
stock, and barrel take everything except for inherently trust 
functions that we continue to provide, but we do have a--I 
think, especially the self-governance office out in the 
Northwest where we have a majority of the self-governance 
tribes located, there is a very good working relationship.
    Mr. Yates. Still?
    Ms. Manuel. Still. Yes.

                   impact of welfare program changes

    Mr. Yates. How will the new welfare program affect the 
tribes?
    Ms. Manuel. Our preliminary determinations are that it will 
be devastating. What we have done, or what I have asked the 
staff and the operations at the field level to do, is to begin 
or take a proactive approach and begin working closely with 
tribes and states to hopefully sort of alleviate some of the 
very dramatic effects.
    Mr. Yates. From what you say, it will be disastrous. In 
what respect? Give us a picture of what will happen, or what is 
happening.
    Ms. Manuel. Well, for example, there is no clear indication 
that the states are aware or that even the tribes are aware of 
the number of individuals who are on the welfare rolls that are 
going to be going off the welfare rolls and who's going to pick 
them up. I mean we have places, for example, in Arizona where 
you have large numbers of Indian people that live in 
metropolitan areas and get services from the state; there just 
has not been, I think, a close enough coordination between the 
state welfare systems and the tribal government to adequately 
address the needs of those clients that are no longer going to 
be served.
    Mr. Yates. Well, what does the new act do? Does it take all 
of the welfare cases off the federal budget? What is the effect 
of that act? You were talking about the relationship with the 
States. I want to know what happens in the relationship with 
the tribes and the Federal Government?
    Ms. Manuel. I understand that, Mr. Yates. All those people 
that are going to be going off the welfare rolls for the state 
are going to come to the tribes and to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs for services, and we're not going to be able to 
accommodate them, because we are not--we don't have the budget 
to accommodate what we expect are going to be large numbers of 
caseloads.
    Mr. Yates. Well, what do you expect?
    Ms. Manuel. Let me have Deborah Maddox, who's the director 
of Tribal Services and is a social worker, to give us any 
information on----
    Mr. Regula. Before she talks, will you yield?
    Does the BIA have a separate welfare program?
    Ms. Manuel. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. And I don't know where that fits in, but maybe 
you'd want to address that.
    Mr. Yates. Well, is it separate and apart from the other--
from the National Welfare program.
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, it is separate.
    Mr. Yates. Okay. And it's not affected by the national 
program?
    Ms. Maddox. No, sir. Well, it will be.
    Ms. Manuel. With the new clients.
    Ms. Maddox. With the new clients, but it operates under its 
own regulations.
    Mr. Yates. Well, and do you agree that the affect of the 
new program will be devastating?
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir; I do.
    Mr. Yates. If you have a separate program, why will that 
be?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, the--two questions; the first one you 
asked is, what do we think the effects of the welfare reform 
are? We're beginning to feel these effects dramatically; as you 
know, many states have already implemented welfare reform. For 
example, Chairman Steel was in yesterday from South Dakota, 
Pine Ridge, and they are already experiencing a large increase 
in the general assistance, which is the Bureau's operating 
program. It's people that have been receiving AFDC that are 
being released from those programs and then the Indian client 
is coming to the tribe and requesting from the BIA the general 
assistance.
    There have been two pieces that are dramatically affecting 
our clients. One is the Food Stamp program with the recipients 
being reduced, and the second is the stringent regulations that 
are being imposed on the disabilities and social security. 
Those with--particularly those that are having social 
maladjustive behavior problems are being excluded, and as many 
of us know, that predominantly affects, you know, children of 
color. So, we're going to have a lot of children that are no 
longer going to be able to receive that assistance. So, it's 
almost every program that TANF has set out is affecting our 
people dramatically.

                           general assistance

    Now, the general assistance program, it has always been 
kind of the safety net program aside from an AFDC program. In 
other words, if a person fell through the cracks, and there was 
no program available at the state level, then the Bureau has 
provided a grant assistance. Now, within that grant assistance, 
only about half of that is actually for welfare assistance as 
we know it. The other half goes to adult institutional care and 
child welfare assistance.
    Mr. Yates. What do you mean by adult institution care?
    Ms. Maddox. Unfortunately, we have some nursing home 
facilities predominantly in the Navajo area for adults who have 
not quite been able to reach some of the licensing 
requirements, and in the interim we are providing assistance to 
those homes.
    Mr. Yates. Take the committee through what's happening at 
Pine Ridge. You say that the Pine Ridge Sioux are being thrown 
into BIA for assistance now?
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir. Because----
    Mr. Yates. Why is that? Why are they coming to you? Do they 
have nobody else?
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Yates. Who did they have before the passage of the act?
    Ms. Maddox. State programs, I mean, through the AFDC and 
the jobs and social security.
    Mr. Yates. And those are no longer available?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, there are very tight restraints now put 
on those programs that our people are not eligible. For 
example, the work requirements--and as I remember, I think 
you've been to Pine Ridge, from previous hearings, and you know 
there--I mean, where do people work?
    Mr. Yates. It's not a prosperous community.
    Ms. Maddox. No, sir; that's correct.
    Mr. Yates. Okay. If I remember what we did ultimately in 
the budget provisions last year, your welfare programs were 
underfunded.
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Yates. And this makes it worse.
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir.

                  1997 welfare assistance requirement

    Mr. Yates. Well, then, are you in a position to tell the 
committee how much money will be needed to take care of this 
devastation?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, last year in 1996 we were only able to 
fund about, I think it was about, 83 percent of what we 
projected as need.
    Mr. Yates. Well, your needs will be more this year.
    Ms. Maddox. Yes, sir; we anticipate they'll be more.
    Mr. Yates. Well, can you tell the committee--we are now on 
the verge of preparing a supplemental, and the question comes 
up: is this condition that you describe for the Indian people 
so acute and disastrous that a supplemental appropriation is 
warranted?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, I----
    Mr. Yates. I know that OMB is hanging around your 
shoulders----
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Maddox. Thank you.
    Mr. Yates. The budget officers are looking at you and you 
feel the daggers pricking your back, but somebody ought to tell 
us really what's going on. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Deer. Yes, Mr. Yates. Thank you very much for that 
question, and, yes, you've been there; we've all seen the 
problems.
    Mr. Yates. No, but Pine Ridge isn't the only one.
    Ms. Deer. Yes--no, this will be across the country and, 
yes, I think there needs to be some very special consideration 
for this new initiative that the Congress has imposed.
    Let me say that it's very difficult to anticipate all kinds 
of jobs being suddenly blooming on the prairie or on the tundra 
or any of these very remote places that many of the tribes are 
located. So, we need to have some very good thinking to help 
the tribes in this new era of welfare, and I would state that 
tribes want a hand-up not a hand-out, but this is a process 
that will have to be engaged in; not something that's so 
drastic and so immediate.
    Mr. Yates. Well, is it your impression that the Indian 
community will be worse off in this respect than the non-Indian 
communities in the urban areas, for example?
    Ms. Deer. Basically, yes, because the tribes are located in 
very remote areas with fewer resources, and it will be much 
more difficult for people.
    Mr. Yates. They can't go out and find work; they have to 
leave their reservations and go to the cities then, don't they?
    Ms. Deer. That's true. This was tried in the fifties in the 
relocation program.
    Mr. Yates. I know. The Eisenhower days, as I remember, too, 
tried to urbanize the tribes.
    Well, are you in a position to tell us how much money would 
be needed to take care of this situation?
    Ms. Deer. We could probably make some projections.
    Mr. Yates. How fast can you do it? Because we're marking up 
tomorrow.
    Mr. Regula. Today.
    Mr. Yates. Today?
    Mr. Regula. 1:30. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Yates. Talk to me now. Can you prepare something and 
get it to the committee today?
    Mr. Regula. Will you yield? Did you make any request to OMB 
for this kind of funding as they prepare the supplementals?
    Mr. McDivitt. No, we did not make a request for welfare 
assistance based on the welfare reform. There is a request 
within the supplemental for welfare assistance because of 
additional emergency grants that we made during the time period 
of the declared emergency.
    Mr. Regula. But these resulted from emergency conditions 
and not the impact of the welfare reform bill.
    Mr. McDivitt. That's correct.
    Mr. Yates. Can you give us a ballpark figure?
    Ms. Manuel. Well, I think we can do two things, or at least 
I'd like to offer to----
    Mr. Yates. Well, first, it's needed, isn't it?
    Ms. Manuel. We need to do something about the welfare 
reform impact, and I just told Ms. Maddox, what we need to do 
is we need to get some ballpark figures on, as the tribes are 
letting us know that clients are coming in, on that, but I 
think the other big thing, obviously, is that, you know, we 
have--there is a large increase in this budget for the tribal 
priority allocations account where social services is located, 
and where tribes, you know, control and provide services under, 
and I think certainly she's worked for this budget.
    Mr. Yates. Will they have enough money to do it?
    Ms. Manuel. It will fund 83--about 90 percent of their 
need.
    Mr. Yates. Well, those are the self-governance tribes.
    Ms. Manuel. No, this is all of the tribes.
    Mr. Yates. All of the tribes?
    Ms. Manuel. All of the tribes. The request that we have put 
forward will----
    Mr. Yates. That is now pending before us in the 
supplemental?
    Ms. Manuel. No, in the 1998 budget.
    Mr. Regula. Fiscal Year 1998.
    Mr. Yates. Oh, in the budget itself.
    Ms. Manuel. Yes, in the budget itself.
    Mr. Yates. Well, what happens to last year's budget? What 
are you going to do to take care of them until you get this new 
budget? That's why I asked you why do you need a supplemental.
    Mr. Regula. Will you yield?
    Mr. Yates. Sure.
    Mr. Regula. Are you on HHS?
    Mr. Yates. No.
    Mr. Regula. That would be the logical place to deal with 
this.
    Mr. Yates. Why? This is their program. I thought that this 
is a BIA welfare program we're talking about.
    Mr. Regula. Well, they do have--what?--$93 million that was 
in the Fiscal Year 1997 budget already.
    Mr. Yates. But they say that's inadequate, and if I 
understand what you're saying, the impact will be devastating, 
and you don't have the resources to deal with it. Is that 
correct? How much of a shortage is there? And you haven't heard 
from all the tribes yet, have you?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, that's correct, and we expect it to be 
around 80-83 percent of it again this year that will meet the 
need, and what we've asked the tribes to do is to make some 
very difficult decisions on deciding their priorities, you 
know, predominantly children, families, and elders in order to 
stretch the resources.
    Mr. Yates. Well, the staff advises me that Indian people 
receive welfare assistance from HHS?
    Ms. Maddox. It's my understanding that that is correct, but 
under the welfare reform, the last information I had, there 
were only two tribes at this point that were proposing to 
administer the new TANF program. If you've looked at the law, 
sir, it's very complicated; it has very stringent reporting 
requirements and tribes are finding themselves, you know, not 
being in a position to be able to do that.
    The other negative aspect is that, you know, through TANF, 
there are state matching funds, and there was no provision in 
the welfare reform for any tribal matching funds. In other 
words, if a tribe chooses to administer that program, it's 
strictly on federal funds; there was no special language for 
State funds to be available to that tribe.
    Mr. Yates. If I understand, what the Chairman and staff are 
saying now is that there is no need for additional funding to 
BIA because of the funds you receive from HHS, is that correct?
    Ms. Maddox. No, sir.
    Mr. Yates. All right. In what respect has your previous 
answer indicated why that is not correct? The tribes just 
cannot get it from HHS?

                   Eligibility For Welfare Assistance

    Ms. Maddox. Well, and through those HHS funds, I mean that 
the TANF and those funds are--there'd be very tight 
restrictions that people aren't going to be eligible; that's 
what we've been saying, they're not going to be eligible for 
these funds.
    Mr. Yates. Mr. Chairman, did you hear that statement?
    Mr. Regula. No, I'm sorry.
    Mr. Yates. Would you repeat that for the chairman?
    Ms. Maddox. Well, I guess our point is that, yes, tribes 
are eligible for the HHS funds and some tribes have them, but 
with the stringent regulations set out in TANF, folks aren't 
going to be eligible. I mean, that's the whole premise behind 
the welfare reform, is they're no longer going to be eligible. 
And as I shared with Mr. Yates to this point, we only have two 
tribes that have applied to administer directly the TANF 
programs, and as I stated, it's because there's no state 
matching funds; I mean, it's all federal. It's usually like a 
75/25 or 80/20, so the tribe would have to incur those costs.
    Mr. Yates. Yes, and they can't afford that?
    Ms. Maddox. No, sir.
    Mr. Yates. Well, then that takes us back to the need for 
supplemental funds, unless I'm wrong. Am I right or wrong? Does 
anybody want to reply? [Laughter.]
    Ms. Deer. I will say you're right. And again, I would put 
into perspective the American Indians and the Alaska natives 
are always at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder----
    Mr. Yates. That's correct.
    Ms. Deer [continuing]. And so we need to keep that in mind 
as these budget decisions are made.
    Mr. Yates. What I will do, Mr. Chairman, with your 
indulgence, I propose to come to the markup and to reserve for 
the floor on this subject, because I'm sure they can't get me 
the facts by the time we mark up this afternoon. We will come 
to the floor, I take it, next week?
    Mr. Regula. I would imagine that would be the schedule, 
because everybody has to get their bill out this week.
    Mr. Yates. Yes. So, as quickly as you can get your request 
in shape, and if OMB threatens to throttle you, just tell them 
I'm compelling you to do it under duress. Okay?
    Ms. Deer. Thank you very much. We appreciate----
    Mr. Yates. This is likely to hit all the tribes, isn't it, 
except possibly those with the gaming operations
    Ms. Deer. Yes.
    Mr. Yates. And some of those are having some difficulties 
in this respect.
    Ms. Deer. I would point out that only about half the tribes 
have gaming operations and that there are only about 20 tribes 
that are doing quite well.
    Mr. Yates. Yes.
    Ms. Deer. So----
    Mr. Yates. Who can take care of themselves. All right, give 
me a statement on this.
    Mr. Regula. You might ask them to provide an offset also. 
That's the general rule.
    Mr. Yates. Well, we'll take it out of SPRO. [Laughter.]
    That's been our bank, hasn't it? You're taking it out of 
SPRO now, aren't you?
    Ms. Deer. Thank you very much, Mr. Yates.
    Mr. Yates. Okay.
    Mr. Regula. There's always Clean Coal, when all else fails. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Yates. Right. Now, we have on the doorstep the new 
trustee; they're bringing him now. Well, I wanted to get the 
opinion of BIA on this. Have you already gotten that?
    Mr. Regula. No. Do you want to ask?
    Mr. Yates. Yes.
    Mr. Regula. After this we're going to call the special 
trustee.

                            Special Trustee

    Mr. Yates. Okay. What's your thinking on the appointment of 
a Special Trustee to handle the trust accounts? Will he be 
handling all the trust accounts or will he be handling just the 
ones that BIA hasn't been able to handle over the years?
    Ms. Deer. Let me say that I just received the report and so 
I, myself, have not had the opportunity to review it in a 
timely manner.
    Mr. Yates. Well, you'll have the opportunity to hear him 
now.
    Ms. Deer. That's right.
    Mr. Yates. And so, with that I'll defer and let them reply 
for the record after we have----
    Mr. Regula. All right. If I understand Mr. Yates correctly, 
then stand by; we'll have you come back after we have the 
testimony from the Special Trustee.
    Mr. Yates. Well, no; they can put it in the record, if they 
want.
    Mr. Regula. Well, all right. Would you respond in the 
record, for the record, to whatever comments we get from the 
Special Trustee?
    Mr. Yates. I assume you want that time after you hear it to 
consider it, because it is a complicated question.
    Ms. Deer. It's very complicated, yes.
    Mr. Regula. Okay.
    Ms. Deer. Thank you.
    Mr. Regula. Thank you very much, and we'll have questions 
for the record we'll submit to you and would appreciate a 
prompt response.
    Ms. Deer. Thank you very much. We shall do our best, and 
we're very much appreciative of your concern and your interest, 
and you do have some very hard decisions to make.
    Mr. Yates. Yes. So do you.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 317 - 371 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                       Office of Insular Affairs


=======================================================================


[Pages 375 - 411 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                        Departmental Management


=======================================================================


[Pages 415 - 437 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                        Office of the Solicitor


=======================================================================


[Pages 441 - 460 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

                    Office of the Inspector General


=======================================================================


[Pages 463 - 491 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


=======================================================================


                       Department of the Interior

             Office of Special Trustee for American Indians


=======================================================================


                                           Tuesday, April 15, 1997.

           OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS

                               WITNESSES

PAUL M. HOMAN, SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR AMERICAN INDIANS
DONNA M. ERWIN, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST FUNDS MANAGEMENT
DOUGLAS A. LORDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF TRUST FUNDS MANAGEMENT
DAVID A. GILBERT, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TRUSTEE FOR 
    AMERICAN INDIANS
MARY ANN LAWLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
ADA E. DEER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY-INDIAN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL ANDERSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY-INDIAN AFFAIRS
HILDA A. MANUEL, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

[Pages 496 - 499 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


    Mr. Regula. Okay. We'll now call the Special Trustee.
    Good morning. We're pleased to welcome you, and any 
statements you'd like to submit will be made a part of the 
record, and I'd appreciate it if you'll give us a brief 
overview and any comment you choose to make.
    Mr. Homan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, 
but I would like to request that my full statement be a part of 
the record.
    Mr. Regula. It will be, yes.
    Mr. Homan. I have with me today Donna Erwin, who is the 
Director of our Office of Trust Funds Management in 
Albuquerque, and her deputy, Doug Lords. David Gilbert is our 
Budget Officer. They'll be responsive to any questions you may 
have that I don't cover.

                           Opening Statement

    Mr. Chairman, the Office of the Special Trustee has both 
operating and oversight functions; OST has direct operating 
responsibility for approximately $3 billion of funds held in 
trust for Indian tribes and individuals, chiefly investment and 
disbursement functions. Additionally, OST has general oversight 
responsibilities of Indian trust asset reform efforts 
departmentwide, including BIA, BLM, MMS, and the Indian trust 
funds under the Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994.
    The budget we are here today to discuss provides $1.7 
million for executive direction and some $19 million to be 
utilized to conduct the day-to-day operations of financial 
trust activities--almost all of which are in Albuquerque.
    In essence, this is a level budget for operations 
activities in Fiscal Year 1998. These operating funds provide 
for the continuance of ongoing activities such as the issuance 
of quarterly statements to account holders, specialized 
fiduciary staff training, technical assistance, advice to field 
offices and tribes, accurate and timely reconciliation of 
financial trust activities, internal and field audits, 
including the continuation of the tribal trust and investment 
system, annual third party financial audits of the trust funds, 
improved customer service to Indian country through a branch of 
customer service, and funds to support ongoing settlement and 
litigation requirements.
    In addition, the budget includes a total of $18.7 million 
to continue and initiate a number of fiduciary improvements. 
These funds also provide for the clean-up of IIM databases and 
isolation of accounts that lend themselves to dormant status to 
ensure the protection of those funds.
    With the funds requested in the Fiscal Year 1998 budget, 
$16.7 million will be available for continued implementation of 
Indian trust management systems improvements. Based on a 
preliminary cost estimate, approximately $5 million to $6 
million will be necessary to cover recurring costs related to 
IIM improvements planned for 1997, leaving about $10 million to 
$11 million for improvement to additional systems: trust asset 
and accounting management, and land title and records 
management.
    The funding requested will be prioritized to correct the 
most critical system deficiencies, and the majority of this 
funding will be utilized to address the inadequacies and 
inefficiencies that are pervasive in the current IIM system, 
and notably, this involves also the most people, some over 
300,000 IIM individual Indian account holders.
    $1.8 million dollars is requested for records management 
improvement, storage, and archiving. Improvements to the OST 
and BIA records management functions are critically needed, and 
will include starting initiatives for records management, 
staffing and training, and moving significant volumes of active 
and inactive records, currently dispersed throughout the BIA, 
to adequate storage facilities.
    Finally, a word on my strategic plan. During the past year, 
and really since September 1995, my office has been extensively 
involved in the development of the strategic plan. It went 
through consultation hearings this spring. We have completed 
the plan, and it was submitted to the Secretary and also to the 
Congress last Friday. So, the full plan, I believe, was 
delivered to the staff of this committee as well, and it is my 
hope that it will be taken up by the Congress later this 
summer. It has a full budget attached to it to describe the 
various initiatives, and it will be the subject, I'm sure, of 
hearings in subsequent months.
    Mr. Yates. Do we have copies?
    Mr. Homan. And as I said, we just completed it last week, 
and in fact, some parts, the outside contractor's report, is 
still being reproduced and will be sent out when we have it 
available.
    So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I will close and be responsive 
to any questions you may have.
    [The information follows:]

[Pages 502 - 503 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]


                             strategic plan

    Mr. Regula. Yes, Mr. Homan, you're familiar with the 
reaction of the Secretary of Interior to your proposal?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Regula. As outlined in the press release, which I think 
says that he wanted to take a better look at it. And, of 
course, this committee would, likewise, hope to do this.
    I assume that the plan you're proposing would, in your 
judgment, provide better control over collecting and disbursing 
these funds and a better accounting system. Is that correct?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, I don't think there is any dispute that the 
problems are huge in nature; the plan isolates those problems. 
They go to a basic lack of recordkeeping. And to give only a 
few examples, during our reconciliation process there was a 
publicized report showing that we could not locate $2.4 
billion, 32,000 transactions, in the last 20-year period for 
tribal accounts. That did not include IIM accounts which the 
outside contractor indicated were almost unreconcilable.
    But let me just give you some statistics as they currently 
exist, and these are not past problems, Mr. Chairman; these are 
current deteriorating conditions, growing problems. We have 
some 73,000 accounts spread between individuals and minors, 
former minors, with about $49 million, whereabouts unknown; we 
can't find these people. Wehave some----
    Mr. Regula. You can't find the people. You have the money, 
but you can't find the people?
    Mr. Homan. We have $50 million that are there for their 
benefit, but they are obviously being deprived of the money; we 
can't locate them. Whereabouts unknown is self-explanatory; we 
don't have an address.

                              escheat law

    Mr. Regula. Are there escheat laws that cover this? Many 
States have escheat laws--
    Mr. Homan. No.
    Mr. Regula. In your case there is none?
    Mr. Homan. There is no escheat----
    Mr. Regula. So is the money just lying in the U.S. 
Treasury?
    Mr. Homan. It's lying in the accounts; that's correct. We 
still keep track of them; they still bear interest, for the 
benefit of the account holder, and we have an earnest effort to 
try to find these people.
    Mr. Regula. Well, maybe we need an escheat law.
    Mr. Homan. That is correct. We could certainly use one. We 
also need to make an earnest effort to find the actual owners 
of these accounts; these are American Indians----
    Mr. Regula. You are making an effort.
    Mr. Homan. We are trying to, but it will--the systems are 
in such bad shape that we tend to get more problems than we are 
able to correct.
    Mr. Regula. Are these past accounts? It seems to me you 
have two roles: to try to correct the mistakes of the past and 
then to prospectively make the system work more efficiently.
    Mr. Homan. That is correct.

                        collections and payments

    Mr. Regula. Query: are you in control of present and 
prospective collections and payments?
    Mr. Homan. No, we are not. I have direct control through 
the Office of Trust Funds Management in Albuquerque, which is 
the depository, the investment vehicle and the disbursement 
vehicle of these funds, but--so I am able to say to you with 
some degree of confidence, thanks to this staff and the systems 
they have put in, that when the nickels and dollars arrived in 
these accounts in Albuquerque, we can account for them. But I 
don't know, and no one knows, whether they should be dimes, 
dollars, or hundreds of dollars, because we don't have a 
consolidated accounts receivable system; we don't have a lease 
system that has a master lease system attached to it. So, we 
can't prove whether we're actually leasing the property 
correctly, collecting the appropriate dollar----
    Mr. Regula. You're not sure you're getting the correct 
amount of royalties, for example?
    Mr. Homan. That is correct. The other problem is the 
disbursement, which is ownership; the Federal Government here 
keeps track of the ownership of these tracts, and we have some 
54 million acres spread among the reservations; 11 million, 
approximately, that belong to these individual owners.
    Our probate system is 7,000 cases behind, which means that 
when we disburse those dollars out of Albuquerque, we don't 
always know whether the correct owner is getting the 
appropriate dollar.
    Mr. Yates. How can you disburse it, then, if you don't know 
it?

                                backlogs

    Mr. Homan. And this is getting worse. In 1994, the probate 
backlog was estimated to be one whole year behind in man-years 
for the realty people that deal in this area, and since then 
they've taken the staff from 126 down to 90, and it's getting 
worse. That does not include some 212,000 documents that our 
Land Record and Ownership offices have outstanding; it does not 
include some 4,300 defective titles that we have yet to 
research and some 4,942 defective titles in one area of 
Oklahoma alone.
    So, these problems, Mr. Chairman, are manifest; they're 
growing; the gap and our ability to keep track of them is 
almost overwhelming. What my strategic plan proposes is a very 
simple fix of those problems. So, 11 out of the 12 points of my 
plan are geared to just bring the trust asset and accounting 
management systems up to a commercial standard, whatever a 
trust customer of any commercial bank or trust company in the 
United States gets automatically in terms of properly 
reconciled accounts, accurate accounting, and the like. The 
systems cost of that alone because of the deferred maintenance 
is estimated at $61 million. The cleanup cost of this activity 
is estimated at about $49 million. So before you even begin to 
count in the implementation and management costs, which add 
another $57 million to the program, you're already talking very 
large dollars, $100 million which we've estimated over a couple 
of years period to implement this plan.
    So, it's a big number. It's been caused, in my view, by 30 
to 40 years of underfunded and understaffed situations. The 
Bureau's trust management systems are obsolete. They are still 
dependent principally on manual operations which left banking--
and I've been a banker by background--20 or 30 years ago, so 
they need to be brought up to a modern standard if we're going 
to be able to accurately account for these individual backlogs.

                                leasing

    Mr. Regula. Walk me through this. Here's either a tribe or 
an individual Indian and it owns a piece of land. They lease 
this land to an oil and gas producer, or coal or uranium 
producer, whatever; they negotiate the lease with assistance 
from BIA.
    Mr. Homan. Yes.
    Mostly the BIA negotiates.
    Mr. Regula. All right, but there is a lease signed and a 
copy of that lease goes to you?
    Mr. Homan. Right.
    Mr. Regula. And then you in turn collect the royalties.
    Mr. Homan. What we're proposing is that--right now the copy 
of the lease goes nowhere.
    Mr. Regula. Well how can you administer it without knowing 
what the terms of the lease are?
    Mr. Homan. We cannot. We don't have a centralized accounts 
receivable system, and that's one of the basic faults.
    Mr. Yates. Well, did the BIA try to administer it without 
having copies of the lease?
    Mr. Homan. They have local working files. Each of the 12 
area offices has their own systems. One of the contractors 
described this as having 12 islands of information without a 
ferry in between. So it is not something that lends itself to 
an audit, so we simply do not know.
    Now some of the areas run very well, and I'm the first to 
say that. But we simply can't, as an overseer, try to know what 
they are doing, and it creates these types of problems that I 
just indicated, and which are not only documented in my 
strategic plan, but by the outside contractor and every audit 
report that has been issued in the last 20 years.
    Mr. Regula. Well, it seems to me it's fundamental that you 
would need a copy of the lease in order to know what the terms 
are, in order to collect the money and remit to the proper 
lessor.
    Mr. Homan. We need a national archiving system and the 
ability to image those leases. There is the technology today as 
you know, Mr. Chairman. Every bank photographs every loan, 
lease, check, disbursement, but we don't.

                            lease oversight

    Mr. Regula. Who, if anyone, or what agency, if any, checks 
to make sure that the lessee is actually remitting an adequate 
amount to cover the royalties, to assure that there's no 
cheating on the lease.
    Mr. Homan. The answer is nobody. An attempt was made to 
check the proceeds of the IIM accounts by Arthur Andersen in 
1994. They estimated it would take $281 million of accounting 
fees to do a similar type 20-year audit. And then we know as a 
Government that we do not have good records prior to 1987 in 
this respect, so it's not possible to audit the past.
    The whole thrust of my plan is to get it to a state--and 
it's required by the Reform Act of 1994--to get it to a state 
that we can accurately account for these monies. And that 
requires, to begin with, an asset management system followedby 
an accounts receivable system--billing system, if you will--and then a 
trust accounting system; and also, the last part of that is an 
extensive land record system, what we call the land title and records 
offices.

                         unaccounted for funds

    Mr. Regula. You mention that there is $2.4 billion 
unaccounted for.
    Mr. Homan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Regula. How do you know it's $2.4 billion? If it can't 
be accounted for, how do you know?
    Mr. Homan. We don't.
    Mr. Regula. Is this just a ballpark guess?
    Mr. Homan. We did a 20-year audit of the general ledger. 
That involved looking at about $20 billion worth of 
transactions. We couldn't find any supporting documentation for 
$2.4 billion and 32,000 transactions.
    Mr. Regula. Well, how do you know it exists at all?
    Mr. Homan. We don't. We know it doesn't exist.
    Mr. Regula. Where did those numbers come from?
    Mr. Homan. It comes from--we know that the money, in these 
cases, went into the account because we have a general ledger 
account, a master account, but we don't have the supporting 
documents.
    Let me give you just an example. There were $575 million 
worth of disbursements, checks, where we know they came out of 
the accounts, but we don't have a canceled check, if you will, 
to prove that the right recipient got the money.
    Mr. Regula. But it's gone.
    Mr. Homan. It's gone.
    Mr. Regula. So there isn't a $2.4 million--or billion--fund 
lying around waiting to find the proper recipient?
    Mr. Homan. No, it is gone. Whether it was properly 
disbursed is the question.
    Mr. Regula. Okay, so the real question is, Was the $2.4 
billion collected properly, and was it disbursed properly? And 
it seems to me you've got a big job there.
    Mr. Homan. Well, we're going to have some claims, 
obviously, and there is a settlement proposal by the Secretary 
that's going to be submitted to the Congress in another month.

                      strategic plan alternatives

    Mr. Yates. Well, it seems to me that what the Secretary is 
proposing is not adequate. What he proposes is to continue the 
same system. What is the Secretary's plan as an alternative to 
placing you in as the Special Trustee?
    Mr. Homan. I am not privy to any alternative plan. As your 
news release indicates, I think the Secretary argues that it 
should not be placed in the new agency.
    Mr. Yates. All right. It seems to me the alternative, then, 
is what's off in the wings, and that you have a court suit by a 
number of the Indian tribes seeking relief from a Federal 
court. And it seems to me that a court presented with this kind 
of a case is going to appoint a receiver or a trustee of some 
kind.
    Mr. Regula. Well, we have a trustee.
    Mr. Yates. Yes, we have a trustee, but there is a serious 
question in my own mind, Mr. Chairman, as to whether you're 
better off in the courts--and with due deference to our friend 
here--whether you're better off with the court administering 
this rather than the Special Trustee, and that's a 
consideration we have to give.
    You know, frankly, I'm disappointed because we've been 
struggling with this for at least 10 years, trying to find 
somebody who can handle this system. It was obvious that BIA 
didn't do it, so we looked for bankers, and apparently the 
banks weren't able to do it. We looked for auditors, and the 
auditors weren't able to do it.
    One thing that's certain is that the Secretary of the 
Interior didn't do it, whoever he was, Republican or Democrat 
going all the way back. So somebody's got to do it, and 
Congress, I think, has at last faced up to it and presented us 
with this choice. And I think, for myself, you'll have no 
choice. It seems to me that those tribes that filed suit have 
got a tremendous lawsuit here based on what's happened.
    Let me ask you one question. Is your special trusteeship 
limited to these trust accounts, or will you have jurisdiction 
over all trust matters?
    Mr. Homan. It has some very strict limitations, and that is 
the principal reason why I've suggested in my strategic plan 
that the Office of the Special Trustee sunset in favor of this 
new organization.

                     trust function reorganization

    Mr. Yates. What new organization?
    Mr. Homan. We're suggesting that there be a separate 
Government-sponsored enterprise moved out of the Department of 
the Interior to handle the three aspects of trust management 
activities that the strategic plan addresses. That's the 
resource management; it's the leasing of the land; it's the 
collection and depository function, and disbursement function; 
and it's, finally, the land title and records.
    Mr. Yates. Well, that will relate only to the trust 
accounts, will it not? And not to the trust relationship?
    Mr. Homan. That's right. It's just for the trust accounts 
in those three respects.
    Mr. Yates. It seems to me that's large enough to do that.
    Mr. Homan. The present weakness of the system is that the 
Special Trustee has oversight, only, over the resource 
management, which is the leasing of the land and the land title 
and records. So, I have personal responsibility only directly 
for the middle part, the deposit, investment, and disbursement 
function. And we've fixed that, essentially, and it will be 
fixed at the end of the year after we get through with our 
clean-up efforts.
    But I have no control over what the Bureau does in the 
resource area or in land title and records, and I'm suggesting 
that it be put into a separate entity. And as you suggested, 
Mr. Yates, it may well be forced by the courts under a receiver 
or a special master or some other administrator.
    Mr. Yates. Well, with my respect to Assistant Secretary 
Deer to give me her opinion, I don't know that she can give me 
an opinion in view of the action of the Secretary, who I think 
is your boss, isn't he?
    Ms. Deer. That's right.

                              imm lawsuit

    Mr. Yates. I just don't know how the Secretary proposes to 
deal with this. At any rate, what's the status of the lawsuit 
filed by the tribes?
    Mr. Homan. First of all, it's a class-action lawsuit 
representing 300,000 individuals who are the IIM account-
holders. The tribes are not a party to that suit. These are 
just the individual account-holders. It was filed last year, 
and it still remains in limbo. The class has been certified. 
I'm not an attorney, but nothing much hashappened. The Justice 
Department's lawyers and the plaintiffs' lawyers continue to meet, and 
there has been no movement on the part of the courts one way or the 
other to date.
    Mr. Yates. I'm sure there's a lawyer for BIA in the 
Solicitor's office. Can you tell me whether we can have him 
testify and file a statement as to what the status of that 
lawsuit is?
    Mr. Homan. I'm sure they would be glad to submit for the 
record the status of that particular lawsuit.
    Mr. Regula. This would be a lawyer who's in BIA?
    Mr. Yates. Yes, but the Assistant Secretary for the BIA is 
right here.
    Mr. Regula. I know.
    Mr. Yates. And I hope that they would do that.
    I have no further questions.
    [The information follows:]


[Page 510 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]



                      STRATEGIC PLAN REQUIREMENTS

    Mr. Regula. Prospectively--we know there are a lot of 
problems as reflected in the lawsuit, plus this uncertainty as 
to what happened--but prospectively, do you think that the 
system you've established is working to the extent that people 
are paying what they should and receiving what they should?
    Mr. Homan. No, definitely not. It's getting worse in every 
respect. The problem is that it continues to be an understaffed 
and underfunded system.
    Mr. Regula. So you're saying you don't have the manpower to 
do the job that should be done?
    Mr. Homan. No, I'm saying you need at least $61 million----
    Mr. Yates. New equipment.
    Mr. Homan [continuing]. In new equipment and systems. Now 
that is a software program, but it also hooks up 1,985 end-
users, in the computer parlance, 450 for the tribes themselves. 
The tribes have very antiquated computer and information 
systems, as does the Bureau, and in order to get this into a 
common DOI-type net, one common network that every bank in the 
country uses today, we're going for just commercially 
acceptable and proven hardware and software. It will cost 
approximately $61 million.
    But as I said, we need to also outsource-contract about $50 
million to clean up the various backlogs. They go to probates; 
they go to appraisals; they go to title defects; they go to 
file clean-up, and then a considerable amount to image the 
records.
    Mr. Yates. Is the U.S. Treasury involved in this at all?
    Mr. Homan. The U.S. Treasury is only involved in that it 
acts as the bank, so to speak, for the trust funds. It has its 
own archiving records, but it's our responsibility to keep up 
with the checks. And, for example, unlike a bank, the U.S. 
Treasury destroys those checks after a seven-year period. But 
we need to capture them, and if we can capture them on a tape, 
that's a very small amount of money to image checks these days. 
Every bank in the country does it.

                             OUTSIDE AUDIT

    Mr. Yates. You said that Arthur Andersen indicated it would 
cost $200 million to audit this.
    Mr. Homan. They gave an estimate, as I remember, in 1994 or 
1995, as they were looking to go back and do the same type of 
20-year audit as they did for the tribes, that it would cost 
$108 million to $281 million to do so. There's only $400 
million at any one time in those minor accounts, so you would 
have been spending almost the full principal amount to go back 
and prove a few accounts.
    Ms. Erwin. With no guarantee that you would have any more 
complete records than you had in the tribals system.
    Mr. Homan. And auditors can't deal with missing records. 
Those 32,000 transactions that are missing amount to 14 percent 
of all records on the general ledger, and there are even bigger 
gaps if you go to look for the leases themselves.
    Mr. Yates. It seems to me that if this goes to court, the 
least the court would do would be to require the provision of 
the same things you are asking for. You've got to have the 
equipment. You've got to put this system into balance.
    Ms. Erwin. And you have to do the clean-up.
    Mr. Yates. You just can't go along conducting it the same 
way.
    Mr. Homan. That's right.
    Mr. Yates. The same way will make the situation worse. 
You've got to modernize, and I don't know what alternative we 
have.
    Ms. Erwin. And the clean-up, for being able to bring in 
those records and vital statistics.
    Mr. Yates. Because the United States, is subject to a 
lawsuit here. If we continue, it will get worse.

                     STRATEGIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION

    Mr. Regula. Does your strategic plan outline a way in which 
we can get out of this morass?
    Mr. Homan. Yes, it does, and as I've said, of the 12 
points, 10 of those points have overwhelming support in Indian 
country. They go to the system's fix-up, to clean up and fix 
the system to be carried forward in the future. The twelfth 
point is a phase II. It's a development bank--again, that had 
overwhelming support.
    The main source of contention in Indian country is who does 
it. Does the Bureau do it? And in my suggestion, I suggested 
that it be taken out of the Bureau and put into a Government-
sponsored enterprise.
    Mr. Regula. And at this point there is no clear delineation 
of responsibility, because the Bureau has the land records, and 
you are supposed to be in charge of the accounting. And how you 
can do these in two separate locations seems to me to be rather 
difficult, because to do an accurate job of accounting for the 
money you would have to know what the terms of the lease are, 
which means you've got to have a copy of it, which ought to be 
in the computerized data base.
    Mr. Homan. Yes, that's correct. And also, the other end of 
that is the ownership information has to be accurate.
    Mr. Regula. Yes, of course.

                          SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

    Mr. Yates. You indicated that the lawsuit is brought by 
individuals. Do the tribes have an interest in this, too?
    Mr. Homan. The tribes are looking to the settlement 
proposal on the past reconciliation project. What happened was 
we did the once-a-year reconciliation----
    Mr. Yates. Who is making a settlement proposal?
    Mr. Homan. The Secretary will be making it to the Congress.
    Mr. Yates. Has this been negotiated by somebody?
    Mr. Homan. It was the outcropping of the legislation that 
set up the reconciliation process in the first place. We issued 
the report in December 1995. We spent most of last year, in 
1996, in coming up with the settlement proposal. A draft went 
to the Congress, along with a full report by Arthur Andersen in 
December. It's been out for consultation, and the Secretary has 
indicated that he will ask Congress forsettlement legislation 
on these past reconciliation problems in May.
    Mr. Yates. But who has been negotiating? You have been 
negotiating or the Secretary has been negotiating with whom?
    Mr. Homan. No. The Secretary has been consulting with the 
American Indians, but essentially it's a product of the 
Department of the Interior that went to the Congress.
    Mr. Yates. They haven't submitted it to the tribes yet?
    Mr. Homan. They have in consultation hearings.
    Mr. Regula. I think the attorneys are doing that.
    Mr. Yates. Do you have any idea as to what the settlement 
is?
    Mr. Homan. It will be a general proposal. I think the 
outline of it is in the December issuance. It deals with 
specific known problems, but it raises the question, in a 
sense, as to how you handle these unsettled claims for missing 
records.
    Mr. Yates. How much money is involved?
    Mr. Homan. Well, it could be as large as your imagination, 
in terms of settlement.
    Mr. Yates. I have a big imagination.
    Mr. Homan. The statute problem is that the statute does not 
toll, so there are those that claim because we're unable to 
produce an accounting balance, if you will, that has been 
certified, that you could go back to treaty time or to the last 
settlement of any claim.
    Mr. Regula. Their claims would have to be based on some 
factual basis, and if there are no records this is purely 
speculative.
    Mr. Homan. Yes, it is; it is very speculative.
    Mr. Yates. I don't know how there can be a settlement.
    Mr. Regula. I don't either, other than you just have to 
pick a figure.
    Mr. Yates. I don't know how BIA can let the Indian people 
settle this without knowing what the figures are. It just 
doesn't make sense.
    Mr. Homan. Well, there will have to be consideration, I 
believe, either in the court or otherwise for a global 
settlement to settle these claims.
    Mr. Yates. If they settle it, I'm sure they will be coming 
in in years to come saying that the people who settled it 
weren't acting properly for the Indian people. They will want 
more money, so I don't see that we have much of an alternative, 
unless we try to transfer this over to HHS or something. 
[Laughter.]
    Mr. Regula. How about International Relations? You know, 
since he's charged with separate nations, I'll tell Benny 
Gilman it's really his responsibility. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Yates. Of course it is.
    Mr. Regula. I have one question for Secretary Deer, if I 
can offer that. I'm through with the Special Trustee, and thank 
you for a very good presentation.
    Mr. Homan. Thank you, Mr. Yates.
    Mr. Yates. And for laying the problem out like you did.
    Mr. Regula. We're going to peruse your proposal here.
    Mr. Homan. I'll be glad to brief you on that.

                           TRUST RELATIONSHIP

    Mr. Yates. I want to ask Assistant Secretary Deer and her 
assistant just one or two more questions. By any chance, you 
don't have your lawyer here do you?
    Ms. Deer. I have several lawyers, but they're not working 
directly on this issue.
    Mr. Yates. Well, I know, but could one of your lawyers 
define what is the trust relationship?
    Ms. Deer. Let me say that this is an evolving concept, and 
as you know, we've discussed this in the policy review 
commission back in the seventies----
    Mr. Yates. I know.
    Ms. Deer [continuing]. And you're still asking this 
extremely important question.
    Mr. Yates. I'm asking the same question as then. I want it 
for the record, and I want to follow up on it.
    Mr. Anderson. I'm a recovering lawyer, so this isn't a 
legal answer, but from a policy perspective, basically, trust 
relationships are the commitments and obligations of the 
Federal Government as the trustee for the beneficiaries of 
Indian tribes and Indian people made through treaties, support 
statutes, courses of healing, and executive orders.
    Mr. Yates. Does the Federal Government have a trust 
relationship with all tribes?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes.
    Mr. Yates. With all tribes?
    Mr. Anderson. All tribes--all federally-recognized tribes.
    Mr. Yates. Through the treaties and through the statutes? A 
trust relationship is established by legislation that creates 
the federal relationship, is that correct?
    Mr. Anderson. That's another source of trust duties.
    Mr. Yates. Okay, if that's true, then it's something 
special with the Indian people that no other group in the 
country enjoys. Is that a correct statement?
    Mr. Anderson. That's correct. It's a special relationship.
    Mr. Yates. If that's true, is the passage by the Congress 
of the Welfare Act a violation of the trust relationship?
    Mr. Anderson. Well, Congress has, under our constitutional 
opinions from the Supreme Court, plenary authority to pass 
legislation that would affect and dramatically change the 
relationship in just any way other than constitutional 
protections like the Fifth Amendment or----

               CONGRESSIONAL IMPACT ON TRUST RELATIONSHIP

    Mr. Yates. Well, what you're saying then is Congress can 
violate the trust relationship?
    Mr. Anderson. They can adjust and change the trust 
relationship other than constitutional prohibitions.
    Mr. Yates. So then that the passage of the changes in the 
welfare program do not constitute a violation of the trust 
relationship in your opinion?
    Mr. Anderson. The President signed this on the basis that 
it was a legal constitutional document. Some tribes have come 
to us--the Oglala Sioux Tribe--saying that is a violation of 
treaty law. It may well be that they challenge that in federal 
court, but our position is that the law is legal.
    Mr. Yates. The law is legal and not a violation. Can 
Congress pass a law that violates a treaty?
    Mr. Anderson. The Congress has never passed a law to change 
a treaty, but they have terminated tribes, as Assistant 
Secretary Deer noted, the complete relationship, so Congress 
has virtually unlimited power under our federal powers 
doctrine.
    Mr. Regula. Will you yield?
    Mr. Yates. Sure.
    Mr. Regula. I doubt if these treaties provide for welfare.
    Mr. Yates. Well they provide for a trust relationship.
    Mr. Anderson. Several tribes--some of the treaties do 
contain specific provisions supporting tribal governments on 
providing services, and so there are specific provisions that 
might be at issue. The details of how that's implemented is 
something that I think the courts will have to consider.
    Mr. Yates. So it gets to the need for money, then, for the 
Indian people.
    Mr. Anderson. Yes, which is squarely in this committee's 
hands. I mean, our budget request is far less than what the 
tribes would need. I think we need every penny of the request 
that we made this year. I understand the challenges of this 
committee in setting priorities, but that is one place we can 
begin, is in approving the President's request that has been 
submitted.

                        strategic plan comments

    If I might, Mr. Chairman, add one statement on the Special 
Trustee's presentation. I think for the record the press 
release of the Secretary contained concerns and also criticisms 
of the report are in the record, but our office has not studied 
the report in detail, so I reserve the opportunity, I hope, as 
to how our record reports.
    But I did hear from my own perspective, working 
tangentially in this area, a number of inaccuracies, 
particularly concerning the lessees, about whether we could 
monitor the lessees' payments. MMS has, under the Fakamer 
legislation, responsibility for insuring the lessees make 
correct payments, and that's his own request.
    Mr. Yates. This is the Minerals Management Service?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes, and so the statement that----
    Mr. Yates. Yes, that's what I thought. We've been giving 
money over the years for special auditors.
    Mr. Anderson. Absolutely. The statement that there's no one 
watching the lessees is wholly inaccurate, and hopefully not a 
representative reflection of the rest of the testimony, but 
that is just one that is immediately apparent to our office and 
there may be----
    Mr. Yates. Well, have you put criticisms in the record?
    Mr. Anderson. We got the report Friday; that's the first 
statement I've heard on the plan publicly. And the other major 
area--the tribes that we've talked to--and I've heard the 
presentation of the plan to the tribes directly--was on the 
Government Services Enterprise, the GSE, the 12-point.
    The tribes are very concerned that this is going to lead to 
a break-up; that somehow, given the diminution of trust 
responsibilities, by having another private entity, a semi-
public entity take over these responsibilities, namely because 
the appropriations did not get funded.
    Mr. Yates. I yield.
    Mr. Regula. Mr. Yates, we have in the questions that we are 
submitting for the record, I think enough detailed questions to 
cover the issue that you're raising.
    Mr. Yates. Okay.
    Mr. Regula. And we'll give this gentleman an opportunity to 
respond with the questions that we will submit.

                           trust relationship

    Mr. Yates. Well, don't leave yet. I just want to get back 
to the trust relationship for a moment.
    In your opinion, then, there is no relationship between the 
trust relationship and the situation that confronts the tribes 
by the loss of their welfare assistance?
    Mr. Anderson. No; it's a vital aspect of the political 
relationship that the Federal Government support and make valid 
its payments and promises made in exchange for the lands, so I 
think it does affect and adjust that relationship negatively.

                           trust fund lawsuit

    Mr. Yates. Okay. Are you monitoring the lawsuit for BIA? 
The class-action brought by the individuals?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes.
    Mr. Yates. You are monitoring it?
    Mr. Anderson. We are monitoring it.
    Mr. Yates. Well, it's been pending for years.
    Mr. Anderson. Well, the actual class-action case was just 
filed last year, and the class was just certified as a class of 
300,000, I think, in February.
    Mr. Yates. Well, are they going forward with it?
    Mr. Anderson. The complaint has been filed, and the 
Government has not yet filed an answer to the complaint, as I 
understand it, but it is going forward as a litigation matter 
before a federal court.
    Mr. Yates. In the District here?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes.
    Mr. Yates. Is it supposed to go forward by the plaintiff?
    Mr. Anderson. They are still continuing discussions, but 
right now they're still planning to go forward with the 
complaint.
    Mr. Yates. Are they participating in the so-called 
settlement?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes, they are. In fact, indeed, today, there 
is a settlement----
    Mr. Yates. Well is the settlement proposed to be made with 
the complainant in that case only and not with others who are 
not participating in that case?
    Mr. Anderson. I really can't answer that question. 
Generally, when a settlement occurs with a plaintiff class it's 
usually proposed, and the plaintiff class has to agree to the 
settlement, and how that notice takes place I'm not sure.
    Mr. Yates. Well, if it's a class-action, does that mean 
that everybody is included?
    Mr. Anderson. Yes.
    Mr. Yates. Are the tribes included as well?
    Mr. Anderson. Well, the way class-action cases go is there 
are named claims as well that basically represent the interests 
of the class, and any settlement for all of the plaintiffs has 
to be done for all the parties; and the judge has to approve 
those settlements. Generally, that involves notice to all the 
plaintiffs as to whether the settlement is acceptable. 
Sometimes there are provisions for opting out of the class if 
the settlement is not considered sufficient.
    Mr. Yates. Well, when the Secretary indicates that he is 
proposing a settlement, does that mean that he has the 
acceptance of the plaintiff?
    Mr. Anderson. There has been an extensive consultation 
process that has been ongoing this spring to receive input, and 
that process of evaluating those comments has not been 
concluded, but that would be the hope, is that there would be 
settlement.
    Mr. Yates. Will the settlement and the judgment of the 
court take care of past wrongs only, or will it also provide a 
means of dealing with the problems that the Trustee spoke 
about?
    Mr. Anderson. I'm going to defer at this point on that 
question to the Deputy Commissioner, who is more of an 
authority on that detail.
    Mr. Yates. Okay.

                       lawsuit settlement process

    Ms. Manuel. What the Secretary is recommending is the 
process we will recommend to Congress, the settlement process 
to settle the tribal accounts; the 14 percent, as the Special 
Trustee indicated, were not reconciled.
    Mr. Yates. In other words, existing accounts receivable, 
accounts payable--not future accounts.
    Ms. Manuel. That's right, up until----
    Mr. Yates. All right, now with the----
    Ms. Manuel. One of the options is to look at what period of 
time we're talking about, whether it's just the 20-year period 
of the reconciliation.
    Mr. Yates. Back 20 years or forward 20 years?
    Ms. Manuel. Either. Those are all options that are being 
considered.
    Mr. Yates. Oh, but then you're not ready for a settlement 
then?
    Ms. Manuel. No, no; we're just talking about a process.
    Mr. Yates. Well now, you don't know whether the process 
then would include the necessity for providing the kind of 
funding that the Special Trustee spoke about. What is it--the 
$100 million and more to get the employees and equipment 
necessary?
    Ms. Manuel. No, we're not addressing the management 
improvements. We're talking about settling the reconciliation 
project and the results----
    Mr. Yates. But don't you have to address that? Don't you 
have to address the future as to how you're going to deal with 
this in the future?
    Ms. Manuel. That is an issue that is being addressed by the 
Special Trustee in his strategic plan, which he has----
    Mr. Yates. Well, I know that, but you're settling it.
    Ms. Manuel. No, no; we're not.
    Mr. Yates. I mean, the Secretary proposes to settle it, and 
I'm trying to find out whether one of the terms of the 
settlement will put this on a reasonable basis for the future.
    Ms. Manuel. Well, there are three activities that are going 
on concurrently. The reconciliation project which was directed 
by Congress and which concluded, as the Special Trustee 
indicated, when they issued the report in 1995.
    Mr. Yates. Yes.
    Ms. Manuel. That was just a 20-year reconciliation of 
tribal accounts--the report that Arthur Andersen worked on.
    Mr. Yates. Yes.
    Ms. Manuel. The other activity is the class-action that the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary has reported on, which was brought 
by a number of individuals who are now representing a class of 
IIM individual account-holders.
    And then the third piece is the result of the American 
Indian Trust Reform Act, which mandated that a special trustee 
be appointed and that management improvement in systems and 
procedures and operations take place to insure that was has 
happened in the past will not occur again; that you have an 
accounts receivable, that you have a resource management 
program. So those are all pieces of this whole exercise.
    Mr. Yates. You can't tell this committee how much money is 
contemplated in the settlement?
    Ms. Manuel. No.
    Mr. Yates. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Regula. Thank you very much. The committee is 
adjourned.
    [Questions submitted for the record follow:]

[Pages 519 - 559 --The official Committee record contains additional material here.]




                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Anderson, Michael................................................   495
Deer, A.E......................................................281, 495
Devine, J.F......................................................     3
Eaton, G.P.......................................................     3
Eckes, M.E.......................................................     3
Erwin, D.M.......................................................   495
Fenn, D.B........................................................     3
Gilbert, D.A.....................................................   495
Gossman, W.F., Jr................................................     3
Hirsch, R.M......................................................     3
Homan, P.M.......................................................   495
Lawler, M.A.................................................3, 281, 495
Leahy, P.P.......................................................     3
Lords, D.A.......................................................   495
Maddox, D.J......................................................   281
Manuel, H.A....................................................281, 495
McDivitt, J.H....................................................   281
McGregor, B.A....................................................     3
Morris, J.S......................................................   281
Ryan, B.J........................................................     3
Virden, Terry....................................................   281
Witmer, R.E......................................................     3


                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

                         U.S. Geological Survey

                                                                   Page
Abandoned Mine Lands/Acid Mine Drainage........................103, 105
Absorbing Uncontrollables/Offsetting Increases/REGO II......89, 91, 94, 
                                                130, 136, 138, 139, 158
Acid Rain......................................................107, 108
Areas of Major Flooding..........................................    38
Authorization Proposal for Park Service..........................    72
Biographies:
    Devine, James F..............................................    12
    Eaton, Gordon P..............................................     4
    Eckes, Martin E..............................................    13
    Fenn, Dennis B...............................................    10
    Gossman Jr., William F.......................................    11
    Hirsch, Robert M.............................................     8
    Lawler, Mary Ann.............................................    14
    Leahy, P. Patrick............................................     9
    McGregor, Bonnie A...........................................     5
    Ryan, Barbara J..............................................     6
    Witmer, Richard E............................................     7
Biological Information Infrastructure............................    22
Biological Research Request......................................    46
Biological Resources Division Cooperative Research Units.......119, 120
Biological Resources Division Customers/Partners........50, 51, 119-122
Biological Resources Division/DOI Relationships............113-114, 132
Biological Resources Division FY 1995/1996 Funding Decrease......49, 58
Biological Resources Division Science Centers...................41, 153
Biological Resources Division, USGS Merger...........112, 113, 131, 133
Chesapeake Bay Work..............................................    59
Coal Availability...............................................103-104
Coastal and Marine Geology..................................59, 60, 102
Comparison of FY 1998 OMB and Congressional Budgets..............    31
Contamination in Natick, Massachusetts...........................    54
Cooperative Ecological Study Units...............................    25
Coordination with EPA............................................    53
Digital Orthoimages...............................................15-16
Drinking Water...................................................    61
Duplicate Research...............................................    46
Earthquakes/Grants...........................................94, 95-101
Eastside Ecosystem Study.........................................    47
Eastside Ecosystem Study Costs...................................    48
Ecosystems.....................................................102, 140
Environmental Impact Statements..................................    66
Extramural Research..............................................    28
Federal and State Water Partnerships.............................    27
Federal-State Cooperative Program...............................34, 148
Federal-State Water Cooperative Program's Budget.................    64
Flood-Damaged USGS Streamflow-Gaging Stations (Map)..............    42
Flood Supplemental.............................................109, 111
Flood-Tracking Chart for the Amite River Basin, Louisiana (Graph/
  Map)...........................................................    45
Foreign Interest in Water Information............................    61
Full Time Equivalent.............................................    79
Funding for Uncontrollable Costs.................................    72
FY 1998 USGS Changes.............................................    46
FY 1998 OMB Decisions............................................    29
General Areas of Major Flooding, January 1993--January 1997 (Map)    39
Geologic Mapping................................................94, 156
Global Change....................................................    77
Global Seismographic Network.................................91-93, 137
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 80-86
Grand Canyon Controlled Flood Restoration in Jeopardy............    77
Grand Staircase-Ecalante.........................................   143
Great Lakes..........................................124, 141, 142, 153
Habitat Conservation Planning....................................    64
Habitat Conservation Planning/Endangered Species.................   114
Historical Dynamics of Urban Growth..............................    67
Impartial Water Research.........................................    29
Improving Access to Water-Quality Information....................    57
Improving Public Access to Water-Quality Information.............58, 63
Increasing Stream Gauges on Internet.............................    44
Information about USGS...........................................    69
Information Access...............................................   127
Internet Information Access......................................    22
Invasive Weeds/Exotic Species....................................   152
Kalamazoo Initiative....................31, 62, 136, 137, 147, 156, 157
Mapping Consolidation/NAPA Study................................86, 129
Map Pricing Policy/Cost Recovery............................90, 91, 129
Massachusetts District Office....................................    53
MEDEA............................................................    87
Methane Gas Accumulation.........................................    55
Metzger Marsh...................................................144-146
Migratory Birds..................................................   155
Minerals Information/Bureau of Mines.............................94, 95
National Academy of Public Administration Study..................    48
National Atlas...................................................    88
Office Consolidation.............................................    21
Ohio View...................................................51, 52, 143
Ohio Water Resource Issue........................................    68
PILT.............................................................   124
Questions Submitted for the Record:
    from the Congressman Regula..................................   127
    from the Congressman Skeen...................................   147
    from the Subcommittee........................................    75
    from the Congressman Wamp....................................   150
    from the Congressman Yates...................................   152
Real Time........................................................75, 76
Real-Time Hazards Monitoring.....................................    43
Real-Time Hydrologic Data-Collection Network (Map)...............    41
Regional Planning Commissions....................................    69
Reimbursable Work with the Defense Department....................    55
Remaining Merger Activities......................................    25
Research Data for Ohio Consortium................................    72
State Fact Sheets................................................    70
Stream Gages...................................................107, 108
Stream Gauging Funding...........................................    37
Stream Gauging Partnerships......................................    40
Technical Assistance to Other Government Agencies................   159
Tennessee Valley Authority.....................................150, 151
Testimony of Dr. Gordon P. Eaton, Director, U.S. Geological 
  Survey.........................................................    16
Toxics...........................................................   110
Toxic Materials in Aquifers......................................    52
Urban Dynamics..................................................66, 157
Urban Hazards....................................................   101
U.S. Geological Survey Funding Level.............................    26
USGS Chesapeake Bay Science Plan.................................    60
USGS Digital Map and Image Products Sold.........................    24
USGS Information and Products....................................    70
USGS/NBS Merger..................................................    21
Volcano Monitoring...............................................   102
Washington and Oregon Stream Gauges..............................    40
Water Resources Assessment and Research..........................   110
Water Research Institutes............................109, 140, 160, 161
Water Resources Research Institutes Funding......................    26
WWW Customers for USGS Water Resources (Graph)...................    23

                      Minerals Management Service

Background.......................................................   214
Compliance.......................................................   236
Data Acquisition.................................................   230
Farmington Office................................................   232
Finding Better and More Efficient Ways of Doing Business 
  (Offshore).....................................................   217
Finding Better and More Efficient Ways of Doing Business (RMP)...   216
Implementation of Government Performance and Results Act.........   244
Implementation of Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act........   219
Increased Responsibilities in the Gulf of Mexico.................   221
Inspection in State Waters.......................................   239
Laser Environmental Airborne Fluorosensor........................   237
Oil and Gas Valuation............................................   251
Oil and Natural Gas Valuation Regulations........................   221
Ongoing Responsibilities Offshore Alaska and the Pacific.........   222
Opening Statement................................................   214
Overview of MMS's FY 1998 Budget Request.........................   223
Outer Continental Shelf..........................................   226
Payments to Indians..............................................   234
Phosphates.......................................................   234
Receipts.........................................................   228
Recommendations of Royalty Policy Committee......................   220
Reengineering Project............................................   220
Regulation of Operations.........................................   231
Request to OMB for Oil Spill Research............................   240
Resource Evaluation..............................................   231
Royalty Underpayments in California..............................   240
State Administration of Royalty Functions........................   241
State Benchmarking Study.........................................   220
Summary..........................................................   225
Well Data........................................................   229

          Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

Committee Questions Submitted for the Record:
    Environmental Protection.....................................   242
    Environmental Restoration....................................   217
    Executive Direction..........................................   266
    Executive Direction & Administration.........................   211
    Financial Management.........................................   263
    Government Performance Results Act...........................   268
    Staffing Reductions..........................................   216
    Technology Development & Transfer............................   255
    Twenty Years of the Surface Mining:
        Control and Reclamation Act..............................   212
Other Questions Submitted for the Record:
    From Congressman Nethercutt..................................   276
    From Congressman Skeen.......................................   273
Statement of the Director:
    Environmental Protection.....................................   209
    Environmental Restoration....................................   208
    Financial Management.........................................   211
    Technology Development & Transfer............................   210

                        Bureau of Indian Affairs

BIA Reorganization.............................................301, 306
Block Grants.....................................................   300
Government Performance and Results Act...........................   309
Hearing Questions for the Record:
    BIA Reorganization...........................................   322
    Construction.................................................   362
    Education....................................................   352
    GPRA.........................................................   345
    Miscellaneous Payments.......................................   360
    Tribal Priority Allocations..................................   349
    Trust Issues.................................................   356
    Yates, Sidney R..............................................   367
Indian Education Programs........................................   304
Inherently Federal Functions.....................................   307
Self-Governance Compacts.........................................   300
Self-Governance Tribes...........................................   309
Shared Facilities................................................   303
Staffing Reductions..............................................   302
Statement:
    Opening......................................................   294
    Summary......................................................   290
Tribal Consultation..............................................   309
Tribal Priority Allocations......................................   303
Tribal Shares....................................................   308
Welfare:
    1997 Requirement.............................................   312
    Eligibility For..............................................   314
    General Assistance...........................................   311
Witness Biographies:
    Deer, Ada....................................................   282
    Lawler, Mary Ann.............................................   284
    Maddox, Deborah J............................................   287
    Manuel, Hilda A..............................................   285
    McDivitt, James H............................................   289
    Morris, Joann Sebastian......................................   286
    Virden, Terry................................................   288

                       Office of Insular Affairs

American Samoa Issues............................................   395
    Financial Recovery Plan......................................   377
Brown Tree Snake...............................................375, 383
CNMI Issues......................................................   389
    Covenant Grants..............................................   376
    Labor, Immigration, Law Enforcement Initiative...............   391
Compact of Free Association......................................   402
Government Performance and Results Act...........................   407
Guam Issues......................................................   399
Health Facilities................................................   387
    Operations and Maintenance...................................   376
Office of Insular Affairs........................................   378
    Meetings with Insular Officials..............................   401
    Reorganization and Headquarters Operations...................   379
Rongelap Resettlement............................................   377
Territorial Assistance...........................................   381

                        Departmental Management

Collocating and consolidating activities.........................   423
Committee questions submitted for the record.....................   418
Government Performance and Results Act.........................429, 432
Interior Department Electronic Acquisition System (IDEAS)........   426
Interior Franchise Fund Pilot Program............................   428
Interior Service Center..........................................   419
Interior Service Center Customer Priority........................   423
Recreation Fee Demonstration Program.............................   426
Reprogramming Timing.............................................   431
Statement of Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management and Budget..   415
Streamlining Correspondent Process...............................   431
Streamlining, Re-engineering, and Reinvestion....................   418

                        Office of the Solicitor

Budget Request...................................................   447
Consultation Process.............................................   457
Geological Survey................................................   454
Legal Services...................................................   447
Performance Goals and Measures...................................   456
Pilot Phase......................................................   457
President's Budget Request.......................................   450
Reimbursable Program.............................................   453
Resource Assumptions.............................................   456
Results Orientation..............................................   458
Solicitor's Honors Program.......................................   450
Statement of John D. Leshy.......................................   441
Strategic Planning Process.......................................   455

                      Office of Inspector General

Audits...........................................................   468
Affirmative Civil Enforcement Program............................   482
Coal Reclamation Fee Initiative..................................   483
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Federal Task Force..   484
Environmental Initiative.........................................   483
Fiscal Year 1998 Budget..........................................   463
Fraud Awareness Outreach.......................................464, 481
Future Plans.....................................................   467
Government Purchase Card Initiative..............................   482
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)....................   487
Indian Gaming Task Forces........................................   483
Initiatives......................................................   464
Proactive Audits.................................................   466
Proactive Investigative Initiatives and Task Forces..............   464
Questions Submitted for the Record...............................   468
Statement of the Inspector General...............................   463
Technical Assistance.............................................   467
Underpayment of Royalties........................................   483
Workers' Compensation Task Force.................................   484

           Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians

Backlogs.........................................................   505
Collections and Payments.........................................   505
Congressional Impact on Trust Relationship.......................   514
Escheat Law......................................................   500
IIM Lawsuit......................................................   509
Lawsuit Settlement Process.......................................   517
Lease Oversight..................................................   506
Leasing..........................................................   506
Opening Statement................................................   500
Outside Audit....................................................   511
Settlement Proposal..............................................   512
Strategic Plan...................................................   504
Strategic Plan Alternatives......................................   507
Strategic Plan Comments..........................................   515
Strategic Plan Requirements......................................   511
Strategic Plan Recommendation....................................   512
Trust Function Reorganization....................................   508
Trust Fund Lawsuit...............................................   516
Trust Relationship...............................................   513
Trust Relationship...............................................   516
Unaccounted for Funds............................................   507
Witnesses........................................................   495
Additional Committee Questions Submitted for the Record..........   519
    Fractionated Heirship........................................   531
    GPRA.........................................................   555
    IIM Accounting Systems Costs.................................   528
    IIM Clean-up Effort..........................................   524
    IIM Statistics...............................................   527
    National Archives............................................   547
    Needs Assessment Contract....................................   532
    Office of the Special Trustee Staff..........................   531
    Records Center Cost Analysis.................................   549
    Settlement Litigation Activities.............................   534
    Strategic Plan Alternatives..................................   539
    Strategic Plan Costs.........................................   535
    Strategic Plan Recommendations...............................   538
    Tribal Consultation..........................................   552
    Trust Management Organization................................   545